• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Tibby's Graphics and Grab-Bag Thread.

Turquoise Blue

Ambiguously Tibby
Patreon supporter
Location
Kemr, FK
Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of the Philippines (1911-present)
Andrés Bonifacio (National Reform majority, then Wartime Cabinet) 1911-1919
Antonio Luna (National Reform majority) 1919-1922

Rafael Palma (Conservative majority) 1922-1923*
Sergio Osmeña (Conservative majority) 1923-1931

Manuel Quezon (Liberal majority) 1931-1943
- vacant due to Chinese occupation: Manuel Quezon served as Prime Minister in exile 1943-1944 -
- vacant due to Chinese occupation: Eugenio Pérez served as Prime Minister in exile 1944-1945 -

Eugenio Pérez (Liberal majority) 1945-1951
Sir Vicente Madrigal (Progressive Nationalist majority) 1951-1957
Carlos P. Garcia (Progressive Nationalist majority) 1957-1963

Diosdado Macapagal (Liberal minority with support from Socialists and Democrats) 1963-1967
Lorenzo Tañada (Progressive Nationalist majority) 1967-1975
Ramon Mitra Jr. (Liberal majority) 1975-1982
Emmanuel Santos (Progressive Nationalist minority, then Progressive Nationalist-Christian Democratic coalition) 1982-1991
Salvador Laurel (Progressive Nationalist-
Christian Democratic-Popular Force coalition) 1991-1993
Panfilo Lacson (Liberal-Christian Democratic-Action coalition, then Liberal-Action-Popular Force coalition) 1993-2001
Manuel Villar (Progressive Nationalist-Christian Muslim Democratic-Social Reform coalition) 2001-2006
Alfredo Lim (Liberal-Christian Muslim Democratic-Popular Force coalition) 2006-2011
Loren Legarda (Progressive Nationalist-Christian Muslim Democratic coalition, then Progressive Nationalist-Christian Muslim Democratic-Green coalition) 2011-2017
Aquilino Pimentel III (Social Reform-Popular Force-Action coalition) 2017-present


Parties
Social Reform:
Basically the PDP-Laban, only not awful. And founded by Miriam Defensor Santiago [who oversaw the merging of several left-wing parties], who led the party to eclipse the Liberals in 2011 before resigning in 2014 due to her cancer returning.
Progressive Nationalist: The conservative party in the Philippines, it is a distinctly "Red Tory" beast and one very laced with Filipino nationalism. Currently in opposition with Pia Cayetano and lambasting that "socialists" have taken over the Philippines.
Liberal: Once they were the main "left" party in the Philippines, once they implemented wide-sweeping social justice reforms under Quezon and Macapagal. Once. Not any longer, as the budget-cutting Lacson and the "law and order" Lim showed. It took a while for Filipinos to admit that the present Liberals weren't the party of their glory days any longer, but once they did, the punishment was swift and they fell to third in the 2011 election, seemingly never to return. But there do exist some popular regional governors, like Jesse Robredo...
Christian Muslim Democratic: The CMD might be your typical social conservative religious democratic party, but they do find ways to work with both sides, back in the day when that means the PNP and Liberals. Social Reform on the other hand, isn't that eager to work with them, given how a lot of Social Reformists are suspicious of political religion. Who knows what effect that'll have.
Popular Force: Founded as a populist force for "the ignored Filipino masses" by Joseph Estrada, it naturally developed into a party strongly hostile to neoliberal economics. Under its current leader Rodrigo Duterte, it has gone more hardline on its policies.
Action: A centrist-y leaning left party advocating direct democratic reforms, they are easily paid off with referendums on their pet policies of the day as long as those aren't too controversial. Went in negotiations with PNP in 2011 [that fell apart], so people are increasingly seeing them as taking over from the CMD as the position of political kingmaker by working with both sides.
Green: A localist and environmentalist party they went in coalition with Loren Legarda back in 2014 and haven't recovered yet from it, languishing at their low 7 seats, full of MPs who remember when they were numbered thirty with nostalgic sighs.
 
