Stephen Williams' very long, very tiring, very straining week gets even longer
Johan Mooy
Being Prime Minister of Tumbra isn't easy. That's a truism, of course; that the top job in all of Tumbran politics is also the hardest one isn't exactly something that is difficult to point out. This week, however, has been particularly difficult for Prime Minister Stephen Williams. It began with the Minister for Commerce and Industry Michael Greenwood having to apologise for using unparliamentary language — he was caught on a hot mic calling an opposition Labour MP a "dimwitted f**khead" — and it ended with the strongest rumours yet that the National Party, the long-term junior coalition partners of Williams' Liberals, might be tearing themselves apart.
SHOWDOWN IN CLEARMONT
By the time the first rumours of the Nationals splitting hit the grapevine on Wednesday, Greenwood's hot mic incident was long a rumour of the past. The cleavage, as it always does, comes back to the referendum on the "Flattening"; going from 25 states in Tumbra to just 10. Proponents say this will consolidate culturally-similar states, increase economies of scale, and reduce tax expenditures on service duplication; while the government has promised more powers will be devolved to these new ten super-states. Opponents, meanwhile, cry that state boundaries — which have been in place since the eleven years of the Republic's foundation in 1864 — are as part an immutable part of the state's culture as the names.
Both sides have feasible arguments to back up their cases; both sides have seen polling numbers for the hypothetical referendum bob and dob around the 40% level, with a significant number of Tumbrans as of yet undecided. But when it comes to party politics — and it always seems to come back to party politics in Tumbra — the Nationals seem to be split right down the middle. It makes sense, given that their historical roots are that of an agrarian, economically conservative, pro states-rights' party (with none of the negative, dogwhistling connotations that phrase holds in other, more flawed democracies). In short, the Nationals want the farmers of the country to be left alone. Except when it comes to the singular issue of subsidies, which is probably the sole issue that they're in favour of greater federal interventionism.
The Flattening thus provides two conundrums for the Nationals. On one hand, reduced tax expenditures spent on financing the basket cases that are the states of Tumbra means a reduced tax burden on their voting base. On the other hand, the prospect of power being further centralised in ten of Tumbra's big metropolises — your Counos, Straton-Serrapinces, Lakewood-Heshams, Kingsburys, Nantwiches, Ridgewells, Fontwells, Hoxfords, Bencoolens, and Washingtons — is anathemic to the states' rights part of the Nationals' platform. Thus any federal National MP is tasked to choose between the economic side of the argument (in favour of the Flattening) and between the cultural side of the argument (against the Flattening).
It's not been obvious as to which side each member of the Nationals have chosen, of course, but the media has done their usual thing. Nationals leader Jon Blair, ever keen to maintain the long-term coalition with the Liberals, has taken the economic side of the argument; he's gone around the country in the states where the Nationals remain active, speaking of a reduced tax burden. His main opponent? Arguably the figure that occupies Blair's nightmares; Jack Hinchcliffe, scion of the powerful Hinchcliffe family that has, in some form or another, dominated National party politics and turned Clearmont's branch of the party into the most influential of the chapters that remain active in the country. Ironically, both Blair and Hinchcliffe are from Clearmont; the Beaumonts, the party that dominates the northern branches of the party, have seen their family influence recede in power as the latest generation of the political family has seemingly shunned politics in search of greener pastures in the private sector. In their stead comes Tom Gregory, the former Minister for Labour and Pensions and current Minister for Health; who has been nicknamed the "Minister for Cuts", sometimes with a decisively less flattering 'n' inserted somewhere between the 'u' and the 't'.
Of course, that ignores the third influential branch of the party; the Hamilton branch, led by Ian Cunningham and who is widely seen as waiting for the wind to blow decisively in either Blair's or Hinchcliffe's direction before making any decision on who to throw his support behind. Right now, Blair and Hinchcliffe are in an uneasy truce; Hinchcliffe recognises that he's still inexperienced (he is only a third-term MP, and one of those terms quite infamously lasted for four whole months) and that his time will come soon, while Blair...well, all Blair can really do is look over his shoulder nervously and hope that the knives aren't pointed at his back. Thankfully, for now he's got Gregory's secure backing — the two are close personal friends and allies — and Cunningham's much less secure backing, meaning that he should be safe from a coup.
