Off Topic Political Debate

Agree 100% with everything you say here.

 

You're not supposed to agree 100% this is a debating thread

 

They were only allowed to retake Kuwait. An invasion of Iraq would have been illegal. The second gulf war was about oil, but also saving Daddy's face. "You pick a fight with my Dad and run? Then me and my gang will get you and sort you out proper."

 

You are right - I remember now - it was all about the UN resolution. However I suspect if they had carried on to Baghdad claiming they had to neutralise the Iraqi forces to safeguard Kuwait from further attack there would have been few who would have stood against that.

 

If you really wish to see how the UK has gone downhill you could start at Suez.

 

That war would have probably not been necessary, but the outcome of chopping down Sadam a few years earlier and the resulting vacuum may have brought on ISIS a few years earlier. With Syria not in full blown civil war, it could have also meant that ISIS had a much smaller area to operate in and more easily squashed - but many ifs and buts.

 

Justification was the famous "dodgy dossier" on WMD and the massively incorrect assumption that Sadam was harbouring and sponsoring terrorists - again with no credible evidence.
My opinion is that Blair was desperate to have something to mark as his legacy and also to suck up to the US - he pushed the cabinet into agreeing to go to war and in doing caused an honourable and decent man to commit suicide. Blair has the blood of many on his hands. But the establishment pulled together as usual and the poor families will again be sacrificed.

 

The junior doctors have rejected the latest pay settlement against the advice of the BMA. Hopefully now the public will see that they are purely trying to grab more cash from the NHS and will refuse to support their greedy actions.

 

I heard something on 5-Live this morning that was very surprising. It seems that NUT members joining the strike today are not required to inform their schools if they intend to strike or work normally. So a head-teacher would have no idea how many members of staff may or may not turn up for work. Whilst absolutely respecting their right to withdraw their labour, surely it's only humanely decent to let your school know of your intentions? I was also very surprised at the poor turn-out of the strike ballot.

 

I thought it was pretty high and over 90% in favour.
There is no requirement to tell and two schools I know have different approaches.
1) Ask the staff (who don't have to answer but do because of the response), and close those classrooms for the day, thus respecting the teachers' action, allowing parents time to plan childcare and keep the health and safety of all at a premium.
2) keep the classrooms open, throw a TA in if the teacher is striking, thus offering a babysitting service to keep parents happy, disregard the teachers' actions and as far as health and safety goes - hope for the best.

 

90% of a 25% turnout to vote I think. I thought strikes were no longer allowed unless a qualifying threshold of turnout was reached - perhaps that is not for all industries - anyone know the rules?

 

Striking is a human right.... .the right to withhold your labour.... along with the Human Rights Act there is quite a media fuelled climate in this day and age in the UK of demonising those who take their legal right.

We have had the Education debate here before... I was a headteacher and left over 20 years ago as a result of the political and economic pressures put on teachers.


Edge and thin end come to mind.....

When teachers, nurses, doctors and the like strike things must be pretty bad...

 

I remember Red Robbo and his band of Trots taking his human right to withhold labour quite a way.

 

Striking is not under any stretch of the imagination a human right.
It may be a right conceded under labour relations but that is different.
I call striking blackmail - Work or quit - like you did Yorkie. But inconveniencing millions of people in pursuit of your work "needs" is not necessary in these days - there are no dark satanic mills left - get to arbitration

 

I guess a lot depends on what we mean by the term. Under the EU convention for example every individual has the right to join a trade union and associate with all the activities of the Union. Unions are then variously subject to laws... which enshrine the right to withhold labour except in certain professions. I am not taking about political actions of Unions here and I have experienced as said before a lot of that with HE Unions. I guess if we had a Constitution in the UK it would be more clearly defined.

Sadly there are satanic mills still in the EU and more sadly the Unions have no place in them which is why they are satanic mills.... I think the Trade Union movement has made working life for all of us a lot easier in this day and offer some power for those who are exploited, oppressed etc.

I am not making a Political statement but a political statement

At this point I duck

 

Apparently 50% of the public still support the ongoing industrial action in France against the labour law tweaks the government is trying to impose.

madness.

 

I respect but diagree with your view Yorkie. Trade Unions are supremely important not only for workers but for bosses too. However on principle I can never support the right of an individual to harm someone else - ahimsa if you like.
In a modern country like ours compulsory arbitration to settle disputes should be used - some things needed to die out with the blacksmiths

 

Interesting that what are thought of as rights differs from culture to culture. Several towns in Germany are trying to introduce bans on the drinking of alcohol on public transport here - and the argument against, to do with the infringement of rights All a little bit like the American - free gun for a free citizen idea.

 

There used to be a ban on drinking in public in Australia many years ago - I was arrested in a small outback town after buying a six pack of beer and drinking one on the way back to the car. I was, to put it mildly, 'miffed' at the time - but a few years after the law was repealed it didn't take me long to realise how sensible it had been.

 

There has been a ban on drinking alcohol on the London Underground for a fair few years.