Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson

12526283031135

Comments

  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    edited October 2019
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Do you seriously, honestly, believe that there is any risk at all of Earth ceasing to be livable within 50 years? Even in the worst case scenario of climate change that’s not going to happen. There will still be people and animals and plants. Fewer of them, probably, but that’s not the same thing.
    I am reasonably certain there will still be cockroaches.

    The Permian-Triassic extinction event, which was the most serious in Earth's history, is according to wikipedia associated with a rise in temperature of 8°C. It lasted a thousand years or so and the Earth's biodiversity took two to ten million years to recover.

    Yes, it lasted a thousand years, and that's the most extreme extinction event the planet has had so far. At most climate change has been going on for a couple of hundred, which means there's still eight hundred years to go. Not fifty. And even at the end of that the planet will still be inhabitable.
    A temperature rise of 10°C as a result of anthropogenic global warming was considered within the bounds of possibility ten to fifteen years ago: my impression is that the pessimistic and alarmist estimates are getting more likely. Things that might lead to feedback effects such as the Amazon and Siberia burning are happening.

    OK, so maybe we've only got five or six hundred years left in the worst case scenario. That's still no excuse for the sort of extremist scaremongering DT was engaging in.
    Probably people will still be alive. Whether there will be long-term prospects of staying alive is another matter. I think there is a non-zero chance that by then if nothing's done asap there'll be no hope for anything except the cockroaches.

    People will still be around even once this extinction event is over. Probably a lot less of them, and living considerably less comfortable lives, but the species will still be here.

    I'm not saying that's a desirable outcome. It just bugs me when people talk as if the entire planet will be utterly devoid of life within our own lifetimes, because that's simply not going to happen. Hell, within our own lifetimes we're barely even going to notice a difference bigger than increasing prices for certain goods.
  • At the moment wars are fought over land, oil and drugs. It might not be so long before wars are fought over soil and water. Many countries have Clean Air Acts. How about a market for air?
  • ... Hell, within our own lifetimes we're barely even going to notice a difference bigger than increasing prices for certain goods.
    I think you're quite mistaken. It is possible even in lovely Blighty that we are beginning to see the effects. Heatwaves will be far from rare and possibly the new normal. Lovely, you might say. But our houses ain't designed to keep us cool. No prob, you say, we'll have AC. But if you can't afford it you can't have it. Also, simply, more people in Britain will die of the heat. And it might be you if your financial security goes belly up. Because in 40 years when you're 80 - 90 years old you will feel the heat.

  • Andras wrote: »
    Apparently Downing Street are now floating the suggestion that Piffle will refuse to quit even if HM tells him to, on the grounds that she is obliged to follow his advice.

    I doubt if he'd get away with it, but it shows the nature of the waters we're now in.

    And this is from a Conservative Prime Minister! Aren't they meant to respect tradition in general, and the monarchy in particular?
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited October 2019
    Yes, but this Hideous Piffling Object is a Selfservative Prime Monster...

    ...a different species altogether.

    Or is it...?
    :confused:
  • There are two strains to Conservatism: One Nation, cucumber sandwiches and noblesse oblige, and Libertarian, burn-shit-down. The latter is in the ascendant.

    This doesn't mean the former aren't 'lower than vermin', of course. They all voted for the Bedroom tax, the hostile environment, the shambles that is Universal Credit, Austerity and the continued privatisation the NHS. They just don't quite plumb the same depths of the midden as the ERG headbangers.
  • within our own lifetimes we're barely even going to notice a difference bigger than increasing prices for certain goods.
    Really? Iceland has recently marked the "death" of a glacier, which has disappeared in our lifetime, with many more across the globe rapidly shrinking. In the Atlantic, 50-100 years ago category 5 storms came round every 2-3 years. There have been five such storms in the last three years, tell those who lost their homes and the lives of friends when Dorian ripped through the Bahamas that we haven't see any effects from climate change. The growing season in sub-Saharan Africa has reduced. The timings of animal migrations have changed. The heatwave this summer broke over 400 records around the world, those extreme heat events killing thousands. Islands in the Pacific are shrinking as sea levels rise, coastal regions are experiencing increased salinity in aquifers, mangrove swamps are dying back exposing soils to erosion. Changes we've seen within the last few decades.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    edited October 2019
    That's not the same as uninhabitable though. Compared to uninhabitable that's a fucking paradise.

