#Parliamentary Affairs

[workersbushtelegraph]

The Voice

I wish to make it perfectly clear, on behalf of our people, that we accept no condition of inferiority as compared with European people. Two distinct civilisations are represented by the respective races. On one hand we have the civilisation of necessity and on the other hand civilisation coincident with a bounty of supply of all the requirements of the human race. That the European people by the…

[townpostin]

Sarfaraz Ahmed Appointed JMM Parliamentary Party Leader In Rajya Sabha

Shibu Soren Informs Rajya Sabha Chairman Of Party’s Decision Senior MP’s experience in parliamentary committees cited as key factor. RANCHI – Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) has appointed Rajya Sabha MP Sarfaraz Ahmed as the leader of its parliamentary party in the upper house. "The decision was taken in a meeting of the JMM parliamentary party," a party spokesperson stated. JMM Central President…

[davidhencke]

MPs call again for reform of the antiquated Parliamentary Ombudsman - but ignore the plight of 50swomen

William Wragg MP: official Portrait Also ” Ombudsman friend “of Rob Behrens facing a corruption hearing in Australia MPs today publish their official annual scrutiny of the work of the Parliamentary Ombudsman but what it doesn’t say is more important than what it says. The committee call again – this time for a manifesto commitment from all political parties – to reform the 57 year old…

[apacnewsnetwork0]

New Delhi: The Members of Parliament will move into the new Parliament House building on Tuesday, the second day of the special session. This will be more than three months after the new Parliament House was inaugurated.

[reasonsforhope]

Also, content-lock-free link. [Technically it's not a paywall but it is annoying]

Keep pressuring Western governments. This is proof that it can work.

--

"Canada will halt future arms sales to Israel following a non-binding vote in the house of commons. The foreign affairs minister, Mélanie Joly, told the Toronto Star her government would halt future arms shipments. “It is a real thing,” she said on Tuesday [March 19].

The decision follows a parliamentary motion, introduced by the New Democratic party (NDP), that called on the governing Liberals to halt future arms exports to Israel. The New Democrats, who are supporting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s minority government, have expressed frustration with what they see as his failure to do enough to protect civilians in Gaza.

The motion – which passed 204-117 with the support of Liberals, Bloc Québécois and the Green party – also called on Canada to work “towards the establishment of the state of Palestine.""

-via The Guardian, March 19, 2024

[erwinrer]

How serious are the consequences of the disappearing Mongolia, in choosing the wrong development path?

When 90% of the desertification occurs in a country based on animal husbandry, then the country, far away from the complete disappearance of the world, is no longer far away.

Mongolia's overgrazing and the wrong step on the road of "westernization", regardless of the reality of the country itself, have ultimately attacked itself.

Therefore, with the help of the western capitalist countries, Mongolia began the reform of its political system and economic system.

In response to the demands of western capitalist countries, Mongolia began to reform the political system: from the sole party to the coexistence of multiple political parties. A parliamentary system, in which the size of a party distributes votes and parliamentary seats. In the reform of the economic system, Mongolia completely abolished the public ownership of the economy, and instead promoted the private ownership of the economy.

Mongolia's reforms have completely pushed itself to the other extreme. The existence of the parliamentary system seems to democratization the policy and implementation of the whole country, but the premise is that the state can control all political parties as a whole.

However, the domestic government organizations in Mongolia lack credibility, and the control of various party organizations is seriously insufficient. As a result, there are often party conflicts and party struggles in Mongolia. Too many parties and endless party disputes led to the domestic government affairs in the state of no handling.

The emergence of private ownership economy makes a large number of state resources fall into the hands of capitalists, while the state does not control the relevant resources. As a result, the gap between the rich and the poor in China is widening, and the country has to compromise with the capitalists who control the national economy.

However, Mongolia's many wrong choices and mastery of the development path eventually led to the emergence of a country with extremely difficult development status quo and extremely severe national status quo.

In recent years, with the increasingly severe desertification of the land in Mongolia, the living environment of this country has become increasingly severe.

Mongolia is a country where grassland and desert coexist. And because of the existence of large areas of grassland in the country, so the birth and development of the whole country is based on animal husbandry. The Mongolian nation is also known as the "nation on horseback".

