Closing the debate for the FreeDems, Miestrâ Schivâ claimed that in voting for the her party one would be voting for an “active and competent government” and a committed Seneschal. A FreeDem government would have a reform agenda, stating that the “King needs to be brought under control”, and that reform of the judiciary and Chancery would also be priorities. She also reaffirmed her party’s commitment to promoting a “non-political” Talossa.

She stated that despite her fatigue at what she described as a culture of personal denigration in politics she would carry on to “get the job done”. She declared that if elected she would not serve more than one term as Seneschal, and was actively considering leaving politics altogether, but not until she had achieved her aims in government and “prepared her successors”.

TNC leader Breneir Itravilatx declared that the major issues facing the country are now known, but that the question for voters now is which party can lead the process of reform.  These issues are in his view reform of the monarchy and of the functioning of government,  and the opening up of greater cultural opportunities to all citizens.

He declared that the TNC was ready to work with other parties to implement its platform, which he described as “not a list of promises but as a list of solutions”.

RUMP leader Sir Alexandreu Davinescu declared that his party was “ready to work for you”, and that after three terms in opposition his party was prepared for government, and that it was the only party that had made itself accountable for delivering on its promises. Claiming that his party had “plans” and sufficient “talent” to lead the government, he also declared that his party was “ready to lead” and was “willing to work with others” in the Ziu.

The RUMP leader claimed that while they had positive aspects to their leadership and programmes, both the FreeDems and the ModRads had been ill-prepared and ineffective in government, and that as a new party the TNC had no record. He declared that only his party could “get Talossa moving again”.

ModRad leader Senator Lüc da Schir claimed that support for his party was “a vote for liberalism and progressivism”. He denied that a vote for the MRPT was a “spoilt vote”, declaring that his party would have “considerable leverage” over the next government, and that without the “centrist alternative offered by the MRPT the Ziu would become a “pit of political hatred”.

He cited reform of the monarchy and of geographic assignment, as well as the promotion of non-political cultural endeavours, as the top priorities of his party. . He also stated that “legislatively speaking” his party had a number of achievements to its credit,  and that it was able to find compromise with other parties. He pointed to the reform of foreign affairs policy as an example of these achievements.

Closing the debate, co-moderator Marti-Pair Furxheir thanked the participants, and stated that he looked forward to his next opportunity to organise the debates. He also intimated humorously that delicious, delicious pastries would be a welcome reward for his efforts, if anyone was so minded.

In what he lightheartedly called a “shocking twist”, debate moderator Marti-Pair Furxheir gave the fifth and penultimate part of the 49th Cosa All-party Debate a “unique” format, asking each participant an individual question. S:reu Furxheir also announced that opportunities for rebuttal and for closing statements will follow in the coming days.

On being asked “how does the RUMP plan to deliver on it’s extensive promise when it appears to lack a sufficient number of active members?”, RUMP leader Sir Alexandreu Davinescu responded with a theatrical “sigh”, and proceeded to explain that he had asked well-known members of his party where the problem might lay, but that they “couldn’t figure it out”.

He stated that his party would rely on “the same RUMP-style Cabinet of Talents recently adopted by the Free Democrats” in the event of securing an absolute majority, and would have “zero difficulty” in meeting its campaign promises.

FreeDem leader Miestrâ Schivâ was asked given her “hot temper” and her party’s rejection of coalition, “how do the Free Democrats plan to control the Ziu” after the election? The FreeDem leader agreed that she does indeed have a fiery temperament, especially when faced with “what I consider to be lies and bullying”. She stated however that she believed Talossan politicians need to behave with “more respect and less knee-jerk hostility” towards one another and that she was “attempting to lead by example”.

She also said that, absent an absolute majority, she was confident that the FreeDems would be able to find an agreement with other parties based on “comity, trust and policy agreement.”

ModRad leader Senator Lüc da Schir was asked given the perception of a RUMP-FreeDem two party race for Seneschal “what does the MRPT have to say to a strategic voter unsure how to cast his vote and how does the MRPT feel about this portrayal of a 2 party race?” The ModRad leader replied that his party is “still…the premier option for liberals, progressives, centrists and moderate monarchists”.

Claiming that no party will win an outright majority, he declared that this would put the MRPT “in a position of strength even outside of the Cabinet”. Describing bipolar politics as “deleterious” he claimed that a Cosa dominated by the FreeDems and the RUMP would be “a pit of confrontation and antagonism”, and that a vote for e MRPT would not be “wasted”, but would be for a party that “got things done”.

When asked about the recent controversy over his party’s scope and ability to deliver on its platform, TNC leader Breneir Itravilatx defended his movement as “a new and small party”. He accepted that it did not have a “full slate” of candidates, but that it was founded explicitly “with the goal of participating in coalition government”, and with an “optimistic and hopeful” ethos.

