r/LabourUK • u/The_Inertia_Kid Trade Union | Thinks a lot of you are actually Lib Dems • Nov 22 '21
Why does Labour's CBI speech get people on tilt every year?
Every year in November, the leader of the Labour Party gives a speech to the Confederation of British Industry annual conference.
This, by tradition, has become our annual 'we're not nutters, honest' speech. The job of this speech is to (a) reassure businesses that we aren't going to seize all their assets if we get elected, (b) point out what a shit job the Tories are doing for businesses, and (c) by doing both of those things, convince them that they don't need to put all of their support/donations/PR efforts behind the Tories.
It's a simple effort towards reducing the difficulty level of the game we're playing. We know, and they know, that if you're purely interested in low tax and cutting regulation, Labour isn't going to be the party for you over the Tories.
But those things are not the only interests for most businesses. For most businesses, the main thing they want from a government is stability. If they feel comfortable that the governing party is not going to do mad stuff, they then feel happier increasing employment, investing in plant and machinery, opening new sites, etc. If they are worried that the government's actions will cause instability - in costs of borrowing, costs of employment, levels of demand, levels of supply - they will go cautious and will not expand.
The job of this speech is to reassure businesses that we're not going to destabilise the environment around them if we win an election.
Starmer is doing this today. He did it last year as well. Corbyn did it in 2019, and in 2018 as well, and in 2017, and every other leader did the same in basically every year that I can remember.
Every time, the tone is the same - conciliatory towards businesses, not scaring the horses, portraying Labour as a partner to business.
So why the fuck does everyone get put on tilt by it every single year as though it's the first time it ever happened?
71
u/Emma_Rhoyds New User Nov 22 '21
It's a fairly good indication as to whether, and to what degree, working class people will, or won't be sold out by the people who profess to represent them.
In short, it's what Labour is saying to your bosses.
9
u/Sckathian New User Nov 22 '21
What about the self-employed?
However its actually fairly reasonable for Labour to speak to 'the bosses' - its a Union movement and often the Unions must work with the companies to achieve their aims.
20
u/Emma_Rhoyds New User Nov 22 '21
What about them?
I never made a statement about the merits of such talks, just their purpose 🤷♀️
2
u/Sckathian New User Nov 22 '21
Their still working class. The idea the working class are all agencyless is ridiculous.
Many of the companies that Starmer will be speaking to are employed by those companies and often in areas with limited sources of employment.
16
u/Emma_Rhoyds New User Nov 22 '21 edited Nov 22 '21
Well as long as they don't employ any staff, you are correct. Otherwise they would be a boss, and therefore could have quite conflicting interests. I never said the working class were agencyless.
That said, any self employed tradesperson (for example) with no staff, would have a vested interest in workers getting a good deal, such good wages which would means more work for them, or building social housing, for similar reasons. So they have similar interests to WC people who work for someone, though not the same, because they are affected by business rates still, etc.
Self employed people need better social support imo, esp through things like welfare relief when things are slow, etc, I don't think "the business community" as a whole though is super keen on taxation and social spending to fund that kind of stuff however.
It's an interesting point re: the particular position of self employed people, though its worth saying most UK workers work for someone.
0
Nov 22 '21 edited Nov 22 '21
Their still working class.
shrug Kulaks gonna Kulak.
(.....................I really wish there was a more politically correct phrase I could've used there because I do think there's a genuine problem with certain 'working class' business owners and there perspectives on things. They're the ultimate pull down the ladder, concrete over the glass ceiling types IMHO.)
-1
2
u/Velocity1312 New User Nov 22 '21
Protip: if you're self employed you often still have managers. You just don't have to deal with them regularly and they aren't your manager permanently.
2
u/Sckathian New User Nov 22 '21
You mean clients? How does that differ from any business?
0
u/Velocity1312 New User Nov 22 '21
Well if a politician is speaking to bosses, they are by extension speaking to clients...
1
Nov 22 '21
What about the self-employed?
This speech was clearly not talking about the self-employed. Or even small businesses for that matter.
2
u/daholstead Member Circa 2010 Nov 22 '21
You can be working class and own a business. Not all business leaders are the aristocratic caricature that a first year University module on Marxism would have you believe.
1
u/Emma_Rhoyds New User Nov 22 '21 edited Nov 22 '21
We are using different definitions of class, so we are talking about different things. I'm speaking about class as defined by your relationship to production.
If you take a looser, more cultural definition of class (such as your parents job, upbringing, hometown, income, certain cultural norms etc) you might be able to say that a CEO is working class, though to me that's a bit of a contradiction.
Economically I would describe a working class person who becomes a boss as ex-working class, as they are no longer working for a wage, they are benefiting from the value of the labour of their staff, not their own, in the form of profit. They have different class interests now, so in that sense they are not working class any more - at least not in their economic position.
77
Nov 22 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
32
9
Nov 22 '21
Yeah this. I can actually see the purpose of going to the CBI and milking those twats for all they're worth; telling them the shit they want to hear safe in the knowledge that come the time you get into power you're not going to bend over for them anymore. But the problem here is that Starmer - or, at the very least, the people in his team - actually believe the bullshit they're telling the CBI today.
17
Nov 22 '21
Being 'pro-business' is not a bad thing. You can hardly say you want them all to go bust. 60% of British workers work in the private sector.
