Election 1896: The Jovial Contrarian

Fallen London
81

As those are mine first elections, I have a honest question. Did any mayor in the past actually brought any substantial changes? If not, then it’s kinda meaningless in practical terms who will win as not much will change anyway no matter the victor. From what i gathered so far, masters are one in charge of london,so I doubt mayor really has much power.

I think I’ll be supporting Contrarian, from my personal view as he is only ambiguous candidate instead pretty much flat out villain.To my information, other candidates are friking demons ( Alex Jones would be on case if he was in this setting :) ). From perspective of my characters it’s because my character doesn’t trust them due to little intel has on them and fact pretty much most of the contact with Contrarian so far. When it comes to message Slowcake (meritocracy and potentially veiled promise of rights for rubbery men) and Contrarian (law and order aren’t that bad depending on what exactly he mans by that) imo but underminded probably that it’s in both cases likely a lie.

edited by MaxCaulfield on 6/25/2018

82

No modern real-world politics, please. To answer your question - past mayors’ effects on London have manifested as a repeating card showing their progress or lack thereof, a unique story digging deeper into their affairs, and some extra content in seasonal events.

83

This was more to make fun of status of two of the candidates than referencing real world politics. So I assume that means mayor has fairly small to almost non-existent impact on the world, I didn’t play in extra content concerning Fedduci but from what I saw in opportunity card it didn’t involve extensive info concerning policies and I didn’t notice any changes (unless changes are described in a specific premium content),

84

Ah, Sir Frederick, I do see your point and would hate real world politics in the forum… on the other hand, every year the candidates veer closer to Surface happenings. We are not saying it, but unfortunately you do make the connections.

85

I don’t see it - sure you can draw a certain parallel between the Princess and a modern well-known narcicisstic president, but I’d argue Feducci was a closer match, and in any case it’s a common political caricature (that just happened to become reality nowadays) so it’s not surprising that you find comparisons if you look for them - even the Bishop had similarities.

This particular stereotype aside, I can’t think of any parallels for the other candidates.

86

[quote=Dudebro Pyro]I don’t see it - sure you can draw a certain parallel between the Princess and a modern well-known narcicisstic president, but I’d argue Feducci was a closer match, and in any case it’s a common political caricature (that just happened to become reality nowadays) so it’s not surprising that you find comparisons if you look for them - even the Bishop had similarities.

This particular stereotype aside, I can’t think of any parallels for the other candidates.[/quote]The three candidates this year represent fears that people may have regarding the political process. These have risen in significance over the course of the past few years, and people see that reflected in this election.

Mr. Slowcake represents the fear of both foreign influence and hidden agendas, particularly those tied to populist movements. Mr. Slowcake is a tool of Hell to pursue a study of the effects of the political process on the soul and furthering the process of soul acquisition, which is made palpable to the people of London through populist promises.

The Captivating Princess represents the fear that those in power actively seek to harm everyday people, as well as the fear of established power. The Princess is a monstrous, hedonistic creature who is responsible for numerous deaths around London and representative of the royal family, casually disregarding the informal constitution delineating the separation of powers, attacking the press, and focusing on herself (Make London Magnificent for Me).

The Jovial Contrarian represents the fear that politicians lack true beliefs and, on the contrary, the fear that politicians have unstated true beliefs at odds with their official platform. The Jovial Contrarian, on the surface, changes his position on every topic and has changed his entire campaign since his first campaign, but advocates for law and order may be concerned that his campaign is organized by a fellow member of the Calendar Council and that his policies for the constabulary are meant to further revolutionary causes by removing them from the influence of the Bazaar.

87

The election slogans are a dead giveaway. Well, only for two. But then the third connection is not hard to make, ideologically speaking. But they’re caricatures, they’re not the same in many obvious ways, which does end up making a difference. Also, London as a political entity is very different from any real-world ones, which also makes a difference. (Although if you were to interrogate me if, I want the Contrarian lose out of spite, well…)

Threw my support behind the Contrarian just now. The way he’s talking, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Constables pulled their support at the last moment, giving him no platform to stand on, given that’s all the plans he has. But then again, I can’t see them standing behind any of the other candidates, so it’s not a likely possibility, however funny it would be.

88

Based on the new info from the Flash Lays, I think that the extensive study of the Constabulary and it’s associated groups being carried out by the Contrarian’s campaign seems too much like intelligence gathering for the Revolutionaries for my liking.

