Following on from this evening's breaking news that the Democratic Reformist Front had pulled out of their coalition with Labour and The People's Movement, we sat down with /u/ThePootIsPower, /u/ZanyDraco and /u/DF44, and their generous and enlightening answers are detailed below.

Labour Chairman /u/ThePootIsPower told us that "TPM wanting to renegotiate was far from ideal given they'd already signed off on the deal", but that they were negotiating "in good faith". He built on this further, by saying, "While I wish TPM had negotiated harder in the first place and not been pressured by the wider political spectrum into wanting a re-negotiation." He added that he was disappointed that TPM wanted to reopen negotiations, but recognised that "the original deal was a bit shit for TPM and way, way better for DRF".

He also explained his view on the order of events that caused the negotiations to break down. TPM initiated further talks on the basis that they wanted more of their policies introduced to the agreement, to which Labour suggested a "corollary agreement that would see various TPM policies... run through a cabinet policy submission process detailed in the original agreement". DRF would not agree to this without TPM committing to collective cabinet responsibility, to which the TPM responded that they therefore wanted more presence in cabinet, which of course would’ve meant DRF's allocation of cabinet post would be reduced.

On the DRF, he was, however, scathing. "[TPM] conducted themselves with much more grace than the DRF who have walked away completely unnecessarily," he said, before pointing out, "the reduction of 1 [cabinet] seat in exchange for TPM CCR would've still left DRF with 14 seats and only 6 MPs to fill those slots." He ended his statement with, "Frankly, the DRF have an over-inflated opinion of themselves and a completely unproductive attitude to negotiations, and are directly responsible for allowing the Tories back into government."

We put these comments to /u/ZanyDraco, and on the point of the DRF's being unreasonable he said, "By virtue of trying to keelhaul them onto an already-ratified deal, [Labour and TPM] were not fair." He also felt /u/ThePootIsPower's assertion that the original agreement wasn't fair is unfounded, "The original terms of the deal as ratified by all three parties involved were fair. I doubt all parties would've ratified the agreement if it wasn't fair." It seems that nobody in the DRF saw any point in reopening negotiations at all, especially since all parties had ratified the final agreement and the initial set of negotiations had, apparently, been successful.

On the subject of the DRF’s attitude being unproductive or in bad faith, he pulled no punches in saying, “It's inaccurate. We did what any self-respecting party does in negotiations and fought for our interests. We did so faithfully, and with an open mind. /u/ThePootIsPower is just angry and resentful as he usually is, and I've found it prudent to begin ignoring him ever since he defected to Labour. He's become a sour individual who I must say I'm happy to not be in a Government with ever since he's gone there.”

We then contacted TPM’s /u/DF44, who was present in negotiations, for his view on this acrimonious break-up, which it appears stemmed from TPM’s wanting to reopen negotiations after the original deal was agreed. We put it to him that TPM’s reopening of negotiations was the reason for the break-up. “I think not - our vote was exceptionally close, and we certainly did not have an absolute majority vote in favour. The majority opinion was that of ‘We support this in principle, but we do think this needs a few changes, given that we're taking a role that's roughly equivalent to S C’.”

Indeed, TPM’s attitude toward Government has been in question since The Times broke the original agreement three days ago. We asked /u/DF44 if this proved difficult from the outset. “I regret that the monarchy is too bureaucratic to allow for a potential Government to demonstrate that they have the confidence of the house through Supply and Confidence, and instead forced the aforementioned situation of requiring a full coalition.” Was this problematic for the other parties? “I believe it is entirely within our values to attempt to block a Government of the LPUK or Conservatives, whilst ensuring that we continue to devolve power to the people... and I believe people did understand that.”

He then explained another reason for TPM’s reopening the negotiations. “I also note that our request for a second person in the negotiating room for the original deal was rejected - or at very least ignored - which naturally hampered our position in a room that was, by my understanding, 9 vs 1.” We asked if this meant that the TPM were essentially sidelined in the original negotiations. “There's no "felt" about this - we were sidelined behind the flimsy excuse of "room size", which was daft given we had access to a larger room.” On why the DRF rejected their policies, he said, “I am still surprised that when the DRF was asked to agree to a handful of policies that should have been right up their alley, they immediately abandoned the opportunity to form a non-Tory Government that would support their key principles.”

Quite what happens now is anybody’s guess. The smart money is definitely on a Tory minority Government, but the longer-term impact will be felt on the left-leaning side of the House, with Labour and TPM having tried and failed to form a fragile alliance, and the DRF - fairly or unfairly - becoming isolated from two parties with whom they may have formed a relationship. All we know is that in a few days’ time the dust will settle and we’ll have our answer.