Post apocalyptic politics and government.

[greenchristian]

Sept 11, 2015 5:43:54 GMT @boogieeck said:

I think so. There is always a next in line to the throne, so there is always a monarch. The monarch appoints a PM who can command a majority in parliament. If there is no HoC, there is always a HoL because even if every life peer died, there are hereditaries and bishops.

But since the last HoL reforms, killing every current HoL member means a by-election amongst eligible heredities, rather than them automatically acceding. So the new HoL would be made up entirely of the most senior Bishops.

[peterl]

Therefore if the HoC and HoL had been wiped out and the only people automatically replacing the dead peers were the senior bishops, a bishop would be headed for No 10. Which is either a comforting or disturbing thought depending on your perspective.

[carlton43]

I don't think in the scenario envisaged that a knowledge of rules or precedent would be of any interest to the tough bastards with bloody swords holding the first meeting and deciding amongst themselves not only who rules but also who lives.

[finsobruce]

Sept 20, 2015 23:05:08 GMT peterl said:

Therefore if the HoC and HoL had been wiped out and the only people automatically replacing the dead peers were the senior bishops, a bishop would be headed for No 10. Which is either a comforting or disturbing thought depending on your perspective.

And depends a lot on the bishop, too. I nominate our The Bishop just to be on the safe side...

[Devil Wincarnate]

Sept 11, 2015 0:26:19 GMT manchesterman said:

Semi-serious question for the likes of David B to enlighten us on.

In a hypothetical scenario whereby the whole of the Houses of Westminster is completely destroyed (and by chance every single member of both Houses was present and every single one was killed), who, constitutionally, would be given the task of - if you like - 'acting PM' with the responsibility of rebuilding the parliamentary structures? (not literally of course)

The head of the Civil Service maybe? Mayor of London??

I don't know, but Katie Ghose doesn't win any of the by-elections.

[andrewteale]

Sept 20, 2015 23:05:08 GMT peterl said:

Therefore if the HoC and HoL had been wiped out and the only people automatically replacing the dead peers were the senior bishops, a bishop would be headed for No 10. Which is either a comforting or disturbing thought depending on your perspective.

Back to mediaeval times, then.

[finsobruce]

Sept 22, 2015 19:00:08 GMT @boogieeck said:

This weeks scenarios. Flu.

Scenario 1, it kills off 25% of the earths population. Scenario 2, 50%

What difference does it make?

Fewer duvet days by those pretending to have flu, when in fact they only have a heavy cold....

[Crimson King]

it is unlikely that the mortality would be evenly distributed, so in either scenario there would be countries reletively favoured (where the population was healthy and well nourished to start off with) and others less so. After the inital flu mortality there would be secondary mortality (plenty of rotting corpses and breakdown of services) which would further exagerate the differential. Within countries some sections of the population would be hit harder than others, again tending to favour those who were better off and likely to have their hands on the levers of control

[carlton43]

Sept 22, 2015 19:00:08 GMT @boogieeck said:

This weeks scenarios. Flu.

Scenario 1, it kills off 25% of the earths population. Scenario 2, 50%

What difference does it make?

100% from one view point.

Assumptions time: -

a)  Most deaths amongst the poor in Africa and Asia. Medication saves most of the West and the well off.
b)  All deaths in China and South East Asia.
c)  The effete West sees the major part of the deaths as the effective jab only available after 75% of all of us gone.
d)  The deaths affect Central Asia (including Indian sub-continent), Middle East and North/Central Africa only.


Now read on.....? 

[Crimson King]

do you want to clarify those points which appear inconsistent

or do you mean them to be alternative scenarios

[carlton43]

Sept 22, 2015 20:45:20 GMT Crimson King said:

do you want to clarify those points which appear inconsistent

or do you mean them to be alternative scenarios

They are separate scenarios suggesting quite different outcomes for us in wealthy western Europe.

[Crimson King]

None very realistic - I prefer my scenario

e.g. (b) would imply 100% mortality in SE asia and China (at 50%) overall with negligible loss elsewhere and nearly 100% and none elsewhere at 25% overall

[carlton43]

Sept 22, 2015 21:45:42 GMT Crimson King said:

None very realistic - I prefer my scenario

e.g. (b) would imply 100% mortality in SE asia and China (at 50%) overall with negligible loss elsewhere and nearly 100% and none elsewhere at 25% overall

I understood this to be a flight of fancy 'What If', not a carefully reasoned enquiry as to a real outcome of a real flu.  So I postulated outcomes with very different results to see what effect it would have here in Britain. One affects us with a drastic drop in population but Third World hardly affected.  One removing our major future markets and competition. One removing most of the world's Muslims.  And one removing a large proportion of the most poor and vulnerable. It was as simple as that.

