YOUR VIEWS

AS a frequent visitor to the island and a regular reader of the Bulletin I often find myself taking exception to Ray Fleming's articles.
His piece headed “Strikes should not be an election issues” left me so incensed I felt compelled to reply.
His attempt to subvert the legitimate position that the Unite union's bankrolling of, and apparent takeover of the Labour party is an issue at least of equal magnitude ( I personally feel it is more important) to the Michael Ashcroft affair, illustrates the depth of his bias in this article.

Whilst it is justifiable to ask questions about Ashcroft one must note that he too has done nothing illegal in using “non dom” status. Mr Fleming's clear inference is that the Ashcroft affair is something worthy of further scrutiny intimating something underhand is going on.

Fair enough and worth investigating but why not apply the same scrutiny over the Unite union and BA dispute? Mr Fleming cites the legality of the union's position in relation to the strikes as a validation of the dispute, however like the Ashcroft affair just because something is legal doesn't necessarily make it right.

BA reported losses of over £400 million in 2009 and has a £3.7 billion pension deficit. Clearly any business in the real world cannot survive with these kinds of losses and liabilities. Changes have to be made to keep the business alive. Scrutiny has to fall on the largestequal magnitude ( I personally feel it is more important) to the Michael Ashcroft affair, illustrates the depth of his bias in this article.

Whilst it is justifiable to ask questions about Ashcroft one must note that he too has done nothing illegal in using “non dom” status. Mr Fleming's clear inference is that the Ashcroft affair is something worthy of further scrutiny intimating something underhand is going on.

Fair enough and worth investigating but why not apply the same scrutiny over the Unite union and BA dispute? Mr Fleming cites the legality of the union's position in relation to the strikes as a validation of the dispute, however like the Ashcroft affair just because something is legal doesn't necessarily make it right.

BA reported losses of over £400 million in 2009 and has a £3.7 billion pension deficit. Clearly any business in the real world cannot survive with these kinds of losses and liabilities. Changes have to be made to keep the business alive. Scrutiny has to fall on the largestequal magnitude ( I personally feel it is more important) to the Michael Ashcroft affair, illustrates the depth of his bias in this article.

Whilst it is justifiable to ask questions about Ashcroft one must note that he too has done nothing illegal in using “non dom” status. Mr Fleming's clear inference is that the Ashcroft affair is something worthy of further scrutiny intimating something underhand is going on.

Fair enough and worth investigating but why not apply the same scrutiny over the Unite union and BA dispute? Mr Fleming cites the legality of the union's position in relation to the strikes as a validation of the dispute, however like the Ashcroft affair just because something is legal doesn't necessarily make it right.

BA reported losses of over £400 million in 2009 and has a £3.7 billion pension deficit. Clearly any business in the real world cannot survive with these kinds of losses and liabilities. Changes have to be made to keep the business alive. Scrutiny has to fall on the largest area of costs in the business, salaries and perks.

BA cabin crew are paid almost double that of the Virgin staff and 40% more than Easyjet staff. Mr Fleming's point in relation to safety, highlighted by a letter he quoted from the Times is completely disingenuous.

Clearly the union, its members or Mr Fleming cannot plead poverty when BA staff receive double the pay and perks of their nearest competitor. The only line they can take to justify their actions is the “safety impact”.

However my understanding is that all the BA management want to do is to realign the number of staff on flights to match levels offered by their competitors. Are the union or Mr Fleming suggesting that these levels, operated by BA's main competitors, are unsafe? If so that is a bold claim and one would hope could be supported with clear evidence. Where is that evidence?

Whilst Willie Walsh at BA hasn't always covered himself in glory he appears to have large backing from the public at large over what actually is an attempt by the union to break the airline (or in fact the union attempting to break itself).

Perhaps if the airline continued on paying its employees at the same level and went bust as a consequence, union members could then fully understand the folly of their actions. Surely in these straitened financial times it is better to have a job at a profitable company with reasonable pay and conditions than have no job because your excessive demands have caused the company to go out of business.

People around the UK are angry with the union because of the sacrifices the general public at large are having to make, with reduced salaries or reduced working time, in order to keep their jobs during this recession. They then see cabin crew earning double the rate of their nearest rival causing untold misery for passengers simply because they want to continue on with what is clearly an unsustainable and grossly disproportionate remuneration package.

Mr Fleming mentions BA's actions in stopping perks to striking staff. Why should the airline have to stand the cost alone of the strikes which is rumoured to be between £5 million and £7 million for every striking day? It is perfectly legitimate and sensible to stop these perks to try and recoup some of the losses that the airline has suffered as a result of the actions of the striking staff.

Then we come on to Unite. Mr Fleming is quick to advise Mr Cameron not to raise industrial relations as an election issue, I wonder why that is? Could it be because Mr Fleming's obvious left leaning tendencies know that this is a huge weak spot in Labour that the Conservatives quite rightly will be targeting.

Mr Fleming chose not to mention that like Mr Ashcroft Unite is the largest backer of a political party. Also unmentioned was the fact that Mr Ashcroft has not put up approaching 170 of his own staff to fight for safe seats as Unite have done. Had Mr Ashcroft done so I am certain Mr Fleming would be screaming “cronyism” and highlighting it on a weekly basis in his columns.

Mr Fleming mentions Jack Dromey, Harriet Harman's husband, and claims that the Conservatives bringing up his name is an “irrelevance reference”. Really?

Does Mr Fleming not see the political and moral distaste in the husband of labour's chief architect of all women safe seats, being parachuted into a safe seat which should have had an all woman shortlist (in line with the rules his own wife brought in) and against the wishes of the local Labour party? Oh, and he also happens to be one of Unite's 170 Labour candidates! It is clear and safe to assume then given these circumstances that Unite's donations are indeed having a massive impact on the Labour party when Unite candidates are bypassing party rules to get safe seat nominations in this way.

This is usually the kind of issue that would enrage Mr Fleming but only it seems when it is perpetrated by the blue party and their backers and not the red one and theirs.

Clearly the takeover of Labour by Unite is a huge electoral issue as the colossal sums of money it has invested and the appointment of its own people prominently within the party will shape the direction of any future Labour government after the election. Voters have a right to know about this so they can draw their own conclusions as to how Unite have acted and the positions they have adopted in this strike and whether it will be indicative of the way they shape and run Labour after the election, particularly if Labour remains in power.

So it is perfectly sensible for the Conservatives to raise this in the run-up to the election and to use it as a counter when confronted about Ashcroft by Labour. It is hugely relevant to the election. I would suggest that if Mr Fleming was being even handed he should not only be advising the Conservatives to use this as an election issue, he should be raising this issue himself in his own columns in the Bulletin. His silence appears to be deafening! Mr Fleming's failure to mention any of this does a huge disservice to his readers and himself. He seems to have written the piece with his opinion determined beforehand and only presented the facts that fit in with his clear political bias.

He does often write articles on interesting topics and issues but always has to slant them towards his own political leaning. This removes objectivity in his writing, shows clear bias and as in the case of the article above, he omits key facts when they don't support his opinion.

This prevents readers from drawing their own conclusions properly as they haven't been furnished with all the facts, only the ones Mr Fleming wants people to know. I find this hugely frustrating and irritating.

I will of course still continue to read the Bulletin from cover to cover when I am on the island and I am equally sure Mr Fleming will continue to make me angry! Keep up the good work!

Sincerely

Ian Hall, Pollenca