FlyTheNest

G'day

Well, it certainly is a good day for Lidl staff - which includes all their cleaners and other staff, along with those on the shop floor, unusually.

Lidl has said it will pay 9,000 of its UK workers at least the full living wage from next month as the first major high street name to embrace the higher pay campaign.

They currently pay a minimum of £7.30 an hour outside London and £8.20 in London (higher than Osborne's soon-to-be-introduced so-called National Living Wage - which is only for the over-25s) but, from October, will exceed the Living Wage Foundation's Living Wage by paying at least £8.20 an hour in England, Scotland and Wales and at least £9.35 in London.

The foundation recommends paying £7.85 outside London and £9.15 in London and will announce new rates at the start of November. Lidl said it would match the foundation’s new levels if they were higher than those adopted by the company.

(my bold)
http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... iving-wage

Edit to fix quotes. Bumboils™

Morning.

I saw the link to the poll about Corbyn in last night's posts.

Is it any wonder people out there may feel less than enthusiastic about him so soon after his landslide election ? Yes, landslide, even though the word may stick in the craw of some.
Maybe it is the scale of support he has that really gets the so called moderates.

With so many Labour people dissing Corbyn in the media, on social medai, even running him down here on FTN, is it surprising ?
What are these 'moderates' saying to their friends and work mates ?
Or the person at the bus stop ?
What effect will that have....hardly likely to be positive is it ?

If as an individual you are spreading anti-Corbyn sentiment amongst those you know, do you think it will:
a) help Corbyn's polling
b) hinder Corbyn's polling
c) help the Labour party for next year's elections and 2020 ?
Or do you think
c) I don't want Corbyn to do well, and will do whatever I can to make sure he fails even if Labour suffer ? Just because I can't be wrong ? Really check out your motivation, you may have dressed it up with a little 'reason' to cover the tracks.

People like OhSo and myself, and others, trod a more moderate line in the past.
But circumstances change, and as Hencke and others have articulated far better than I, we are fed up with an Uriah Heepish Labour party with one extremist wing (not the left) thinking it has the divine right to run the party.

Right, grump over.

yahyah wrote:Morning.

I saw the link to the poll about Corbyn.

Is it any wonder people may feel less than enthusiastic about him so soon after his landslide election.
Yes, landslide, even though the word may stick in the craw of some.

With so many Labour people dissing Corbyn in the media, running him down here, is it surprising ?
What are they saying to their friends and work mates ? Or the person at the bus stop ?

If as an individual you are spreading anti-Corbyn sentiment amongst those you know, do you think it will a) help Corbyn's polling, b) hinder Corbyn's polling.
Or do you think c) I don't want Corbyn to do well, and will do whatever I can to make sure he fails even if Labour suffer ?

Oddly I don't spread anti Corbyn sentiment amongst those I talk to. I at least try to make them see an upside.

Yesterday I had my neighbour complaining about him being odd and all the Queen stuff, day before another left wing friend (who switched Green to Labour because of Miliband) commenting in the fact he was too left wing for him. You do what you can but it is pretty dispiriting.

By the way, as predicted, Farron is now positioning his party as home to mainstream progressive politics. Desperate move but Labour gave him an opening. Corbyn's biggest problem is the same one that Kinnock had, in spades. His previous statements and history will be used against him by the media and he can't fix that. The public don't want most of what he is selling, which drowns out the stuff they do want, where he should be able to win, but can't.

Blairites, or those who are but don't like to admit they are, may feel more comfortable with Farron.
But the rump of his party still did a lot of Tory enabling, so good luck to him in getting anti-Corbyn Labour people to forget that. If of course they actually see that as a problem, some of what Peston tells us suggests otherwise.

For every right wing Labour person who goes to the Tories or Lib Dems, they may be matched by people coming home to Labour from the Greens, Plaid & the SNP.
That latter is what I am hearing from people I have contact with.

We'll just have to wait and see.
No one has a crystal ball, and quoting history does not always help because that presupposes each individual circumstance is exactly as it was in the past, and comes together in exactly the same way. Which it never can.

What is certain is that we have a very pernicious media operating online as well as on paper, the BBC cannot be relied upon to be neutral, and Labour people need to get behind fighting the Tories.
(and deal with the backlash from the 'anti-austerity' parties. They aren't going to sit back and see their votes at risk to Labour).

