Is there any clarity about what moved ZRP to reject a coalition that includes SC?  Hardly 48 hours ago his coalition allies called him a leftist wolf in sheep’s clothing, eager to deliver Latvia to Putin on a silver platter.  Ir and Diena are already analyzing the aftermath, but did I miss an actual explanation?

The possibilities thrown around or plausible to me include:

1.  Zatlers was “rolled” by Vienotība which refused to be in a government with SC, and Zatlers lacked the nerve to stick with his earlier position, or the votes to maintain a 2-party coalition with SC alone.

2.  Zatlers never sincerely intended to follow through on a coalition with SC but deviously held out the possibility in order to steal Russian votes away from them—perhaps out of nationalistic bias or wanting revenge on the SC for the KNAB and presidential votes.

3.  Zatlers was ultimately unconvinced that SC could be any more free from oligarchic influence than ZZS, which he excluded from the outset on that basis.

4.  NA satisfied more items on the ZRP’s checklist of principles (or conditions) than SC did and that gave them the nod, especially with Bērziņš deadline drawing near.

Any other ideas? 

And can we please have this be a troll-free thread?

Zatlers couldn’t go alone with SC because that coalition (SC without the Rubikiesi) would only have 50 votes. One of the conditions for taking Harmony in was their rejection of the socialists within Harmony. Plus there were rebels within his own party. He said a coalition with Harmony wouldn’t get the parliamentary majority. And the two-party coalition would have lacked a prime minister since both SC and ZRP back Dombrovskis for the third term.

The Sprūdžs interview confirmed that part of the equation—and SC was willing to dump those socialists (hence my joke about “crossing the rubikāņi”) to be in the coalition.  But I don’t get what happened after that. Did V then have the ‘teikšana’ because they had the prime minister locked in?

Apparently some ZRP members, including some new MPs, threatened to leave the party if it went into the coalition with Harmony Center. Without the socialists, that two-party would have had 50 votes. If it lost any more, it would have been a minority government. The Unity, of course, was taken hostage by its nationalist wing and discarded its own pre-election SC-friendly rhetoric for the tribal nationalism pushed by the Civic Union.

The NA in this case had even more leeway. They got away with their own interpretation of the draft coalition agreement. So they didn’t have to give up on their support for public education in Latvian only nor did they have to give up on their notion that in a country free of occupation for 20 years, there are still occupiers. And they weren’t forced to rid their ranks of questionable characters, like Janis Iesalnieks.

Plus, there was an alternative coalition being formed: ZZS+NA+V with splitters from ZRP. The Zatlerites weren’t sure if being in the opposition for the new party was such a good idea.

Aha, I didn’t catch the news of the alternative coalition, and I suppose it’s not surprising that ZZS wasn’t just sitting on their hands.  I caught a mention of NA’s plan to form a shadow cabinet in case of being stuck in the opposition, and then waiting for the SC-‘Kangari’ government to unravel.  Surprising that whatever outreach ZRP worked into its language was so quickly gotten rid of.

Sveiki!

Obviously, I don’t know precisely what was going on anymore than anyone else on this forum.  But, a major factor must have been that Zatlers didn’t have the backing of his own party’s deputy-elects.  Rumor had it that half of ZRP was against a coalition with SC.  Yet a few days later ZRP announced that all deputies-elect had nonetheless agreed to this coalition.  But one deputy-elect (Liepiņš) privately circulated the stringent conditions (later published at http://www.ir.lv/2011/10/4/mana-nostaja) that he’d submitted directly to Zatlers which needed to be fulfilled prior to his agreeing.

Would SC ever have agreed to these conditions?  I think not, but that’s just a guess.  For that matter, was there any real possibility that Vienotība would risk losing at least 2 of its deputies-elect (Druviete & Kursīte), and ZRP – possibly as many as 11, if a coalition with SC had been forced through?

I wrote elsewhere that I’m not sure that this was ever anything other than ‘political theater’ on Zatler’s part.  Alternatively, if this was a genuine conflict, then it certainly does indicate how green Zatlers is in his new role. The math of a viable coalition (well, at least one that would be supported initially by 56 deputies-elect, i.e., ZRP+V+NA) was crystal clear by the early morning hours of the 18th of September. With hindsight - anything else looks like wishful thinking.

Visu labu,

E.

I am still not sure if it has been gotten rid of. I would like to see the final version of the coalition agreement that they will sign. If they eliminated the no occupiers passage, it’ll be really really sad.

PS Something else that I found interesting was that the SCP faction of Vienotība when faced with the decision of a coalition with SC or NA, howsoever reluctantly, chose NA.  My understanding is that this was based strictly on the basis of SC’s voting record in the 10th Saeima when it came to the ‘tiesiskums’ issue, which is so important to the two Russian deputy elects - Loskutovs and Judins (the latter obviously having been directly affected by SC’s votes).

Is there a coherent explanation of why the six ZRP deputies broke away just in time to torpedo the new coalition? My superficial glance across the headlines didn’t reveal any satisfactory explanation, and the statement that the party had engaged in anti-democratic behavior is no explanation at all. The only thing that makes sense is that the six really wanted a coalition with SC, and really opposed one with NA. So then why not come out and say so?

