[Gletkin]

I far as I can see we have agreed to keep the acronym "SN" and invest it with a touch of gallic chic.

You and Pot anyway.

I would also point out that - even now - the SLD is like two different parties, with some Old Labour style people (or thereabouts) and some people who avowedly could fit in with the PUC.

It is interesting that neither social democrats nor liberals have their own independent voice. They're all members of other parties (SN/USM, SLD, or the PUC).
Not that I'm necessarily opposed to it.....the way social democrats have been behaving throughout the world and history they have to make up their minds whether they're liberals or socialists. Splitting off into the SLD and USM indicates that at least in our fictional country they finally had to make that choice.

[ingliz]

The RF will only take the social democratic dissenters within the SLD and not the Party complete, if the SN wish to deal with the centre right they deal without the RF and that is final.

ingliz, SN(R)RF: Official note

[Gnote]

I am opposed to being blackmailed into it and I'm opposed to the idea that we would be junior partners.

How is it blackmail? I was simply stating what appears to be the case. The only other realistic outcome is a coalition between the SLD and the extreme right. I wasn't saying 'join with us or we'll join the other guys', I was saying 'join with us to stave off what is inevitably going to happen'.

If I tell you to look both ways before you cross the street, is it blackmail if I also tell you the result of failing to do so might be getting struck by a car?

[Subversive Rob]

Firstly, Gnote, I wasn't referring exclusively to you. If the party was composed solely of people with your views, I suspect we could form a coalition quite happily, in this respect there is less blackmail. Secondly, the reason this is different from the car example is because the car's aren't in your power. There is no need for the SLD to join a coalition with the right and there was no need for the right wing or your party to be so anti-SN-RF (it's very telling actually that some of your party seem to be viewing this in a Schmittian vein, the basic cleavage for them isn't between left and right but is rather between those who support 'liberal democracy' and those who don't, this is one of the reasons why a coalition was always going to be shaky).

Thirdly, blackmail was being said in a kind of colloquial way, but I think the key to what I'm saying is - where does your logic stop - e.g. would it be right to form a coalition with the PNL (a party with an avowed 'racialist' leader) so as to prevent a LC/CA government? Where exactly do you draw the line with participation? What I am getting at with the blackmail analogy (and perhaps we should call it 'double blackmail') is firstly the simplification. You are presenting this is as if it is unproblematic for us to support this government, but where does it stop, if the majority of your party decides to send troops into Afghanistan, and makes it into a no cofidence vote are we supposed to support you so as to stop the right 'getting in'. The other issue is that of agency. Essentially, you are trying to locate the responsibility for a rightist government with us, but it can just as easily be located with you guys for countenancing forming a government with them in the first place, or for the noises you have been making about how much of our programme we would have to drop.

[Stevie]

Ah, it's good to see that old cliche that socialists can't agree is nonsense.

[Subversive Rob]

Most of the soi disant socialists do agree though.