-
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.
ReekBlefs-
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).
try to think beyond the Monopoly box, and think about investment funds.
This is your analogy. Just because my post had brevity doesn't mean I don't understand the implicit and explicit nuance of what a shareholder is. You have a tendency to try and condescend and undermine other people on here by misrepresenting their position.
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.
This is a bold, sweeping assertion that has very little basis in economic or political fact. More importantly you've totally missed the point by only assuming economic interest. How would you ever expect "business" represent the non-economic interests of workers? Even if they wanted to – the biggest pension funds, or the businesses they are invested in – lack any of the apperatus or impetus to perform that role.
It's the demands of business and profit that drives worker exploitation – and you've somehow also managed to highlight how "ordinary people" are in a way perversely invested indirectly in their own exploitation through pension funds.
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.
Please kindly, check here.
It's the financial illiteracy stuff that fucks Labour every time.
Lol ok buddy. I'll put this on the pile with "20 pts ahead", "the grown ups are back in charge", etc.
The most glaring irony of Blair's New Statesman piece is that the supposedly revolutionary economic policy positions that Blair alludes to in such airy vagueries about emerging tech and green sector opportunities are totally in step with the vision for the economy outlined by McDonnell in 2017/19. The charlatan is 4 years behind, being heralded as a visionary. Even Rishi's policy has been drinking from the same cup. Green Revolution? Furlough? These are economic concepts founded on ideologies originated by the left.
🅑🅐🅣🅣
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.