I have yet to decide if I’d rather see a figurehead of Hell or a completely disorganised monster as mayor instead though.

89

For a moment was I tempted to support infernal Slowcake – for what is a man but his platform, his ideals? What else should matter? Long have I maintained relations with our tentacled neighbours, and long have I tired and raged against their horrid mistreatment! And when I saw my common allies – the dispossesed, the neglected – root for drastic change, I found myself challenged and torn.

But the good gentleman is a charlatan, I say! ‘To every soul its station’, indeed! And where does the Rubbery Man fit into a society of souls? Is it not the devils who are judging a soul’s worth, devils who seem abhorrent and disgusted by their very beings? Where fits the working class everyman, who simply wishes for a peaceful, mundane life? Mr. Slowcake, I accuse, is playing the lot for mugs!

I declare a vote for the Contrarian – who is probably also playing people for mugs, but you know, the people I want to play for mugs. Which is obviously quite alright.
edited by Lavaeolus on 6/25/2018

90

So, having signed on to support the Contrarian’s campaign, the first thing I did was start sniffing out its dirty secrets - I like to know what I’m signing on for, you know?

I’m guessing that’s January working as his campaign manager? Which suggests that, after the debacle that was February’s intervention in his last run, this time the Council are putting its more intellectual leaders firmly in charge of things.

91

[quote=Sir Frederick]So, having signed on to support the Contrarian’s campaign, the first thing I did was start sniffing out its dirty secrets - I like to know what I’m signing on for, you know?

I’m guessing that’s January working as his campaign manager? Which suggests that, after the debacle that was February’s intervention in his last run, this time the Council are putting its more intellectual leaders firmly in charge of things.

As I said earlier:

Thinking him moderate is just the Overton Window messing with you. He joined the Calendar Council instead of the Establishment because at the end of the day he is a Revolutionary through and through.

92

Rest assured I know what I’m doing when it comes to revolutionary socialism. And a revolutionary who’s willing to make reforms is better than one who insists that the system can only be changed all at once.

93

An Echo of the information about the Jovial Contrarian from the Flash Lay: http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Kharagal%20Mierqid?fromEchoId=14305746

94

Hear! Hear!

Seems to conform pretty well to the Contrarian’s stated platform. I mean, he explicit wants to undermine the Masters by making Constables into an independent body. To do so without the necessary information would be quite daft. [li]

95

Results of new options from the card:
Ask the Jovial Contrarian about his change of heart
Convince the Jovial Contrarian to share a confidence

Wonder if it changes with each subsequent visit like Slowcake’s.

96

Well, said reforms are intended to intentionally run the city’s police force into the ground, which would certainly benefit extremist Revolutionaries as much as moderate ones, if not more. It would also have the obvious side effect of increasing London’s crime rate and general violence. This is clearly a price worth paying from the Contrarian’s prospective, though it does put the lie to his concerns for &quotordinary Londoners…suffering from a surfeit of violence, vitriol and the Vake.&quot In fact, it sort of highlights a fundamental dishonesty or cynicism in the Contrarian’s campaign - a campaign of obfuscating layers, where the real agenda is the exact opposite of the official one.

First Layer (official agenda) - improve the city’s law enforcement and fight crime/violence.
Second Layer (read between the lines agenda) - make the city’s police force more independent from the Masters.
Third Layer (the real agenda) - intentionally make the city’s police force a lot less efficient/effective.

There isn’t any real contradiction between the first and second layers, but the first and the third are mutually exclusive.

This is more sabotage than reform. It’s entering the power structure by the legal means to make it easier to later remove said power structure extra-legally. It also highlights that the Contrarian does not believe the Mayoral office is the basic building block to self-government - for him it’s a means to get a few steps closer to the Liberation (which if he has his way, won’t be so dark).

A little detail I just recalled about August’s book, that delightful little book about the art of arguments. Reading it increased your Ruthlessness.

Wait, putting actual, experienced managers in charge of a campaign instead of gun-touting lunatics? What sort of bourgeois nonsense is this?!

[quote=Sinnouk]Results of new options from the card:
Ask the Jovial Contrarian about his change of heart[/quote]
I guess that settles the debate on what happened between the Contrarian and the rest of the Council.
.
edited by Anne Auclair on 6/26/2018

97

I hadn’t yet seen the new text on the Contrarian’s card at the time of my last post (and, indeed, still haven’t seen it under my own power, so to speak - it’s been reluctant to appear in my deck).

