I'll admit it -- Boris Johnson impressed the hell out of me

Call it what you want -- I've seen phrases online like "emergency socialism" and "disaster socialism" -- but in his TV address last night, Boris Johnson impressed me as both someone who cares about his country and as someone willing to do something unprecedented and frankly shocking in order to protect his country's citizens.

He (and that guy Richey or whoever -- you know, the one with the weird ears) spelled out a plan in which the UK government will support worker's wages up to 80 percent if companies will furlough them rather than fire them. That makes me feel like the people I care about are going to be well taken care of, and I can't think of anything I want more.

It kind of underscores for me how different American politics are from UK politics. In America, if I say we need to create a system of nationalized health care, I will be seen by millions of my fellow citizens as a far-left radical communist. Over here, it's perfectly acceptable, and actually expected, that even very right-wing politicians will support not only the existence of, but the strengthening of, the National Health Service.

But beyond providing for the well-being of Britons, Johnson impressed me with his leadership. Emphatically saying that we will defeat this virus is something we must hear from our leaders, even if they can't be certain of how we will do it, or how soundly we'll defeat it.

We need our leaders to put out a rally call in times like this; to say something that both makes people feel confident and makes them feel reassured.

At the end of the day, facing this pandemic, everyone wants to hear two things, mainly -- that you aren't going to be neglected, and that we will get through it. And to me, Johnson nailed it.

Okay, so who greened me? Don't green and then not comment, dude.

Not that I don't appreciate the green, of course.

it was me

i didn't see the speech

i'm not especially a boris fan

just seeing you becoming passionate about our PM was something i found really endearing

you're a Brit now

gelico wrote:


it was me

i didn't see the speech

i'm not especially a boris fan

just seeing you becoming passionate about our PM was something i found really endearing

you're a Brit now

Well, it's not just about the PM, it's about the country. And while I reserve every right to call him a dickhead in the future, I think he's really come through

You should check out some YouTube clips. I don't think a person can fake what is communicated in his words and even simply in his body language -- he's bearing the weight of the world, and he wouldn't feel that way if he was heartless.

Boris is a good speaker, no one can take that from him.

And I agree that his action is positive and to be praised.

BUT, it only came following weeks of pressure from businesses and opposition parties in parliament, and it should've been done sooner.

The lockdown should've been sooner, again people were arguing for it over a week ago. It was inevitable and delaying may have only caused more damage.

Plus, he has yet to give any assurances to the self-employed, who will not get access to the 80% of income of other workers.

I'm sure he might get there eventually, with more pressure if need be. But to me, on actual policy (not just words) he has had to be steered in this direction, behind other EU countries who did similar earlier.

Let's also not forget he was trumpeting 'herd immunity' not long ago, to general bafflement around the world. Thank god he U turned on that.

Though, by comparison to Trump, I absolutely agree he is far more reassuring figure at the helm. Trump has bordered between embarrassing and scary in his statements over the last few weeks.

Ben Reilly wrote:Call it what you want -- I've seen phrases online like "emergency socialism" and "disaster socialism" -- but in his TV address last night, Boris Johnson impressed me as both someone who cares about his country and as someone willing to do something unprecedented and frankly shocking in order to protect his country's citizens.

He (and that guy Richey or whoever -- you know, the one with the weird ears) spelled out a plan in which the UK government will support worker's wages up to 80 percent if companies will furlough them rather than fire them. That makes me feel like the people I care about are going to be well taken care of, and I can't think of anything I want more.

It kind of underscores for me how different American politics are from UK politics. In America, if I say we need to create a system of nationalized health care, I will be seen by millions of my fellow citizens as a far-left radical communist. Over here, it's perfectly acceptable, and actually expected, that even very right-wing politicians will support not only the existence of, but the strengthening of, the National Health Service.

But beyond providing for the well-being of Britons, Johnson impressed me with his leadership. Emphatically saying that we will defeat this virus is something we must hear from our leaders, even if they can't be certain of how we will do it, or how soundly we'll defeat it.

We need our leaders to put out a rally call in times like this; to say something that both makes people feel confident and makes them feel reassured.

At the end of the day, facing this pandemic, everyone wants to hear two things, mainly -- that you aren't going to be neglected, and that we will get through it. And to me, Johnson nailed it.

The government stepping in during a disaster isn't socialism. Its fulfilling one if its limited roles.

It's all the stepping in when there is no disaster, including trillions in debt spending money on non disasters, that is the problem.

Let's call this what it is, an invasion threatening us. No one calls defending a country from an invasion, socialism.

Well, not people that know what the hell socialism is.