Another film view of the incident in which the government driver hurt a cameraman in this piece:

''In the video, Corbyn is initially blocked from getting into his car by a mob of reporters.

A man pushes one of them out of the way in order to close the car door.
He apparently falls over, off camera. But then, at least two other reporters force open the car door and begin berating Corbyn, who obviously has no idea what just happened because it occurred out of his line of sight. They then prevent the car door from being closed while they insult him, "That was disgusting behaviour of someone who is working for you," one of them insists.

Poor old Corbyn is forced to sit there, wondering what is going on.''

''A second video, published by The Telegraph, shows the exchange from another angle and it appears here that Corbyn is actually the one being assaulted by reporters and photos'':
http://uk.businessinsider.com/jeremy-co ... ?r=US&IR=T" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wonder if anyone has identified the miscreants, presuming they actually have press cards and weren't sent by Conservative HQ.

Edited to add, it wouldn't be that difficult to imagine a scenario where tabloid or freelance journalists would get a bonus for inciting Corbyn to respond. That would be the money shot for them.

Morning.

Patrick Wintour ‏@patrickwintour 11m11 minutes ago
Commons is in recess next week so 8 MPs can attend their party conference. Is same courtesy extended to SNP MPs attending their conference?

I don't know. Is it?

How odd.

All the text disappeared like it did to me and IIRC yahyah last night.

Closed the page and came back in and it's fine now.

Morning all...

Morning all...Nearly crippled myself cleaning the house yesterday as a plumber said he'd be here at 8:30 sharp this morning to give us a quote...So here I am at 8:49 ...

Haven't heard of Esther Addley who wrote this piece.

'Putting John McDonnell on Question Time was risky, but it paid off
Formidable shadow chancellor’s gentle demeanour shows a new side to Jeremy Corbyn’s political team'
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio ... byn-labour" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kevin Maguire ‏@Kevin_Maguire 23 hrs23 hours ago

Corbyn putting his tanks on Cameron's lawn. Speaking at a big rally in Manchester during the Tory conference. Gutsy

http://www.cwu.org/people-s-post-event-manchester.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

rebeccariots2 wrote:Morning.

Patrick Wintour ‏@patrickwintour 11m11 minutes ago
Commons is in recess next week so 8 MPs can attend their party conference. Is same courtesy extended to SNP MPs attending their conference?

I don't know. Is it?

Quite snide from Wintour that. Perhaps there should be a minimum threshold below which your conference doesn't count.

Robbie Gibb ‏@RobbieGibb 21 hrs21 hours ago

Jeremy Corbyn's first PMQs attracted one of the largest audiences for the Daily Politics peaking at 700k (average 500k)

yahyah wrote:Haven't heard of Esther Addley who wrote this piece.

'Putting John McDonnell on Question Time was risky, but it paid off
Formidable shadow chancellor’s gentle demeanour shows a new side to Jeremy Corbyn’s political team'
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio ... byn-labour" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But of course everybody is banging on about the IRA stuff and not the core message. Not McDonnell's fault (well actually it is but he can't change that) but predictable.

rebeccariots2 wrote:Morning.

Patrick Wintour ‏@patrickwintour 11m11 minutes ago
Commons is in recess next week so 8 MPs can attend their party conference. Is same courtesy extended to SNP MPs attending their conference?

I don't know. Is it?

It doesn't look like it. Here are the recess dates for the 2015/16 session of the HoC:

General Election 2015: 7 May 2015
Recess House rises House returns
Summer 21 July 2015 7 September 2015
Conference 17 September 2015 12 October 2015
November 10 November 2015 16 November 2015
Christmas 17 December 2015 5 January 2016
February 11 February 2016 22 February 2016
State Opening: Wednesday 27 May 2015

(my bold)
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_ ... cess_Dates

The SNP's Autumn Conference is from Thursday 15 to Saturday 17 October, outwith the HoC Conference Recess, but since Friday is not normally a sitting day, their MPs would only need to take the Thursday off. The HoC's Business Committee could schedule something that's England &/or Wales or NI only, since the SNP typically abstain on principle, or they could declare it an extra Constituency Day. Plaid Cymru and the other smaller parties aren't covered for their conferences, either, but the Greens have quite cleverly slotted themselves into the few days between the LibDem and Labour Conferences, with a one-day overlap on the latter.

ohsocynical wrote:Kevin Maguire ‏@Kevin_Maguire 23 hrs23 hours ago

Corbyn putting his tanks on Cameron's lawn. Speaking at a big rally in Manchester during the Tory conference. Gutsy

http://www.cwu.org/people-s-post-event-manchester.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

Looking forward to Norman Smith's comments when this takes place.