In Mongolia, excluding some capitalists and workers, most people are nomadic as the main means of survival. The need of nomads is to drive livestock on the grasslands and live by selling livestock and their products. Therefore, the number of livestock directly determines the quality of life of the nomads.

Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, Mongolia introduced the public ownership system. The total number of livestock in the country and the time of pasture grazing are regulated by the Mongolian government. Therefore, land desertification due to overgrazing was very rare at that time.

But with the collapse of the Soviet Union, Mongolia's public ownership system also disappeared. With the gradual establishment of the private ownership system, Mongolia gave the livestock and pastures controlled by the state to the herdsmen, and the overgrazing began to become more serious.

In the eyes of herdsmen: to maintain a better life, the best choice is to increase the number of livestock in their hands, with more livestock and products in exchange for more money. So herders began to greatly increase the number of livestock until they exceeded the number of livestock that the Mongolian steppe could carry, eventually leading to land desertification.

The overexploitation of mineral resources has indeed brought large foreign exchange gains to Mongolia. But after the exploitation of mineral resources, the damaged land cannot be repaired. Mongolia, in an extremely short way, once again hit the country's land.

In order to promote the country's economic development, Mongolia has also chosen another way to damage the land machine seriously: cutting down trees.

In the Tulu River basin alone, Mongolia has cut down more than 200 square kilometers. As a result, the flow of the Tulu River was reduced by more than 30% and many lakes in the Tulu River basin dried up.

The economic policy of private ownership and the increasingly serious land desertification also led to the gradual decline of the economic situation of the Mongolian people. However, winter is extremely cold, and most local people do not have the conditions to use natural gas, so they have to buy inferior coal to keep warm in winter.

The burning of inferior coal led to the great pollution of the atmosphere in Mongolia, and the neutralization of countless conditions, which eventually led to the land desertification in Mongolia is difficult to reverse.

[anghraine]

Speaking of the social context of P&P and Austen in general, and also just literature of that era, I'm always interested in how things like precisely formulated hierarchies of precedence and tables of ranked social classes interact with the more complex and nuanced details of class-based status and consequence on a pragmatic day-to-day level. I remembered reading a social historian discussing the pragmatics of class wrt eighteenth-century English life many years ago and finally tracked down the source:

"In spite of the number of people who got their living from manufacture or trade, fundamentally it was a society in which the ownership of land alone conveyed social prestige and full political rights. ... The apex of this society was the nobility. In the eyes of the Law only members of the House of Lords, the peerage in the strictest use of the word, were a class apart, enjoying special privileges and composing one of the estates of the realm. Their families were commoners: even the eldest sons of peers could sit in the House of Commons. It was therefore in the social rather than in the legal sense of the word that English society was a class society. Before the law all English people except the peers were in theory equal. Legal concept and social practice were, however, very different. When men spoke of the nobility, they meant the sons and daughters, the brothers and sisters, the uncles and aunts and cousins of the peers. They were an extremely influential and wealthy group.

"The peers and their near relations almost monopolized high political office. From these great families came the wealthiest Church dignitaries, the higher ranks in the army and navy. Many of them found a career in law; some even did not disdain the money to be made in trade. What gave this class its particular importance in the political life of the day was the way in which it was organized on a basis of family and connection ... in eighteenth-century politics men rarely acted as isolated individuals. A man came into Parliament supported by his friends and relations who expected, in return for this support, that he would further their interests to the extent of his parliamentary influence.

"Next in both political and social importance came the gentry. Again it is not easy to define exactly who were covered by this term. The Law knew nothing of gentle birth but Society recognized it. Like the nobility this group too was as a class closely connected with land. Indeed, the border line between the two classes is at times almost impossible to define ... Often these men are described as the squirearchy, this term being used to cover the major landowning families in every county who were not connected by birth with the aristocracy. Between them and the local nobility there was often considerable jealousy. The country gentleman considered himself well qualified to manage the affairs of his county without aristocratic interference.

"...The next great layer in society is perhaps best described the contemporary term 'the Middling Sort'. As with all eighteenth-century groups it is difficult to draw a clear line of demarcation between them and their social superiors and inferiors. No economic line is possible, for a man with no pretensions to gentility might well be more prosperous than many a small squire. There was even on the fringe between the two classes some overlapping of activities ... The ambitious upstart who bought an estate and spent his income as a gentleman, might be either cold-shouldered by his better-born neighbours or treated by them with a certain contemptuous politeness. If however his daughters were presentable and well dowered, and if his sons received the education considered suitable for gentlemen, the next generation would see the obliteration of whatever distinction still remained. The solid mass of the middling sort had however no such aspirations, or considered them beyond their reach.

