Bollitics: The General Election 2010 Exit Poll

[markavfc40]

If BA do go out of business the blame will lay squarely with Walsh and not the Unions.

[peterms]

and is felt by the Army, who apparently issued the directive

I thought the directive came from Des Browne and not the army ?

Enlighten me. I am in need of enlightenment.

[PauloBarnesi]

If BA do go out of business the blame will lay squarely with Walsh and not the Unions.

The reality is probably a combination of people and also circumstances. Lets be honest its hardly a great time to be in the airline business.

[bickster]

If BA do go out of business the blame will lay squarely with Walsh and not the Unions.

hmm no, about a 75% / 25% split with Walsh taking the large share of the blame I reckon, the Unions have a point but not much of one but Walsh has single handedly ruined the company irrespective of any union action.

If I want to fly, just for the sake of argument, from Manchester to Munich, who am I going to fly with? BA where I have to go via Heathrow (or Gatwick) which chucks on an extra two hours minimum to the flight or Lufthansa who fly direct for either the same price or cheaper and offer a very similar level or service or even Singapore Airlines who also offer the route? It aint BA and that decision was taken by Walsh and has nothing to do with the unions at all

[drat01]

If BA do go out of business the blame will lay squarely with Walsh and not the Unions.

The reality is probably a combination of people and also circumstances. Lets be honest its hardly a great time to be in the airline business.

Paul, Willy Walsh's record with BA has been one of failure since he was there. long before the airline problems worldwide

[tonyh29]

If BA do go out of business the blame will lay squarely with Walsh and not the Unions.

:shock:

not really the right thread but the blame is "also" at Unites door ..

as a direct result of strong union action BA cabin crew are the highest paid in Britain. BA is fighting for its survival and the cabin crew are being led by a politically motivated union towards the dole queue..

It is clear that the public holds little sympathy for the BA cabin crew and their actions are losing BA customers , which will result in BA having to make even deeper cuts

[markavfc40]

Walsh has shown total contempt for the Unions, its membership and therefore BAs workforce. If he'd have been in the slightest way reasonable this dispute would have been sorted months ago. The man is an arrogant fool and if he carries on the way he has been he is putting the future of the company in jeopardy.

[tonyh29]

and is felt by the Army, who apparently issued the directive

I thought the directive came from Des Browne and not the army ?

Enlighten me. I am in need of enlightenment.

Des Browne was Secretary of State for Defence and I understand that the dress code thingy was one of his brainwaves ..along with banning personnel from blogging, speaking in public, posting on bulletin boards , playing in multi-player online computer games, or sending text messages or pictures to phones without the permission of a superior

[peterms]

If BA do go out of business the blame will lay squarely with Walsh and not the Unions.

The reality is probably a combination of people and also circumstances. Lets be honest its hardly a great time to be in the airline business.

It's an interesting industry. It's been a management theory case study for many years, an industry which seems to teeter on the brink of failure for many participants, where even the cash-flow problems of refuelling an aircraft can send an airline down the pan - yet also attractive to new entrants, from time to time.

If you factor into that the problems of rising energy costs, concern about carbon footprints, and the logistical and financial problems caused by dust clouds, it would be entirely unsurprising to see some more failures before the year is out.

Still, I expect it'll all be the fault of the bolshie bastard airline stewardesses, eh.

[thetrees]

If BA do go out of business the blame will lay squarely with Walsh and not the Unions.

hmm no, about a 75% / 25% split with Walsh taking the large share of the blame I reckon, the Unions have a point but not much of one but Walsh has single handedly ruined the company irrespective of any union action.

If I want to fly, just for the sake of argument, from Manchester to Munich, who am I going to fly with? BA where I have to go via Heathrow (or Gatwick) which chucks on an extra two hours minimum to the flight or Lufthansa who fly direct for either the same price or cheaper and offer a very similar level or service or even Singapore Airlines who also offer the route? It aint BA and that decision was taken by Walsh and has nothing to do with the unions at all

Economics.

BA lost money at Manchester and Birmingham for years, so the moment Walsh stepped in he pulled the plug.

Lufthansa are building up a hub at Munich, so can push the numbers through. As well as Lufthansa, KLM/Air France, Emirates, Turkish, Scandinavian and Finnair all push considerable numbers from the provinces through their respective hubs.

[peterms]

and is felt by the Army, who apparently issued the directive

I thought the directive came from Des Browne and not the army ?

Enlighten me. I am in need of enlightenment.

Des Browne was Secretary of State for Defence and I understand that the dress code thingy was one of his brainwaves ..along with which banning personnel from blogging, speaking in public, posting on bulletin boards , playing in multi-player online computer games, or sending text messages or pictures to phones without the permission of a superior

And yet it dates from the time when the IRA were a serious threat to army staff, which as I recall was rather before his brief spell in the limelight?