That is, until the events of this week.
THE REPORT OF THE WEEK
So what exactly happened this week? Well, a long-running crisis within the Clearmont state National Party continued to boil. For those unaware of the intricacies of Clearmontese state politics, the Nationals and Liberals have a far more equal relationship than elsewhere in the country; National premiers of Clearmont aren't uncommon. That state party recently suffered a split of its own over the referendum; with nearly two-thirds of its caucus splitting to join the nascent, right-wing New Democratic Party, which operated on a platform far more hostile to the referendum than the Nationals have been. A state election came and went; the Nationals were reduced to a rump, and the infighting on the right spelled an end to nearly twenty-five years of National government and a Labour government taking over. The Clearmont party has been licking its wounds ever since; while it held on to all of its seats in the 2033 federal election, the New Dems made major surges in National-held seats, meaning that the once-solid foothold the party had over the Clearmont rural areas isn't as strong as it once was.
Enter Julian Munro. Munro is the current Vice President of the Federal Republic — as per the coalition agreement, the Liberals get to nominate a presidential nominee, while the Nationals nominate the vice president. Munro was very much a reluctant nominee; the only real high-powered National politician with enough star power to defeat the all-star team of former Liberal premier of Georgia Maximilian Young and former Labour premier of Marcato Elaine Cho, who ran on a platform of "saying no to the referendum." Munro's departure from the position of Premier of Clearmont — a position he held from 2016 to 2025 — destabilised the party. The rumour that first emerged on Tuesday — the rumour that has led to Stephen Williams' very long, very tiring week — was that Munro was considering resigning from the vice presidency to return to Clearmont and attempt to steer the Nationals back to relevance.
But how did that lead to the rumours of the Nationals splitting?
In less than 12 hours, Munro's office denied the rumours — though everyone I spoke to on the evening of the press release agreed that it was an extremely half-hearted denial and probably confirmed that Munro was seriously considering quitting the vice presidency — but Nationals leader Jon Blair somehow wrongly pre-empted the denial and went ahead with the narrative of allowing the Liberals to choose the replacement Vice-President in the case that Munro resigned. This has also been tradition.
But the spanner in the works came when Hinchcliffe, seemingly in response to Blair's statement while completely forgetting that Julian Munro himself had not made a response to the rumours of him quitting the office yet — asserted that the Nationals should instead be able to pick their own vice presidential replacement. That set off the cat amongst the pigeons; and the possibility of a leadership spill within the National Party has increased dramatically, with the fragile peace between Blair and Hinchcliffe shattered. A semi-public war of words has dominated the political airwaves since Wednesday; with the Liberals being unable to get a word in sideways. Privately, the Prime Minister is thought to be furious at the developments; he himself was (and some suspect, still is) a supporter of a merger between the Liberals and the Nationals), and this public show of disunity is everything that he dislikes about the National Party. The last most analysts heard of him, however, was that Blair had persuaded Williams not to wade in and make things worse; thus far, Williams has acceded to his Deputy Prime Minister's request, even if the more lasting impression this political week has given off is that Williams can hardly be trusted to lead his own coalition.
And that was the end of Wednesday.
SPILLS AND SPLITS
So why the rumours of a split within the Nationals, when only a spill has been threatened? Thursday was dominated by will-they, won't-they discourse as the Chairman of the Nationals, Harold Willis announced that a leadership spill would require ten of the party's thirty-one MPs to move, sparking more speculation that Hinchcliffe could move as soon as that very day. Ultimately, the day passed without a spill motion being moved, but only because of yet another leak from an as-of-yet unnamed source that said that Blair was seriously considering jumping ship to the Liberals if he was ousted as leader of the Nationals.