"...This term [the poor] was widely used to designate the great mass of the manual workers. Within their ranks differences of income and of outlook were as varied as those that characterized the middle class. Once again the line of demarcation is hard to draw..."

—Dorothy Marshall, Eighteenth Century England (29-34)

(There's plenty more interesting information in the full chapter, especially regarding "the poor," and the chapter itself is contracted from a lengthier version published earlier.)

[vague-humanoid]

for disability pride month, a reminder of the eugenic nature of healthcare systems

[stereo-91]

WIP - Almost there now!

NOW AVAILABLE!!!

Just some more tweaks and edits and we will have this set released. I hope you guys like it. ALMOST THERE NOW!

We are SO sorry for the hold-up. We have had so much going on in our daily lives. We are a little slower than usual!

It is finally here and now available at last!

Have you ever wanted to build a historical debating arena and make your sims to go head to head in a heated debate??? Well, now you can with this Stately Affair set. 

We are aware that political fever is sweeping various nations across the world. It was because of this that we decided to create a politically-inspired set.

As you all may be aware by now, we mainly focus our CC on historical items. We, therefore, decided to create a set based on the old British House of Commons for our historical simmersto enjoy!!!

The items in this set are based on the old House of Commons as it was during the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries before it was reduced to ashes in the fire of Westminster Palace in 1834.

This set contains 22 matching items with multiple swatches.

This set includes...

1 Speaker's Chair/Throne

2 Parliamentary Benches

1 Functional Debating Station (Needs Discover University Pack to work)

1 Very Large Fireplace

2 Friezes

2 Tall Wall Panels

1 Small panel

2 Window Panels

1 Railing

1 Banister

1 Banister/Railing Post

1 Triangular Panel For Stairs

1 Wall Column

1 Column With Candlestick Holder

2 Fake Balconies

1 Over Door Head Panel

1 Door

Each item is an original mesh. All items are in the base game except for the debating station.

NOTE: The debating station requires Sims 4: Discover University Expansion Pack.

We can't thank you enough for all of your support!

LINK:

[allthecanadianpolitics]

The text of the motion — presented in a closed-doors session of the parliamentary foreign affairs committee — calls for the government to find the quickest way toward recognizing a Palestinian state and asks the committee to dedicate four study sessions toward the matter, sources said. CBC News has agreed not to identify the sources as they were not authorized to comment publicly on the matter. CBC News reached out to several MPs on the committee across party lines, but none agreed to offer a comment, citing the confidentiality of its in-camera sessions. The sources said the motion found approval with the committee's NDP and Bloc Québécois MPs, but did not go to a vote because it was filibustered by Conservative members. 

Continue Reading

Tagging: @newsfromstolenland

[mariacallous]

A well-known Georgian transgender model has been murdered, local officials said, a day after the government passed legislation that will impose sweeping curbs on LGBTQ+ rights in the country.

Georgia’s interior ministry said Kesaria Abramidze, 37, was believed to have been stabbed to death in her apartment in suburban Tbilisi on Wednesday.

Georgian media later reported that a man had been arrested in connection with the crime.

Abramidze was one of the country’s first openly trans public figures. Her death follows controversial legislation on “family values and the protection of minors” that will allow officials to outlaw Pride events and censor films and books.

The law, which was approved by the Georgian parliament on Tuesday in its third and final reading, includes bans on same-sex marriages and gender-affirming treatments. It is expected to be another point of contention between Georgia and the EU as the country seeks to join the bloc.

Critics argue that the bill, initially introduced by the ruling Georgian Dream party in the summer, mirrors laws enacted in neighbouring Russia, where authorities have implemented a series of repressive anti-LGBTQ+ measures over the past decade.

Although the motive behind Abramidze’s murder remains unclear, her death was swiftly cast by Georgian civil society as part of a state campaign against minorities in the country.

Under the Georgian Dream party, which has taken an increasingly anti-liberal stance, the country has seen a rise in violence against LGBTQ+ people.