Morning all.

Friday is finally here, you beauty!

If someone sees it, could you please link the full quote, not cherrypicked, of what McConnell actually said 13 years ago about the IRA ?

I did see it but can't remember where.
Thanks.

Here you are yahyah http://www.theguardian.com/politics/200 ... and.labour" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Am off now, the ginger kitten is going home as his owners are back from diving in Egypt, so have to collect his stuff up. You'd think he was toddler triplets the amount of gear he has around the house.

Will come back later armed with ginger and lemon cake as my husband wants to try baking.

yahyah wrote:Am off now, the ginger kitten is going home as his owners are back from diving in Egypt, so have to collect his stuff up. You'd think he was toddler triplets the amount of gear he has around the house.

Will come back later armed with ginger and lemon cake as my husband wants to try baking.

(my bold)

Is that safe???

A bit more from 2003 here

MP's 'brave IRA' comments spark outrage

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/200 ... devolution" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

yahyah wrote:If someone sees it, could you please link the full quote, not cherrypicked, of what McConnell actually said 13 years ago about the IRA ?

I did see it but can't remember where.
Thanks.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/st ... -about-ira" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The controversial quotes and his later explanation have been brought together in this article. At the very least, his original comments were imprudent. The problem is that it's hard to imagine anyone other than an IRA sympathiser saying such things, whatever their motivation, and that's a problem for some people. Current issues in NI have re-opened old wounds, so the timing doesn't help, as it makes it harder to consign it all to the past.

The BBC News/Victoria Derbyshire programme just showed a graphic of a chair with a 'vacant' sign on it, whilst today's host explained that they'd invited the Home Office to come on the programme (for a debate on policing) but they'd received a statement from Mike Penning which was then read out with the text shown on-screen...
New technique from Auntie Beeb? Gently shame this Government into sending spokesmen instead of letters...

TobyLatimer wrote:A bit more from 2003 here

MP's 'brave IRA' comments spark outrage

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/200 ... devolution" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That bit at the end...

Mr McDonnell lists "generally fermenting the overthrow of capitalism" among his interests in Who's Who.

...has clearly been around for a long time. Wonder how often Who's Who gets updated?

RobertSnozers wrote:From UK Polling Report

Of course it’s early days and Corbyn has a long time to build trust. To use a well worn metaphor, it’s a marathon, not a sprint. That said, Corbyn’s start hasn’t been good: rather than a honeymoon, he’s had an initial week of bad press and perceived gaffes. It’s not a surprise that his initial ratings are negative given the media prism that most of the public have seen him through… but like it or not, that is the politics we have. We can only measure the opinion of the actual public – the actual voters, not some imaginary public where Corbyn got a better press. First impressions count, and the public’s first impressions of Jeremy Corbyn don’t seem good.

As far as I'm concerned, Corbyn had a pretty miraculous first week. He picked a pretty good, broad based shadow cabinet, avoided the complete meltdown of the parliamentary party that had been threatened, made a good speech to the TUC and played a blinder at PMQs. The 'perceived gaffes' were ALL the result of media spin.

You can accept that this is the world we live in, but by heaven you don't have to like it.

Really?

His choice of Shadow Chancellor was a huge mistake, his TUC speech was ok, but not sure anecdotes about using people who are good at betting in negotiations because they can do mental arithmetic (no beats me too) to a crowd of union members is going to help him reach the 30 million voters. Then there was the utterly pointless Queen stuff (caused by not thinking about presentation).

His press operation has been disastrous, I expect that to be fixed, by bringing in actual professionals (as derided above) but he has added another barrier of poor first impressions to get over.

