Maggie Thatcher & The Government

I read the other day that thousands of union ballot papers were 'spoiled' and consequently disallowed. Apparently this is the norm, as there is a box to tick that says 'I am a Labour Party member' or something similar (Merse will know) which if left blank 'spoils' the ballot.

It would appear that there is no doubt the unions got him home, if this article is accurate (which I don't know and care less!):

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/how-the-union-barons-colluded-to-crush-david-milibands-dream-2090413.html

I agree it's good if the unions are truly representing their members, which in this case they did. However I think a lot of people have a distaste for unions in instances such as the recent BA cabin crew strikes.

Those crew members are on the best contract across the whole industry but still want to oppose any changes, despite BA being in financial trouble. The union calling them out may have represented those few members but did not have any public support. Not surprising really, when there are others in other industries who have lost their jobs in similar situations, and that the union timed the strikes to cause the maximum disruption to innocent members of the public. And, it is feasible that many of the public who had long-saved-for holidays ruined or disrupted were also union members, which would test anyone's union loyalties, I would suggest.

Brown and Blair also spoke out against Unite. Did it make a difference? No, it didn't. The reason I mention Unite (a massive union that combines many smaller unions across dozens of professions) and BA is that those strikes were a small microcosm of what could happen on a much bigger scale, if Ed m does eventually become PM. Brown and Blair were not 'in hock' to the unions and they couldn't control them. Milliband has no chance either, despite his protestations otherwise.

What I meant was in this case the unions made it clear they were supporting Ed m and therefore their members could either choose to support it or not.

In the BA case the members voted for strike action but it was the union leaders that chose the bank holiday dates for strike action afterwards. If those dates had been on the table at the time of the vote, would so many members have supported the proposed action? A moot point and one to which I don't know the answer; but my opinion is: probably not as many.

I also choose to book elsewhere and have done since 2001 when BA lost mine and my wife's wedding attire for 5 days and didn't even apologise. Fortunately it was on the return journey after our wedding.

Since then I have made 51 trans-Atlantic flights, from which BA has not made a penny. Compared to Delta and United, BA's service, as I remember it, was totally shite and I am not surprised they are in trouble.

I still don't recognise your distinction between 'the union' and members. Certainly a union's leadership may endorse a Labour leadership candidate and provide funds for that person's campaign, but as has already been pointed out, members are at liberty to a) vote for whichever candidate they choose, and; b) opt-out of the political levy. They're also free to elect different personnel for the union's executive committees at the next round of elections.

Complaints about "the union(s)" (particuarly from members of unions) remind me of people who complain that "politicians are all the same". Everyone is free to join a political party and play a part in selecting their preferred candidate and attend political meetings and town hall debates, but how many do? It's no good saying "I don't have the time for that" - if one leaves the decision making to others one can hardly complain when those who do put themselves forward end up not being to one's own liking.



Perhaps not as many, but I reckon most BA Unite members know what they're in for by now. They certainly don't appear to be in any rush to elect more moderate leaders.