On political parties outright lying about each other

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Compare and contrast:

The URL repeatedly and knowingly lied about our flagship Public Process Act,

We're only a few days away from the end of the voting for the Clark, and we're very close to the current URL government killing The Public Process Act.  Your Talossan government is trying to keep the power to secretly control who even gets to apply to immigrate!

(emphasis added)

The latter outright lie won a plurality of votes for the PA.  Unfortunately, when we chose not to "hit back", these lies were broadcast to the broad masses by mailer, so that didn't work. Here's another one:

One of the URL leaders, our current Seneschal, took a phrase out of context from a private conversation in order to lie about its meaning.  She was messaging with a past ally to scold him for his decision to support the Progressive Alliance, and she demanded that he denounce me publicly.  He said in dismissal of such a demand, "we're trying to win an election here." 

Since people get upset when I quote them, let's quote what I actually said to provoke this response:

I mean, AD's latest post is just what I mean. He is outright lying about what Mic'haglh has said to him to try to score a political point. And you're going along with it?

In what way is this a "demand to denounce [AD] publicly" as opposed to, say, an objection to someone telling outright lies? It is of course possible that the Baron hasn't actually seen the message, in which case he's not lying, but is instead being lied to. So it appears to be lies all round up in this joint.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

The URL blocked the original Public Process Act, voting almost unanimously against it.  While later during the campaign and under immense pressure for this decision, Mic'haglh proposed an intervention which would allow Opposition lawmakers to be a part of a secret process, it is entirely a factual statement to note that the URL voted overwhelmingly to retain the government power in question.

But listen, I'm not really interested in an extended argument about this.  I'm describing the feelings of my caucus -- as well as a lot of our voters, who specifically mentioned some of the URL mailers that motivated them to vote Prog.  The broad feeling is that the general tone of aggression, condescension, and anger, joined with what we feel are some very knowing deceit, undermined our confidence in the URL as potential partners.  It's not impossible to fix, and there's a path forward, but please don't try to convince us that we're wrong about how we feel.

Obviously, we're going to feel differently in some respects.  You might feel that you made no mistakes in tone or rhetoric, and that I'm just trying to spin.  But please think back and just remember the speeches and mailers, and what you said, and consider what effect that might have had.  I also tried for even just a broad summary, leaving out a lot of things... even the recent account of our negotiations, which said a URL offer was presented that we never even saw.  Maybe it was intended to send it at some point, though?  I want to step back from the urge to just attack in response.  Can we change the dynamic, instead?  Move past it, now that the air is cleared?

We just publicly reversed ourselves on a coalition decision, since sometimes we make mistakes.  Everyone makes mistakes.  Let's move forward from them.

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

Step 1: Propose a solution that removes power from singular Government official and divides it among multiple people

Step 2: His Lordship complains because it's not his bill, even though his bill does nothing to remove power from singular Government official

Step 3: Senators representing a majority of provinces recognize weakness of His Lordship's bill, vote against.

Step 4: His Lordship proceeds to spin narrative that we wanted to keep secretive power, despite proposing a bill that does the opposite.

You're right, no real reason to have an extended argument, better to just set the narrative straight now.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Okay, well, I don't think we're going to agree.  I'm going to leave it there.  I hope that however things turn out, we can find a productive way to work together on things in the future.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Here is a material idea I had about how to potentially increase cooperation and trust, no matter how things turn out: perhaps the leader of the opposition should be "read in" on major decisions in private. Any interest in that idea?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

a lot of our voters, who specifically mentioned some of the URL mailers that motivated them to vote Prog.

I'd be interested to hear from those people. I can understand that the "tone" of the URL mailers might have struck some as overwrought, but the content - that the PA preferred to make an alliance with absolute monarchists, and thus in a very real and practical sense didn't value democracy - had the virtue of being true. That came back to bite you.

It also confirms what I've been saying for ages about how the PA is not held together by political principle, but by an "ingroup/outgroup" distinction. Anyone can join the ingroup if they agree not to criticise anyone else in the ingroup. And this characterisation is something you seem to be really upset by. Equally so as alleged "lies" and "aggression". I'm not sure why, but I hope you accept that this is a good faith political characterisation which makes no imputation of bad character.

In any case, I'm not sure what led you to make that "Leader's Post" in public - an attempt to "negotiate by press release"? a response to internal pressures? - but you have to remember that there are two sides here to the negotiation and it didn't help build good faith on our side.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Anyway, all this discussion seems pointless.

If I were an ordinary PA member, or even Txec Fortupt the Talossan who knows nothing about politics, I would read AD's document and think "... why are they voting? It's an obvious choice! They get confidence and supply for free from someone who's not even going to be politically active; or they do a deal with these URL guys who are apparently the nastiest pieces of work on the planet. Door Number 1, Alex!"

I can't imagine anyone would read that and not vote for the Zero Strings Attached Deal with the absolute monarchist theocrat. AD gives absolutely no reason in the document why a deal with the URL would be desirable in any way.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I was trying to summarize where we stand right now, as a party. Because we didn't make speeches about our feelings about the URL, and because we tried really hard to steer any such conversations back towards positive policy promises, I thought it might be helpful to describe where we're at. This was especially true after the recent chaos.