Last edited:

Turquoise Blue

Ambiguously Tibby
Patreon supporter
Location
Kemr, FK
As much as Oregon likes to portray itself as the "peace dominion" and the most green of the green and pleasant lands of Britain, it has an unpleasant past. When it was first established, it passed a bill forbidding anyone of colour from entering the dominion. This was eventually repealed under pressure, but it was known that Frederick Douglass, the most prominent of the Social-Liberal MPs in British America, had no love lost for the Oregonian Labour Party who accepted those racial limitations.

The British Union of Fascists enjoyed seven members of the Oregon legislature at its height, Social Credit had a lot of its hard-right hail from here, like W. A. C. Bennett and still had laws on the books forbidding blacks from voting until the post-war era where First Minister Taylor-Brock successfully shamed the Oregonian legislature into voting for it. But the real emergence of the hard-right as a potent force came with the merger of Bennett's Social Credit Party with the Liberals and Tories to form the NUP.

Leaders of the Independent Social Credit Party of Oregon (1967-1969)
Phil Gaglardi 1967-1969
1967: 21 seats, 11.4%
One of Bennett's cabinet ministers resigned as a result of the merger, and formed the Independent Social Credit Party of Oregon, hoping to take advantage of right-wing anger at the merger and they did indeed win a strong 20 seats in the resulting election [although failing to deny Bennett a majority], but a lawsuit by Bennett two years in forced him to abandon the party name [the NUP still sat on the trademarks for "Social Credit Party of Oregon", "Oregon Liberal Party" and "Conservative Party of Oregon" and indeed still do]. Seething in anger, he received a phone call from a Quebecois man looking for an opportunity...

Leaders of the Oregonian Democrats (1969-1985)
Phil Gaglardi 1969-1975
1972: 34 seats, 17.5%
Now allied with Real Caouette and his Democratic Party for Social Credit, Gaglardi had money flowing in and more controversy clouded his rival for the right, First Minister Bennett, including a corruption scandal and increasing alienation of the moderates. The 1972 election proved a boon for the Oregonian Democrats as the NUP was humiliated. Dixy Lee Ray took over the leadership of the NUP and sought to bring back the moderates into the fold while keeping the Oregonian Democrats at bay. It would be a tall challenge, but if anyone could, it was Dixy Lee Ray, the bombastic and confrontional ex-Conservative.

By 1975, three years of Albert Rosellini led to the right closing ranks thanks in part to affable and popular ex-Social Creditor Clifford Hansen rallying them behind the NUP and Dixy Lee Ray, and this hurt the Oregonian Democrats. Gaglardi would make it even worse by his sharp decision to withdraw the party from the Confederation of Regions after deciding that "they gave no dime to Social Credit", leading to party funding reducing sharply and a challenge from the more orthodox conservatives.

Bill Vander Zalm 1975-1982
1977: 4 seats, 7.7%
1981: 6 seats, 8.8%
In a narrow and bitter leadership election, the more orthodox conservative who was the sole Liberal to join the Oregonian Democrats defeated Gaglardi, who then announced his retirement from politics. Vander Zalm was too a Northern Oregonian, and it was in Northern Oregon where their stronghold was. However, tireless campaigning from the PDP to turn those seats pink, helped by local MPP Dave Barrett, and the continuation of the "United Right" campaign by Ray and Hansen served to crush the Oregonian Democrats.

However, unlike past leaders, Vander Zalm was of a more conciliatory model even if still firmly right-wing, and sought to unite the party in the aftermath of its defeat by modelling it on more social conservative grounds, including campaigning against abortion. However, Vander Zalm always had an aura of sketchiness, one borne out of financial scandals and when a new party, the Christian Coalition, came along, supported by the British Heritage Party, many potentially Oregonian Democrat voters went to them instead. The emergence of the Libertarians in Oregon also did not help matters as they sucked away SoCred-Democrat voters.

Seeing many gains slip out of his hands, Vander Zalm faced a challenge from someone who wanted to "Unite the Hard-Right" and oversee a merger with the Christian Coalition, and he promptly resigned.