Sure he has avoided an immediate implosion, thanks in part to a different approach to PMQs ( which never looked like hurting Cameron, but played well - to the media). He has also managed to get the rest of his shadow cabinet in place and avoided a massive party row.

So pretty dire, could have been far worse, must do a lot better next week would be my verdict (being kind).

The problem with the MSM is that first M. It is mainstream and the only source of news for a huge number of people.

I have to say that the accidental juxtaposition of the postings here is quite brilliant.

LadyCentauria wrote:The BBC News/Victoria Derbyshire programme just showed a graphic of a chair with a 'vacant' sign on it, whilst today's host explained that they'd invited the Home Office to come on the programme (for a debate on policing) but they'd received a statement from Mike Penning which was then read out with the text shown on-screen...
New technique from Auntie Beeb? Gently shame this Government into sending spokesmen instead of letters...

Bloody Good! There is some hope for the BBC yet.

ohsocynical wrote:Kevin Maguire ‏@Kevin_Maguire 23 hrs23 hours ago

Corbyn putting his tanks on Cameron's lawn. Speaking at a big rally in Manchester during the Tory conference. Gutsy

http://www.cwu.org/people-s-post-event-manchester.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

Just wondering; if we'd selected any of the other contenders, whether the above would be happening...Social media is important, but face to face contact is very effective.

From the G's Society section - the latest findings from the NHS Atlas of Variation (the mapping of services in NHS England) show "unwarranted" variations in diagnosis and treatment.
In some places, cancer diagnoses are made at Stage 1 or 2 in 60% of cases; while in other places it's just 22%. Early diagnosis means better survival and less invasive treatment.
40% of all stroke victims are not admitted to specialist units as per NICE clinical guidelines; antibiotic prescribing appears to be a postcode lottery.
It's all a bit of a mess.

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

yahyah wrote:Morning.

I saw the link to the poll about Corbyn.

Is it any wonder people may feel less than enthusiastic about him so soon after his landslide election.
Yes, landslide, even though the word may stick in the craw of some.

With so many Labour people dissing Corbyn in the media, running him down here, is it surprising ?
What are they saying to their friends and work mates ? Or the person at the bus stop ?

If as an individual you are spreading anti-Corbyn sentiment amongst those you know, do you think it will a) help Corbyn's polling, b) hinder Corbyn's polling.
Or do you think c) I don't want Corbyn to do well, and will do whatever I can to make sure he fails even if Labour suffer ?

Oddly I don't spread anti Corbyn sentiment amongst those I talk to. I at least try to make them see an upside.

Yesterday I had my neighbour complaining about him being odd and all the Queen stuff, day before another left wing friend (who switched Green to Labour because of Miliband) commenting in the fact he was too left wing for him. You do what you can but it is pretty dispiriting.

By the way, as predicted, Farron is now positioning his party as home to mainstream progressive politics. Desperate move but Labour gave him an opening. Corbyn's biggest problem is the same one that Kinnock had, in spades. His previous statements and history will be used against him by the media and he can't fix that. The public don't want most of what he is selling, which drowns out the stuff they do want, where he should be able to win, but can't.

TE,you may try to be upbeat about Corbyn to people you talk to,and maybe you do.But here you seem to take delight in all of his bad press and seem to ignore all the good things he has achieved in a single week.
If any of the other leadership contenders had won,I don't believe for one minute that 30,000.00 people would join the labour party in a few days,Or would have been given a standing ovation at the tu conference,or would have ordinary people suddenly watching pmqs and liking what they see.
If you want the labour party to succeed in 2020,or even in opposition for the next 5 years,I would have thought you would be as pleased with Corbyns achievements this week rather than delighting when things go wrong.
I can't remember who you wanted for leader,mostly scrolled past you and Hugos posts after a while tbh,but we all need to remember that Labour have lost the last two elections so the status quo as being advocated by Cooper,Burnham and Kendall didn't work.
And here we are.

Good morfternoon.

I thought I'd allow the admin people a few days to get their act together but since nothing's happened, I must now protest.

Why, when I log in to this site, does the national anthem not play? Disgraceful.




