[color=#cc0099]Feducci’s term is through! London requires a new Mayor! Whom will you support?
He ran for Mayor once before; this time he is running on the opposite platform. No one was expecting the Jovial Contrarian to try again, least of all himself.
His platform is a restoration of London to a city of order, a devotion to the rule of law; a city for the just, the virtuous and the wise. His motto is: “Pull Yourselves Together!” He propels himself along at the heart of his motley alliance, surrounded by burly Constables, well-heeled shopkeepers, grocers, pub-landlords and the occasional confused anarchist.
As he says in an extensive interview with Mr Huffam, "I woke up one morning in my bath and found I was absolutely furious! How could I have been so wrong? There was nothing for it but to run against my own ideals!"
Use the first week of London to investigate The Jovial Contrarian and the other candidates, as well as their platforms. More information on Election 1896 can be found in the Main Announcement thread.
Want to learn more about this candidate?
We’d recommend the Exceptional Story, The Calendar Code by Gavin Inglis. And if you’re a Person of Some Importance, the Elegant Party.[/color]
So given that the other two candidates are starkly and unambiguously evil choices, I’m struggling to think of any concrete reason not to support this guy. Just in terms of consequences for the people of London and the Neath, what could the Contrarian possibly have up his sleeve that would be worse than Slowcake or the Princess? Any thoughts?
[quote=hwoosh]So given that the other two candidates are starkly and unambiguously evil choices, I’m struggling to think of any concrete reason not to support this guy. Just in terms of consequences for the people of London and the Neath, what could the Contrarian possibly have up his sleeve that would be worse than Slowcake or the Princess? Any thoughts?[/quote]He’s a revolutionary, and during his previous campaign there was an internal power struggle with more radical members of that faction. He has not shown support for the Liberation in the past, but he may have changed his tune, or he might be co-opted towards that end despite himself; to some, that might prove an unacceptable risk.
He is associated with the Revolutionaries, and we have strong reason to suspect he’s August of the Calendar Council, so: he’s good, actually. A little weaker on the issue of the Liberation than I’d like – ideally I want a candidate promising to make it happen now – but you have to take what you can get.
Given February’s prior involvement, perhaps this year JC will burst at the seams and reveal a February inside! Then, once again, February will find her bank account, wallets, lodgings and pockets to all be emptied again.
I believe the reason not to vote for him is that he’s running on the complete opposite of his prior platform. Which means he seems to stand for absolutely nothing. And that means he stands for himself and is lying about it. He is a popular political outsider saying whatever he thinks the people want to hear to get him elected. Given that he’s currently running on a populist ‘appeal to security above liberty’ platform (and his rhetoric when spoken to is completely empty) that gives me a feeling that claiming he’s less evil than the other candidates is exactly the trap he’s hoping you’ll fall into. “Don’t bother asking what I stand for. Don’t question any contradictions in what I say or support. Don’t worry about the rising consolidation in power my platform subtly implies… just vote for me. I’m the kind of guy you’d want to get a beer with. Not an ivory tower elitist like the princess or a pencil pushing bureaucratic insider like Slowcake.”
I don’t think there is a “not evil” option in this election. But the fact that some people think it’s JC here makes me think he might be the most DANGEROUS candidate in this election.
[quote=Jolanda Swan]That would be pretty accurate if the others weren’t literal monsters.
I mean Slowcake does not even exist - he is Hell.[/quote]
I know, the metaphor is delightful isn’t it? The question you need to ask yourself is: do hell or the monarchy have a vested interest in any major social changes or are they currently prof fitting off the status quo? A lot of people are monsters even in worlds that don’t have monsters. The question is what the monsters WANT. JC is the only one who isn’t a literal monster, but you’d fool to think there are only 2 monsters in this race, and I’m more confident about London’s chances under a soulless bureaucracy that profits off the current system or a vain undying royal who does the same.