In any event, I think we all know these things are created by staff and signed off by a Minister.

[snowychap]

In any event, I think we all know these things are created by staff and signed off by a Minister.

:nod:

[thetrees]

The personal blog on the conservativehome site blames this on Muslims, without a shred of evidence.

Your comment about the real reason being "offence", rather than obeying Army directives, risks falling into the same trap.

Do you have anything showing that the reason for the way soldiers are shepherded through BHX is caused by the unreasonable feelings of Muslims, rather than by Army policy?

No, and you will note from my postings that isn't what I am saying.

Sure there were 'rumours' around the airport about offended muslims, just as there were stories about muslim workers abusing war wounded at Selly Oak Hospital before the military had separate wards, but both are just heresay.

As I alluded to earlier my take is that the directive and potential for offence was more likely borne out of a politically correct non-muslim, rather than a muslim.

[PauloBarnesi]

If BA do go out of business the blame will lay squarely with Walsh and not the Unions.

The reality is probably a combination of people and also circumstances. Lets be honest its hardly a great time to be in the airline business.

Paul, Willy Walsh's record with BA has been one of failure since he was there. long before the airline problems worldwide

I am not saying Louis or Willy isn’t in part to blame. But if you look at what is and has been happening in the last two or three years, with large national airlines going belly up. My business has been struck twice by this industrial action; its hard not to feel annoyance at the lot of them.

[RunRickyRun]

Another thing on Clegg, didn't he clearly state pre-election that he would support the party with most number of seats and votes? The records show that wasn't Labour.

Not really

Clegg said he would talk first to the party with the strongest mandate but also laid out 4 'tests' that would have to be fulfilled in order to earn Lib Dem support

[PauloBarnesi]

Gosh the Labour and Tory on Newsnight seem to be agreeing!

[Condimentalist]

Back to the thread, as much as I want to see proper electoral reform pushed through, I think a minority Lib/Lab govt with concessions to the regional parties would be a disaster. I understand that PR often results in coalition governments but they will be significantly better than this sham.

[peterms]

The personal blog on the conservativehome site blames this on Muslims, without a shred of evidence.

Your comment about the real reason being "offence", rather than obeying Army directives, risks falling into the same trap.

Do you have anything showing that the reason for the way soldiers are shepherded through BHX is caused by the unreasonable feelings of Muslims, rather than by Army policy?

No, and you will note from my postings that isn't what I am saying.

Sure there were 'rumours' around the airport about offended muslims, just as there were stories about muslim workers abusing war wounded at Selly Oak Hospital before the military had separate wards, but both are just heresay.

As I alluded to earlier my take is that the directive and potential for offence was more likely borne out of a politically correct non-muslim, rather than a muslim.

So then what do you understand to be the "offence" which has led to soldiers being inconvenienced? I'm assuming that they were inconvenienced, or put out in some way, though I'm still unclear exactly how, and by whom. I'd really like to understand this, and since you report yourself to be still angry a full three days after witnessing it, no doubt you can help fill in the gaps, if you wouldn't mind.

[snowychap]

I understand that PR often results in coalition governments but they will be significantly better than this sham.

True and the more we get experienced in them, the better we would get.

Coalitions are about discussion, diplomacy and compromise.

Sounds like someone has just written the greatest job description for Britons. I always thought we were pretty, bloody good at that shit.

[tonyh29]

No doubt it will be dismissed as it doesn't come from an approved source such as Socialist Youth Newspaper of the Labour Party Young Socialists or Workers' Charter but none the less it's an interesting article ...

It is a measure of Gordon Brown’s loose grip on reality that he sought to depict his decision to stand down later this year as a noble act of self-sacrifice made in the national interest. The truth is that this was an act of quite staggering cynicism based on naked party advantage. With the incomprehensible connivance of Nick Clegg – whose reputation will surely never recover – Mr Brown is effectively seeking to nullify the result of last week’s general election. Blinded by his tribal loathing of the Conservatives, he is ready to risk everything – and we use that term advisedly – to keep David Cameron out of Downing Street.

This unelected leader of the Labour Party will remain Prime Minister, even though his party secured two million fewer votes and 48 fewer seats than the Tories. He will then hand over at a time of his choosing to a new Labour leader. At that point, the United Kingdom will find itself governed by a Labour prime minister the country has not elected, succeeding a Labour prime minister neither the country nor his party elected. Even by Labour’s standards, this is self-serving and unscrupulous.

Since last Friday we have lived with the fiction that Mr Brown was simply doing his constitutional duty by staying at the helm until a new government could be formed, acting in the national interest. Now we see that all the time he has been acting in his and his party’s interest, defying the verdict of the electorate by trying to create a coalition of the election losers. This is a bleak day for our democracy

Full article