    It is entirely conceivable that there will be parts of coastal regions worldwide that are currently densely populated which will be rendered unfit for permanent settlement in the next 50 years. Tell me that's not a huge fucking deal.

    EDIT: Shit, missed the next page of posts. I'm obviously still distracted.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    The UK has a bedroom tax?
  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    The UK has a bedroom tax?

    If you live in social rented accommodation and the property you rent has more bedrooms than you "need" then any housing benefit is cut. Little account is made of circumstances (e.g. disability requiring substantial medical equipment) or of the availability of accommodation with the "right" number of bedrooms. It's a nasty, vicious policy designed to screw over the poor.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Yep. It was brought under pretence of sorting out the housing problem, but I’d be s a tax on the poor in effect. It does not apply to home owners. Only those those on social housing I believe. It is evil. But then so are a lot of social security policies at the moment.
  • AndrasAndras Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    Yep. It was brought under pretence of sorting out the housing problem, but I’d be s a tax on the poor in effect. It does not apply to home owners. Only those those on social housing I believe. It is evil. But then so are a lot of social security policies at the moment.

    How about taxing windows again? And hearths? After all, both are traditional, and would have the additional benefit (from the lower-than-vermin point of view) of screwing the scroungers, aka the poor.
  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    The UK has a bedroom tax?

    If you hear the term "Austerity" linked to modern welfare policy in the UK, this is an example.

    btw, One Nation Conservatism is alive and well, but the nation in question is the Turks and Caicos Islands.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Pure Quality.

    Produced by Michael Spicer for You Tube - entitled ‘The Room Next Door’.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Yes, it lasted a thousand years, and that's the most extreme extinction event the planet has had so far. At most climate change has been going on for a couple of hundred, which means there's still eight hundred years to go. Not fifty. And even at the end of that the planet will still be inhabitable.
    That's a thousand years to get through, not a thousand years to prepare for it. I imagine most species that made it through the first hundred years of the Permian-Triassic event made it through the rest. The first two hundred years will be the bit humans have to try to adapt to.

    I think the bit you're not reacting to is that the worst case scenario is a greater shift in temperature, and AIUI the effects of an extra degree are likely to be exponentially worse rather than just linearly worse. That is the hotter it gets the more feedback mechanisms come into play, the more systems are likely to come under strain at the same time, and the more likely we are to meet a tipping point at which everything shifts fast.
    People will still be around even once this extinction event is over. Probably a lot less of them, and living considerably less comfortable lives, but the species will still be here.
    Humans are a high maintenance apex species. We have big brains and live in large groups and breed on a strategy of high investment in each offspring. We're the kind of species that goes first when the ecosystem goes. Yes, we can adapt to pretty much anything but we need a high resource environment as a start to adapt from. If the calories just aren't there we can't do anything.

    The worst case scenario would I think include failure of crops across the tropical and temperate zone without time to adjust, a collapse in the population of pollinating insects, and a collapse in fossil fuel transport while we're still dependent on them. Which would leave people across the world without the resources to adapt.

  • And the people who would survive might not be the best examples of the species so far. The Eloi would crawl out of their bunkers to meet the Morlocks, who would have more skills. But not be very empathic.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited October 2019
    Quite. I think I'd rather be one of those who did not survive....

    ...but my life expectancy (less than 10 years) might see me out before the worst happens, I guess.