Edited

Don't know where that "of" came from. It's gone now.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... nt-england" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

RobertSnozers wrote:From UK Polling Report

Of course it’s early days and Corbyn has a long time to build trust. To use a well worn metaphor, it’s a marathon, not a sprint. That said, Corbyn’s start hasn’t been good: rather than a honeymoon, he’s had an initial week of bad press and perceived gaffes. It’s not a surprise that his initial ratings are negative given the media prism that most of the public have seen him through… but like it or not, that is the politics we have. We can only measure the opinion of the actual public – the actual voters, not some imaginary public where Corbyn got a better press. First impressions count, and the public’s first impressions of Jeremy Corbyn don’t seem good.[/quote]

As far as I'm concerned, Corbyn had a pretty miraculous first week. He picked a pretty good, broad based shadow cabinet, avoided the complete meltdown of the parliamentary party that had been threatened, made a good speech to the TUC and played a blinder at PMQs. The 'perceived gaffes' were ALL the result of media spin.

You can accept that this is the world we live in, but by heaven you don't have to like it.

Really?

His choice of Shadow Chancellor was a huge mistake, his TUC speech was ok, but not sure anecdotes about using people who are good at betting in negotiations because they can do mental arithmetic (no beats me too) to a crowd of union members is going to help him reach the 30 million voters. Then there was the utterly pointless Queen stuff (caused by not thinking about presentation).

His press operation has been disastrous, I expect that to be fixed, by bringing in actual professionals (as derided above) but he has added another barrier of poor first impressions to get over.

Sure he has avoided an immediate implosion, thanks in part to a different approach to PMQs ( which never looked like hurting Cameron, but played well - to the media). He has also managed to get the rest of his shadow cabinet in place and avoided a massive party row.

So pretty dire, could have been far worse, must do a lot better next week would be my verdict (being kind).

The problem with the MSM is that first M. It is mainstream and the only source of news for a huge number of people.

Who do you mean by the public? What the press are telling you? The butcher? Your Neighbour? Me? My neighbour?

I voted for Corbyn because of the shake up I think Labour needs. As far as I can see he's doing it in spades.
If you took away all the hysterical lies and disgraceful coverage from the media then it might be a more level playing field for the left to try to make this country into a kinder place. I certainly don't trust Labour as we've come to know it, that's for sure.

Please don't lump everyone into the same narrow viewpoint...

Probably not worth me saying - again - but when you're cold, hungry, homeless, on minimum or no wages, disabled, despairing, on the verge of suicide, or needing a food bank, the IRA's past, the Middle East's problems with women etc., [sorry but it's true] pale into insignificance. And until the Labour right understand that, they're going to have to learn to live with Corbyn.

RobertSnozers wrote:From UK Polling Report

Of course it’s early days and Corbyn has a long time to build trust. To use a well worn metaphor, it’s a marathon, not a sprint. That said, Corbyn’s start hasn’t been good: rather than a honeymoon, he’s had an initial week of bad press and perceived gaffes. It’s not a surprise that his initial ratings are negative given the media prism that most of the public have seen him through… but like it or not, that is the politics we have. We can only measure the opinion of the actual public – the actual voters, not some imaginary public where Corbyn got a better press. First impressions count, and the public’s first impressions of Jeremy Corbyn don’t seem good.

As far as I'm concerned, Corbyn had a pretty miraculous first week. He picked a pretty good, broad based shadow cabinet, avoided the complete meltdown of the parliamentary party that had been threatened, made a good speech to the TUC and played a blinder at PMQs. The 'perceived gaffes' were ALL the result of media spin.

You can accept that this is the world we live in, but by heaven you don't have to like it.

Robert,I agree with every word .
If any of the others had won this would have been a boring,same old week from them,and they would have been slated by the media anyway.

PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.

I thought I'd allow the admin people a few days to get their act together but since nothing's happened, I must now protest.

Why, when I log in to this site, does the national anthem not play? Disgraceful.






Edited

Don't know where that "of" came from. It's gone now.

What,you mean you don't stand up and sing it when you log off at night?Blimey.

LadyCentauria wrote:G'day

Well, it certainly is a good day for Lidl staff - which includes all their cleaners and other staff, along with those on the shop floor, unusually.

Lidl has said it will pay 9,000 of its UK workers at least the full living wage from next month as the first major high street name to embrace the higher pay campaign.