98

[quote=Anne Auclair]It would also have the obvious side effect of increasing London’s crime rate and general violence. This is clearly a price worth paying from the Contrarian’s prospective, though it does put the lie to his concerns for &quotordinary Londoners…suffering from a surfeit of violence, vitriol and the Vake.&quot In fact, it sort of highlights a fundamental dishonesty or cynicism in the Contrarian’s campaign - a campaign of obfuscating layers, where the real agenda is the exact opposite of the official one.

First Layer (official agenda) - improve the city’s law enforcement and fight crime/violence.
Second Layer (read between the lines agenda) - make the city’s police force more independent from the Masters.
Third Layer (the real agenda) - intentionally make the city’s police force a lot less efficient/effective.

There isn’t any real contradiction between the first and second layers, but the first and the third are mutually exclusive.[/quote]

I have some pretty mixed feelings on the Contrarian and his platform (and schemes) myself, but I think it’s important to distinguish between on the one hand a goal of reducing the &quotsurfeit of violence, vitriol and the Vake&quot and on the other hand a goal improving the constabulary, or even fighting crime. Whatever other problems London has, the Constables are a major source of violence, vitriol, and protection of the Masters’ whims (no matter how cruel or absurd those whims may be). Running the Constables into the ground is a very literal take on dismantling the Masters’ tools.

The idea of interfering with or getting rid of the city’s police force brings us back to the perennial question of how to effectively prevent and deal with crime and violence in other ways, but if the Contrarian believes that the harm caused by the notoriously violent and corrupt Constables who help the Masters get away with their schemes is greater than the harm average Londoners might do to each other then I don’t think there’s any contradiction. The official platform is not, technically, specifically, if you look at the wording, ‘improve law enforcement’, it’s ‘reduce injustice’ or whatever. Which, if he believes the purpose or use of the police force is fundamentally unjust and a primary cause of suffering, fits perfectly well with a plan to sabotage the Constables.

It is still dishonest and cynical, for sure. He’s tailoring his rhetoric to get the support of the very people he’s trying to sabotage, and taking advantage of their good will during the campaign to get intelligence he can use against them even if he loses the race. It’s entirely ruthless. But he’s also been winking and smiling and fixing the player character with serious looks about it since the beginning.

It’s definitely a campaign of obfuscating layers, but I don’t think it’s essentially contradictory or that the official and actual agendas are mutually exclusive. I don’t even think it would necessarily increase London’s rate of interpersonal violence or general crime.
[li]

99

[quote=string]I have some pretty mixed feelings on the Contrarian and his platform (and schemes) myself, but I think it’s important to distinguish between on the one hand a goal of reducing the &quotsurfeit of violence, vitriol and the Vake&quot and on the other hand a goal improving the constabulary, or even fighting crime. Whatever other problems London has, the Constables are a major source of violence, vitriol, and protection of the Masters’ whims (no matter how cruel or absurd those whims may be). Running the Constables into the ground is a very literal take on dismantling the Masters’ tools.

The idea of interfering with or getting rid of the city’s police force brings us back to the perennial question of how to effectively prevent and deal with crime and violence in other ways, but if the Contrarian believes that the harm caused by the notoriously violent and corrupt Constables who help the Masters get away with their schemes is greater than the harm average Londoners might do to each other then I don’t think there’s any contradiction. [/quote]
True, the Constables are themselves a major source of violence. But I don’t think it can be argued that the Constables don’t hold dangerous threats at bay. This is a city where literal monsters lurk in the dark. It’s a city where unscrupulous villains steal the souls out of sick people’s mouths. It’s a city where you have a literal kingdom of thieves on the rooftops. It’s a city with vicious crime lords like the Cheery Man and Gracious Widow. It’s a city with the Calendar Council and their whole bomb throwing Revolutionary army. And it’s a city where even graffiti can be deadly.

So, would a less effective police force lead to a more dangerous London? Seems pretty likely. And is the Contrarian advocating municipal administration explicitly because it will make the Constables less effective (&quotthe worst thing that could happen to [them] is is direct governance by the [ineffectual] Mayor’s Office&quot)? Yes, he is.