    It's my 19-year old niece, and 18-year old second cousins, for whom I fear.
  • If you live in social rented accommodation and the property you rent has more bedrooms than you "need" then any housing benefit is cut. Little account is made...of the availability of accommodation with the "right" number of bedrooms. It's a nasty, vicious policy designed to screw over the poor.
    I don't know if it's still policy, but our local Labour city council announced when the bedroom tax was brought in that if you were in a Council* flat with 2 bedrooms but only qualified for 1 they would disregard the 2nd bedroom for this purpose as 1. the flats had been all built that way post war as that was what people wanted, 2. there were only a handful of 1 bed flats actually in existence and 3. the only other 1 bed properties were bungalows and they're reserved for the elderly. Essentially they didn't want everyone trying to downsize to places that don't exist all at once.

    *Strictly it's a housing association that took over all the council stock a few years back but in practice they're still closely intertwined and everyone thinks of them as council houses still.
  • In Scotland the powers over housing benefit aren't devolved, so the "bedroom tax" cuts have to be applied but the Scottish government used other benefits they have power over to compensate those who lost out. Also, as it relates to housing benefit it affects anyone on these benefits - those who rent privately and claim housing benefit (assuming you can find a private landlord to take tenants on benefit) as well as social housing tenants.
  • EigonEigon Shipmate
    Even before the bedroom tax, we once had to claim housing benefit when we were privately renting a distinctly non-standard house - an ancient longhouse up in the hills which had been modernised in the 1950s! A lady from the housing department came along with a tape measure to determine how much floorspace the council were prepared to pay for! And they kept us waiting for 4 months for a decision, which we finally got by going to the Housing Dept and yelling at them, then bursting into tears.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    Andras wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    Yep. It was brought under pretence of sorting out the housing problem, but I’d be s a tax on the poor in effect. It does not apply to home owners. Only those those on social housing I believe. It is evil. But then so are a lot of social security policies at the moment.

    How about taxing windows again? And hearths? After all, both are traditional, and would have the additional benefit (from the lower-than-vermin point of view) of screwing the scroungers, aka the poor.
    Don't forget street-frontage width. There is precedent.

  • ThunderBunkThunderBunk Shipmate
    edited October 2019
    Yes, but this Hideous Piffling Object is a Selfservative Prime Monster...

    ...a different species altogether.

    Or is it...?
    :confused:

    Looking at the Brexit thread reminds me that this hideous piffling object is destroying the country to save his own worthless hide and, incidentally, to bring about the vainglorious fantasy of idiots. The damage he is causing to the mechanisms of government is, to my mind, incalculable at the moment and something we will only see work itself out in the years to come.

    We will all have to wallow in the cloaca universalis thereby created, well those of us unfortunate enough to live on Boris Island. (see upthread for translation)

    Selfservative indeed. And bugger reality and the rest of us.
  • Yes, but this Hideous Piffling Object is a Selfservative Prime Monster...

    ...a different species altogether.

    Or is it...?
    :confused:

    Looking at the Brexit thread reminds me that this hideous piffling object is destroying the country to save his own worthless hide and, incidentally, to bring about the vainglorious fantasy of idiots. The damage he is causing to the mechanisms of government is, to my mind, incalculable at the moment and something we will only see work itself out in the years to come.

    We will all have to wallow in the cloaca universalis thereby created, well those of us unfortunate enough to live on Boris Island. (see upthread for translation)

    Selfservative indeed. And bugger reality and the rest of us.

    Indeed, indeed.


    AFZ
  • AndrasAndras Shipmate
    My experience over 70 decades is that reality has a way of biting you on the backside just when you don't expect it.
  • Andras wrote: »
    My experience over 70 decades is that reality has a way of biting you on the backside just when you don't expect it.

    70 (Seventy) decades? Wow, you look very good on it...
  • Andras wrote: »
    My experience over 70 decades is that reality has a way of biting you on the backside just when you don't expect it.

    70 (Seventy) decades? Wow, you look very good on it...