The Nationals seem to have a leak problem — one somewhat more serious than a submarine rated for 1300m diving to a depth of 4000m — but it did seem to have the intended effect of scaring off Hinchcliffe from moving too decisively, lest his crowning moment be ruined by a secession movement which would see the former leader of the party and the leader of the second most influential branch of the party pack up and join the Liberals. Still, speculation over a leadership spill remains rampant; and the next week will widely be seen as crucial as to whether Blair vs Hinchcliffe comes to a head. If Blair wins, Hinchcliffe will likely find himself frozen out for the foreseeable future, a victim of moving too early; should Hinchcliffe win, and the Blair-Gregory wing of the party depart, then the Nationals and Liberals' relationship could very well deteriorate to the point that the Lib-friendly Nats jump ship and embrace the blue, while the Nats depart the coalition and embrace the anti-referendum side of the argument. This would probably see them linking up with the New Democrats, Federalists, and whatever remains of the Conservatives to try and form a hard-right, states-rights focused electoral alliance that could prove tricky for the next general election. Either option is something that the Prime Minister would rather avoid; if his junior coalition partners aren't willing to merge into the Liberals, the best they could do, at least, would be to shut up and at least provide a united front. Having half of the junior coalition party join his side wouldn't be half bad, but it's un-needed chaos in a time where the ship has been sailing well, and by all accounts, Williams is beginning to wind down his tenure as PM and hand over to someone from his own ideologically moderate wing of the party.
And should Vice President Munro resign, Williams gets a free hand to nominate the next Vice President regardless; Blair would happily let the PM do so, while Hinchcliffe would be overpowered by the PM in the interests of honouring the coalition argument. Should Hinchcliffe try to tear up that coalition agreement, Williams gets a free choice of nominee anyway. But it's rather a situation he'd do without — and there's probably no doubt in his mind that the Prime Minister would rather be dealing with one of his ministers caught calling an opposition MP a "dimwitted f**khead" than his own junior coalition partners tearing themselves to shreds.
And even that feels like an eternity ago.
26-PLAYER SQUAD FOR WORLD CUP 94 QUALIFIER MATCHES vs BRUSSELDORF and vs. UNITED HAWKLAND
Link to full roster
Goalkeepers: 1 - Nick Barker (FC Inter Nantwich), 12 - Victoria Jones (Lakewood City), 13 - Richard Russell (Lakewood United)
Defenders: 2 - Annie Renton (Victoriaville City, CDG), 18 - Chris Finney (Serrapince); 4 - Ian Ashburn (Lakewood City), 5 - Stephen Kerr (Chromatik, CMT), 14 - Wendy Pritchett (Grande Mountain, CDG), 20 - Christine Whitfield (Myana, CMT), 24 - Yvonne Lawson (St. John's Arsenal, QUE); 3 - Tracey Mercurio (Kingston FC, QUE), 19 - James Green (Bavingtor FC)
Midfielders: 6 - Trudy Harrison (Chromatik, CMT), 15 - Mark Finnemore (Couno Rangers), 32 - Lucas McCormick (Lakewood City); 8 - Vincent Hicks (Couno Rangers), 16 - Ian Robertson (Ridgewell Rovers), 33 - Wendy Thomas (Alnio, CMT); 10 - Phil Cole (Osarese Marcadia, AUD), 35 - Natalie Coleman (Bikarish, PFA)
Wingers: 7 - Valerie Wells (AFC Treason, NPH), 17 - Rebecca Haines (FC Inter Nantwich, TMB); 9 - Lynne Crossley (Crossroads, CMT), 21 - Julie Hardaker (Myana, CMT)
Strikers: 11 - Nick Riordan (Sabrefell Moths, NPH), 22 - Charlotte Henshaw (Lakewood City)














