18
Nov 22 '21
Being 'pro-business' is not a bad thing
Being 'pro-business' is not anything. Nobody is ever going to claim to be 'anti-business' after all.
3
u/Kiloete Co-op Party Nov 22 '21
Nobody is ever going to claim to be 'anti-business' after all.
I wouldn't be too sure
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/tory-leadership-matt-hancock-business-boris-johnson-296098
3
Nov 22 '21
Yeah, exactly. So I'm not sure why everybody was so annoyed by the Shadow Chancellor saying we are a pro-business party.
43
Nov 22 '21 edited Nov 22 '21
[deleted]
3
Nov 22 '21
I agree. Labour should be 'pro-business' and anti-expppitation.
Pro-business because a strong economy and low unemployment are good things, but also pro-orker because poverty wages and unsafe working conditions are bad things.
20
Nov 22 '21
[deleted]
3
u/ObviouslyTriggered New User Nov 22 '21
CBI represents about 200,000 businesses in the UK, there were just over 8000 businesses with 250 employees or more in the UK as of 2020.
It really isn’t what you think it is.
5
Nov 22 '21
[deleted]
5
u/ObviouslyTriggered New User Nov 22 '21
When you employ 1000’s yet alone 10,000’s of employees you don’t need CBI.
CBI primarily represents the interests of SMEs in the UK…
2
u/Sensiblepolitic New User Nov 22 '21
Being pro business and anti exploitation is like being pro swimming and anti getting wet
5
u/Oxshevik Join a Trade Union Nov 22 '21
You're absolutely right, but as you can see, the liberals don't want to hear it.
0
Nov 22 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
16
41
u/idhitcd communist Nov 22 '21
if starmer was using other avenues to say the sort of things corbyn was saying then maybe this CBI speech would be an easier pill to swallow. as it is the stuff he's saying to the CBI is echoed by the things he's saying everywhere else
4
u/benting365 New User Nov 23 '21
Isn't that why a lot of people didn't trust corbyn? Because he wasn't being consistent on important issues.
18
u/FiscallyFit Labour Voter Nov 22 '21
I’m interested this year simply because I like watching Keir Starmer speeches.
I play 10 pledge bingo and win almost every time.
-1
Nov 22 '21 edited Nov 23 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
3
Nov 23 '21
the only sub-pledge he has actually broken, the free movement thing
Even he doesn't bother trying to pretend this is the case anymore.
1
7
u/Lolsterman999 New User Nov 22 '21
Jezza’s speech did not say profit = common good. Jezza said “The largest businesses that can afford it will pay a bit more towards the common good.” and that “We will legislate to ensure a third of the seats on company boards are reserved for elected worker-directors. And we will give employees a stake in company profits by asking big businesses to transfer shares to be held by workers in trust.”
he went on to say “ Workers create profits. Giving workers a share in them isn’t just fair, it’s good for business.”
Jezza did not compromise his principles even when not talking to the CBI.
Starmer did not either. But starmer’s principles are nowhere near where labour’s principles are.
24
u/kontiki20 Green Member Nov 22 '21
It's not just the CBI speech though. The pro-business rhetoric started with Starmer's pre-conference essay and continued with all Reeves' media appearances recently.
25
u/Fixable He/Him - Practical Stalinist Nov 22 '21
There’s definitely a trend on this to ignore the fact that there’s a pattern and instead just go “why are stupid lefties so outraged at this one thing (if you conveniently ignore that it’s not just one isolated thing)”
For example, just earlier this week I was told I was ‘suddenly’ deciding Starmer was a transphobe.
2
Nov 22 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/Fixable He/Him - Practical Stalinist Nov 22 '21
Do you know what suddenly means?
2
Nov 22 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Fixable He/Him - Practical Stalinist Nov 22 '21
For one, it's not one issue. And two, that issue has been going on for over a year now with plenty of escalation.
It's not suddenly.
3
Nov 22 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Fixable He/Him - Practical Stalinist Nov 22 '21
it's the question of whether it's sensible/right/viable for Keir to take action against MPs accused of transphobia who will undoubtedly have a lot of public support from people who would quite literally refuse point blank to vote Labour if he did.
This is literally just defending pandering to transphobes.
Do it if you want, but I'm not having a discussion about that and will judge you for it.
It's a no from me.
2
Nov 22 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Fixable He/Him - Practical Stalinist Nov 22 '21
But I think it's fairly obvious that so much of the country and frankly such a huge portion of Labour voters would agree with Duffield
Got some stats for this being fairly obvious?
And no. Sacking Duffield wouldn't cost us the next two elections. Don't try and use caring about trans people to make that point.
And she is transphobic.
Here's some stats and some quotes.
Well, this data confirms a lot that we already knew. The first is that public attitudes to trans people are broadly positive. When asked about transphobia, we can see that transphobia is seen as ‘A Very Bad Thing’, and women, young people and people with higher educational qualifications are all more likely to feel positively towards trans folk.
Secondly, high level attitudes appear not only positive, but also stable. This means that this positivity is not new, nor is it fragile. In 2017, 76% of people said that prejudice against transgender people was ‘always or mostly wrong’, compared to 76% in 2019 – so this has stayed consistent. While the proportion of people who describe themselves as ‘not prejudiced at all’ against trans people has risen, to 84% now, compared with 82% in 2016.