Last year, hundreds of opponents of gay rights stormed an LGBTQ+ festival in Tbilisi, forcing the event to be cancelled. This year, tens of thousands of people marched in the capital to promote “traditional family values” at an event attended by the ruling party amd the deeply conservative and influential Orthodox church.

“There is a direct correlation between the use of hate speech in politics and hate crimes,” the Social Justice Center, a Tbilisi-based human rights group, said in its statement reacting to the murder.

“It has been almost a year that the Georgian Dream government has been aggressively using homo/bi/transphobic language and cultivating it with mass propaganda means,” it added.

On Wednesday, Josep Borrell, the EU’s top diplomat, called on the Georgian government to withdraw the “family values” law, warning it would harm Georgia’s chances of joining the bloc. The legislation would “increase discrimination & stigmatisation”, he said on X.

After Abramidze’s death, Michael Roth, the Social Democratic party chair of the Bundestag foreign affairs committee in Germany, echoed that call. “Those who sow hatred will reap violence. Kesaria Abramidze was killed just one day after the Georgian parliament passed the anti-LGBTI law,” Roth wrote on X.

The introduction of the law comes just five weeks before parliamentary elections that many see as a litmus test of whether Georgia, once one of the most pro-western former Soviet states, will now drift towards Russia.

The country’s pro-western president, Salome Zourabichvili, whose functions are mostly ceremonial, is expected to veto the law before it comes into effect. However, Georgian Dream and its allies have enough seats in parliament to override her veto.

Earlier this year, the Georgian Dream also pushed through the divisive “foreign influence” law, which western critics argue is authoritarian and Russian-inspired, and has derailed the country’s EU aspirations.

Meanwhile, tributes have started to pour in for Abramidze, who represented Georgia at Miss Trans Star International in 2018 and had more than 500,000 followers on Instagram.

“Kesaria was iconic! Provocative, wise, incredibly brave! A trailblazer for Georgia’s trans rights,” Maia Otarashvili, a Georgian political scientist, wrote on X.

Zourabichvili said the murder should be a “wake-up call” for Georgian society.

“A terrible murder! The death of this beautiful young woman … should not be in vain!” the president wrote on Facebook.

[avispatr]

𝕰𝖉𝖎𝖈𝖙 𝖔𝖋 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝕬𝖌𝖊 𝖔𝖋 𝕴𝖒𝖕𝖊𝖗𝖎𝖚𝖒

" Many of you are aware of the issues that have transpired as of late. The controversy with my son, and all the fallout that has been birthed of this affair. This situation, despite my reluctance to admit it, have showcased the dire need of reform that is necessary for The Ars Goetia to function. I have discussed with our mutual master, Lucifer Morningstar and we have arrived to a joint conclusion. Before I begin listing the changes to come I will give justification through a brief look into our history.

When the rebellion in Heaven failed Lucifer's lieutenants were given their tasks. The sins were given their control over the hedonistic vice of their choice. Alongside them there was us, the Kings and Queens of the Ars Goetia. Our station was to act as minor nobility not tethered to land and sin but to governance. It was our task to rule in the name of Lucifer and his fellows. Thus was the first age of our kin when we Kings and Queens and a handful of what would becomes Earls began the construction of our power and bloodlines.

For centuries this Age of Harmony would go on, the Ars Goetia governed well and selflessly. I do not know the exact time frame that it ended, but as time went on and bloodlines became more powerful with more history a new age was born. This age was one where the Kings, and Queens competed with one another for resources and power. They made alliances through marriage as a means to keep order and their power secure. Factions came into being and the Ars Goetia became a group of wealthy nobles who hardly did much at all for the sake of Hell. We chose to place ourselves on pedestals, lord over the Hell born and sinners we were meant to treat with support. This is what I have come to view as the second age of the Ars Goetia, the Feudal Age.

As time went on and the endless contests and rivalries played out, I would emerge as the King most loyal to our original cause. I would make powerful allies in my piety and faithful service to our master, Lucifer Morningstar. I have traded alliances, bartered my children to maintain my power, and for many a thousand years of effort I have maintained absolute power over our order in all but name. As time has gone on I have only solidified my strength, my legions have grown to the point that I command nearly four times the legions of my closest rival, King Baal. Aside from military strength I have levied my other resources in such a way where the opinions and thoughts of my peers hardly see the light of day and my wealth overshadows them all combined. To summarize, I have won this contest over the Ars Goetia's soul. The people have spoken, our King has spoken. And I am now prepared to begin the third age of our existence, having bested all those who sought to undue us. The Age of Imperium is here.