They currently pay a minimum of £7.30 an hour outside London and £8.20 in London (higher than Osborne's soon-to-be-introduced so-called National Living Wage - which is only for the over-25s) but, from October, will exceed the Living Wage Foundation's Living Wage by paying at least £8.20 an hour in England, Scotland and Wales and at least £9.35 in London.

The foundation recommends paying £7.85 outside London and £9.15 in London and will announce new rates at the start of November. Lidl said it would match the foundation’s new levels if they were higher than those adopted by the company.

(my bold)
http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... iving-wage

Edit to fix quotes. Bumboils™

My local Aldi were advertising for staff recently,£8.19 ph.
The manager is a real shit though and the staff are snippy and miserable,so I use Lidl where everybody laughs and jokes and seem to like working there.

@Roger: Ach, nothing was said in the much reported interview about a 'moral equivalence' between 9/11 and Bin Laden's assassination. He listed a series of 'tragedies', including both those things, but made the point that the 'tragedy' in the latter case was that OBL was not arrested and tried. You know and I know that 'tragedy' is a word that covers a wide range of, and is used in a range of, circumstances from World Wars to a goal being disallowed in a football match. And so many people see the words in an article or statement, or hear the words in an interview or a song, but they don't listen to them or 'inwardly digest' them - instead just latching onto trigger words or phrases and jettisoning context.

I dread to imagine what thoughts or sentiments I've come out with in the past. Thankfully, they're not (AFAIK) being gathered, post haste, by a clippings agency due to my sudden rise to the position of Speaker of the House, here, or great prominence in the Parliament (or Establishment) of the UK. Anyroad, 'Yowzers' is wrong - in my case. I'm not a 'Corbynista', I do care, certainly enough to look behind the headlines and try to find the original piece, and I either ask for or wait to hear an explanation, before deciding whether or not to revise my opinion. Often, the expanation is, "Yes. That was eighteen years ago. I was a bit of a dick, then, but I've learnt a lot since then and my view are completely/slightly different." Or it's, "Yes, I said that but you haven't quoted what I said in the next sentence which was ... "

(I liked the juxtaposition, though!)

HindleA wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... nt-england

My daughter in law is type 1 diabetic. I'm pretty sure she doesn't get 8 health checks a year...I think she has it twice a year.

And Mr Ohso's cancer treatment is lagging....

In reply to TE, I agree that appointing McDonnell was hard for many to swallow.

But apart from that, I don't see much that JC has done that can be seriously criticised. In particular the furore over his SC being "anti-women" (when it is half female, a first for any major political party) that was based almost entirely over an increasingly archaic definition of "top jobs" (so this doesn't apply to health, education, business, defence - good to know) was the MSM at its most solipistic and inherently dishonest worst.

PMQs - whatever one thinks of his new approach - was far from the car crash many hacks had eagerly predicted. Clarity has started to appear on touchy subjects like the EU, and he is developing a smart and up to date media operation.

Once the front bench appointments are finished (hopefully today) I expect Jez will do a few media appearances. I might actually watch them

Rebecca wrote:

LadyCentauria wrote:G'day

Well, it certainly is a good day for Lidl staff - which includes all their cleaners and other staff, along with those on the shop floor, unusually.

Lidl has said it will pay 9,000 of its UK workers at least the full living wage from next month as the first major high street name to embrace the higher pay campaign.

They currently pay a minimum of £7.30 an hour outside London and £8.20 in London (higher than Osborne's soon-to-be-introduced so-called National Living Wage - which is only for the over-25s) but, from October, will exceed the Living Wage Foundation's Living Wage by paying at least £8.20 an hour in England, Scotland and Wales and at least £9.35 in London.

The foundation recommends paying £7.85 outside London and £9.15 in London and will announce new rates at the start of November. Lidl said it would match the foundation’s new levels if they were higher than those adopted by the company.

(my bold)
http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... iving-wage

Edit to fix quotes. Bumboils™

My local Aldi were advertising for staff recently,£8.19 ph.
The manager is a real shit though and the staff are snippy and miserable,so I use Lidl where everybody laughs and jokes and seem to like working there.

They have a good crew in my local Aldi. They have to work hard though...