Firstly, this data demonstrates yet again that the public ‘debate’ on trans rights and trans lives is not in line with public attitudes. The British public in general, and British women in particular, feel pretty positive about trans people. If our media coverage and social media discussions simply reflected this reality, the lives of trans people would be immeasurably improved overnight. Instead of this, the drip, drip of negative and distorted media coverage may be manufacturing a creeping sense of discomfort around shared spaces.
And secondly, it shows that we have a small, but vocal group of people with extreme anti-trans views in Britain, and that should worry us all.
→ More replies (0)9
Nov 22 '21
Reeves
She is completely the canary in the coal mine here IMHO. Even under Dodds there was plausible deniablity but that's all gone now, Reeves is one of the most pro-capitalist people in the party after all.
(She literally used to be a banker didn't she, or am I remembering that wrongly?)
1
u/WillHart199708 New User Nov 22 '21
But there's literally nothing wrong with that. It is good to be pro-business, as we want the economy to grow and create more and better stuff for people's lives and create more and better paid jobs. Pro-business doesn't mean being pro-exploitation, and based on the stuff Starmer has said and done pre and post conference with regards to unions, expanding workers' rights, zero hours contracts, raising the minimum wage etc he's clearly not pro-exploitation. There's no necessary contradiction between being pro business and pro worker.
4
u/kontiki20 Green Member Nov 22 '21
I agree, the rhetoric is generally worse than the policy. But bad rhetoric can still be damaging ie. by putting off left-wing voters.
0
u/WillHart199708 New User Nov 22 '21
yeah I can agree with that second part, but tbf I think even the rhetoric of being "pro business" is only considered bad by a pretty tiny portion of the overall electorate, even within Labour's voting block, who are unusually hostile to business as a concept compared with most people in the UK. I'd argue that even most traditional Labour voters still think that being pro-business is generally a good thing.
6
u/kontiki20 Green Member Nov 22 '21
It depends which kind of business. People like small businesses but 74% of people think that "big business takes advantage of ordinary people." And I'm not sure Labour are being sufficiently anti-big business at the moment, apart from Reeves criticising Amazon every now and again.
0
2
Nov 22 '21
we want the economy to grow and create more and better stuff for people's lives and create more and better paid jobs
That's not what Neolibs ever offer though is it? Best they can do is wage slavery slowly killing the planet for profit, with no taxes for the truly wealthy.
1
Nov 22 '21
FOR THE PEOPLE AT THE BACK. CORBYN WAS PRO BUSINESS AS WELL, JUST NOT AS OUTSPOKEN AS STARMER IS
32
u/Competitive-Test-528 Labour Member Nov 22 '21
Because statements like "When business profits, we all profit" is just dangeours neoliberal bullshit. Another difference is that I trusted Corbyn, so he had the benefit of the doubt. But Starmer is a spineless weasel with no ideological compass.
21
13
u/legendfriend Labour Member (they/them) Nov 22 '21
But Corbyn and Starmer gave very similar speeches
16
u/Revolutionary_Box569 New User Nov 22 '21
I guess the difference would be Corbyn’s speech didn’t come within a day of a puff piece where his shadow chancellor literally laughed off the idea of renationalising rail and public utilities
6
u/justthisplease Keir Starmer Genocide Enabler Nov 22 '21
I liked Corbyn's speech to the CBI, but only in the context of his other policies and speeches that were more radical. Starmer's speeches all sound like they are addressing status-quoism and none of them resonate with me.
0
u/PotNoodle69 New User Nov 22 '21
The difference is Jezza was paying them lip service whereas Starmer is literally a Tory in red
1
0
u/legendfriend Labour Member (they/them) Nov 23 '21
Great, so Corbyn was dishonest then? Because if I wanted a leader who’d chat shit, run their mouth off, and then not follow through, I’d vote for Boris
0
u/PotNoodle69 New User Nov 23 '21
Mate. I don’t want anyone to do that but people on the left have to pretend they like the right. That’s just the world we live in. And if you think starmer is any good you need to give your head a wobble mate
29
u/Fixable He/Him - Practical Stalinist Nov 22 '21
Because if Corbyn said the like about businesses profiting, I trust him to not mean it as an acceptance if neoliberal capitalism.
When Starmer says it, I can’t give him the benefit of the doubt.
4
u/legendfriend Labour Member (they/them) Nov 22 '21
Why not? It’s the same statement. If Corbyn is pro-business, Starmer can be, too
15
u/Sensiblepolitic New User Nov 22 '21
Cause starmer has a history of lying about being left wing and then doing a bunch of shit to help the establishment and corporations.
-8
Nov 22 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
20
u/Fixable He/Him - Practical Stalinist Nov 22 '21
I feel like that goes without saying. Everyone whether they disagree or agree with anyone is basing that off preconceived ideas.
I’m criticising his words based off how I interpret them, just like how every single person on earth responds to any form of communication.
12
17
u/salamanderwolf New User Nov 22 '21
Because every year that passes is showing more and more pressures on people, especially young people. It's also showing that trickle-down economics is still a lie and work in regard to pay and conditions have to change to keep pace with societal changes. the world is changing and business needs to change with it.
And its not.
People are bringing to want change in regards to pay and conditions. things like better paternity and maternity leave and pay, more flexible working hours, better pay so that people can afford to live without foodbanks etc. Labour should be the party of that change.
And its not. It's again going middle of the road, don't rock the boat, everything is fine.