Steve Symms 1982-1985
1985: 21 seats, 15.2% ["Alliance for Oregon"]
The membership of the Oregonian Democrats surprisingly voted down the merger proposal new leader Steve Symms put to them and he had to settle for an electoral alliance. Which did prove fruitful for both the Christian Coalition and the Oregonian Democrats. The Libertarians was also part of that Alliance, and the Oregonian Democrats after the election seemed convinced that they needed to merge. The problem was, which party? The Libertarians and Christian Coalition offered proposals for merging, but they refused to with each other.

In the end Steve Symms oversaw a split as some die-hard Social Credit folks who was mostly in it for C. H. Douglas' theory and never liked the people in charge went over to the Libertarians who promised to implement the National Dividend [a promise quickly thrown out a decade later], but the majority stuck with Symms and merged with the Christian Coalition.

Leaders of the Christian Coalition of Oregon Voters (1979-1985)
Ellen Craswell 1979-1985
1981: 7 seats, 8.3%
1985: 21 seats, 15.2% ["Alliance for Oregon"]
The "Grand Dame of Oregon" as her supporters called her, this was a passionate firebrand who mobilised many socially conservative voters in her split with Dixy Lee Ray [who she called "disgustingly liberal"], but found that the lofty heights of polling [matching the NUP!] crashed fast as Ray resigned and handed over to Iona Campagnolo. Even though the new leader was distinctly more liberal, the voters was happy enough with a new leader and not the increasingly unpopular Ray, and defected back wholesale.

Still winning her seat in a landslide and toppling the Oregonian Democrats from their perch as the "main party of the hard right", she agreed to an alliance with their new leader Steve Symms, and begrudgingly accepted a deal with the Libertarians under their leader Tonie Nathan despite Craswell's scathingly low opinion of her and her social views. The Alliance worked well, delivering them a total of 21 seats and 15% of the vote. With the Oregonian Democrats splitting, she managed to get the majority share to merge with her party.

Leaders of the Oregon Christian Heritage Party (1985-present)
Ellen Craswell 1985-1987
Now leading a bigger party, she could now finally cut off the last ties to that "deplorable nest of depraveds" she called the Libertarians, and lead the Christian Heritage Party to victory. Polling, that fickle beast, showed that it would deny both sides a majority and force Campagnolo to work with Craswell. But then, her cancer returned. She was forced to step down and hand over leadership.

Grace McCarthy 1987-1993
1989: 22 seats, 15.0%
1993: 10 seats, 12.9%
McCarthy led the CHP in the fracturing of Oregonian politics and the years of Svend Robinson. Chosen as a more "moderate" choice compared to Craswell, but nevertheless as strong-willed and conservative, she was the face of the conservative movement in Oregon as the NUP shifted liberal in 1993, yet managed to lose seats as voters tended to rally behind the NUP against the hated PDP, reducing her voteshare and losing her party 12 seats. After the election, the NUP chose conservative Joseph Zarelli who promised to fight for "Oregonian values". The split creating the Moderate Party wouldn't come until way later, but the imperial PCs started to reach out to NUP people. Still, with that big a loss, McCarthy resigned.

Jim Risch 1993-2005
1997: 12 seats, 13.2%
2001: 17 seats, 14.1%
2003: 21 seats, 7.5%
Risch, the man from the Eastern Mountains who lost his seat and won it twice over, was the dark horse in the CHP leadership election, with many expecting Wilf Hanni or Duncan Hunter to win. But it was Risch, and he oversaw the CHP go to its highs and its lows.

His first challenge was the 1997 election. The previous four years saw him emerge as the leading crusade for social conservatism against the more fiscal-focused Zarelli, defining the CHP as the party for social conservatism as contrast to the NUP's more fiscal orientation, and his criticisms often went into media that conservative voters frequented, like cable TV. But the result was disappointing to those that expected more. Winning only two more seats and zero point three more in the popular vote, and failed to stop Zarelli from winning a majority built off alienated liberals, it would be an omen for how Risch's leadership would go for the CHP.

