The High Court’s decision on BA concerned law, not politics

salieri

When judges are obliged to implement a statute favouring the Guardian's clientele - e.g. the Human Rights Act - their judgments are invariably described as a courageous and vigorous vindication of the rule of law. When they go the other way they're "blatantly political".

They don't like it up ' em, do they?

Nick

That will be the same Guardian that operates out of a tax haven, but doesn't like tax avoidance?

canonalberic

Try reading the comments below the vile jew-hating rabble rousers spiteful and conflicted witterings..."right-wing oxbridge judiciary" "never done a days physical work".

CIF - where bitter nobodies with 2.1's from former poly's gather to sing the "Ca ira".

Chris lancashire

I actually think the Judge did take more than just points of law into account - and good on her. This was a blatantly political strike with more to do with internal Unite politics than representing the interests of Union members.
I think the BA management is struggling manfully with a hugely difficult business situation made worse by a legacy of previous weak management.
I also think BA is closer to Administration than many would think - including the brainless cabin crew who voted for this unjust strike.

Martyn Rowe

I thought only yoghurt knitters and self-haters read Seamus Milne's pieces.

graham_

I have to agree with the Guardian in this instance. Whether you agree with the strike or disagree with the strike is not the question here.
Quiet simply BA sought an injunction against the strike based upon a balloting technicality. BA claimed that Unite had erroneously balloted hundreds of BA cabin crew who had subsequently left the company. Unite would not have had a case to answer to if BA had attempted to raise an injunction against Unite based upon the fact that the length of the strike was perceived to be too long.
Further more the length of the strike action was never debated or challenged by either side however Justice Cox clearly made it clear in her closing statement that she had taken the length of the threatened strike action into consideration, I quote "A strike of this kind over the 12 days of Christmas is fundamentally more damaging to BA and the wider public than a strike taking place at almost any other time in the year". It was not Justice Cox's decision to decide whether the strike was damaging as this was not the case raised, it should have simply been her job to make a judgement on the ballot issue. Stinks of political intervention

Paul B

And Mrs T would of course have been right. I would have thought she would have choosen a more Anglo Saxon word in private , rather than "poppycock" which is rather an effete luvvie word imo.

Ghengis

Seamus Milne is suffering the same mind set as those "expense bandits" and Ministers who consider the law not to apply to them

mac

Shameless Milne says . . .
Jeez, have we moved on from quoting Polly and Richards to the narrow-minded class warrior Milne? Didn't this used to be the Spectator?

Peter From Maidstone

It stopped being the Spectator some time ago.

Look at the blog topics at the moment. All pretty much either soft-left, or just wishy-washy, or even pro-AGW. There is nothing serious on the EU, immigration or Islam. One wonders why in what is supposed to be a serious right of centre publication. It seems, at the moment to be not very serious and not at all right of centre.

Norman Dee

I am afraid that the gentleman from Maidstone may be right, but, back to the main subject. BA are far from perfect, but they are seen in some areas as the "posh" airline, the airline for "toffs", this is enough for the trade unions to take a set against them. Still smarting over the 80's this is a class fight of a political nature. They have done a very good job of taking a workforce that earns around £10000 a year more than it's nearest rival, and persuaded them that they have a grievance. What they have is an enviable position, the slightest amount of common sense would tell them they are in a terrific position in todays market. When, as they seem to want, they have allowed Unite to destroy BA, where will they all go to get a job that has the same rates and perks. Nowhere, only they and the thousands of other people who rely on BA will suffer, the Unite officials will stream back to their warm offices and their very high salaries, all content they have struck a blow for the working man.
Wake up unite members and smell the coffee, while you still have the chance to serve it for a good income.

JohnAnt

I had to laugh when I saw the union boss assuring us with wide-eyed innocence that the union had never intended to inconvenience the passengers.
Then I heard Ol' Hattersley fulminating on 'Any Questions' that the judge had made an impermissable value judgement about the 'undesirability' of the strike'. Frankly, if she had, I'd welcome it as the first astonishingly non-lefty statement by a judge in recent years. But she said something rather different: her comment was not about 'undesirability' but of the 'disproportionate damage' that would be done to the company - and hence also to its employees - by a 12-day strike at Christmas, and that thus the 'balance of convenience' - which must be a consideration on granting an injunction - was in favour of BA and against the union. (Otherwise she could simply have concluded that the 800 invalid votes, though negligently allowed by the union, did not materially alter the vote.)
As later emerged from comments by BA staff, most of those who voted for a strike did not know that a twelve-days-of-Christmas blockade was planned. That's 12 days' pay sacrificed, at one of the most lucrative times of the year. Plus the prospect of damaging BA's reputation for ever, and pushing BA into administration or a hostile takeover that would cut a swathe through jobs and sign off the pension scheme for good.
Just wanting to damage your employer is not a 'yuman right'. We've all worked, we've all had difficulties with employers. But we all know that you have a choice - adopt changes of working practice and new T&Cs, or leave and find another job. Employers have usually done their research well, and know that they are simply abolishing perks that do not exist in the rest of the industry. Tough, but so are the times.

Alex

I have just heard today through a BA contact, of Justice Cox's previously booked flight with BA on 23/12/09 to Geneva. A political,or legal decision, I dont think its either.