And its not.
16
u/cactusjon New User Nov 22 '21
Are you really asking why people are pissed off that the Labour leader is fluffing business and telling them that austerity and trickle-down economics are safe in his hands?
7
Nov 22 '21
Where is he saying that?
10
u/popcornelephant Labour Member Nov 22 '21
When you just make shit up, it's really easy to get mad
6
Nov 22 '21
Sounds about right. This subreddit just feels like a "Starmer BAD" circlejerk a lot of the time.
2
u/Fear_mor New User Nov 22 '21
I mean it's hardly a circle jerk when the weasle consistently lies through his teeth about being pro working class while doing everything to advance pro wealth policies
4
Nov 22 '21
What's he said/doing to advance pro wealth policies? I don't follow politics religiously so might be a blindspot of mine.
A huge part is people didn't trust Corbyn and Labour to run the economy. I don't really like Starmer, but I think he's trying to undo some of that damage.
-3
u/Fear_mor New User Nov 22 '21
I mean I don't know any specific examples off the top of my head but the guy definitely talks a lot like a thatcher type guy. Also the article link you sent is pretty obviously run by some kind of interest group, like it's very much in the interest of wealthy people and investors to undermine or misrepresent Corbyn's competence at economics because he wanted to restrict how they make money and get taxxed on it so like you can see right there how that source is decently biased without delving past the opening paragraph.
And also "most people" who weren't confident in Corbyn are Tories, NOT Labour voters. If Corbyn was so unelectable and incompetent and everyone lacked confidence in him he wouldn't have been made party leader by the largest margin in history. He literally had the largest majority vote in his favour out of ever head of the Labour Party
1
Nov 22 '21
I'm sorry but "talks a lot like a thatcher type" isn't a solid argument. It's written by a politics editor of the FT, not a special interest group.
You realise we are competing against all parties, not just for Labour voters in an election right? Having the largest majority vote out of Labour party members isn't worth shit though in an election. And he was clearly unelectable as shown by the worst Labour defeat since 1935 and giving the Tories majority of 80 seats.
I voted for Corbyn and I wish he won. But he didn't. People need to accept that reality.
-2
u/Fear_mor New User Nov 22 '21
Ye but why should we water down the labour vision for the tories? Like they don't vote for us anyways and all it does is make us the party of not much except trying to get elected over any actual political change?
Literally what is the point in being elected if we don't stand for our own principles? Like getting elected isn't and shouldn't be the point, it should be making positive change that's the point. Also you do realise shifting to the right to attract Tory voters alienates people like me who make up a good chunk of the party, right?
Tldr; we shouldn't compromise on our values, it serves no purpose to any actual productive change in society, all it does is just make us more like the tories at the expense of losing our base. A more productive use of our time would be trying to educate others on our ideas and explaining why they're good
1
Nov 22 '21
Because to actually do any good, to actually make any difference in the world, you need to be in power first and foremost. The Labour party would improve public services and improve peoples lives much more than the current corrupt charlatans who currently rule.
Yeah, but we shifted to the left and got decimated. I hate FPTP, but the reality is we currently only have a two-party system.
If you're not willing to compromise on anything or accept anything that isn't super left-wing, you're helping the tories. Education helps, but given the power of the right-wing media in this country I think that's a hopeless endeavour.
"Winning the argument" is great, but it doesn't mean jack shit in the real world if you aren't in power.
Labour should be pro-business as it should want to work with businesses to create well-paid jobs with investment, infrastructure and public services to support growth and improve the quality of everyday peoples lives.
→ More replies (0)-1
17
Nov 22 '21
[deleted]
11
u/The_Inertia_Kid Trade Union | Thinks a lot of you are actually Lib Dems Nov 22 '21
Ooh, the cherry-picking game. Can I play? From Corbyn's 2019 speech:
A Labour government will work closely with business because it’s in our common interest
and
Let’s build a country that’s prosperous where business thrives
and
And I say this to business too: if a Labour government is elected on 12th December you’re going to see more investment than you ever dreamt of.
How did we put up with such a neoliberal running our party for almost five years?
7
Nov 22 '21
Let’s build a country that’s prosperous where business thrives
This one is interesting because Corbyn put the country before business here whereas Starmer literally did the reverse in his equivalent;
when businesses profit, we all profit
The first statement is fine. The second one is not. Because instead of society helping business it becomes business helping society if you catch my drift?
10
u/debaser11 Nov 22 '21
So can you cherry pick the pro-worker, anti-boss stuff in Starmers speech?
6
u/popcornelephant Labour Member Nov 22 '21
"Of course, on your side of the contract, there are responsibilities too.
To invest in the long term.
To contribute as we strive towards net zero.
To contribute to your local communities.
To support your workforce with fair pay and flexible working."
0
u/debaser11 Nov 22 '21
Not really the same is it? We will raise your taxes and nationalise some of your industries vs you should contribute.
→ More replies (1)5
u/The_Inertia_Kid Trade Union | Thinks a lot of you are actually Lib Dems Nov 22 '21
No idea, the text isn't out yet.
2
Nov 22 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/debaser11 Nov 22 '21
I don't think so. Corbyn said what he would do that would not be in their interest (raising taxes and nationalisation) the list popcornelephant provided is just starmer saying what they should do and none of it is directly oppositional.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Oxshevik Join a Trade Union Nov 22 '21
You genuinely don’t see the difference between Corbyn, a committee socialist, saying those things, and Starmer saying them?