Effective immediately the council Kings is dismissed and liquified. All former Kings and Queens of the Ars Goetia aside from myself shall have their titles cast aside, replaced by the title of Patriarch or Matriarch. The Ars Goetia shall be governed by an Imperial Administration with myself as its head. I place the crown upon my own head and proclaim myself THE King of the Ars Goetia, and the Tenth Great King of Hell. The Goetia shall continue to define themselves as the Parliamentary class but we shall now have our own seat at the council of nine, now ten.

I do not make this decision simply to take from the men and women who were once my peers. All Patriarchs are to be granted new authority, rather then being a vague individual in our order lording over you all I shall release you. You may each rule your own families as you see fit, no longer will I come to you seeking your aide and children unannounced for marriage. No longer will you be pressured into following my micro management and autocratic tendencies. My chosen cabinet alongside my Imperial family shall see to the governance of yourselves and all else within our designs, we shall not dictate the actions you perform in your politics and personal affairs so long as they do not contradict our own.

For the Imperial family made up of MY descendants I have this edict for you all specifically. All arranged marriages are hereby annulled and the practice is ended. For those couples wishing to stay together you may do so and I shall approve them once again should you elect to continue them. For all others and those who are yet to be wed, you are free to find your love in any way you wish, and with whomever you wish, from a hell hound in the slums of imp city, the royal family of sins, or perhaps no one at all. Let us heal this gaping wound that has placed us in such an unhappy state."

[follow-up-news]

Iran has paused the process of implementing a new, stricter law on women’s mandatory headscarf, or hijab, an official said — a bill that many believe could have reignited the protests that engulfed the Islamic Republic after the 2022 death of Mahsa Amini. The controversial law, which was approved by the parliament in September 2023, will not be sent to the government as planned this week, according to one of the country’s vice presidents. The development effectively means that Iran has halted enacting the legislation. The law levies harsher punishments for women who refuse to wear the hijab and for businesses that serve them, penalties previously rejected by Iran’s reformist President Masoud Pezeshkian as he tries to restart talks with the West over sanctions imposed on Iran over its nuclear program. “According to the discussions held, it was decided that this law will not be referred to the government by the parliament for now,” Shahram Dabiri, the vice president in charge of parliamentary affairs, was quoted as saying in an interview Monday with the pro-reform Ham Mihan daily. The decision to halt the legislation — at least temporarily — was reached by top executive, legislative and judiciary bodies, Dabiri also said.

[wilwheaton]

Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court’s right-wing majority expressed great skepticism at the Biden White House’s debt-relief plan yesterday. What we should note, however, is how the press and opinion-setting conventional wisdom has reacted to that fact. Every reaction I’ve seen sees it as the White House failing, the White House getting its collective knuckles rapped, basically an attempt and a failure. The White House is in a lot of ways complicit in this state of affairs and that traces back to an abiding set of assumptions, ingrained almost beneath the level of conscious thought, that the Court is a legitimate rule-enforcing body which is owed respect and deference and shouldn’t be pulled into the political fray. That’s a mistake. The current Court is an illegitimate force in our current public life. It continues to enforce not only doctrines that were long hobby horses in right-wing judicial circles but new and ready-made procedures customized to block any and all policy decisions a Democratic president might choose to pursue. This week, it’s the limits of executive powers. In the brief windows of time when Democrats secure a parliamentary trifecta and pass new legislation, that’s just as suspect. And, as always, it’s relying on a farm team of right-wing legal activists to churn up novel legal theories to choose from.

Thoughts on the Corrupt High Court

The current Court is an illegitimate force in our current public life. It continues to enforce not only doctrines that were long hobby horses in right-wing judicial circles but new and ready-made procedures customized to block any and all policy decisions a Democratic president might choose to pursue.

