To me, in its row with WP on which party should stand in a GRC and two SMCs, NSP is playing a dangerous game of chicken. By publicly announcing strong candidates for the GRC and one SMC, it hopes to the WP will back down. It does not realise (or maybe doesn’t care?) that the WP may refuse to conceded because it doesn’t want to set a precedent of giving in in the face of intimidation. The SDA who has a dispute with the WP is now also planning to announce its candidates.
I and other bloggers have suggested flipping a coin.
Here’s a more sophisticated version of flipping a coin. The winner of the toss gets to choose between the GRC and the two SMCs. If the winner chooses to contest the GRC, the other party gets the two SMCs. If the winner prefers the two SMCs, the loser gets the GRC.
Doing this forces the winner of the toss to state his preference. A GRC or two SMCs. Me? I’d prefer the latter. I’m sure the NSP and WP would prefer the two SMCs in preference to the GRC.
As to whether the parties will agree to this proposal, I don’t know about the WP. But I’m sure the NSP would say “No”. It has made a “song and dance” about the importance of standing in the GRC, and it would be look bad if in the end it preferred the SMCs.