    Approximate duration of historical record.
  • sionisais wrote: »
    Andras wrote: »
    My experience over 70 decades is that reality has a way of biting you on the backside just when you don't expect it.

    70 (Seventy) decades? Wow, you look very good on it...

    Approximate duration of historical record.

    Yes, I wondered about that interpretation.
  • Well, for some of us, the past 3 years seem more like 3 decades, the way this effing Brexshit process has gone on...and on...and on...and on...
    :rage:
  • Apollonia wrote: »

    So maybe your relative had some inkling of what was coming and managed to register somehow to qualify. How that would be achieved I wouldn’t know. In fact, I’m not sure what it means exactly or what would be involved.

    Just noticed this. I still don't know if or how she voted. She did have a UK address while her French house was being built (she moved into that place over two years ago). But I don't know what her registration status was. I shall have to be more careful in my assumptions
  • Regardless of whether she actually voted or not, I simply do not understand why someone who hadn't lived in the country in decades, and clearly did not intend to return, thought that they had a dog in the fight. I was eligible to vote, but didn't, precisely because I don't intend to live in the UK again. It didn't feel right to me to take part in the decision-making process.
  • OK, so, why at this point would you not take a new citizenship ?
  • If that's a question to me, I did, years ago. Didn't (and doesn't) stop me being a British citizen.
  • Rephrase, why did you retain your UK citizenship if you never intend to return ?
  • Because I don't feel strongly enough about not being British to go through the rigmarole of renouncing it. Had giving it up been a prerequisite of taking up Australian citizenship, however, I wouldn't have hesitated to do so.
  • Rephrase, why did you retain your UK citizenship if you never intend to return ?

    Like Kittyville says, retaining UK citizenship requires no action, so is the default adopted by basically everyone. The only people that give up citizenship are those who are becoming citizens of a country that doesn't permit dual citizenship, and a small number of people taking a political stance.

    I've lived in the US for more than 15 years. I'm not a US citizen yet, but I might do that soon. If/when I become American, there's no reason for me to give up my UK citizenship. Before Brexit, it would have been useful to keep for purposes of travel and/or work in Europe. Post-Brexit, it won't be so useful.
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    Before D. died, we had intended to apply for dual British/Canadian citizenship, but now I'm going to move back to Scotland, so the need won't arise.

    It'll be nice to have a vote again - I haven't had one since 2003.
  • To vote in the EU referendum UK passport-holders had to have lived in the UK within the last 15 years.

    Multiple citizenship can be useful. As @Kittyville says, renouncing UK citizenship requires positive action. I maintain both passports, partly out of nostalgia, partly because a UK passport is better for some foreign destinations, and partly because it's fun to have two. If I had to choose I'd relinquish it, though.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    ...partly because a UK passport is better for some foreign destinations...

    That's the one practical benefit I've experienced of maintaining a British passport, since I became an Australian citizen - I could get into South Korea without a visa using it. Otherwise, I've travelled everywhere on my Aussie passport - including to the UK.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited October 2019
    It illegal for a government to make you stateless, but I have noticed the UK government unilaterally stripping citizenship - selectively - from expatriates with dual citizenship. This leads me to believe that, functionally, dual uk citizenship is actually second class citizenship.

    This leads me to believe that sole citizenship of any given place is probably a safer hedge against future legislative change. Similarly, indefinite leave to remain is indefinite until it’s not, and your children’s status is uncomplicated until you run into the equivalent of Amber Rudd.
  • It illegal for a government to make you stateless, but I have noticed the UK government unilaterally stripping citizenship - selectively - from expatriates with dual citizenship.