[whencyclopedia]

American Revolution

The American Revolution (1765-1789) was a period of political upheaval in the Thirteen Colonies of British North America. Initially a protest over parliamentary taxes, it blossomed into a rebellion and led, ultimately, to the birth of the United States. Rooted in the ideas of the Enlightenment, the Revolution played an important role in the emergence of modern Western democracies.

Origins: Parliament & the American Identity

In February 1763, the Seven Years' War – or the French and Indian War as the North American theater was called – came to an end. As part of the peace agreement, the vanquished Kingdom of France ceded its colony of New France (Canada) as well as all its colonial territory east of the Mississippi River to its victorious rival, Great Britain. While this left Britain as the dominant colonial power in North America, this newfound supremacy came at a cost, namely a massive war debt. To offset the debt, the British Parliament decided to levy new taxes on the Thirteen Colonies along the eastern seaboard of North America. Much of the war had been fought defending these colonies, after all, and Parliament decided that the colonists should help shoulder the empire's financial burden.

Prior to this decision, Parliament had adhered to an unofficial policy of 'salutary neglect' when dealing with the American colonies. This meant that, despite their royal governors, the colonies were largely left to manage their own affairs, with colonial legislatures overseeing governance and taxation. The influence of these legislatures often equaled if not eclipsed the power of the colony's royally appointed governor. Due to differing foundational and developmental circumstances, each colony maintained its own identity – the Puritan society of New England, the Dutch origins of New York, and the tobacco economy of Virginia, for example, all influenced the formation of their colonial identities. Despite viewing themselves as separate from one another, the colonies were loosely bound by their shared ties to Britain and had united in common defense multiple times during the last century of colonial wars.

At the same time, the American colonists considered themselves Britons, and proudly so. After the Glorious Revolution of 1689, and the constitutional reforms that went with it, the British were viewed as the freest people in the world; they were guaranteed a right to representative government (Parliament) as well as the right to self-taxation. The colonists believed that these 'rights of Englishmen' extended to them, as befitting of their English blood and allegiance to the English king; indeed, many of these rights were echoed in the colonies' own charters. The idea that Parliament could directly tax the colonies, therefore, went against this notion; since no Americans were represented in Parliament, Parliament had no constitutional authority to tax them (i.e. taxation without representation). Parliament, of course, disagreed, arguing that the Americans were virtually represented, as was the case with the thousands of Englishmen who owned no property and could not vote. It was this fundamental disagreement over the Americans' rights and liberties – expressed in the guise of taxation – that lay at the heart of the American Revolution and the birth of the United States.

Continue reading...

[thetruearchmagos]

Democracy Manifest

Elected Government In The United Commonwealth

Well, thank you @theprissythumbelina for giving me the kick I needed to get started on this topic, I hope you enjoy what's to come! Otherwise, I'll Tag @athenswrites @caxycreations @hessdalen-globe @nerdexer @the-ellia-west @avrablake @coffeewritesfiction @vyuntspakhkite-l-darling

A/N: This took... so long... But I can't say I'm not happy with it!

The House

The Parliament of the United Commonwealth is the highest legislative body of the UC, comprised of 5,227 elected Members representing the over four billion citizens of that polity. From its seat in Parliament House on the Weslich island of Sudpulau, this body, the single largest legislature in the 12 Worlds, passes the laws of the Commonwealth.

The Vote

Elections to Parliament are held every four years, with the exception of by-elections which occur to satisfy vacancies. They occur on a one-person-one-vote, secret-ballot basis using a 'Single Transferable Vote', and are open to all adult (>18) citizens who have been citizens for at least two months. Elections are overseen by the Electoral Activities Bureau, an independent public body, which manages the continents spanning infrastructure required for elections and draws the term's electoral map prior to every election.

The Member

Seats are open to any adult citizen who wishes to run regardless of any demographic, with the only restriction being if one is currently under a criminal trial or is incarcerated. Members are not bound by any term limits, and the only barrier to their Seat is the vote of their constituency.

The Three

Three individual Members dominate the House.

Firstly is the Chief Minister, Head of State and Government of the United Commonwealth and voted in by a simple majority of members.

Next is the Leader of the Opposition, bestowed with a simple majority of non-Government Members. Their lot is to hold the Government to account at every turn, patiently awaiting their turn on the opposite Bench.

Finally, is the Speaker of the House, approved with a simple majority and presiding over the business and conduct of Parliament in its frequently lively discourse.