Ikea are also going to pay the Living Wage...They're opening a new store in Reading next year and announced the new pay rates some months ago. So that's a German and a Swedish company coming good.
Wouldn't it be nice if a British company showed the same enthusiasm.

LadyCentauria wrote:

yahyah wrote:Am off now, the ginger kitten is going home as his owners are back from diving in Egypt, so have to collect his stuff up. You'd think he was toddler triplets the amount of gear he has around the house.

Will come back later armed with ginger and lemon cake as my husband wants to try baking.

(my bold)

Is that safe???

As long as it's not Mr Riots, it should be.

ohsocynical wrote:

HindleA wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... nt-england

My daughter in law is type 1 diabetic. I'm pretty sure she doesn't get 8 health checks a year...I think she has it twice a year.

And Mr Ohso's cancer treatment is lagging....

I'm sorry to hear that. For both of them - and for the worry it must be bringing you, too.

LadyCentauria wrote:@Roger: Ach, nothing was said in the much reported interview about a 'moral equivalence' between 9/11 and Bin Laden's assassination. He listed a series of 'tragedies', including both those things, but made the point that the 'tragedy' in the latter case was that OBL was not arrested and tried. You know and I know that 'tragedy' is a word that covers a wide range of, and is used in a range of, circumstances from World Wars to a goal being disallowed in a football match. And so many people see the words in an article or statement, or hear the words in an interview or a song, but they don't listen to them or 'inwardly digest' them - instead just latching onto trigger words or phrases and jettisoning context.

I dread to imagine what thoughts or sentiments I've come out with in the past. Thankfully, they're not (AFAIK) being gathered, post haste, by a clippings agency due to my sudden rise to the position of Speaker of the House, here, or great prominence in the Parliament (or Establishment) of the UK. Anyroad, 'Yowzers' is wrong - in my case. I'm not a 'Corbynista', I do care, certainly enough to look behind the headlines and try to find the original piece, and I either ask for or wait to hear an explanation, before deciding whether or not to revise my opinion. Often, the expanation is, "Yes. That was eighteen years ago. I was a bit of a dick, then, but I've learnt a lot since then and my view are completely/slightly different." Or it's, "Yes, I said that but you haven't quoted what I said in the next sentence which was ... "

(I liked the juxtaposition, though!)

Yes, and that little thing called hindsight...

gilsey wrote:

LadyCentauria wrote:

yahyah wrote:Am off now, the ginger kitten is going home as his owners are back from diving in Egypt, so have to collect his stuff up. You'd think he was toddler triplets the amount of gear he has around the house.

Will come back later armed with ginger and lemon cake as my husband wants to try baking.

(my bold)

Is that safe???

As long as it's not Mr Riots, it should be.

Probably true... But if not, do you think we could persuade them to form a double-act and pitch for a cookery-adventure show? FTN Worldwide presents...

LadyCentauria wrote:

ohsocynical wrote:

HindleA wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... nt-england

My daughter in law is type 1 diabetic. I'm pretty sure she doesn't get 8 health checks a year...I think she has it twice a year.

And Mr Ohso's cancer treatment is lagging....

I'm sorry to hear that. For both of them - and for the worry it must be bringing you, too.

Luckily d-i-law is very sensible. Keeps fit horse riding every Sunday, eats as she should, when she should and so far hasn't had any health issues due to the diabetes, which she's had for nearly twenty three years.
I'm wondering if perhaps the twice a year check is adequate for her because she's so disciplined, but varies from patient to patient.

It's feeling like an awful long time to have to wait for an outcome for Mr Ohso, but there's no alternative so we have to put up with it.

LadyCentauria wrote:

gilsey wrote:

LadyCentauria wrote: (my bold)

Is that safe???

As long as it's not Mr Riots, it should be.

Probably true... But if not, do you think we could persuade them to form a double-act and pitch for a cookery-adventure show? FTN Worldwide presents...

Can I suggest a title? Last Taster Standing?

Corbyn's bad week in full -
Failed to put women in the "top jobs" but made a woman the shadow equivalent of deputy prime minister.
Failed to realise someone in the press pack hounding him had been knocked over by someone else.
Failed to make OGRFG puce, failed to be stroppy, and asked the PM questions put to him by the people.
Failed to sing the National Anthem, just like the officers standing behind him and the woman next to Fallon.
Failed to give the responses the media want him to give so that they can report his general awfulness.

