I'm less concerned about what the Contrarian might do in office, and more concerned about what the rest of the Calendar Council might feel empowered to do with him in office. Hopefully, there will be some more interesting information over the next week and a half about the candidates and their plans.

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.

Makes me want to vote for the Princess instead.

The combination of an emphasis on law and security along with the "Pull yourselves together!" slogan almost feels like an amalgam of the Detective's and Campaigner's platforms from last year. Could he be trying to unite those factions into a winning coalition?

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?

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 "ordinary Londoners...suffering from a surfeit of violence, vitriol and the Vake." 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.

We did it lads! And it only took three years.

The second is that we hold a Constables' Ball – to say thank you for the hard work of our civic defenders.

Finally managed to get the last Echo from his card!

Echo of what happens when you protest the Jovial Contrarian's Campagin: http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Kharagal%20Mierqid?fromEchoId=14268473

The man is an infuriating enigma wrapped in several other enigmas and locked inside a box to fight it out to become the strongest enigma. But he likely makes a charming lunch companion.

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 "surfeit of violence, vitriol and the Vake" 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.

Unfortunately Feducci won, so we got a gambling hall in the Mayor's residence :P

As much as I'll probably vote for him with him being the closest thing to the only sane man amongst them... Why did we get a repeat instead of a rubbery this year?

I kinda wonder how the Implacable Detective feels about his campaign. From what I can remember, her campaign was big on empowering the constables too.

[spoiler]He's effectively running on the exact same policies that he was in 1896, except justified with the exact opposite rhetoric, so that he can attract the kind of base that would likely shy from supporting the other two candidates: exactly the kind of base that he failed to secure during his previous run. Oh, I adore him.[/spoiler]

TeslaWalker wrote:

Honestly I find it disturbing that I'm being forced into voting for the first repeat candidate by virtue of him being the closest thing to a sane candidate.

You're being most unfair. Her Highness is many things, but no one would call her insane. And it is literally impossible for someone as exceptional as Mr. Slowcake to have any mental maladies at all.

Absintheuse wrote:

"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!"

Wait a minute. He woke up in his bath? Was he bathing the evening before, and just thinking so hard that he knocked himself unconscious?

If we're comparing people to That Real World Figure, then the Princess "Make London Great Again" is probably closer.

That would be pretty accurate if the others weren't literal monsters.
I mean Slowcake does not even exist - he is Hell.

The single most complimentary thing you can say about the Contrarian is that he is a traitor to his class.

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 ("the worst thing that could happen to [them] is is direct governance by the [ineffectual] Mayor's Office")? Yes, he is.

The official justification is the need for law and order:

"Would 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?"

The Contrarian even jokes about representing "jack booted authoritarianism." 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 ("Are you an orphan?"). I just think it's worth pointing this methods out and what they would mean. There will be trade offs.

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.

Oppose might be too strong a word. He clearly isn't acting like February or the Manager of the Royal Bethlehem by actively working towards the Liberation (their attempt to hijack his campaign in 1894 clearly did not go over well with him), but his new campaign manager is January, who is not only supporting the Liberation but aware of its cosmic scale, not to mention that he seemed to reject her campaign donations in 1894 on the basis of her supporting the Liberation.


Essentially, the Contrarian does not appear to actively work towards the Liberation, but he seems more ambivalent about it than in the past. If anything, his frustrations with the Calendar Council seem more personal than political.

a soulless bureaucracy that profits off the current system

Honestly I find it disturbing that I'm being forced into voting for the first repeat candidate by virtue of him being the closest thing to a sane candidate.

I believe sanity is being used here as a determinate for sensibility and rational, Auclair.

a predator who-amazingly enough, I admit-seems to hold SOME nostalgia for London

Hattington wrote:

Well I look foward to remaining loyal to the people eating torturer. Consider: In a city where the average power player is, in fact, 10 devils in a huge trenchcoat or something worse what good does having a mayor who DOESN'T inspire primal fear do when it comes to realpolitik?

I know a lot of players are very respectable people. Sure, you have to go through some questionably legal stuff on your way to becoming PoSI, but other than that it's entirely possible to play as a kind and principled character. You can even become a shepherd of souls, for instance, and almost every ES gives you the option to at least try to make things right.

If Jenny didn't get far with an actually coherent set of policies, I can't imagine Mr. Dither-and-Bicker getting much further on top of the apparent schisms between his revolutionary friends.

From what we've seen, he actually has a very sound agenda, and a solid path to carrying it out. Jenny wanted to help the poor, and so she did, what with her school and the charitable work among the dockers and stuff. It didn't have much lasting impact because it wasn't setup to do so - it was structured as an ongoing project that would have needed support from successors to continue - which is one of the reasons I didn't bother voting for her. But during her term, she did accomplish a good amount.
The Contrarian's plan is very much long-term, in comparison.

a predator who-amazingly enough, I admit-seems to hold SOME nostalgia for London

The relevant echo has already been posted: my understanding is that she may see London as entertainment; a canvas to attempt to paint in her image, and throw away without a second thought if it doesn't please her. Similar to Feducci, but on a much more horrible scale.

And besides, at least you know where you stand with a predator: On the buffet. You CAN'T know where you stand with a Revolutionary until they blow up your neighbourhood or slit your throat to keep quiet, and they're swarming like flies around the Contrarian again.

How many times do I have to remind people that the Contrarian subscribes neither to the Liberation, nor the bomb-flinging and throat-slitting. He has close connections, of course, but he's shown that he's learned his lesson from his previous campaign and has adapted marvellously to avoid the same kind of problems reocurring.

I'd also like to question the basic logic here - if you were to have a choice between definitely being in grave danger ("on the buffet"), and maybe being in danger, surely the latter would be preferable?
edited by Dudebro Pyro on 6/29/2018

You know, I had a thought - Feducci won due to being outrageous, and despite being essentially a foreign agent with absolutely no regard for London's wellbeing. Now people are saying the Princess will win for the same reason, but if you think back to the first election, wasn't the Bishop the most interesting in that sense? Complete with potentially horrendous consequences for London. Jenny was "outrageous" due to being a prostitute nun and stuff, but her policies were extremely tame. And yet, she won by a landslide, whereas the Bishop had an absolutely pitiful fraction of the vote.

The Contrarian as a figure of Order...I honestly did not see this coming.

Anne Auclair wrote:

Unfortunately Feducci won, so we got a gambling hall in the Mayor's residence :P

Hey now, you also signed over a huge amount of valuable blackmail material and (potentially) control of your military to a rogue agent of an unfriendly foreign government.

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.

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.

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

Results of new options from the card:
Ask the Jovial Contrarian about his change of heart

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.

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