The 2001 election was held a few days before 9/11 hit, and it proved a good one for Risch and the CHP. With the NUP now bleeding support from its left to the Moderates and its right to the CHP, the election was a PDP wave. The fact the Greens was now on 4 seats didn't concern Risch, who merely dismissed them as a symptom of Oregon's fracturing politics.

Held on the same day as the election was the MMP referendum, and the new Moderate Party formed from NUP defectors and buoyed with PC money campaigned for it as well as the small Greens and Libertarians. On the right, it seemed like it would be firmly against, that is until Jim Risch went out and advocated for it, a political calculation derived from his abandoning the idea of eclipsing the NUP long such entertained by the leaders on the hard-right. In any way, the referendum was a strong victory, as well as the PDP under Svend Robinson returning to power in the election with Oregon's last ever majority government.

By 2003, things were changing a lot in Oregon politics. Jay Inslee's leadership of the Green Party was taking them to dizzying heights as the "middle of the river" party that could work with both sides and his targeting strategy paid off very well. Meanwhile the CHP was having trouble adjusting to the new reality they signed off on, and as the NUP under Greg Walden shifted to the right to woo CHP voters the CHP crashed in the popular vote. Still, Risch could boast that under his three elections, the CHP made gains in seats, the last as a result of Mixed-Member Proportional. As he retired quietly in 2005, the CHP clearly needed new, clear direction.

John Cummins 2005-2007
2007: 10 seats, 3.6%
It did not get that. Despite hopes that Cummins would "break through" traditional PDP voter bases and unite a broad socially conservative coalition, it never materialised, and the crumbling party infrastructure meant that more and more seats were uncontested and the party increasingly reliant on the list seat. In 2007, Cummins even lost his seat in an unprecedented collapse. Quietly resigning, he moved back to local politics. The PDP-Green coalition notched another win as Oregon seemingly became "the Redwood Dominion" as some people who think they're funny call the left-wing dominated dominion. The CHP once more scrambled for leadership.

Paul deParrie 2007-2010
DeParrie campaigned in the leadership election as the most pro-life candidate, and it was clear the members of the increasingly-fringe party agreed with him and chose him over Glenn Beck, the other candidate in the race. Abortion was basically the only thing the party was known for in the deParrie years. In 2009, his statements about attacking abortion clinics being justified came to light and as even the British Heritage Party condemned it as going too far, the CHP stood by their leader and voluntarily disaffiliated with the British Heritage Party. Glenn Beck was even floating the idea of bringing back the Social Credit Party [by another name of course, no need to risk the inevitable lawsuit by the NUP] and working with the Populists instead in a potential major split for the CHP when deParrie had a fatal heart attack and died, and the party members quickly elected Beck to replace him.

Glenn Beck 2010-present
2011: 11 seats, 4.0%
2015: 14 seats, 5.0%
2017: 10 seats, 3.7%
Glenn Beck now holds the CHP with a firm hand, steering it where he wants to. A long-time admirer of Social Credit's National Dividend, even if he's not a "genuine" follower of Social Credit, he has put a public promise to implement Universal Basic Income in the CHP manifesto leading to some outcry, and in his attempt to reassure people he was not about to make the CHP into anything else, he reaffiliated the party with the British Heritage Party rather than his preferred Populists.

Despite leading the party to new highs, the failure of the NUP to form government in 2014 hurt the CHP as more people increasingly saw the minor right-wing parties as helping the PDP win seats, and in 2017 the CHP fell back to exactly where it was when Beck took charge, and many blame his on-mic comments calling Christy Clark a fascist for not supporting an electoral pact with his party.

Still, despite that, he has held on. Perhaps that's because he has a clear direction for the party, unlike its last few leaders.
 
Last edited:

Turquoise Blue

Ambiguously Tibby
Patreon supporter
Location
Kemr, FK
Oh, and I have some thoughts on how Britain's whole "constitution" thing works in Hail, Britannia. In one word - charters. This is basically how the whole system works, by charters. I've mentioned the four levels over in the HB thread (which you can find here), and charters are essentially a key element of this.

