I'm not sure if you are saying that my pointing out that it doesn't necessarily capture how good an employer is, amounts to "right wing bollox".
I'm not criticising what the Living Wage Foundation does; I'm saying there's limitations to what the accreditation can tell you. Yes it's good to set a figure on some kind of rational basis that is higher than the minimum wage, and it's good to give companies an incentive to pay that.
I see that Lidl isn't accredited by the way. Why's that - is it because of other employment policies they apply? The knowledge that they pay the living wage influences your decision to shop with them, but is it at the expense of other aspects of their employees' employment deals?
Earlier today I was looking at a website where employees rate their employers. Tesco for example gets a better rating than Lidl.
Lidl Reviews | Glassdoor.co.uk
I don't know really if these ratings are representative. But it's always a problem if you pick out one aspect of something; focus on that can distract from other questions. I'm sure the Living Wage Foundation are very aware of this and do what they can to mitigate it. Doesn't mean it's not a problem though.