Maddog wrote:The government stepping in during a disaster isn't socialism. Its fulfilling one if its limited roles.

But governments in disaster use socialist means, don't they? Here again, we see that socialism is not itself a government, but a means of organization. Socialism uses central authority rather than random contribution as a means of capitalization.

Socialism is superior to capitalism in that it provides certainty to tasks of production, where markets are whimsical and random.

Maddog wrote:It's all the stepping in when there is no disaster, including trillions in debt spending money on non disasters, that is the problem.

The devil is in the details, innit? What exactly do you call a disaster, Red? Maybe in the black neighborhoods, seeing one's child starve to death is a disaster. Then, according to your definition, providing hot school lunches to children at least once a day is avoiding a disaster.

I hate to think what would happen if Labour were in charge, with Dianne Abbot looking after the Money !

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:The government stepping in during a disaster isn't socialism. Its fulfilling one if its limited roles.

But governments in disaster use socialist means, don't they?  Here again, we see that socialism is not itself a government, but a means of organization.  Socialism uses central authority rather than random contribution as a means of capitalization.

Socialism is superior to capitalism in that it provides certainty to tasks of production, where markets are whimsical and random.

and inferior to capitalism in that it crushes individuality and individual talent

Victorismyhero wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But governments in disaster use socialist means, don't they?  Here again, we see that socialism is not itself a government, but a means of organization.  Socialism uses central authority rather than random contribution as a means of capitalization.

Socialism is superior to capitalism in that it provides certainty to tasks of production, where markets are whimsical and random.

and inferior to capitalism in that it crushes individuality and individual talent

What are you, a psychologist...or a social theorist in disguise?  If individualists want individualism, let them go live in a cave in Tibet.  But they don't.  They spread their propaganda all over, forcing the rest of us to live under their social dictates.

As far as individual talent is concerned, I quite expect that having a 'social' pool of wealth to fund their talented projects would be an improvement over the market.  They wouldn't have to be half-talented, half-financier, in order to advance.

Always remember, capital is an extra mouth to be fed.  If it were provided by a non-profit, cooperative effort, that's one-quarter--generally, much more, since capitalists usually grab control of the reins of industry--of the cost of production that could be eliminated.

why bother being an innovator if you gain no more than the mindless wage slave that sits beside you?

Victorismyhero wrote:why bother being an innovator if you gain no more than the mindless wage slave that sits beside you?

Government employees invented the Internet. Innovators don't stop innovating simply because they can't make a fortune off it.

Innovators operate on a much different set of incentives. Developing an idea is very much like having a baby...it has to come out, whether or not there is any profit in the effort.

Original Quill wrote:Innovators operate on a much different set of incentives.  Developing an idea is very much like having a baby...it has to come out, whether or not there is any profit in the effort.

What?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Victorismyhero wrote:why bother being an innovator if you gain no more than the mindless wage slave that sits beside you?

Government employees invented the Internet. Innovators don't stop innovating simply because they can't make a fortune off it.

They may have started it. The fact that you and I are using it to communicate right now is based on the private sector and innovation.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Victorismyhero wrote:why bother being an innovator if you gain no more than the mindless wage slave that sits beside you?

Government employees invented the Internet. Innovators don't stop innovating simply because they can't make a fortune off it.

https://thenextweb.com/shareables/2010/02/27/newsweek-1995-buy-books-newspapers-straight-intenet-uh/

In 1995, the free market hadn't taken hold if the weird little invention started by the government.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Government employees invented the Internet. Innovators don't stop innovating simply because they can't make a fortune off it.

https://thenextweb.com/shareables/2010/02/27/newsweek-1995-buy-books-newspapers-straight-intenet-uh/

In 1995, the free market hadn't taken hold if the weird little invention started by the government.  

The capitalists are never in the forefront of innovation.  Too risky.  Their thing is money  -> power.  With money, they penetrate, incorporate and take over.

Like the pharma industry, for example, where they let the universities and national labs do all the experimentation, testing and validation.  Then they move in with big bucks for the inventor, and claim all his/her work as their own by virtue of ownership-sharing (by 'we' they mean to grab all the credit for themselves).  They take over the patents, and begin to churn money. It's a financial institution.

nicko wrote: I hate to think what would happen if Labour were in charge, with Dianne Abbot looking after the Money !

She was Shadow Home Secretary, old boy; she would have been in charge of the police and national internal security, including any military support of the civil authorities.

McDonnell would be in charge of the money, but the best that I can say about him is that although extremely intelligent his economic program would have bankrupted the nation within six months.