Local governance do not have charters, and they are not defined by the dominion's charter. They can be changed at any time by a simple bill by the level immediate above them.

Provincial governance might have charters, but it isn't a rule. In New England, every province has a historical charter, but in a place like Missouri, they don't. Their existence is not defined by a charter, but by the dominion's. A charterless province has less existential security and can be overwritten by the dominion's will via an absolute majority and the approval of Her Imperial Majesty through her Viceroy. This however, is not the done thing. Territories as a rule, don't have charters. Unlike local governments, provinces and territories are defined in the dominion charter - "The Union of Louisiana is a dominion consisted of the provinces of Acadiana, North Arkansaw, Sequoyah, South Arkansaw and Wichita".

Dominion governance always have charters. It is their whole raison d'etre. Charters define them. A charterless dominion is impossible. Sierra Leone more or less copied their constitution and changed a few words and included some needed stuff to make it charter-appropriate. But most charters just do the most basic important stuff, such as commitment to parliamentary governance and all that.

And even the imperial has its own Charter. The Charter of the Empire, or the Grand Imperial Charter, or just simply "the Charter". Theoretically the "successor" of the Magna Carta it is very much its own thing. The promises of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" is a lofty view indeed, but it's one of the few in the Charter, which is mostly a Basic Law sort of stuff, but more or less just defines the government process in the most generalised way possible. It also has all the dominions written down, of course. "The United Kingdom and Empire of Great Britannia is consisted of the thirty realms of the Crown that enjoy its direct Rule from London - the lands of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Australia, Canada..." you get it.

"Constitution" in a British sense of the word refers to "Charter and Common", aka the whole system of governance and its laws. To refer to the British Constitution is to refer to the entirety of British law, both those codified in the Charter and those not.
 
Last edited:

Turquoise Blue

Ambiguously Tibby
Patreon supporter
Location
Kemr, FK
uk.png
The General Charter of
the United Kingdom and Empire of Great Britannia

(WIP)
Whereas the Peoples of those Realms enjoying the benevolent Reign of the Crown of Britain, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have solemnly assented to become one united Kingdom and Empire of Great Britannia.
In this Endeavour, we seek to build an Empire full of Life, Liberties and Pursuits of Happiness. An Empire where every Subject of the Imperial Majesty enjoys the ever-blessing Sun of Imperial Grace. We declare that this Empire will be an Empire of fundamental Virtues, chief amongst them the Liberties once guaranteed in the Great Charter and once more guaranteed in those Pages.

We declare that within the realms of our Imperial Majesty, there shall be only one Majesty to rule all Britons. One Majesty to guard all Britons, to unite all and in the Presence of the blinding Light of Almighty God, bind together.

The supreme Legislature of the united Kingdom and Empire shall be called “Parliament”, and with the assent of the Imperial Majesty and the blessing of Almighty God, it shall govern this Realm as wisely as it can. Parliament is consisted of two Chambers, both equal in Dignity, the appointed and hereditary Imperial Council of Lords, hereafter referred to as the Imperial Council, and the elected House of Commons.

The Imperial Council shall be made out of many Lords and Ladies, selected by the Dominions to represent them in the Imperial Council. Every Lord and Lady shall enjoy a Peerage of that Dominion until their Title’s Demise, but their Membership in the Imperial Council shall expire once they arrive at the ripe age of Eighty-Five, which then they will be referred to as “Councillor Emeritus” or “Councillor Emerita”, or more simply, by their Title of Peerage. Upon a Demise or a Councillor becoming Eighty-Five Years of Age, the Dominion’s First Minister will appoint a new Councillor to replace them.