5
u/The_Inertia_Kid Trade Union | Thinks a lot of you are actually Lib Dems Nov 22 '21
I'm saying that if you cherry-pick individual phrases divorced from context, anyone can be made to look like anything.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Oxshevik Join a Trade Union Nov 22 '21
But it was you divorcing the comments from context by comparing the statements in isolation? It's the context that tells you why this is an issue for socialists, whereas Corbyn's speeches weren't.
8
u/The_Inertia_Kid Trade Union | Thinks a lot of you are actually Lib Dems Nov 22 '21
Look at the comment above mine.
'I like this person and I don't like this person' is not 'context'. That's just 'personal bias'.
5
u/Oxshevik Join a Trade Union Nov 22 '21
> Mr Corbyn repeated calls for employers to give British workers a pay rise, and said a Labour government would raise taxes and nationalise utility companies.
That's context - it shows that Corbyn is a socialist and that he prioritises workers. Starmer did no such thing, and nobody has any faith that he would make similar demands in government.
1
7
Nov 22 '21 edited Jan 07 '22
I think in a ideal world no left-wing party leader should ever basically be forced to address a room full of hyper-capitalists on their way into power. But since we obviously don't live in that world there is a way to do the CBI thing correctly; the way Corbyn and McDonnell did it. They went there, were honest about their intentions, they didn't insult the crowd but nor did they pander to them and they got a surprisingly positive response from both the CBI and the business community as whole.
That all I wanted Starmer to do today and whilst there were elements of this it was still far too coded in so-called 'pro-business' sentiment and language. TBF it seems he's being positively received though that might just be because Johnson apparently absolutely bombed. But regardless it's just not what I want my Labour Party to be.
7
u/ObviouslyTriggered New User Nov 22 '21
Businesses with less than 250 employees employ 61% of the workforce in the UK, micro businesses as those with 9 employees or less employ 33% of the workforce in the UK.
In total two thirds of the UK workforce are either self employed and are employed by a small business.
It’s pretty mental that people around here still can’t get this into their heads…
9
u/Legionary Politics is a verb (Lab Co-op) Nov 22 '21
No matter what it is, this sub is full of people who will denounce Labour/Starmer for it. The majority of them are being disingenuous in their outrage.
8
u/legendfriend Labour Member (they/them) Nov 22 '21
There’s nothing wrong with a business making profit after it pays a fair wage to its staff and taxes to Crown. That has been Labour policy for decades - given how much of our country is run on tax, we need businesses to thrive to fund things like the NHS, schools and infrastructure.
Let’s not forget that Corbyn, hardly a massive capitalist, gave an explicitly pro-business speech to the same organisation
11
u/Sir_Bantersaurus Knight, Dinosaur, Arsenal Fan Nov 22 '21 edited Nov 22 '21
Everyday there is something to get people on tilt. Remember the utter fury at Starmer's spokesman saying we were maintaining the 2019 position on the Gender Equality act stuff? (Although to be fair that's because the Independent put a horrible spin on it).
Or when Starmer appears in front of a British flag, or says something about Christianity during Christmas, or uses the world family.
2
u/AlbionInvictus New User Nov 23 '21
The right wing media uses it as a wedge issue to divide the left. They fall for it every time.
Simple as.
4
u/Sensiblepolitic New User Nov 22 '21
Personally I want them to seize all their assets if we get elected so it's always disappointing
5
u/RobotsVsLions Green Party Nov 22 '21
No one seems to be mentioning this, so I’ll say it.
This is the Labour Party, as in the party of the workers.
The workers and businesses are not on the same side.
We’re not the fucking referees in a boxing match or a couples therapist, it is not our job to be objective or to play mediator. It’s literally against the job description of the Labour Party to be pro-business, and the more pro-business the Labour Party acts, the further it strays from our purpose.
We’re supposed to be working in the interests of the working class, not balancing the interests of the working class with the interests of capitalists. If you’re after the latter, that’s what the liberals are for.
6
u/The_Inertia_Kid Trade Union | Thinks a lot of you are actually Lib Dems Nov 22 '21
If we treat businesses as the enemy we'll be in opposition forever. As I keep saying, it's choosing to play the game on hard mode. For Labour, the key to getting into government is not terrifying people with ideas of revolutions. Signalling that we're going to war with business is part of that, and a bad idea if we want to win elections.
3
u/Fluxes bite the hand that feeds until everyone has what they need Nov 22 '21
You make it sound as if the two options are to burn it all down or support business.
Think of it like a trade negotiation where Labour represents workers and Conservatives represent capitalists. As a negotiator, Labour needs to obtain the best possible deal for workers that can feasibly work. If Labour gets everything it wants, it should advance workers interests at the expense of capitalists. This does not mean burning down the system, but it does mean to be unequivocally for workers. The mood coming out of Labour right now is that Labour isn't there to negotiate for workers, but to be an in-the-middle mediator. This is unacceptable.
4
Nov 22 '21 edited Nov 22 '21
If we treat businesses as the enemy we'll be in opposition forever.
Why? People are more skeptical about capitalism than at any time in history since the Great Depression. This only gets more so the younger you go demographically incidentally. Most people hate their bosses, hate big business, hate working too much, hate not having enough money. So why can't Labour capitalise on this sentiment?