I have never been a great fan of Boris Johnson, but when he was first suggested as a future PM there was absolute ridicule at the idea that this philandering, tousle-headed Classics scholar and scribbler warranted any serious consideration.

I recall commenting (in another place) at the time: Don't be fooled by the hail-fellow-well-met buffoonery; it is all part of a carefully planned and meticulously rehearsed front for a serious assault on the barriers to the achievement of high office.

Remember his defeat of the old "unassailable" Socialist Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone and his successful second term run for office?

Johnson is a great disciple of Winston Churchill, another journalist-cum-politician who defied all odds to achieve the highest Office of State in the UK.

In spite of my earlier reservations, I now have the utmost faith in him.

Maddog wrote:Let's call this what it is, an invasion threatening us. No one calls defending a country from an invasion, socialism.  

Well, not people that know what the hell socialism is.

You're the idiot here who doesn't understand what the term "socialism" actually means; and just what a broad range it actually covers...

It's a great pity that your limited education didn't include any economics, commerce or political studies amongst your 'third world' schooling..

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Government employees invented the Internet. Innovators don't stop innovating simply because they can't make a fortune off it.

https://thenextweb.com/shareables/2010/02/27/newsweek-1995-buy-books-newspapers-straight-intenet-uh/

In 1995, the free market hadn't taken hold if the weird little invention started by the government.  

Utter bullshit...

I had access to the internet down here in 1988; and that wasn't the beginning in Oz -- it was becoming accessible here in the early 80's, a decade after Aymerika launched it within their uni's and gov't departments -- it was the development of the "world wide web" systems and protocols in the 1990s that made the internet more accessable to the wider (non-'computer literate') society..

Bollocks!

The internet was never made. The program on which it operates was written by a California programmer to enable him to communicate more easily with other computer people.  It was written in the early to mid eighties.

The originator foresaw what it could do and decided to put it out as a public domain program, meaning it was free to anyone and could never be copyrighted by any private person, company, or government. It became immensely useful to anyone who got involved with using it and grew exponentially as time went on.

He could have become an instant billionaire, wealthier than any other man alive had he required everyone to pay a fee to use the program. Bill Gates would be a pauper compared to the wealth the one who came up with the internet program could have made in a few years.

And Bill Gates is considered the second wealthiest man on earth.

Flea keeper talks shite all the time!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Flea keeper talks shite all the time!!!

So do you. What is your point?

Tommy Monk wrote:


Flea keeper talks shite all the time!!!

He needs to attack people. He's an obnoxious human being. Ignore him.

...

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Flea keeper talks shite all the time!!!

So do you. What is your point?

Do I ..!!!???


Funny how over the years that I have posted here and elsewhere... Nobody has ever once been able to prove me wrong over anything that I've posted...!!!






I provide evidence every time I'm asked to do so... and although some posters shout and scream that I'm lying etc... I've always asked for them to provide proof for their claims... And I'm still waiting for any to provide any proof to prove me wrong!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

So do you.  What is your point?

Do I ..!!!???

Funny how over the years that I have posted here and elsewhere... Nobody has ever once been able to prove me wrong over anything that I've posted...!!!


I provide evidence every time I'm asked to do so... and although some posters shout and scream that I'm lying etc... I've always asked for them to provide proof for their claims... And I'm still waiting for any to provide any proof to prove me wrong!!!

I've proved you wrong many times. There was the time when you tried to personify Nature, giving him/her motives in the homosexual debates. You lost, dude.

Tommy really is one arrogant fool...

So stupid he actually believes he's a "genius"...

On the subject of nazism and fascism,  Maddog is the latest to prove Tommy wrong,  on top of Eilzel, Quill, Ben, Thorin and myself..

On 'climate change',  Tommy's claims have regularly been disproved by Ben, Thorin, Victor, veya and again, little ol' moi.

And now on the Covid-19 pandemic,  fearmongering anti-science and irrational troll Tommy has been proven wrong too many times to count, day-in and day-out..

Tommy Monk --  Newsfix's idiot fuckwit of the century  !!!

Maddog wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Flea keeper talks shite all the time!!!

He needs to attack people. He's an obnoxious human being. Ignore him.

Go fuck yourself, you pathetic turd...

You attack people on here more often than I do, you supercilious fool..

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Flea keeper talks shite all the time!!!

So do you.  What is your point?

Notice how Tommy keeps on claiming that I'm lying on here, and goes aa far as to call me the "forum idiot"...

Not not once has he actually called me out on a genuine "lie", never able to actually produce tangible 'evidence' to prove me wrong..