The House of Commons will be duly elected from the Populace of each Dominion, and be elected using a uniform Electoral System. Each elected Member will be referred to as a “Member of Parliament” for the length of their Term. They may not Resign from Office. If they are ascertained to be holding an Office of Profit under the Crown, they are therefore disqualified from being a Member of Parliament and will be considered no longer Representative of their Electorate. The Death or Disqualification of a Member of Parliament will trigger a By-Election to be held no less than Six Months after the Death or Disqualification, unless it is less than Six Months until a General Election.

Upon the first Assembly of the Parliament after a General Election, the Imperial Majesty will grace both Councillors and Members of Parliament with a Speech from the Imperial Throne, to be held in the Imperial Council chamber. After that, the Commons will duly elect a Speaker amongst themselves to oversee Proceedings for the Parliamentary Term.

A Cabinet will be chosen amongst the Parliamentarians and if enjoying both the Confidence of the Imperial Majesty and of a Majority of the House of Commons, it will commence Governance at once. It will be empowered with the right to set a Budget and to oversee Implementation of such Reforms that Parliament judges Worthy. The Budget will be presented to the House of Commons by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, one such Office in the Cabinet. The Chancellor is permitted a Beverage while presenting the Budget.

This Charter declares that the Rights and Powers of the Dominions will not be violated by the formation of this united Kingdom and Empire, and instead be preserved. The Parliament has the Right to assert Control over any pressing Issue of the Time, but the Powers the Dominions have used for a Century, will be maintained if left Unspoken by Parliament.

The Rights, Duties and Privileges enjoyed by the Palatinates shall be preserved under this Charter. The such Contracts the Governments have made with them shall remain in Force, unless revoked by a vote in both Chambers of Parliament.

The Rights the Great Charter enshrined for all free Men, we now renew those such ancient Rights by declaring that this Charter will too guarantee the Rights of all free Britons to Justice and a fair Trial with a Jury of their own Fellows.

Another Right this Charter enshrines is the Right to be emancipated, to have a Life free from Slavery and Forced Labour. Britons will never ever be Slaves, and this Charter enshrines that Right and Privilege into a higher Law.

The Right to Freedom of Expression is another Right that is enshrined in the Charter, although it may be dependent on Formalities, Conditions, Regulations and Penalties that is Necessary in Order to maintain a free and democratic Society.
 

Turquoise Blue

Ambiguously Tibby
Patreon supporter
Location
Kemr, FK
Leaders of the Philippine Socialist Party (1946-1994)
- formed after disputes within the Liberal Party -
Luis Taruc (Luzon) 1946-1957
Vicente Lava (Luzon) 1957-1965
Jose Maria Sison (Luzon) 1965-1970
Crispin Beltran (Manila) 1970-1982
Jose Maria Sison (Luzon) 1982-1988
Ernesto Herrera (Visayas) 1988-1994

- voted to merge with Dems to form Social Reform. Sisonites split off as Independent Socialists -

Leaders of the Democratic Party of the Philippines (1955-1994)
- formed after Manahan felt that the Prog-Nats were too right-wing -
Manuel Manahan (Manila) 1955-1971
Blas Ople (Luzon) 1971-1983
Aquilino Pimentel Jr. (Mindanao) 1983-1990
Miriam Defensor Santiago (Visayas) 1990-1994

- voted to merge with Socialists to form Social Reform -

Leaders of the Philippine Social Reform Party (1994-present)
- merger of Socialists and Democrats -
Miriam Defensor Santiago (Visayas) 1994-1999
Florencio Abad (Luzon) 1999-2006
Miriam Defensor Santiago (Visayas) 2006-2012
Joel Villanueva (Luzon) 2012-2014
Aquilino Pimentel III (Mindanao) 2014-present
 

Turquoise Blue

Ambiguously Tibby
Patreon supporter
Location
Kemr, FK
Just finished reading it, was there a seperate Prime Minister for Britain-in-America? Also I'm glad to see that the Iroquois Confederacy is still alive and kicking in the United Empire! It sounds like from that script that they might have some real governing/jurisdictional power, is their power more significant than in OTL?
Yes. Abolished in the Acts of Union 1876.

In Genesee and Adirondack, they are definitely not negligible in influence.