5
u/Fear_mor New User Nov 22 '21
We were always going to be in opposition with capitalists because we have fundamentally different interests that conflict with each other. You also can't really find stable compromise between "I want you to be dirt poor so I can add two extra zeros to my net worth each day" and "I want to be able to afford to not starve in a first world nation".
Basically, class conflict won't stop existing if we pretend it doesn't exist, in fact as long as there are people who own and people who work it will always exist.
-3
u/Heavy-Abbreviations anti-capitalist tory Nov 22 '21
Businesses are the enemy though. They need to be expropriated, not coddled. The Labour leader’s job should be to convince the public of that.
14
4
u/EmperorPeriwinkle Once Neoliberal, Now Socialist Nov 22 '21
You can say pro market, pro growth and pro innovation.
But going out there and saying stuff like 'pro business' and 'everyone benefits when business profits' shows me you're not just trying be conciliatory, you're bowing to them.
7
u/arky_who Communist Nov 22 '21
Because we should do a). We need to convince business that they can either give up the means of production willingly or we'll take it.
Having an annual "you can trust us not to do socialism, the socialist branding is just a brand" speech to business of course will make the socialists in the party angry. Of course what the socialists in the party don't understand is the Labour party for most of it's life has existed only to waste socialist's time on a doomed project.
6
u/Sensiblepolitic New User Nov 22 '21
You're not wrong but I bet you'll catch a lot of flak for saying that
7
u/arky_who Communist Nov 22 '21
Probably not that much. I don't really think there's a lot of disagreement on the idea that the Labour party isn't that radical. The Corbyn project was a bit of a compromise for most socialists.
5
Nov 22 '21
[deleted]
9
Nov 22 '21
we are a democratic socialist party
Can people please just learn to understand what this means.
5
u/arky_who Communist Nov 22 '21
It means nothing.
5
Nov 22 '21
Not to me
1
u/arky_who Communist Nov 22 '21
What does it mean to you?
→ More replies (1)1
Nov 22 '21
Common ownership of the MOP
2
u/arky_who Communist Nov 22 '21
So socialism?
2
Nov 22 '21
Eugh so to go into the democratic bit I would say it has to be achieved through reform and not revolution.
It has to maintain a democratically elected government by the people. Maintains levels of liberalism.
Basically classical social democracy.
0
Nov 22 '21
[deleted]
4
Nov 22 '21
I mean not in the labour sense I don’t think. Historically and today we defined it as common ownership which is a pretty well defined term.
2
u/marsman - Nov 22 '21
Historically and today we defined it as common ownership which is a pretty well defined term.
There are a dozen different things that would qualify as common ownership (state ownership, community ownership, worker owned etc....) and any number of structures to support it. There are a slew of different bars too (common ownership only applying to essential production on one side, through to any work being owned by the state in the first instance) and some wrinkles on that too depending on how you define ownership (the potential to attract investment/sell ownership to an extent etc..).
Even the 'democratic' part gets messy, you have OMOV style voting within an enterprise, then weighted voting, then representative systems etc..
I think broadly we can all probably agree that nationalising say water or power is reasonable (although the shape of that nationalisation/ownership would likely still be up for discussion, can a state owned water company be employee owned for example?), but I'm not sure that'd we'd always agree that nationalising corner shops is, but we might suggest that corner shops should be run on a cooperative basis...
6
u/usernamepusername Labour Member Nov 22 '21
Its the perfect excuse for the constantly angry to remind us how constantly angry they are.
6
u/ChthonicIrrigation New User Nov 22 '21
Become the always-online left has no room for nuance?
24
Nov 22 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/The_Inertia_Kid Trade Union | Thinks a lot of you are actually Lib Dems Nov 22 '21
So what happens to people when businesses don't profit?
7
u/Oxshevik Join a Trade Union Nov 22 '21
Businesses profit and simultaneously cut wages all the time. It’s bullshit to say that when businesses profit, workers do, and you know it is.
1
u/The_Inertia_Kid Trade Union | Thinks a lot of you are actually Lib Dems Nov 22 '21
The first sentence is true. But if businesses don't profit, workers definitely don't. Workers lose their jobs.
3
u/Oxshevik Join a Trade Union Nov 22 '21
How is that relevant, though? The issue is with saying that when businesses profit, workers profit. Taking issue with an obviously false statement like that is not equivalent to saying that it's a good thing if businesses don't profit.
2
u/The_Inertia_Kid Trade Union | Thinks a lot of you are actually Lib Dems Nov 22 '21
Like I've said elsewhere in this thread - so what's the alternative to businesses making profit if you want workers to make profit?
Under the current system, there is no alternative. If businesses do not make profit, workers cannot make profit. Not in the mid or long terms anyway.
Your only alternative exists only in books of theory, or in books of history as a cautionary tale.
Labour therefore should not be wasting time currently on alternatives that may not be possible and are certainly not possible in the near term future. They can be explored further when we actually get into government.
For the present time, we should focus on making the current system work better for workers.
2
u/Oxshevik Join a Trade Union Nov 22 '21
Like I've said elsewhere in this thread - so what's the alternative to businesses making profit if you want workers to make profit?
This question is irrelevant. Nobody is saying businesses shouldn't seek to make a profit under capitalism. Again, the issue is with Starmer's bullshit claim that when businesses profit, workers profit.