Claiming that “cooperation and compromise produce stable and productive governments”, he stated that his party hoped to build a tripartite coalition. He declared that the “failures” of the previous government were “not a sign of the inherent unworkability of coalitions” but demonstrated the importance of “accountability” and “respect”. He explicitly praised the ModRad leader’s acceptance of “responsibility” for the problems of the coalition, declaring that “we look forward to working with them in future”.

Stating that he did not accept what he described as recent attempts to “denigrate” his party, he declared that he “responded forcefully, firmly and did not back down” and that he would respond in an “aggressive” fashion to those who lack “respect and cordiality” towards him.

The party leaders were responding to the fourth question of the All-party debate, on institutional reform:

There is a balance of power in Talossa between the King, The Cosa, The Senate, the Prime-Minister’s PD and the Cabinet as well as with the population (via referendums). Does your party believe in the status-quo or do you promise changes in that separation/balance of power, notably considering recent events?

Debate moderator Marti-Pair Furxheir has also announced, as the “fifth question”, a series of individual queries to each party. He will also allow each participant time for rebuttal after all responses have been received.

RUMP leader Sir Alexandreu Davinescu declared that he believed “there should be some changes to the status quo”.

He claimed that the Seneschal’s decree power (the Prime Dictate) is too broad, and that this “glaring loophole” should be resolved “before it becomes a problem”.

He also stated that “we also need to take a look at the monarchy”. Declaring himself opposed to the “blanket veto” claimed by the King during the Proclamation Crisis, he claimed that the 3/4 Majority Amendment was a “workable compromise” for resolving it.
Stating that due to its small population the Kingdom was vulnerable to being “utterly transformed in a short span”,  RUMP leader declared that a “strong and independent monarch is one of the only protections” against this. He did however state that while the monarchy must be strong enough to act as a “check” on the rest of the government, it “should still ultimately be accountable to the people”.

He also stated that the scope and power of the Secretary of State’s office needs to be reviewed, describing the Chancery as resembling a “fourth branch of government”, and pointing to the potential for a “dangerous centralization of power” in the office.

TNC leader Breneir Itravilatx also claimed that the Proclamation Crisis required reform of the monarchy. He declared that his party supported Organic Law reform to allow for an override of royal veto, and that his party has “entertained” proposals for an elective monarchy, and for a reinforced impeachment process covering “grave misconduct or official abandonment”.

The TNC leader also declared that “we should be concerned with members of the Judiciary serving in positions of public partisanship”. He proposed that judges should have to follow the example of Chief Justice Tamoràn in maintaining public neutrality in political affairs, on the grounds that the courts must “jealously” preserve an impartial image.

He stated that his party had no official position on reform of the Prime Dictate, but that it did believe that citizen legislative initiative should be implemented.

ModRad leader Senator Lüc da Schir declared that “the biggest concern” the MRPT has with the political system is what he claimed was the “undemocratic and illiberal behavior” of the crown during the Proclamation Crisis.

The Senator stated that his party believed “the monarchy is good for Talossa”, but that the “figurehead of us all” should “do his job” in a better way. Pointing to his MZs work on the 3/4 Majority Amendment, he described it “getting things done in the Ziu, by compromise with the opposition, not confrontation”.

Thee ModRad leader continued by emphasising that the King should “retain his check powers against the Ziu and the Cabinet, but the most important thing is that the monarch should be accountable to the people”.

The Senator concluded by agreeing that the Prime Dictate power required reform, and that members of the judiciary should not be permitted to hold office in the Ziu or Cabinet, while free to work in Civil Service and the New Citizens Committee.

FreeDem leader Miestrâ Schivâ declared that her party “are the only party with constitutional reform at their heart”.

She stated that as the 3/4 Majority Amendment was vulnerable to a Proclamation Crisis-style veto the government’s legal challenge to the King’s (in)action in the Uppermost Cort was “our only real chance of success” in overturning the royal veto over Organic Law amendments.

She stated that her party’s main constitutional proposal was the addition of “nonfeasance” (non-performance of an official duty) as grounds on which a monarch can be deposed by the Ziu. She also suggested that the provision be extended to Uppermost Cort judges to deter “sabotage” by judicial inaction.

She also declared that the FreeDems are “the only party which refuses to take the word “republic” off the table – although compromise is still possible”.

She concluded by claiming that “competitive, democratic politics are the only effective check and balance on the unaccountable use of power”, and that this would be guaranteed by a Real Cosa of “15-20 members”. Under such an arrangement poorly performing parties and MCs could be “kicked out” of the Cosa by the electorate.