A defiant ‘Yes’, which came third behind ‘No’ and ‘Meh’, sought to quell revolt among supporters, saying, “Although many of our supporters might have preferred us to form a coalition with ‘Meh’, the fact of the matter is, ‘Meh’ just shrugged and didn’t want to enter serious talks with us.
Furthermore, the numbers just didn’t add up. What would you rather us do? Surely it’s better to be in a position to form a stable coalition and have a chance to make a change than to stand on the sidelines or be a part of a ramshackle ‘Maybe’ alliance of ‘Meh’, ‘Huh?’, ‘I’ll think about it’ and ‘Whatever’ with no moral mandate”
While many have pointed out that ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ are diametrically opposed on key issues, ‘Yes’ reassured supporters that there was much common ground with ‘No’, and that this coalition would usher in a new era in consensual, compromise politics.
‘No’, however, reminded ‘Yes’ that the core policies of any No-Yes coalition would still of course be ‘No’ but that ‘Yes’ was welcome to piss away its credibility to allow ‘No’ to take power, while ‘Yes’ bore the brunt of the blame.
Asked if this would end uncertainty and provide a stable political base on which to build in the coming years, ‘No’ said yes, Yes said ‘Meh’ and Meh decided it was all too much, resigned, and got a high-level job in a huge multinational.
Golgo13 (with hat-tip to Des and Stan)