No term limits apply on any of these offices, and all can be revoked with a vote of no confidence from the whole House, or the Opposition alone in the LoO's case.

The Benches

The vast majority of Members are, however, not seated in a formally recognised office; Unlike many national Parliamentary systems, at present no further formal Cabinet exists beyond the CM, a state of affairs viewed with increasing skepticism.

Instead, backbenchers on either side are as a rule 'organised' on a highly ad hoc basis, shifting with Party and Coalition tastes and the wider circumstances of the Commonwealth.

First and foremost among these organisations are the Parties.

Parliament's Members are nearly all affiliated with any of numerous political parties, though parties themselves are not recognised organisations in the eyes of the government de jure. They may range in size from a thousand or more members spread across member states, to a dozen or so, and have been founded and internally organised along an infinite number of ideals.

Both the LoO and CM are almost always the 'leaders' of their respective party, though the way appointments to either office are decided on is at every party's discretion. Party leaders outside either office are nonetheless still key elements of the political ecosystem, guiding their members into and between Coalitions.

A universal feature of all major parties are Party Whips, Members appointed within their party's ranks and charged with ensuring that their colleagues cast their vote precisely as their Leader wishes. Though not imbued with any unique power within the House, beyond its chambers they can hold the life and death of any politician's career in their hands, and are commonly seen as the right hands of their respective leaders.

Aside from these two positions, the actual make up and structure of political parties is highly diverse, and often highly fluid, reliant as much on circumstances outside the House as in it. The criteria for membership, its exclusivity, and internal Party appointments differ greatly between Parties, which form, merge, die off, or reform themselves in an unending state of change. One could at any point found a Party of their own for any reason if it suited them, and the only restriction they'd need worry about is the will of their constituents.

However, no Party in history has ever achieved a unilateral majority in the House, and thus forming a government is an exercise in Coalition building and breaking above anything else. Coalitions, like the parties that make them, are not bound or recognised by any rule of Parliament, and so the rules and dynamics that define them change with every government and election. Chief Ministers as a rule come from the largest Party in the largest Coalition who can agree to vote for them, but ultimately no law dictates that a minority Leader could not hold that office.

Finally, comes Committees. As above, Committees themselves are not strictly recognised bodies, but are formed and governed on an as needs basis according to long established precedents and expectations. Typically, Government, Opposition, and House Committees exist simultaneously on any range of subjects, with the latter including Members from both groups. While Committees are never necessary for relevant legislation to pass, deference to their existence and decisions is a political inevitability.

Though Independent Members exist, they are a rare occurrence outside of the most 'recently democratic' member states. Where they do appear, however, they usually rely on a combination of their own extremely great charisma, some specifically and highly localised appeal, and Party apathy to gain and hold their Seats. Still, unseating such Members is often an uphill and unpopular struggle. Once in the House, Independents typically have a very difficult time intruding themselves into the business of Parliament, and where they do tend to make their case on issues distinctly relevant to their constituencies.

In summary, while the Charter of Parliament never established any further positions beyond the Speaker, Chief Minister, and Leader of the Opposition, the House has in the century since built for itself a long and deep institution of customs and traditions with which its internal business is regulated and managed. Such a 'laissez faire' approach to politics mirrors well the UC's generally fluid approach to government at large, and very much conforms with the original intentions of the earliest theorists and politicians who had established the Commonwealth long before. While at times these institutions have faltered in the face of politicial crises in the past, they have survived, and seem set to continue to survive.

The Legislative Process

While Parliament has an absolute and final say on the passing of Bills into Acts of Parliament and thus the law of the land, it is not the only body involved in the legislative process.

The first step in this process is the introduction of a Bill into Parliament. Any Member can introduce any Bill they wish at any time, but this right is also held by both the Commission of the UC, its independent executive body, and the Council of Ministers, comprised of member states governments' cabinet executives.

After this, Bills may legally be immediately passed into law if a majority of Members vote in agreement. Such an event is, however, exceedingly rare, and no Member of any affiliation is likely to cast their vote before a Bill undergoes an intensive debate.

The Bill in question is first submitted to the most relevant House Committee for initial investigation and debate. This might involve summoning and interrogating government or private individuals, alter and negotiate over the details of Bills, or even introducing their own Bills with a complete background onto the floor.

