Off Topic Politics Thread

Because, frankly, the people who make decisions about the workforce have never been a part of the workforce. The days when people at the top (or even the middle, often) got there by working their way up are long since gone, and now you have a class of executives who have never been anything other than middle and upper management, and do not have the faintest idea how anything works.

It's funny, really. We realized more than a century ago that gentlemen officers, men of proper breeding and etiquette and absolutely no idea how war works, were not the proper people to lead men into battle. Yet we decided that they should run our workplaces instead, with the same jumped-up belief in their own superiority, and blithe contempt for the welfare of those under them.

 

Stop Press. Daily Express and Daily Mail urge government to introduce compulsory training for all young men in firing the long bow in readiness for the war they are stirring up with the French.

 

To be fair, gentlemen officers frequently did good job of leading soldiers into battle, in the days when they were required to do so from the front.

It's those leading from behind who we can hold responsible for the carnage of Ypres, The Somme, Vimy Ridge etc.

 

Cost cutting and the dependency on using paper was an issue for me, at Lidl.
The driver is constantly having to wait, whilst firstly his delivery information is input into the Lidl checking system (there really should be a system where the supplier sends this info electronically and it is then entered into the checking system with a press of a button not the need for a Goods In clerk to enter it manually.)
When the driver arrives, there could be a dozen or more drivers already waiting for their information to be entered.
After off loading the driver must wait for the delivery to be checked, so he can then be given more paperwork confirming the details of what was received.
This wait can be any length of time, depending on how many loads arrived before him, which are checked first, and also on how many people are available to check the deliveries - usually 2, but lunch breaks will reduce that to one, as will absenteeism.
Drivers who arrive later than their pre-booked time slot, because of traffic issues, are basically ****ed as they are now at the back of the queue.
The mixed pallets are the cause of unnecessary delays, because if they aren’t separated correctly, it leads to the counted figures not tallying with the expected figures, which means time is wasted hunting for the missing cases of stock, which often means the driver having to return to the loading bay to look for them, as the checkers will often say “it’s not my job to split pallets down, it’s the driver’s job” and refuse to do it.
If errors cannot be found, by the checkers, they sometimes have to call a manager to come and check their count, which adds another layer of delay to the driver’s day.
I lost count of the number of drivers who said that they hated delivering to Lidl.

Edit. If the checkers did their jobs correctly, in the chilled and fruit and veg unloading bays, as in doing ALL the routine checks demanded by company procedures, the checking would take as much as 50% longer.
Chilled and frozen products are not routinely temperature checked, on arrival, despite the checking system asking for the temperature of each pallet checked. The checkers routinely make these figures up, including management when they help out, so it is extremely possible that goods are often received outside their temperature range, without the RCD knowing, which could lead to issues with the quality of the goods.
One checker, once noted rodent damage caused to beef steaks, on one delivery. We were all of the opinion that the delivery should be rejected, as we didn’t know if the other meat on the delivery was affected, plus the cause of the damage might still be hidden in the cases, and could then relocate to our depot.
The manager overruled our concerns and accepted the delivery, because of the pressures everyone is under to maintain “stock on the shelves” in the stores.

 

Oh what a lovely war that was.

 

I've read back over a few pages and I haven't noticed much discussion here about interviews given during the Labour party conference. While there may be differing views on where Starmer wants to position the party, I think there is a demographic that the Labour party are choosing to ignore or as I read elsewhere 'How ignorant they are about the women they are truducing'.

For anyone who hasn't watched or listened to the interviews given during conference week, I am referring to the replies given by Keir Starmer, Emily Thornberry, David Lammy and Rachel Reeves to the question :
What is wrong with saying, 'Only women have a cervix'?

Keir Starmer in his car crash interview on Marr replied, ' It's something that shouldn't be said. It's not right'

While Emily Thornberry says 'It's factually incorrect'

David Lammy, who believes you can somehow grow a cervix if you take the right hormones, said, that [Women] are 'dinosaurs' and are ' hoarding their rights'. In an interview with Rachel Burdon he fumed that as a black man, he would take no lectures from her on rights campaigning, talked her down for asking the wrong questions and to top it all, claimed 'to identify as a feminist'

The usually eloquent Rachel Reeves looked fearful when asked the question by Nick Ferrari on LBC and was floundering to give any sort of answer.

This party has the likes of Angela Raynor saying that she supports allowing people to self identify rather than them having to meet certain medical conditions and Lisa Nandy, who believes that a male rapist who identifies as trans should be allowed to choose to go to a women's prison.


I know I am not alone in thinking that these pathetic, spineless politicians are happy to throw women under a bus, so I won't be at all surprised to see Labour losing the support of women at the next election.

 

The issue politicians have is that they don't have a one liner response to this that won't offend one side or the either - so they either say something very off the cuff or nothing really at all.
This is really complex situation, on the one hand they don't wont to offend transgender individuals, they also dont want to make women feel uncomfortable.
I would not want to be the person trying to offer an opinion on this matter in public - so I have some sympathy with the politicians, but this is there job to appeal to the widest possible audience, but first they have to agree to that answer themselves, and I think this is the main reason they stumble over this - they can't agree amongst themselves what the correct response to these questions.

 

Private Eye nails it:

 

PE cover, I like the panic lying bubble.

please log in to view this image

 

This really isn't a complex situation SaintStu. There is only one answer:

'It is biologically correct to say that only women have a cervix'

Sadly, the Labour party are tying themselves in knots because they simply can't tell the truth. I believe women have around a 51% vote share, can the Labour party really afford to gaslight women?

 

I hope you appreciate I am only playing at devils advocate - but if I was born as a man then say I identify myself as a women, then someone says you can only be a woman if you are born with a cervix you will then accuse them of being transphobic.
I also think other parties would struggle in the same way to answer the question, it is only highlighted on the Labour Party as they have been mostly in the forefront of promoting equal rights.
I think it is complex. Like most things that involve people's emotions. Personally I prefer the scientific definitions of male and female, but I won't force this opinion onto others.

 

Perception.

 

It's also an anagram of Exigent Debtor and Bigot Extender.

 

Taking back control and giving jobs to, mmm India?

 

Isn’t it great that here on “Brexit Island” we are now the laughing-stock of Europe?

 

I have travelled the length and breadth of Europe and have been a Francophile all my life but I will not be going back anytime soon.

I am far to ashamed to be British now thanks to the Little Englander racists who voted for Brexit..