The official platform is definitely not to reduce injustice. That’s layer two, implied by breaking the police from the Masters. The official justification is the need for law and order:

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. &quotPull yourselves together!&quot
…
&quotWould you say our previous Mayors have been effectual in the field of law and order? That’s rhetorical. That issue is why I believe I ought to be Mayor. I can hardly do a worse job. Besides, what’s the good in being philosophically ‘right’ when ordinary Londoners are suffering from a surfeit of violence, vitriol and the Vake?&quot

The Contrarian even jokes about representing &quotjack booted authoritarianism.&quot It’s breathtaking misrepresentation - though he stops short of outright lying to you.

Not that I have any moral objection to his methods, mind you. London is not a free society and being too open can easily get you killed, or worse (&quotAre you an orphan?&quot). I just think it’s worth pointing his methods out and discussing what they would mean. There will be trade offs.
.
edited by Anne Auclair on 6/26/2018

100

First of all, I would like to thank everyone for a very interesting discussion.

I will try to argue exactly that!

[quote=Anne Auclair]This is a city where literal monsters lurk in the dark. It’s a city where unscrupulous villains steal the souls out of sick people’s mouths. It’s a city where you have a literal kingdom of thieves on the rooftops. It’s a city with vicious crime lords like the Cheery Man and Gracious Widow. It’s a city with the Calendar Council and their whole bomb throwing Revolutionary army. And it’s a city where even graffiti can be deadly.

So, would a less effective police force lead to a more dangerous London? Seems pretty likely. And is the Contrarian advocating municipal administration explicitly because it will make the Constables less effective (&quotthe worst thing that could happen to [them] is is direct governance by the [ineffectual] Mayor’s Office&quot)? Yes, he is. [/quote]

I don’t believe the Constables, as an organization, do that much against most of the dangers you’ve mentioned. Soul-stealing villains, i.e. devils and not patsy spirifers, are firmly protected by the Masters and act with impunity. The Implacable Detective is playing chess with the Cheery Man and not fighting for his arrest. The Last Constable is/was fighting, but the current structure of the Constables explicitly makes her work with the full support of the office impossible. The forces of the Masters are more interested in keeping Dockers in line than shutting down smuggling. The revolutionaries are ruthlessly pursued, but their violence is definitely not the reason why. Thefts by the Topsy King and the Urchins are far far faaar from London’s greatest problems. The graffiti are a menace, I agree, but all those books aren’t.

[quote=Anne Auclair] The official justification is the need for law and order:

&quotWould you say our previous Mayors have been effectual in the field of law and order? That’s rhetorical. That issue is why I believe I ought to be Mayor. I can hardly do a worse job. Besides, what’s the good in being philosophically ‘right’ when ordinary Londoners are suffering from a surfeit of violence, vitriol and the Vake?&quot

The Contrarian even jokes about representing &quotjack booted authoritarianism.&quot It’s breathtaking misrepresentation - though he stops short of outright lying to you.

Not that I have any moral objection to his methods, mind you. London is not a free society and being too open can easily get you killed, or worse (&quotAre you an orphan?&quot). I just think it’s worth pointing this methods out and what they would mean. There will be trade offs. [/quote]
I agree there are trade-offs in this sort of cynical, pretty underanded approach. However, I just love the quote you’ve used. It all falls within his true platform. He doesn’t claim to stand for law and order, just not to be worse than the previous mayors were unintentionally. Turns out he meant &quotjust as bad, intentionally.&quot The Constables working under Masters cannot stop the Vake, but the Revolutionaries might. Violence and vitriol is propagated as much and more by those in power (protected by the Constables) as by the criminals. The Captivating Princess is exhibit #1, &quotSlowcakes&quot are exhibit #2.

I strongly agree with this. I also am of the opinion that changes the Contrarian would bring to the Constables wouldn’t make the situation worse for the people of London or even for the Constables themselves. First of all, I expect the Contrarian to hold enough to the masquarade to provide some benefits to the Constables. Additionally, ineffectual mayoral management will make Constables into worse tools for the Bazaar (and, to a lesser extent, for the mayors themselves), but that is a good thing. The London oppressors have plenty of tools already. Finally, the Last Constable story (and a bit Jack’s case) highlight how the current situation often makes it more difficult for those Constables seeking to help everyday Londoners. With less of a central authority pushing its own agenda, those Constables could do more.

I would like to conclude by stating that I am less scared of the Contrarian making the Constables more independent and less cohesive than by the alternative. That is, making the Constables separate from the Masters and then transforming them into tools of one’s own will. What would February do with the Special Constables behind her?

[li][/li][li]
edited by menaulon on 6/26/2018