[greenchristian]

One of the major questions with any post-apocalyptic scenario is dependence on oil. If there isn't sufficient supply of oil post-apocalypse, then those parts of the world that are more dependent on it will suffer a much bigger collapse in their society (so the USA could be in seriously deep trouble, given its dependence on private cars). Countries and regions with renewable energy technology should be able to maintain a lifestyle a bit closer to ours, assuming they can get hold of enough food. So Carlton's scenario d (deaths concentrated in Middle East) might prove more devastating for Western civilisation than his scenario c (deaths concentrated in the West).

[manchesterman]

I think this needs Boogie's further input in terms of who was killed by this flu epidemic (widespread or concentrated) otherwise we are 2nd and 3rd guessing his original intentions...

[johnr]

I think the question we really want answered, is are the deaths spread evenly, or are they concentrated in the marginal constituencies?

[carlton43]

Sept 22, 2015 23:06:12 GMT greenchristian said:

One of the major questions with any post-apocalyptic scenario is dependence on oil. If there isn't sufficient supply of oil post-apocalypse, then those parts of the world that are more dependent on it will suffer a much bigger collapse in their society (so the USA could be in seriously deep trouble, given its dependence on private cars). Countries and regions with renewable energy technology should be able to maintain a lifestyle a bit closer to ours, assuming they can get hold of enough food. So Carlton's scenario d (deaths concentrated in Middle East) might prove more devastating for Western civilisation than his scenario c (deaths concentrated in the West).

Not at all GC. It will be quick and easy to get the oilfields back on flow especially with no locals warring with each other. Flu does not damage plant. We can easily import labour.

[greenchristian]

Sept 23, 2015 11:23:49 GMT carlton43 said:

Sept 22, 2015 23:06:12 GMT greenchristian said:

One of the major questions with any post-apocalyptic scenario is dependence on oil. If there isn't sufficient supply of oil post-apocalypse, then those parts of the world that are more dependent on it will suffer a much bigger collapse in their society (so the USA could be in seriously deep trouble, given its dependence on private cars). Countries and regions with renewable energy technology should be able to maintain a lifestyle a bit closer to ours, assuming they can get hold of enough food. So Carlton's scenario d (deaths concentrated in Middle East) might prove more devastating for Western civilisation than his scenario c (deaths concentrated in the West).

Not at all GC. It will be quick and easy to get the oilfields back on flow especially with no locals warring with each other. Flu does not damage plant. We can easily import labour.

Oil extraction requires a certain amount of skilled labour, which may be in relatively short supply. If the apocalypse is something like an epidemic, it might be months before it would be safe to move troops and workers in. If it's something like an asteroid strike or a supervolcano that makes transport more difficult, it might be even longer.

[carlton43]

Sept 23, 2015 21:18:08 GMT greenchristian said:

Sept 23, 2015 11:23:49 GMT carlton43 said:

Not at all GC. It will be quick and easy to get the oilfields back on flow especially with no locals warring with each other. Flu does not damage plant. We can easily import labour.

Oil extraction requires a certain amount of skilled labour, which may be in relatively short supply. If the apocalypse is something like an epidemic, it might be months before it would be safe to move troops and workers in. If it's something like an asteroid strike or a supervolcano that makes transport more difficult, it might be even longer.

The scenario was flu and devastation of the Middle East. That is what I replied to. My response was correct.

[carlton43]

My initial response will be just to help the debate with a little flexing.

In both WW1 and WW2 we had a much smaller population, much larger merchant marine and a dominant RN. Even then we came far closer to starvation than most of you can possibly realize. The excellent WARAG Committees, brilliant MOF planning and rationing, dreadful losses at sea, just kept us fed. But as soon as it is over we soon forget all those lessons and let our merchant marine go, the RN decline and agriculture go hang out to dry.

Efficiency and free markets is not all there is when it come to strategic planning. We have suffered for at least 4-decades under governments that don't do 'strategic' at all. The RAF and RN reduced to rumps, no merchant marine to speak of, agriculture hardly considered, allotments sold off, building land and industry always a priority over farming. We let hops, apples, dairy and countless other things 'go' in a manner France and Germany would never have permitted.

Essentially the British have become a bunch of unthinking townies with no knowledge or concern over where their food comes from or the how and why. They just want lots of it preprepared, salty and sugary and cheap. They think there is no 'tomorrow' have no idea how close the import chain is to 'no food tomorrow'! We are acting in a very foolish manner. But then look at power generation and Middle East 'policy'!! These politicians are so short term in outlook that next week is a world away. They have no strategic sensibility at all.