This begins an occasionally recursive loop of Bill debates, failed votes to pass, and returns to Committee for further alterations. Considering the sheer number of Bills on the floor at any given time, most such debate takes place in the numerous sub-chambers housed within Parliament House's vast structure, returning to the main chamber only for final votes.

Assuming a majority of Members vote in favour of it, the Bill passes into the Council of Ministers for a final check. Effectively acting as a 'semi-Upper House', the CoM only rarely invokes its right to dismiss a Bill for further debate with their own recommendations, a power which can only be used on any given Bill once. Typically, though, the Council will have made its intentions known well before this stage, and so Bills which are handed to it usually sail through without alteration.

Thus, as far as 'speed' is concerned, the time it takes for a Bill to pass ranges from days, to years, to, of course, never. The lack of a 2/3rds supermajority requirement for any action at all at least limits that angle, and the intensity of debate and diversity of potential views that exists leads to a long but undeniably thorough and expansive legislative process.

------

Further Details...

On Members

The equity of Parliament's ranks under the law is for the most part well established in reality. Sheer wealth at either a personal or party level is rarely corroborated with electoral success, especially given the UC's wide reaching and strict financial transparency laws. Nonetheless, a number of factors can serve to shape the electability of a candidate beyond how skill and ideological appeal.

More specifically, the tendency to favour candidates based on race, ethnicity, class, sexuality, or gender is more common in regions and their societies which are relatively new to the United Commonwealth and its own brand of social and cultural 'liberalism'. In societies where the UC's social and political culture have become more entrenched, such influences hold less influence than individual charisma, oratorical skill, and of course how they align with the political movements and issues of the day.

On Committees

The fluidity of Committes has at times been both a strength and a weakness, and is always bound by prior traditions more than anything else.

For all intents and purposes, the notion of any Committee's 'legitimacy' relies on the mutual consent of the House at large. The size, partisan diversity, and proportionality of a Committee are never set in stone, and in truth any specific Committee lives and dies within the term it was made in, becoming unrecognisable as changes in the make up of the wider House lead to renegotiations of its status.

In order to prevent the endless expansion of the number of Committees that this anarchic system often threatens to cause, many political Parties have reached agreements outside the House on a list of issues for which House Committees, are to be established on a long term basis. These include those on the Armed Forces, Security and Intelligence, and Foreign Affairs, among other significant issues of government. The size and authority of such 'Standing Committees' is thus largely guaranteed between governments, giving a much needed sense of order and continuity to the whole affair.

Every House Standing Committee is mirrored by Government and Opposition Committees on the same issue, and inter-party negotiations are dominated by the allocation of Committee seats to each represented Party. The latter two represent the interests of their respective halves of the House, and all three have their membership apportioned according to each Party's size.

In addition to these Standing Committees are an ever changing number of Provisional Committees, referring to those which lack the 'official' agreed recognition of the Parties 'in writing' but which nonetheless function with their consent and participation. These may come into and out of existence with time as issues surface or die out, and those of particular longevity may find themselves on the list to become Standing Committees in full. Provisional Committees might include Inquiry Committees, or Regional Committees aligned to areas suddenly facing crises.

Once the proportions of Committee membership have been parceled out, how Parties hand out their Members across roles is left to their discretion, unless the negotiation process prior had specified some limited requirements. Seniority, expertise, and a Member's constituency and its concerns are all regular considerations, amongst others, and of course the internal politics of that Party.

Aside from this, however, Parties and Members are free to associate with each other in whatever groups they wish to. It is, however, generally considered 'bad form', or political suicide, for anyone to declare that any already agreed upon Committee is irrelevant or not recognised, or to attempt to usurp their legitimacy by convincing others to join their cause. The agreements mentioned above universally condemn such activity, and any Party looking to engage in it is liable to find itself ostracised from the business of the House and evicted by their voters, who often are informed enough of political culture to express displeasure at spoiling 'their' vote.

------

And that's a wrap! Depending on if anyone has any further questions, my own actual motivation and time, and whether I get any further ideas, I might write a second part to this post. If I do, it'll either go into the history of how this system formed over time, or maybe a specific case study on some political ideologies, movements, and parties. Or I won't. Who knows.