The article is an attempt to villainise a party[…]
No. The editorial piece was publishing my opinion on recent events, with the intent of informing the Mercian public of the actions of the National Liberal Party.
[…]for attempting to be involved in the coalition-forming process and attempting to negotiate a fair deal.
If that was the case, my piece would never have been published. Following the legitimate announcement of a coalition, the opposition became involved in blatant attempts to fracture it. I do not dispute the NLP’s right to form attempt to form a government, but to try and poach parties from an existing coalition is exceptionally bad practise.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with attempting to put forward a deal[…]
[…]and I cannot see why any of the other parties would be opposed to having another option on the table even if it’s not taken.
Why? The NLP was trying to fracture a democratically elected government, cause a breakdown in relations between the political left, and take over despite losing the election. The new coalition took this poorly, and saw it as a transparent ploy by the NLP to remain in government.
And should the NLP not try getting into government? Why wouldn’t they? It’s not a bad thing to do.
“I do not dispute the NLP’s right to form attempt to form a government, but to try and poach parties from an existing coalition is exceptionally bad practise.”
And even if it was, the PDP went to the NLP first, according to Beal na Tire.
If Count Frisch had bothered to check this line of enquiry out, he would have discovered that Alejandro Whyatt-Miranda, the First Minister of the coalition, approached the NLP, non-seriously, in retaliation for the NLP’s repeated attempts to steal the SDP from the coalition. Numerous screenshots can prove that the PDP had no intention of leaving the coalition.
The article conveniently leaves out any mention of this fact to imply that this was something the NLP did when this wasn’t the case.
It was something the NLP did; they were the instigators of the entire affair. This argument began when a senior NLP MP approached the SDP, asking them to switch sides.
The article then says “They are directly challenging the constitutional status of an election, and the right of the voters to decide on their leaders. They need to accept that for the first time, they lost the election. They may be the largest party, but they were not capable of forming a government.” This paragraph is an even greater affront to the constitutional roles in Mercia than what it attempts to claim the NLP have done. Nobody “won” the election, it was a hung Parliament.
Indeed, no party won the election. An election is won by whatever side can form a majority, and the coalition formed that majority.
It is true that the NLP were not on their own capable of forming a government, but neither was any other party.
Individually perhaps not, but as a collective grouping, the coalition succeeding in proposing a government.
Since the voters didn’t choose a majority government, a coalition must be formed. And as I have said, the NLP has as much right as to be involved in forming coalitions as any other party.
I won’t repeat myself again.
This article joins “Top 10 Kennedy-isms”, another of McCarthy’s pieces, as one of the worst things I’ve seen published.
Now we are getting into name calling, and similar repeated antagonism from the NLP has led this situation to escalate. For those interested, a full apology was issued for the article in question.
Using the guise of journalism[…]
The post never pretended to be journalism, it was an editorial, and was clearly presented as such.
[…]to discredit a party for attempting to fairly get into government[…]
The NLP’s actions have not been fair. The right choice for them would have been to have accepted the fact that a coalition had been formed, and not to have jeopardised the democracy of the state by attempting to end that coalition.
[…]is something I’d expect from a tabloid[…]
Now that’s hardly fair. All papers have a political bias.
[…]and with the same level of of truthfulness too[…]
I ask the Count to name one factual failing of my editorial.
[…]whereas themicronational has tried to give itself an air of journalistic integrity.
As I’ve said, the piece was clearly presented as an editorial, much as Count Frisch’s piece was. We maintain the highest standards of journalistic integrity in our factual articles. Our editorials are, by their very nature, biased.
If we continue to see articles as pathetic as this one[…]
I have already refuted that point on multiple counts.
[..]then it’s not the NLP who are “destroying Mercia”, to use their standard of hyperbole[…]
The NLP is destroying Mercia. Their actions have caused a political rift to open wider than any I’ve yet seen, and the openly antagonistic nature of some NLP members has had such dire consequences to even make one MP seriously consider resignation.
[…]but rather the fact that Kit McCarthy, who has been so willing to lie to the people as he has done here, has made it into government.
I will finish with this rather superbly crafted post by Baron von Uberquie.
“I am going to jump on the speech bandwagon. I must say I am sorely disappointed with some of the reactions from across Mercia, both sides, about how the post-election has been handled. I can say from experience that I would never expect such inappropriate, intolerable behaviour from such upstanding citizens. I am disgusted that certain tirades and personal attacks have expanded from disagreements over a 22 person Microstate. In regards to the NLP – I have sat on the Opposition for three straight terms and never once did I start a vicious personal attack, never once did I conspire against the Government, and never once was I sore after I had failed. I sucked up what had happened and moved on. I hope I can expect this from the other members of the house, both sides, in future – otherwise my faith in the Mercian project will be lost.”
This editorial by SDP MP Kit McCarthy does not necessarily reflect the views or political leanings of themicronational as a news source.