    Wait, what? Source(s)?
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited October 2019
    This would be the most famous case. A British citizen with no criminal convictions, no trial and no effective remedy. It’s a decision of the home office with no clear due process. There have been a few other highly publicised cases, and probably more cases with less publicity.
  • Without commenting on the rights and wrongs of that case, "unilaterally stripping citizenship from a person who appears to have ignored Home Office travel advisories to travel abroad to rejoin a terrorist organisation" is a little different from "unilaterally stripping citizenship from expatriates".
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Circus Host, 8th Day Host
    British citizens living in the EU have a great big dog in the fight because EU membership is what protects many of their rights, in particular to getting their healthcare costs paid. This applies more to retirees than to working people. Retirees are also getting screwed as the pound takes a hammering and their pensions go down in value.

    This is partly why the “more money for the NHS” fib ticks me off so much. Leaving the EU is likely to cost the NHS money if and when British retirees in the EU develop expensive health conditions and return to the UK to be treated for free on the NHS.

    The British government’s attitude to a million of their own citizens makes me very angry indeed. I note that the Foreign Office has (finally, a fortnight before the deadline…) got some useful advice up on its website. They’re still cheerfully announcing what happens in the event of a deal, although they have now got round to admitting that no deal might happen and people might need to know what to do in that event. It’s the first time I’ve noticed that applying for a residence permit is going to cost 119 bloody euros. I didn’t pay that much to apply for nationality.
  • Yes, that makes sense - I should have been clearer - I meant more in the sense of someone who hadn't lived in the UK long term and didn't plan to return voting leave. Why bother? Why would they care?
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited October 2019
    Kittyville wrote: »
    Yes, that makes sense - I should have been clearer - I meant more in the sense of someone who hadn't lived in the UK long term and didn't plan to return voting leave. Why bother? Why would they care?

    My son has dual citizenship, German and British. He voted remain and he cares a great deal - for his family and friends in the U.K. - and it will affect him too, as it will all EU citizens.

  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited October 2019
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Without commenting on the rights and wrongs of that case, "unilaterally stripping citizenship from a person who appears to have ignored Home Office travel advisories to travel abroad to rejoin a terrorist organisation" is a little different from "unilaterally stripping citizenship from expatriates".

    A new government may wish to use the same powers to strip citizenship for different reasons - and there seems to be almost nothing legal or constitutional to stop them.

    Your description contains an assertion about the individual that the government never had to prove in any court or tribunal - to either a civil or criminal standard. (It also ignores the fact she was a child subject to grooming, who was sexually trafficked. The children in the Rochdale cases also thought their perpetrators were their boyfriends.)
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Circus Host, 8th Day Host
    Some British expats of the retired on the Costa Brava variety did indeed vote to leave. I think they win some sort of Darwin award for stupidity.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    OK so there is a deal. It has to get through both Parliaments yet.
    Meanwhile Boorish is playing slightly foul. The BBC says he intends to ask the EU to reject any letter he has to send due to the Benn Act. Is Parliament sovereign or Boorish?
  • I think you just answered your own question...
    :angry:
  • Hugal wrote: »
    OK so there is a deal. It has to get through both Parliaments yet.
    Meanwhile Boorish is playing slightly foul. The BBC says he intends to ask the EU to reject any letter he has to send due to the Benn Act. Is Parliament sovereign or Boorish?

    If he does that, he is breaking the law and risking jail. Yes, actual Jail. It's called the Padfield principle from a famous Constitution Case. Basically, as I (a non lawyer) understand it from reading sensible lawyers explain it; you can't frustrate the clear intent of a statute by following the letter of said law and simultaneously acting to undermine it. The personal liability for the Prime Minister is two fold. There is the case in the Scottish Court of Sessions which is adjourned to see how the PM acts - he has (via his lawyers) given clear and unequivocal undertakings to the court. Hence he would be in contempt. This case will be resumed on Monday if necessary. Secondly there is a charge of Misconduct in Public Office which carries a maximum of a life sentence.

    I have no idea how likely any of that is but I do think Mr Johnson is a coward and would not risk jail.

    But can we just pause a moment and reflect on how far we have fallen that this is a question!

    AFZ

Sign In or Register to comment.