[quote=easter]
I know, the metaphor is delightful isn’t it? The question you need to ask yourself is: do hell or the monarchy have a vested interest in any major social changes or are they currently prof fitting off the status quo? A lot of people are monsters even in worlds that don’t have monsters. The question is what the monsters WANT. JC is the only one who isn’t a literal monster, but you’d fool to think there are only 2 monsters in this race, and I’m more confident about London’s chances under a soulless bureaucracy that profits off the current system or a vain undying royal who does the same.[/quote]
If your words are true, then the Contrarianism is still invested in major social changes that upturns the status quo. This, if anything, makes voting for him even more desirable! It remains to be seen whether or not his turn to law and order rhetoric is a genuine twist toward a different kind of revolution or whether it’s simply due to his delight in contrarianism (and thus his heart still residing with social reform), but we can certainly hope for more Calendar shenanigans as the weeks progress.
Ugh, it is not even the awful Liberation thing that gets me, it is not as if he can pull it off anyway, given his character…
It is that his is so bloody annoying. So. Bloody. Annoying.
[quote=Hotshot Blackburn]If your words are true, then the Contrarianism is still invested in major social changes that upturns the status quo. This, if anything, makes voting for him even more desirable! It remains to be seen whether or not his turn to law and order rhetoric is a genuine twist toward a different kind of revolution or whether it’s simply due to his delight in contrarianism (and thus his heart still residing with social reform), but we can certainly hope for more Calendar shenanigans as the weeks progress.[/quote] No no, if my words are true than the contrarian is invested in ATTENTION regardless of the source. A contrarian for contrarian’s sake doesn’t actually want things to change, people who want things to change are contrarians when things stagnate. Contrarianism for its own sake (especially as brazen as JCs) only serves one purpose: giving the contrarian as much attention as possible. He obviously doesn’t actually care about the clay men one way or the other; or the Liberation; or anything else he talks up. He only cares about making sure his name is on as many lips as possible as as many eyes are on him. He wants to be the most interesting person in the room. And good politics are boring. Sure the liberation might be interesting for a bit… but only until it looks like someone’s going to win. Then the thing that’s most interesting is some third party coming from behind and betraying them. The contrarian can’t put forth any policy that would actually improve people’s lives long term or cement any specific group in power and nobody can ever really know where his priorities or alliances lie.
He’ll screw over the Liberation as soon as help it, and most likely do both several times before he’s removed from office.
[quote=Jolanda Swan]Ugh, it is not even the awful Liberation thing that gets me, it is not as if he can pull it off anyway, given his character…
It is that his is so bloody annoying. So. Bloody. Annoying.[/quote]
He is annoying, and that reassures me in a way. Because it means that he won’t sweet talk anyone and everyone to get their vote, the way Her Royal Highness and the Amanuensis clearly will. It’s a kind of integrity, albeit a bizarre one.
Sigh. I still mourn the Implacable Detective–probably the best candidate London has had–and you know what happened to her campaign. :-(
Bloody hell, he used to look like a handsome man full of charisma, who would earnestly debate you on his very honour, and now they made him look like an old fart with a disapproving glare that seems to convey a sincere wish that you’d just go away already.
[quote=easter][quote=Jolanda Swan]That would be pretty accurate if the others weren’t literal monsters.
I mean Slowcake does not even exist - he is Hell.[/quote]
I know, the metaphor is delightful isn’t it? The question you need to ask yourself is: do hell or the monarchy have a vested interest in any major social changes or are they currently prof fitting off the status quo? A lot of people are monsters even in worlds that don’t have monsters. The question is what the monsters WANT. JC is the only one who isn’t a literal monster, but you’d fool to think there are only 2 monsters in this race, and I’m more confident about London’s chances under a soulless bureaucracy that profits off the current system or a vain undying royal who does the same.[/quote]
You have cut to the heart of the issue, easter; congratulations! Perhaps unsurprisingly, my responses to your question–what do the "monsters" WANT?"–confirm my choice.
The Princess wants to continue to freely and painfully exploit people’s memories via red honey. Slowcake wants to tie London even more strongly into the whole social climbing game, in order to increase Hell’s opportunities to pry souls loose from their owners. And the Contrarian, as you say, wants attention. (I don’t even think he has any interest in money or things, frankly.) So which of the three is least harmful to London? Surely the man who only wants London’s attention on himself and his antics.
On one claw, hand, it would be a major upheaval if London took a turn to stability. It would be nice to have people be able to go down the street without bursting from cthonic horrors or some gribbly eating a person. On the other claw, I LIKE London Life. Aside from the crime and poverty, of course.