First week of the ABC candidates -
Kendall would have been excoriated for Red Toryism, lack of experience/gravitas/policy, support of the benefit cap and removal of benefit rights to EU migrants, and a UKIP-style points-based immigration policy.
Cooper would have been attacked for appointing women to her cabinet just because they're women, being influenced by Balls, and would never shake off the house-flipping expenses scandal.
Burnham would have continued to face flak for Mid-Staffs, accused of flip-flopping on his policies, blamed for Hinchingbrooke, and he would not escape questions on his expenses either.

In all scenarios, the press/media would be in attack mode. Some of what I have written about ALL the candidates here is true, some not.
It wouldn't matter a jot what the truth is - the ABC candidates would have had as rough a ride as Corbyn.
We have a mainstream media largely controlled by rich people who are either foreigners or live abroad for tax reasons; even our national broadcaster is not reporting accurately, possibly due to government interference and/or threats to its existence.

All things considered, Corbyn had an OK first week. I am certain that the ABC candidates would have had similar media treatment.
Dredging up old news isn't news - but our MSM would rather focus on that than actually inform us about policy.
The only time they can be relied upon to be positive is when they fawn over the royals or bash benefit claimants.

From September 21 Universal Credit will go live from Reading Job Centre and from Bracknell Job Centre the week after

Universal Credit will go live in Reading job centre from September 21 and in Bracknell and Wokingham from September 28.

Claimants who will be affected include single people and couples without children.

Bracknell Forest Council has also announced it will enter into a contract with the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) worth £24,000 which will help support the changes.

A spokesperson for the DWP said: “As part of the national roll out of Universal Credit, some jobseekers in Reading will be able to start claiming the new benefit from next week. "We already know that Universal Credit claimants are moving into work faster and staying in work longer, and the new benefit is expected to boost employment across the country by 300,000.

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/readin ... e-10055579" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It could be far worse and have a shadow chancellor that was on drugs and have an ex girlfriend on twitter.

RobertSnozers wrote:

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

RobertSnozers wrote:From UK Polling Report
As far as I'm concerned, Corbyn had a pretty miraculous first week. He picked a pretty good, broad based shadow cabinet, avoided the complete meltdown of the parliamentary party that had been threatened, made a good speech to the TUC and played a blinder at PMQs. The 'perceived gaffes' were ALL the result of media spin.

You can accept that this is the world we live in, but by heaven you don't have to like it.

Really?

His choice of Shadow Chancellor was a huge mistake, his TUC speech was ok, but not sure anecdotes about using people who are good at betting in negotiations because they can do mental arithmetic (no beats me too) to a crowd of union members is going to help him reach the 30 million voters. Then there was the utterly pointless Queen stuff (caused by not thinking about presentation).

His press operation has been disastrous, I expect that to be fixed, by bringing in actual professionals (as derided above) but he has added another barrier of poor first impressions to get over.

Sure he has avoided an immediate implosion, thanks in part to a different approach to PMQs ( which never looked like hurting Cameron, but played well - to the media). He has also managed to get the rest of his shadow cabinet in place and avoided a massive party row.

So pretty dire, could have been far worse, must do a lot better next week would be my verdict (being kind).

The problem with the MSM is that first M. It is mainstream and the only source of news for a huge number of people.

His choice of shadow chancellor may or may not have been a mistake. McDonnell has done pretty well on Today and QT and come across as reasonable. The stuff about the IRA isn't great, and will piss off the Unionists (the same people who managed to get into a huge tizzy about coloured pieces of cloth not so very long ago) but even with the problems at Stormont, is not the serious issue it used to be. The comments are out there now, I can't see how even the Murdoch press will keep that running for five years.

The problem with the MSM is indeed the mainstreamness of it. But the fact is that much if it is run by self-interested folk who hate everything Corbyn stands for - including the bits about fairness and equality. I refuse to meekly swallow a compromise leader because we're boxed into a narrow bracket of what a few odious media proprietors and a cowed, pro-establishment BBC say is acceptable.