I also thought it would be fair to give you guys a chance to react to the situation. While I didn't think there would be an apology in the offing, I thought there was the potential to move forward with a different approach. Like, maybe you thought that all of us who spoke up at different times were just pretending to be upset for political advantage or something? Maybe you didn't understand our hesitance to enter into an agreement where we'd have to watch every word we said in private, for example. I thought there was value in explaining our perspective while the vote was still open.

From the first, we have said that we're we're ready to work with everybody, as much as we can. That is true yesterday, it's true today, and it'll be true tomorrow. We want to serve our country, in addition to our own political goals of reform and good governance. The door will remain open.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Since this "vote" is a foregone conclusion whose conclusion you've just advertised, it all seems a tad dishonest. (If it was, indeed, an attempt to negotiate in public, then it would never have worked without concrete signals of what the URL was supposed to do in response.) But we'll take it as a warning to make our preparations for outright Opposition.

The door is not open because the PA are slamming it shut. If they open it, the URL will walk through with no preconditions, no demands for apologies; just questions about a deal to make a pro-Talossan government. The PA own this decision.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

The outcome of the vote was not a foregone conclusion, except inasmuch as character dictates destiny.  I thought if we presented our viewpoint, as well as discussed some of the damage you'd done, that would present you an opportunity to change your approach instead of just "hitting back."  It seems virtually certain that's not going to happen, since you don't seem to understand the situation, so I guess we're stuck with the status quo.

Thank you anyway.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I thought if we presented our viewpoint, as well as discussed some of the damage you'd done, that would present you an opportunity to change your approach instead of just "hitting back." 

Change approach how, please?

(If it was, indeed, an attempt to negotiate in public, then it would never have worked without concrete signals of what the URL was supposed to do in response.)

There seems to be an issue here that the PA thinks that working with the URL would be doing us a favour (or even, rewarding us?) rather than something which would benefit Talossa with stable government. There seems to be no recognition that perhaps it is the URL that needs to be persuaded that a confidence/supply deal (rather than outright opposition) would be better for us.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Change approach how, please?

I think it's moot at this point -- even now, you can't help yourself from the attacks, calling us a "clique" and "clowns."  Thank you for your interest, though.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

even now, you can't help yourself from the attacks

Do you remember at the time when we were getting together the Joint Statement against Breneir's sexual harassment? And I suggested expanding it to all forms of harassment, and you said no, because you thought what Breneir did to Dien (for example) was in the realms of legitimate political action?

You have always been able to dish it out, but not to take it. And that's going to be the PA's undoing in this Cosa.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Our criticisms have been mild and far between, and focused on specific issues.  We have never denigrated the URL as a broad group with mocking names or memes, and instead have gone out of our way to highlight our belief that the URL was also a legitimate choice run by decent people.  We continue to think that's the case.  We wish there was mutual respect along those same lines, but we can't control your words or actions -- only our own.

I suspect that the contrast between our stances has been a part of Progressive success.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Our criticisms have been mild and far between,

🤦

You wanted to break the law to block the application of someone with different personal and religious beliefs.  This is specifically against the law.  If you'd done it, then you would have been subject to criminal prosecution.

But this URL Government is on the brink of killing The Public Process Act so that they can keep the power to secretly bar immigration.  But no government should have that power!  We need this reform!  We need this progress!

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

We have never denigrated the URL as a broad group with mocking names or memes

If the argument is that you can tell outrageous lies and make accusations of corruption against your enemies, as long as you don't lighten the tone with mockery or memes, eh, I'm going to go with the mockery and memes.

the contrast between our stances has been a part of Progressive success.

The power to tell barefaced lies with a "sunny tone" while flattering your audience is the major part of Progressive success. As I said back then:

The problem is that [the Baron] made this whole political deal out of the idea that my interest in keeping quality control over which prospectives get onto Witt is what is keeping immigration low. All the evidence shows that's not true in the least. He can read the numbers same as I can. But he keeps saying it because he knows it will outrage the barely-active voters he relies on to become Seneschal power behind the throne again.

Nevertheless, and one more time: the URL would still enter negotiations on confidence/supply with no preconditions, if the PA were to reciprocate.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Our criticisms have been mild and far between,

🤦

You wanted to break the law to block the application of someone with different personal and religious beliefs.  This is specifically against the law.  If you'd done it, then you would have been subject to criminal prosecution.

But this URL Government is on the brink of killing The Public Process Act so that they can keep the power to secretly bar immigration.  But no government should have that power!  We need this reform!  We need this progress!

One example is from August, describing a specific criticism about a specific action.  You will notice that I did not go on describe the URL as a band of lawless thugs intent on authoritarian control over immigration, or anything else like that.  Instead, I described the problem I had with what you were doing.

The other example is from October, and describes another specific criticism I had: the URL killed the Public Process Act which would have stripped the power to secretly control immigration.  This is a statement of fact and this action is why it became a leading item on the Progressive reform agenda.

You will notice that these statements have no personal attacks on your party as a whole, don't apply denigrating names or mocking labels, and don't allege broader allegations against the character of all of your party members.

I think these are great examples of the distinction I am talking about.

However, I also think there is virtually zero chance you will reverse yourself on this, no matter how dearly it costs the party that you lead.  So I'm going to make this my last reply here.  Thank you for being willing to engage with me on these matters and discuss them on your party board.