Jim Obey
@jimob1.bsky.social
All opinions are other people's passed off as my own.
A) Sack Starmer and appear incompetant
B) Back Starmer and appear incompetant, tin-eared and heartless.
B) Back Starmer and appear incompetant, tin-eared and heartless.
November 13, 2025 at 3:15 PM
A) Sack Starmer and appear incompetant
B) Back Starmer and appear incompetant, tin-eared and heartless.
B) Back Starmer and appear incompetant, tin-eared and heartless.
Milliband putting Starmer on the spot re sacking briefer, (McSweeney pleeaaase!) Thus making himself look ethical and decisive. Well played sir.
November 13, 2025 at 2:30 PM
Milliband putting Starmer on the spot re sacking briefer, (McSweeney pleeaaase!) Thus making himself look ethical and decisive. Well played sir.
You're right. A technocratic TINA where the method (without a destination) is all?
Trouble is, if the method no longer achieves stability or growth, it resembles a cargo cult that ritualistically goes through the motions and prays. Reasoned debate? Ethics? Plans with objectives?
Trouble is, if the method no longer achieves stability or growth, it resembles a cargo cult that ritualistically goes through the motions and prays. Reasoned debate? Ethics? Plans with objectives?
November 13, 2025 at 10:36 AM
You're right. A technocratic TINA where the method (without a destination) is all?
Trouble is, if the method no longer achieves stability or growth, it resembles a cargo cult that ritualistically goes through the motions and prays. Reasoned debate? Ethics? Plans with objectives?
Trouble is, if the method no longer achieves stability or growth, it resembles a cargo cult that ritualistically goes through the motions and prays. Reasoned debate? Ethics? Plans with objectives?
It'll never catch on. TINA style politics/economics avoids all the messy business of persuading people the virtue of plans with objectives.
November 13, 2025 at 9:59 AM
It'll never catch on. TINA style politics/economics avoids all the messy business of persuading people the virtue of plans with objectives.
Absolutely. This would be a step in the right direction.
All I'm saying is there are also structural reasons for low growth that this government could/should be addressing.
All I'm saying is there are also structural reasons for low growth that this government could/should be addressing.
November 13, 2025 at 9:04 AM
Absolutely. This would be a step in the right direction.
All I'm saying is there are also structural reasons for low growth that this government could/should be addressing.
All I'm saying is there are also structural reasons for low growth that this government could/should be addressing.
100%. Repeating a failing method is illogical and anti-scientific. Sans a progressive offering, why wouldn't there be a reationary response to this cargo cult?
November 13, 2025 at 8:52 AM
100%. Repeating a failing method is illogical and anti-scientific. Sans a progressive offering, why wouldn't there be a reationary response to this cargo cult?
100%. But looking forward we also have agency beyond Brexit.
If you have laggardly growth, is it logical to expect different results from repeating the old playbook?
If you have laggardly growth, is it logical to expect different results from repeating the old playbook?
November 13, 2025 at 8:36 AM
100%. But looking forward we also have agency beyond Brexit.
If you have laggardly growth, is it logical to expect different results from repeating the old playbook?
If you have laggardly growth, is it logical to expect different results from repeating the old playbook?
Yes, the inference is that 'we' follow science and reason whilst 'they' are emotional. This is half right.
November 13, 2025 at 8:25 AM
Yes, the inference is that 'we' follow science and reason whilst 'they' are emotional. This is half right.
True. And you can include conservatism (being based on emotion) in the anti-enlightenment camp.
People 'reacting' to Starmer's unthinking TINA style technocracy/reactionary centrism (there is no plan) means there is a progressive void.
People 'reacting' to Starmer's unthinking TINA style technocracy/reactionary centrism (there is no plan) means there is a progressive void.
November 13, 2025 at 8:17 AM
True. And you can include conservatism (being based on emotion) in the anti-enlightenment camp.
People 'reacting' to Starmer's unthinking TINA style technocracy/reactionary centrism (there is no plan) means there is a progressive void.
People 'reacting' to Starmer's unthinking TINA style technocracy/reactionary centrism (there is no plan) means there is a progressive void.
Also higher capital requirements + lengthier lead times of large reactors compared to older but tried and tested Rolls-Royce tech, means greater exposure to risk of political flip-flopping, energy market volatility etc. which is reflected in the relative price.
November 12, 2025 at 3:37 PM
Also higher capital requirements + lengthier lead times of large reactors compared to older but tried and tested Rolls-Royce tech, means greater exposure to risk of political flip-flopping, energy market volatility etc. which is reflected in the relative price.
Am no expert! 😆 From what I understand, whilst the tech is similar, as there are only a few suppliers of larger reactors, like plumbers over Christmas, (French or Chinese?) suppliers can in effect can name their price.