Or am I missing a piece of the puzzle, which I freely admit is often true when I try to make sense of Latvian politics?

The balance keeps tipping over in strange new directions.  Does the Saeima need to take a Breathalyzer test?

So far it looks like “The Ohlshtein Six” could have been the Trojan horse.
Ohlshtein has switched parties several times.
His claim that Zatler doesn’t trust him may be well founded.

I wonder who’s paying off.

ps. like we didn’t have enough of it….......
    I disagree with the claim that the people elected them on their
    own merit. Not without the party helping along.

nra.lv
Sākums » Latvijā » Politika
Vēl divi Zatlera partijas biedri sākuši dumpoties
Trešdiena, 19.oktobris (2011) | Ziņu aģentūra BNS

Zatlera Reformu partijas (ZRP) frakcija, kurā palikuši vien 16 deputāti, vienojusies par darbības principiem Saeimā, taču divi deputāti – Valdis Liepiņš un Kārlis Eņģelis – vairākiem principiem nav piekrituši.

Deputātu vairākums vienojies, ka ZRP frakcijā varēs uzņemt deputātus, kas Saeimā ievēlēti no ZRP. Nolikums paredz, ka deputātam pēc izstāšanās vai izslēgšanas no frakcijas nekavējoties ir jānoliek Saeimas deputāta mandāts. Savukārt frakcijas lēmuma pārkāpumu uzskatīs par rupju partijas Ētikas kodeksa pārkāpumu, un atkārtots pārkāpums var novest pie izslēgšanas no partijas.

Pret šiem trim nolikumā ierakstītajiem darbības principiem iebilduši divi frakcijas deputāti.

Liepiņš aģentūrai BNS apliecināja, ka nepiekrīt vairākiem nolikuma punktiem, tomēr ZRP viņš atstāt negrasās.

“Disciplīnu var ievērot, ja ir demokrātija, un tās mūsu partijā paliek arvien vairāk,” vērtēja Liepiņš, kurš arī iepriekš publiski paudis atšķirīgu viedokli no partijas līderiem, piemēram, par sadarbību ar apvienību “Saskaņas centrs”.

Viņš nepiekrīt, ka deputātam būtu jānoliek mandāts pēc izstāšanās no partijas, jo viņš vēlēšanās saņēmis sabiedrības atbalstu.

Pagaidām bažu, ka ZRP frakcija vēl vairāk varētu sarukt, neesot, sacīja Liepiņš.

Jau vēstīts, ka svētdien no ZRP negaidīti atdalījās seši deputāti, tādējādi ZRP Saeimā ir pārstāvēta tikai ar 16 mandātiem, nevis 22.

(c) nra.lv

Berzins nominated Dombrovskis. The coalition makeup is still up in the air, but it looks like the coalition’s future will depend on the Sixers, with some alleged ties to the mayor of Ventspils. Lai dzīvo tiesiskums!

Looking for Olšteins’ explanation, I found this interview:

http://zinas.nra.lv/latvija/politika/58056-klavs-olsteins-mes-negribam-nisties.htm

Pure drivel and evasions.  Is he trying to be a ‘maverick’ in some witless way, or is he intentionally sabotaging the formation of a government?  Originally (he says) he was the only ZRP’er to stand against having SC in the coalition, but his actions make it impossible to form a majority without either SC or ZZS.  And did I get this straight—he actually thinks he should get to be Interior Minister?

Aleks, what have you heard about the ties to Lembergs? I was amused to read that he was disappointed that the British court in which he has charges against him, didn’t accept his claim of being too ill to appear—on the same days, the pietiek.lv article notes, that he seemed well enough to appear for several interviews. 

What a miserable spectacle.

I cannot comment on the links publicly. But here is the quote of the day from Olšteins:

Mandātu nolikšana būtu totāla bezatbildība savu vēlētāju priekšā

Lembergs should dust off his neck brace. ;)

I also think Latvia needs a political satirical show to release some steam. These people provide very good material for a comic. I had, like, five comedy sketches ideas already.

No need for “Joku Fabrika”, we already have Saeima.

Lemberg inhaled the fumes from printers ink. Ventus, anyone?

http://www.delfi.lv/news/national/ventspils/nodrukats-otrs-miljons-ventspils-ventu.d?id=41254497

Aleksejs - 19 October 2011 07:15 AM

  I also think Latvia needs a political satirical show to release some steam. These people provide very good material for a comic. I had, like, five comedy sketches ideas already.

With the computer-generated animation sites available (http://mashable.com/2010/10/27/create-animations-online/), it seems like you could actually grab some photos, cartoonize them, and put something up without too much capital investment.  Hmm. I might try to see if that’s as easy as it sounds, though the Latvian political scene isn’t making me laugh right now.

Peteris Kalniņs et al.,
“Or am I missing a piece of the puzzle, which I freely admit is often true when I try to make sense of Latvian politics?”

It is no puzzle at all. The ZRP platform is based on two facts. That Zatlers dismissed the 10. saeima and that he was not reelected president.  This is the only thing that all the ZRP members have in common.  Had Zatlers been reelected president, there would be no ZRP.

Visu labu,