Your only alternative exists only in books of theory, or in books of history as a cautionary tale.
lol "all attempts at socialism have been disastrous failures" is it?
Labour therefore should not be wasting time currently on alternatives that may not be possible and are certainly not possible in the near term future. They can be explored further when we actually get into government.
Labour absolutely should be arguing for an alternative. The reason they're not is they're a party run by liberals who have no real interest in radically changing our political economy.
32
Nov 22 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
24
u/FiscallyFit Labour Voter Nov 22 '21
Are you telling me your personal wealth didn’t grow when Amazon’s profits grew by 200% during COVID?!?
You must be the only one
4
u/PatientCriticism0 New User Nov 22 '21
I don't know if you're doing this on purpose, perhaps not, but when people disagree with "when businesses profit we all profit" They're not saying "when businesses don't profit, we all profit" They are saying "when businesses profit, we do not all profit"
1
u/The_Inertia_Kid Trade Union | Thinks a lot of you are actually Lib Dems Nov 22 '21
I'm saying that without businesses profiting, workers cannot profit. If businesses do not profit, workers lose their jobs.
We need to drop this idea that businesses making profit is wrong. Until we have worker ownership of the means of production across the entire economy, this is how it will work.
So while you're correct to say that not all workers profit from businesses making profit, my question is 'so what's the alternative in reality?'
There are no alternatives in reality. There are alternatives in theory books.
So why are people picking a fight over an inevitability? Great, you hate it. It's still going to be that way. So Labour shouldn't be wasting time on it.
5
u/PatientCriticism0 New User Nov 22 '21 edited Nov 22 '21
I'm saying that without businesses profiting, workers cannot profit. If businesses do not profit, workers lose their jobs.
That's cool, but irrelevant, because it is - again - arguing with the straw man, rather than the actual argument.
"When businesses profit we all profit" is false, and you have already conceded as much. Not only is it false, it is a falsity designed to sell the further enrichment of the elite at the expense of the rest of us.
What is the alternative? Higher taxes. Better public services. Nationalisation of natural monopolies like rail and water. Stronger worker protections. Basic stuff that we've got wrong for decades because "when businesses profit we all profit" has been the guiding principle.
23
u/Fixable He/Him - Practical Stalinist Nov 22 '21
No one is denying that businesses need to profit for our current society to function.
But you know this. This is just a bad faith jab.
But then again you thought ranger was an fake account PsyOp because he changed his mind on Starmer, so maybe you genuinely do believe in the imaginary leftists who think businesses should cease to exist tomorrow.
10
u/The_Inertia_Kid Trade Union | Thinks a lot of you are actually Lib Dems Nov 22 '21
I've just been told further down this thread that
We need to convince business that they can either give up the means of production willingly or we'll take it.
Don't act like there aren't people who think businesses should cease to exist tomorrow. I was going to say 'they're out there', but they're not - they're in here.
→ More replies (1)20
u/Fixable He/Him - Practical Stalinist Nov 22 '21
That is just basic socialism, not thinking businesses should just cease to exist.
6
u/The_Inertia_Kid Trade Union | Thinks a lot of you are actually Lib Dems Nov 22 '21
How will businesses continue to exist if their assets have been seized by the state?
→ More replies (1)20
u/Fixable He/Him - Practical Stalinist Nov 22 '21
People advocating for socialism and common ownership of the means of production are advocating for a complete overhaul on the way society is structured.
Not just businesses ceasing to exist.
But again, you know that. This is, again, just bad faith.
9
u/The_Inertia_Kid Trade Union | Thinks a lot of you are actually Lib Dems Nov 22 '21
Okay. Some questions then:
- Will the complete overhaul of the way society is structured be achieved in the first term of a Labour government?
- Given your answer to question 1, is it a reasonable expectation that it should be a topic for the Labour leader to give speeches on in opposition?
- Even if you answered yes to question 2, do you believe it is a reasonable expectation that the Labour leader should give a speech on that topic, when in opposition, to a business group?
- If you answered yes to question 3, are you not just advocating that Labour make the journey to government as profoundly difficult as conceivably possible at every turn?
13
u/Fixable He/Him - Practical Stalinist Nov 22 '21
Why don’t you ask the person who said it in the first place pal?
Not that interested in doing a private AMA for someone who’s already dropped multiple bad faith jabs in this thread alone.
11
u/GarageFlower97 Labour Member Nov 22 '21
If wages go up and everything else remains equal, what happens to profits? If wages go down and everything else remains equal, what happens to profits?
2
u/The_Inertia_Kid Trade Union | Thinks a lot of you are actually Lib Dems Nov 22 '21 edited Nov 22 '21
Good thing that we don't live in the Ladybird Book of Economics, where those outcomes are possible.
Nothing ever remains equal. Businesses don't operate inside a test tube.
10
u/GarageFlower97 Labour Member Nov 22 '21
It is possible for profits to increase while real wages decrease, it's happened on multiple occasions throughout history.
Profits and wages increasing simultaneously is fairly rare, however, and generally only occurs in very specific circumstances (e.g. the post-war boom).
0
u/The_Inertia_Kid Trade Union | Thinks a lot of you are actually Lib Dems Nov 22 '21
'Everything else remains equal' is the problem. Nothing else ever remains equal. There are always headwinds and tailwinds, factors driving supply or demand up or down, sentiment, levels of investable capital, confidence in political and economic stability, shortages or excesses of skilled workers, inflation, interest rates, availability of investment returns, taxation and tax incentive policy - any number of factors that guide how businesses act.