November 12, 2025 at 3:37 PM
Am no expert! 😆 From what I understand, whilst the tech is similar, as there are only a few suppliers of larger reactors, like plumbers over Christmas, (French or Chinese?) suppliers can in effect can name their price.
Times change and happy to be proved wrong, but someone who worked on Hinckley Point once explained to me how mini reactors are just a helluva lot cheaper. So more efficient to build a few littl'uns than a big'un.
November 12, 2025 at 2:31 PM
Times change and happy to be proved wrong, but someone who worked on Hinckley Point once explained to me how mini reactors are just a helluva lot cheaper. So more efficient to build a few littl'uns than a big'un.
Are the traitors plotting to oust Starmer trying to install....
November 12, 2025 at 11:33 AM
Are the traitors plotting to oust Starmer trying to install....
They haven't been offered anything else since? It's pretty much been inflation targeting pretty much all the way since then.
November 12, 2025 at 9:48 AM
They haven't been offered anything else since? It's pretty much been inflation targeting pretty much all the way since then.
😆 If you don't laugh you have to cry.
November 12, 2025 at 9:17 AM
😆 If you don't laugh you have to cry.
No fan of Starmer, but Streeting?! The cunning plan involves avoiding the banana skin by stepping on a garden rake?
November 12, 2025 at 9:14 AM
No fan of Starmer, but Streeting?! The cunning plan involves avoiding the banana skin by stepping on a garden rake?
Yes. The common thread is policy changes within the neoliberal paradigm have resulted in frustration and increased political/economic volatility.
Therefore is hunkering down and waiting for the 'innevitable' upswing wise?
Therefore is hunkering down and waiting for the 'innevitable' upswing wise?
November 12, 2025 at 8:35 AM
Yes. The common thread is policy changes within the neoliberal paradigm have resulted in frustration and increased political/economic volatility.
Therefore is hunkering down and waiting for the 'innevitable' upswing wise?
Therefore is hunkering down and waiting for the 'innevitable' upswing wise?
Whilst I completly empathise, if one doesn't believe it's an equilibrium system, then hunkering down to the 'innevitable' upswing is a grave error. British politics' inability/unwillingness to engage with systemic issues is the problem.
November 12, 2025 at 8:21 AM
Whilst I completly empathise, if one doesn't believe it's an equilibrium system, then hunkering down to the 'innevitable' upswing is a grave error. British politics' inability/unwillingness to engage with systemic issues is the problem.
To state the bleedin' obvious people didn't like the direction of travel and have been asking for change.
If we assume it isn't 'poor quality leadership' then either people are unrealistic, or there is a systemic problem. In which case depends whether you view through a technocratic lens or not.
If we assume it isn't 'poor quality leadership' then either people are unrealistic, or there is a systemic problem. In which case depends whether you view through a technocratic lens or not.
November 12, 2025 at 8:02 AM
To state the bleedin' obvious people didn't like the direction of travel and have been asking for change.
If we assume it isn't 'poor quality leadership' then either people are unrealistic, or there is a systemic problem. In which case depends whether you view through a technocratic lens or not.
If we assume it isn't 'poor quality leadership' then either people are unrealistic, or there is a systemic problem. In which case depends whether you view through a technocratic lens or not.
Starmer got 'a huge majority' by promising to turn the country around by doing little. However, instability is the price of change.
If there weren't potentially both upsides and downsides everyone would do it.
If there weren't potentially both upsides and downsides everyone would do it.
November 12, 2025 at 7:36 AM
Starmer got 'a huge majority' by promising to turn the country around by doing little. However, instability is the price of change.
If there weren't potentially both upsides and downsides everyone would do it.
If there weren't potentially both upsides and downsides everyone would do it.
Preserving 'own privileged position' informs all. Capitalists will burn through any amount of profit if 'preserving stability of social system' insures their position at the summit.
But 2008 illustrates how they happily watch society collapse if they, personally, come out ahead/not behind.
But 2008 illustrates how they happily watch society collapse if they, personally, come out ahead/not behind.
November 11, 2025 at 2:18 PM
Preserving 'own privileged position' informs all. Capitalists will burn through any amount of profit if 'preserving stability of social system' insures their position at the summit.
But 2008 illustrates how they happily watch society collapse if they, personally, come out ahead/not behind.
But 2008 illustrates how they happily watch society collapse if they, personally, come out ahead/not behind.
'Labour market flexibility' - employers respond to positive 'incentives' whilst wage labour responds to negative ones? 🤔
November 11, 2025 at 1:23 PM
'Labour market flexibility' - employers respond to positive 'incentives' whilst wage labour responds to negative ones? 🤔