blackn1ght@feddit.uk to United Kingdom@feddit.ukEnglish · 21 hours agoRow as Starmer suggests landlords and shareholders are not ‘working people’www.telegraph.co.ukexternal-linkmessage-square35fedilinkarrow-up1241arrow-down13cross-posted to: uk_politics@feddit.uk
arrow-up1238arrow-down1external-linkRow as Starmer suggests landlords and shareholders are not ‘working people’www.telegraph.co.ukblackn1ght@feddit.uk to United Kingdom@feddit.ukEnglish · 21 hours agomessage-square35fedilinkcross-posted to: uk_politics@feddit.uk
minus-squareynazuma@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up74arrow-down1·21 hours agoThat 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
minus-squaresunbeam60@lemmy.onelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down2·13 hours agoI’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?
minus-squareynazuma@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7·11 hours agoIt’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.
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.