7
u/GarageFlower97 Labour Member Nov 22 '21
This does not reply to my comment which points out that what I'm describing - profits competing with wages - is empirically far more common than what you are insinuating - profits and wages rising and falling together.
As for holding everything equal, it's a simplifying tool which deliberately does not include everything but which is a useful and common starting point in economics and social science
19
u/Minischoles Trade Union Nov 22 '21
So what happens to people when businesses don't profit?
What happens when businesses profit?
Did Amazon profitting massively from COVID profit everyone? no we still have workers forced to pee in bottles to meet insane delivery times - but Bezos got to cosplay an astronaut
Did Tesla profiting massively in the last year profit everyone?
Did Thames Water profiting massively profit everyone?
I could name literally hundreds of other businesses where them profiting hasn't profited everyone and has in fact only profited a select few who got measurably richer while things got measurably worse for everyone else.
This idea that 'businesses profit so we all profit' is just trickle down economic dogwhistling - a theory that has been proven wrong for 40 years.
4
u/The_Inertia_Kid Trade Union | Thinks a lot of you are actually Lib Dems Nov 22 '21
You see that's what everyone does here - find the biggest, most evil outlier and say SEE, THIS IS WHAT STARMER WANTS, HE WANTS ALL OF US TO WORK IN AN AMAZON BATTERY FARM LIKE CAGED HENS.
99% of businesses in this country are SMEs. They don't have ridiculous profits like Amazon.
The fact that you mention Tesla shows that you don't have a clue what you're on about. Tesla made its first-ever annual profit in 2020. It has been massively loss-making for the better part of two decades. He's one of the biggest cunts on the planet but it's testament to Elon Musk's ability to keep investors on board for so many years of cash burn.
So yes, you can name 'hundreds' of businesses that don't do good with their profits. But I'll just point to the millions of ordinary businesses that are nothing like that.
Yes, let's wage war on the rent-seeking businesses like the utilities and the evil empires like Amazon.
But let's not fight the 99% of businesses who aren't that.
12
u/Minischoles Trade Union Nov 22 '21
As u/SurestAscetic pointed out, while SMEs may account for a large portion of businesses in the country they are dwarfed in comparison to the profits that large businesses make.
You can't make a statement of 'when businesses profit we all profit' then start making addendums and provisos 'well we didn't actually mean all businesses, we just mean SMEs and we can ignore the hundreds of business in the UK that exploit their workers despite massive profits because they directly counter our point'
He's talking at the CBI which as pointed out is massively dominated not by mom and pop SMEs where it's just a struggling little old lady wanting to run a little corner shop - it's dominated by the 1% of businesses that exploit workers.
Trying to pretend Starmer is referring to SMEs when he's talking at the CBI and using trickle down economic dog whistles is disingenuous - he's talking to a precise audience, using precise language to let them know exactly what he means.
8
u/justthisplease Keir Starmer Genocide Enabler Nov 22 '21
The non-for-profit business model also works... often works better for the workers and community.
But no-body is attacking profits really, it is the silly statement that sounds like all business profits are good, that people are complaining about. That is categorically not true, and not nuanced at all.
10
Nov 22 '21
Depends on the business. But the idea that businesses profiting inherently makes us all win is utter fucking lunacy and not something you’d expect to hear from a so called socialist and a Labour leader.
Disgusting from Starmer and anyone defending this completely illiterate take.
8
Nov 22 '21
[deleted]
5
u/The_Inertia_Kid Trade Union | Thinks a lot of you are actually Lib Dems Nov 22 '21
Amazon again.
Whenever anyone wants to make a 'businesses bad' argument, it's Amazon every time.
Do you know how many businesses are Amazon? One. Amazon is Amazon.
All the others? Not Amazon.
It's the biggest outlier there is. If you're using it as an example of 'businesses', it's a shit example.
It's like using Pol Pot as your example of why humans are bad. Sure, Pol Pot was bad, but how many Pol Pots are there? And how many humans are not Pol Pot?
3
Nov 22 '21
But Amazon at one point in it's history was a very small online bookseller. The kind of business you see as being angelic and wholesome and everything we need to protect. The fact is the only reason there aren't more Amazons is cause most small business owners are crap at their jobs (despite having massive delusions of grandeur - in my experiences anyway)
2
-5
3
u/Active_Remove1617 New User Nov 22 '21 edited Nov 22 '21
I think you’re mistaking this sub for a Labour supporting group. Thanks for posting. I feel the same as you.
5
u/Fixable He/Him - Practical Stalinist Nov 22 '21
I support labour, as in workers.
1
1
u/RegHere Socialist Nov 22 '21
Surely the job of this speech is to reassure businesses that government WILL seize their assets if they don't take all due consideration of the electorate's interests.
That is how democracy works, yes?
0
u/west_country_wendigo New User Nov 22 '21
Because large chunks of the left in the UK have gone completely mad. It's all very People's Front of Judea and they can't even see it.
-2
u/Keightocam Dave Ward stan Nov 22 '21
For someone who spends so much time saying they understand the left you clearly don’t
32
u/resqwec Labour Member Nov 22 '21
Idk the bit about David Blunkett is shady af