UKIP is against the death penalty in their manifesto. Does that mean I agree with them?
Its unrelated to their main driving force and if something happens to change public opinion it would be dropped.
Unions support LGBTQ policies, so Labour support them. But I am under no illusion that they are driven by LGBTQ policies and if there was a Union leader who was against an LGBTQ policy, and someone from the community who was against a Union policy I personally think they would side with the big group thats giving donations.
Labour are only partly funded by unions, and they by no means dictate policies. If unions dictated policies then we wouldn’t have this wishy washy workers bill and they would remove the anti-union laws.
I agree they do side with donation givers, which is why they are a bunch of private healthcare Zionist dweebs.
What you are asking for it sounds like is stronger party democracy which i couldn’t support more. However, the unions are central to any labour movement so it makes sense they are at the center of the party. Labour members do still vote on all policies technically but Starmer has centralised the process further so that the leader has complete control. Its also very expensive to send delegates to conference (in order to vote).
Cool, it sounds like we are in agreement generally. Perhaps I could have phrased it better, but in my opinion they are not a socially liberal party. Although is “wishy washy” policies better or worse than nothing?
Better than nothing is a bit of a bug bear of mine. We are constantly told labour are better than nothing (ie tories).
If i am starving and need 2000 calories a day, would i rather have 1500 or 1200 calories? Obviously I’d rather have 1500. However this kind of comparison is too simplistic .
I would be right to ask why there isn’t enough calories. Taking the 1500 only legitimises that deal, when its clearly insufficient. I know both will starve me eventually so clearly i have to get those extra 500 calories. The only option is to reject both options and demand the 500 calories.
I find it difficult to understand how you believe Labour represents the interests of workers in any meaningful sense.
Labour is primarily a liberal party, and has been for many years. The union of liberals and socialists broke down in the 80s.
I don’t. But the party is much more aligned with Unions than with social liberalism.
I don’t think that Labour is fit for any purpose, and hasn’t been for a very long time.
[Edit] Please note I referred to it as a party for the Unions, and not one with the interests of workers.
Ok ive edited because i think i see what you’re trying to say.
You think that alignment with unions is antithetical to socially liberal values (such as lgbt) ?
Not at all. Just completely unrelated.
UKIP is against the death penalty in their manifesto. Does that mean I agree with them?
Its unrelated to their main driving force and if something happens to change public opinion it would be dropped.
Unions support LGBTQ policies, so Labour support them. But I am under no illusion that they are driven by LGBTQ policies and if there was a Union leader who was against an LGBTQ policy, and someone from the community who was against a Union policy I personally think they would side with the big group thats giving donations.
Labour are only partly funded by unions, and they by no means dictate policies. If unions dictated policies then we wouldn’t have this wishy washy workers bill and they would remove the anti-union laws.
I agree they do side with donation givers, which is why they are a bunch of private healthcare Zionist dweebs.
What you are asking for it sounds like is stronger party democracy which i couldn’t support more. However, the unions are central to any labour movement so it makes sense they are at the center of the party. Labour members do still vote on all policies technically but Starmer has centralised the process further so that the leader has complete control. Its also very expensive to send delegates to conference (in order to vote).
Cool, it sounds like we are in agreement generally. Perhaps I could have phrased it better, but in my opinion they are not a socially liberal party. Although is “wishy washy” policies better or worse than nothing?
Better than nothing is a bit of a bug bear of mine. We are constantly told labour are better than nothing (ie tories).
If i am starving and need 2000 calories a day, would i rather have 1500 or 1200 calories? Obviously I’d rather have 1500. However this kind of comparison is too simplistic .
I would be right to ask why there isn’t enough calories. Taking the 1500 only legitimises that deal, when its clearly insufficient. I know both will starve me eventually so clearly i have to get those extra 500 calories. The only option is to reject both options and demand the 500 calories.