-
business having a voice is fair.
Businesses lobbying a political party on behalf of their shareholders interests is not comparable to unions lobbying on behalf of their (collectively, millions of) members interests.
As several people have tried to explain to you, if Unions ‘hold the whip hand’ (oh please) it’s entirely qualified by the weight of their collective membership.
If you don’t understand why it’s important to draw distinction between business and labour interests, TBH I’m not entirely sure you’re in the right party.
🅑🅐🅣🅣-
Have you ever thought that this kind of reaction to a pretty middle of the road, balanced comment about funding could be part of the reason why labour don't win?
Suggest that funding could come from a wide variety of sources, and get shirty replies back about why that's nonsense which ends with suggesting they don't belong in the labour party.
-
As several people have tried to explain to you, if Unions ‘hold the whip hand’ (oh please) it’s entirely qualified by the weight of their collective membership.
And entirely disqualified because it repeatedly destroys Labour's chances of ever getting into power and actually being able to do anything to support labour interests.
What a delicious paradox!
-
Businesses lobbying a political party on behalf of their shareholders interests is not comparable to unions lobbying on behalf of their (collectively, millions of) members interests.
As several people have tried to explain to you, if Unions ‘hold the whip hand’ (oh please) it’s entirely qualified by the weight of their collective membership.
If you don’t understand why it’s important to draw distinction between business and labour interests, TBH I’m not entirely sure you’re in the right party.
These days, the vast majority of businesses are publicly traded and passively owned by a wide range of funds. Very rarely are they owned by the dude with the top hat from the Monopoly box (a game which is is at best an incomplete guide to the modern economy).
So when you say 'shareholders' try to think beyond the Monopoly box, and think about investment funds. And what are the most widespread form of investment funds? Pensions. My pension. Your pension. Ordinary people - many of whom would not think of themselves as shareholders - are who we're talking about. The distinction you're referring to - between business interests and labour interests - was largely erased when pension funds started to become major shareholders in those businesses.
(And if we're talking numbers, I'd tentatively suggest that more people have a pension than belong to a union. Businesses - and their shareholders - have a right to a voice.)
This is important, because one of the key reasons that Labour aren't trusted with the economy (and therefore why we've been out of power for a decade) is that our most active and vocal parts of our base don't UNDERSTAND the economy.
It's the financial illiteracy stuff that fucks Labour every time.
andyfallsoff
ffm
ReekBlefs
I think the unions having a voice is absolutely fair. I also think the members having a voice is fair. I think business having a voice is fair. I think the PLP having a voice is fair. I think all stakeholders should have a voice.
However I fundamentally object to any one of those voices having the whip hand. That's how you end up in the mess we've been in for the last six years.