Tommy, nicko and co.have been trying to blame Labour, 'lefties', foreigners and "immigrants" for all of the worlds woes for so long now, that those pathetic far-right losers are now grasping at straws, trying to find new targets to scapegoat.

You don't really say a lot apart from insults...

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Do I ..!!!???

Funny how over the years that I have posted here and elsewhere... Nobody has ever once been able to prove me wrong over anything that I've posted...!!!


I provide evidence every time I'm asked to do so... and although some posters shout and scream that I'm lying etc... I've always asked for them to provide proof for their claims... And I'm still waiting for any to provide any proof to prove me wrong!!!

I've proved you wrong many times. There was the time when you tried to personify Nature, giving him/her motives in the homosexual debates. You lost, dude.

In your dreams son...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I've proved you wrong many times.  There was the time when you tried to personify Nature, giving him/her motives in the homosexual debates.  You lost, dude.

In your dreams son...

I guess distance emboldens you. You were pretty embarrassed at the time.

What a load of bollocks!

Tommy Monk wrote:What a load of bollocks!

I'll give you a simpler word, Bullshiet!

'Wolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Government employees invented the Internet. Innovators don't stop innovating simply because they can't make a fortune off it.

https://thenextweb.com/shareables/2010/02/27/newsweek-1995-buy-books-newspapers-straight-intenet-uh/

In 1995, the free market hadn't taken hold if the weird little invention started by the government.  

Utter bullshit...

I had access to the internet down here in 1988;  and that wasn't the beginning in Oz --  it was becoming accessible here in the early 80's, a decade after Aymerika launched it within their uni's and gov't departments  --  it was the development of the "world wide web" systems and protocols in the 1990s that made the internet more accessable to the wider (non-'computer literate') society..

Wow, that's early to be able to get online. Did you have a job that used the internet? Surely you didn't have it at home.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Victorismyhero wrote:why bother being an innovator if you gain no more than the mindless wage slave that sits beside you?

Government employees invented the Internet. Innovators don't stop innovating simply because they can't make a fortune off it.

They may have started it. The fact that you and I are using it to communicate right now is based on the private sector and innovation.  

The internet itself was a massive innovation, made possible by the government, which (as I'm sure you know) is not allowed to earn a profit off of anything.

It's one thing to be creative enough to think up a product you can influence people into wanting to consume. It's quite another to think up something that will literally change the world.

The government invention of the internet connected the world. The private-sector invention of the smartphone extended that connection to a device that can be carried in one's pocket. Both are impressive, but you had to have the internet before anybody would bother inventing smartphones.

Likewise ...

There must be roads before there can be sports cars. There must be clean drinking water before there can be energy drinks. The government, in most every case, provides the foundation upon which the private sector builds.

Scientists and military experts were especially concerned about what might happen in the event of a Soviet attack on the nation’s telephone system. Just one missile, they feared, could destroy the whole network of lines and wires that made efficient long-distance communication possible.

In 1962, a scientist from M.I.T. and ARPA named J.C.R. Licklider proposed a solution to this problem: a “galactic network” of computers that could talk to one another. Such a network would enable government leaders to communicate even if the Soviets destroyed the telephone system.

On October 29, 1969, ARPAnet delivered its first message: a “node-to-node” communication from one computer to another. The first computer was located in a research lab at UCLA, in Los Angeles, and the second was at Stanford University, in Palo Alto, California; each one was the size of a small house. The message—“LOGIN”—was short and simple, but it crashed the fledgling ARPA network anyway: The Stanford computer only received the note’s first two letters.

https://www.history.com/topics/inventions/invention-of-the-internet

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

They may have started it. The fact that you and I are using it to communicate right now is based on the private sector and innovation.  

The internet itself was a massive innovation, made possible by the government, which (as I'm sure you know) is not allowed to earn a profit off of anything.

It's one thing to be creative enough to think up a product you can influence people into wanting to consume. It's quite another to think up something that will literally change the world.

The government invention of the internet connected the world. The private-sector invention of the smartphone extended that connection to a device that can be carried in one's pocket. Both are impressive, but you had to have the internet before anybody would bother inventing smartphones.

Likewise ...

There must be roads before there can be sports cars. There must be clean drinking water before there can be energy drinks. The government, in most every case, provides the foundation upon which the private sector builds.

The government can create something. The private sector makes it accessible to people. Without the private sector, you and I wouldn't be talking right now.

And horses predate government roads. Private companies and individuals produce clean water all over the state of Texas.

Psshaw... The private sector is out for profit...it views competition as elimination, and so tends to monopoly.

Anyone can make anything accessible to people. There's no magic in the "private sector". But it is another mouth to feed...and believe me, it takes more than its share.