Concern within the Labour Party that Jeremy Corbyn is doing well

Agreed, Eloethan.
Toby Young was one of those who tried to get a vote and was ousted, along with Tory MPs.

This is why the Labour party need Corbyn at the helm.

www.politics.co.uk/opinion-formers/bakers-food-and-allied-workers-union/article/trade-union-bill-is-an-attack-on-all-working-people

He has the support of ten major unions.

Yes and that's what scares the private sector durhamjen

I am confused myself now.
He has mentioned bombing and ground troops. Yes.
But the bombing could be to cut off the oil supply. And ground troops to be sent to Iraq to fight IS.

So you haven't read the link, then.

" Contrary to what people may think, unionised workplaces are generally safer, more productive, more efficient and more profitable with better trained/skilled workforces and lower staff turnover. If that wasn’t enough, pay is up to 25% higher than in non-unionised workplaces and they tend to have better holiday entitlement and superior long service benefits.

Unfortunately, the Tory mentality is pre-programmed to view this as a bad thing, no matter how many facts, figures and statistics you offer them to prove otherwise. They believe that the balance of power in any workplace should be squarely in favour of the employer, irrespective of how unscrupulous or exploitative they may be."

I do not see anything wrong with that.
The Conservatives are making employers pay a decent minimum wage, not the unions, although the unions would prefer a proper living wage.

There is an all out attack on the unions Jen and my worry is that people will not appreciate these changes until the damage is done.

I was listening to a programme the other day where they were talking about a M & S distribution centre, if I remember correctly. Originally those working there - a large number - were on either full-time or part-time contracts and were being paid a couple of pounds over minimum wage. They now have three companies between them and the distribution centre owners, and are on contracts which mean they only have to be paid for a minimum of seven hours a week and their pay has gone down to minimum wage.

This means that as well as the main company which I believe is M & S, three other companies are profiting from keeping the earnings down of already low paid people. The state will be picking up the amount needed for these people and their families to stay out of poverty.

I beg to differ durhamjen decent employers will always paid decent wages.

Decent employers look after and value their staff.

Good employers make sure their staff are up to date with their training.

Good employers take H & S very seriously.

Good employers offer their valued staff good/flexible holidays.

There was a time when unions did a wonderful job. They gave workers "rights" they improved poor working conditions etc.

These days when I think of unions I think of the country being held to ransom by some overpaid egotistical "super" union leader. Often without the full consensus of the members, who lets face it are more often than not "forced" to join.

Going back to the living wage.......... if the living wage was £10 per hour or even £20 per hour, the cost of living would have to escalate to such an extent that all those at the bottom would still be at the bottom.

Interesting, Gracesgran. I thought M&S were living wage employers, but I've just checked and they are not. I know I've signed petitions to ask them to be, considering they go on about their ethical credentials a lot of the time.
Hope the workers are in USDAW.

That's not a reason to depress wages.Even if they are still at the bottom, at least they will be able to afford better food for their families.
It's been worked out that if the US doubled its minimum wage, it would put the cost of a BigMac up by 22c. I find that embarrassing for employers, and heartening for the workers.
You cannot deny that many workers are on wages so poor that they cannot afford to live decently.
Look at the Living Wage foundation website. I am totally amazed at some of the names on there, and very heartened at the progress being made.
Just thousands more companies to go. That's what unions do for people.

Unless they are holding the country to ransom of course, as they tried to in the 1980's.

If the unions stick to getting a reasonable deal for the employees, as they were meant to do, that's fine, but when they try to skew politics by doing their utmost to get Labour in power and keep it in power by any means, then nit fine.

I wouldn't read The Daily Vile, the Express or the mirror ,I do read the Guardie and The Western Mail . I listen to the paper reviews every night and will give the Vile the credit for causing the most amusement among the many reviewers

Nit! Haha, bloomin' iPad.

All the papers have an angle, either read all of them or none.

If we are blessed with many decent , good employers why do we have so many on minimum wage and zero hour contracts

I just couldn't be bothered to read the sport or the express and couldn't afford to buy all the others

First of all we do not live in the USA and I have no idea whatsoever what their wages are in comparison to our own.

I do know that the cost of what we buy (be it a car, a loaf of bread or whatever widget) reflects what it costs to make. You can make the minimum/living wage whatever you like but the cost of the "whatever" (including food) will have to go up to reflect this.

Exactly roses. Just look at the "poor" tube workers earning crikey knows what but still wanting more just because they are able to hold the capital to ransom.

This was the programme Jen www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b065rlry#play

The whole point is that they no longer directly employ the people, as I said there are three companies between them. The seem to have handed them on.

The whole programme was interesting but this particular bit starts at about 14 minutes in.

Before I start. I think you need to get used to the fact that plenty of gransnetters have said that they dont read your links dj. That is par for the course.

Contrary to what people may think, unionised workplaces are generally safer, more productive, more efficient and more profitable with better trained/skilled workforces and lower staff turnover. If that wasn’t enough, pay is up to 25% higher than in non-unionised workplaces and they tend to have better holiday entitlement and superior long service benefits.

I dont often watn statistics, but I think I would need them for that lot.

Though I would probably agree on the safer part.

If I was running a business, you wouldnt want to be giving excessive pay and excessive conditions.

They not the

Did anyone hear George Galloway on LBC this morning? I couldn't decide whether he was helping "the cause " or not. He wasn't very good at letting the callers have their say. Discussing the idea of re-nationalising the railways.

Realistically how could we re-nationlise the railways?

Who would pay the money to Virgin etc.? Where would the money come from? What if they refuse to sell? Up the price?

It's simply not possible without bankrupting the country. Also do we really need thousands more public sector workers and pensions ?

Gillybob, perfectly possible as and when the franchises for each line run out.

Below is from the BBC magazine of March 2015 about the East Coast Mainline.

'A rare experiment in public ownership has come to an end.
This weekend East Coast main line train services passed from public to private hands. But is it realistic to talk about the rail network ever being renationalised?
A rare experiment in public ownership has come to an end.
Supporters say that Directly Operated Railways, a state-run body, rescued the East Coast main line after the collapse in 2009 of National Express's franchise. The firm had been unable to deliver promised revenues to the government.
Directly Operated Railways handed a billion pounds in premiums to the Treasury during its period in charge.'

It would be a popular policy. A 2013 You Gov poll said 66% would like to see renationalisation of the railways.

Re pensions...I thought all employers have to make contributions to pension schemes now.

My voting papers are here, but will vote on line to save the party some cash.

This article gave me food for thought (warning, it's long) about why having Corbyn as leader of the Labour party would be wrong:

blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/corbyn-and-the-political-economy-of-nostalgia/