- cross-posted to:
- uk_politics@feddit.uk
- cross-posted to:
- uk_politics@feddit.uk
You must log in or register to comment.
That may be the first thing he said that I agree with him on ever.
Comrade Starmer lmao
He’s right though. I’d very much like a PM to take a hard line on these chuckle fucks.
Nothing “comrade” about it. It’s just sense.
He definitely is. It’s refreshing to finally even hear this sentiment from our government. However it’s just words, hopefully we start seeing some positive changes in the rental and housing market.
I don’t know why they seem to think they are. Yes some landlords do labor, but that labor is to maintain and improve value of their income from owning things.
That landlord aint much of a lord
Yeah he’s a relative who started as a handyman and kept investing in rental property.
They do no labor, they create no good, they accomplish no service. Literal rent-seeking.
Well I remember when I used to rent I don’t remember my landlord ever doing anything. He owns the property but he certainly didn’t maintain it.
And, as everyone here says. He is correct. It is an investment. Not work. Yes you are taking a risk, that is the point. If you work, you should not be taking a risk. But instead paid for your labour.
Unfortunately, saying it here doesn’t matter. Papers like the telegraph and other Tory press are not going to care about the facts. They only care about creating division.
More importantly, Starmer et al. Are also not going to make the effort to argue this case. No effort is going to be made to push forward the true difference between working class income and actual investment income.
Anyone watching saw this argument starting during the election. It was clear then when labour started talking about working taxes. The Tories instantly started arguing that the Tories were talking about not raising taxers at all. Anyone watching saw this discussion forming.
And Starmer et al. intentionally ignored it rather than draw attention to the difference. They will not bother to fight the terminology now either.
Rare Starmer W
Broken clock moment.
Context for this statement?
Is he pandering to beat down brits?
He’s a self serving neoliberal who doesn’t give two fucks about the working class.
He has made it clear all along that he is nothing but a corporate and establishment shill, and while making this one accidentally accurate statement about landlords, his party is planning to, for example, go ahead with pretty much the exact same cuts and abuses (E: like the government having unlimited access to the bank accounts of all benefits claimants) that the Tories had planned for the poorest in society, along with trying to force as many sick and disabled people in to work as they can (without providing any more support or income to help this happen of course, just more punishment for those who
can’t“refuse”). Landlords will not be getting any of the same treatment.His statement doesn’t reflect any moral leanings, nor a will or intent to change anything for the better.
Based from Starmer there.
Landlords and shareholders aren’t working people.
This might be my favourite thing he’s said yet
In a country like UK… He just pissed off a lot of parasites.
And thats a good thing! They got too comfortable over last 40 years.
UK is fucking gutted from within, and peasants accept it lol
Truth hurts I guess.
That is correct. They might work, but in context they are not “working people”
Here “working people” is synonymous with “working class”. Thus, not landlords and shareholders obviously
I’m curious about your definition of shareholder; what if I owe £80 worth of fractional shares in an app-based investment service? Does that make me a shareholder?
It’s not my definition. It is the definition that is being used in context in the article. Read it before commenting
The definition being used is proper and common in modern usage.
Of course they’re not working people. They are leveraging capital to give them an income. That is not the same as chopping wood and carrying water.
I mean, he’s right. The whole point of my mother leveraging her home to become a landlord back then was because she had a stroke and literally could-not-work. Landlords aren’t working class. They’re just investors.
Good fucking luck to any landlord looking to be named in a manifesto.
You might get mentioned. You won’t like how.
Because he is correct
Are you a landlord if you let a room to help you pay bills at the end of a month? Are you a shareholder if you have a pension?
Judging by the answers here, the answer is no. But then we’re talking about millions of people who work everyday factory jobs, retail jobs, or low level office jobs.
Yes if you own rather then sublet and yes now final salary etc pensions are close to non existant.
Dose not mean it is wrong. But just like the others doing it it is not worked for income but investment income.
Judging from the answers here everyone has a pretty clear idea of the difference between investment and work.
Right, but I hope we’re able to see the difference between a working person who has investments and someone who earns the bulk of their income from investments. Similarly for real estate.
Because calling someone who works and has investment savings for retirement (such as a pension) “not a working person” is not just plain wrong, it’s extremely offensive, especially coming from a career politician like Starmer.
You make valid points in a logical sense but issue of class is the issue of class, not descriptor of economic activity.
Sure, class is the big issue on everyone’s minds. But the remedies people often throw around are here indiscriminate enough to target the room-letter and the building ownership company alike. The tycoon and the pensioner alike.
Coupling owner class with grandma is a nice touch.
Bigger point is that grandma siding with owner class is 🤡
