So, Britain...new prime minister, eh?

[Pulsar_t]

Ah yes Japan, where sanitation workers are so adored they make toys about their line of work. In Germany society's in their debt, right after firefighters.

[Incognito D]

I really think it's interesting how you guys on the other side of the pond think of Margaret Thatcher. In the US, it tends to follow party lines: if you're Republican, Thatcher was a great ally to Ronald Reagan, and while American and British interests might not have always coincided, the British were valuable partners against the Soviet Union. The Democrats don't seem to mention Thatcher much, which leads me to think they don't think much of her. But I see the Brits, or at least the group on this site, don't like her.

In a similar way to the Democrat/Republican difference, I think it depends if you're more sympathetic with Labour or the Conservatives.

As for why all the industry closed down, I don't know. It was probably because it wasn't feasible any more, and the Conservatives had to take the difficult decision. It's not as if Labour set about bringing it back after 1997. Industry goes wherever it's cheapest to run factories, so that's probably why there's none here any more.

Thatcher is really unpopular in Scotland as well because a lot of industries were closed down and she introduced the controversial Poll Tax here months before England - basically using Scotland as a guinea pig.

[bobbynewmarkiii]

@ Ack's question - wiki says "After World War II, the coal industry in Britain was nationalised, and remained in public ownership until the 1980s and the decline of the industry after the UK miners' strike (1984-1985). The 1980s and 1990s saw much change in the UK coal industry, with the industry contracting, in some areas quite drastically. Many pits were considered uneconomic[13] to work at then current wage rates compared to cheap North Sea oil and gas], and in comparison to subsidy levels in Europe. The Miners' Strike of 1984 failed to stop the Conservative government's plans under Margaret Thatcher to shrink the industry. The National Coal Board (by then British Coal), was privatised by selling off a large number of pits to private concerns through the mid 1990s, and the mining industry disappeared almost completely."

Seems pretty comprehensive. The Torys under Margaret Thatcher had a choice to subsidise the pits, but decided against. Torys have often shown a propensity to take actions which prefer the upper and middle classes at the expense of the working classes - although I understand from an economist friend that our GDP movements typically show increased prosperity under the Tories when compared to Labour governments. Closing the pits at the expense of the workers whom had no alternative employement was understandably unpopular. As discussed earlier, I am hopeful that the Lib-Dems will be able to keep the ruthlessness of the tories under check.

[Ack]

Gotcha, so the Tories are businessmen. They tend to favor economic interests over social welfare, hence the GDP increasing while the poor lose jobs and programming. So they do operate like the more business-oriented wing of our Republican Party.

While the Lib-Dems sound more like they'd be interested in keeping social welfare programs in favor versus the economy, I don't know if they'll check the Tories' ruthlessness. They're ALL politicians, after all. I would think they're all just as bad in their own ways.

[bobbynewmarkiii]

You've got it on the nose! (although I'm sure all parties would lay claim to some business acumen).

Lib-Dems are often seen as dreamers as they don't stand any realistic chance of getting in power (apart from through a hung parliament) whilst the country uses the 'first past the post' voting system which is currently in place - they want proportional representation. Part of the deal they struck with the Tories to get into power was to get a referendum on adopting the 'alternative voting' system, where voters make a 1st and 2nd choice at the ballot box, but there's no guarantees that this will be adopted, and it's sill not clear if this will give them a fighing chace of achieving a majority government. It might help though - the current system is rather disproportional in that Lib-Dem's got c.6m votes and ended up with about 50 seats, labour got about 8m and 250ish seats and the tories got about 10m votes and about 300 seats. Official figures here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/You can see why the liberals want a change!

[Ack]

I can definitely see that, but do you think there's any chance this "proportional representation" system will actually fly? I doubt both Labor and the Tories will want it since it will likely hurt them later on down the road.

[bobbynewmarkiii]

I can definitely see that, but do you think there's any chance this "proportional representation" system will actually fly? I doubt both Labor and the Tories will want it since it will likely hurt them later on down the road.

it's not even on the table, as the referendum will be on alternative voting. The Lib-dems also held talks with Labour about forming a coalition government, but aparently Labour wouldn't bring proportional representation to the table either - you're right, neither of the other parties would benefit from PR, and as such don't want to risk it.

[bobbynewmarkiii]

To delve a bit deeper into our political system, we also have the 'house of lords'. The general election was about election to the house of commons, which is to all intents and purposes the effective government of the country, but above the commons sit the lords, who have authority on whether proposed new laws are passed. Above the Lords is the Queen. The Lib-Dems have got the tories to agree to have a committee look at proportional representation to elect the members of the house of Lords. It's currently a un-elected, 'old boys club' made up of former commons ministers. I'm getting a bit out of my comfort zone discussing this, but it would be a very signinficant change, although it would not be likely to effect much on a day to day basis, as the Lords tend to pass most things that the commons throw at it, as these represent the will of the people (the commons being democratically ellected). Phew!

[MrPopo]

To delve a bit deeper into our political system, we also have the 'house of lords'. The general election was about election to the house of commons, which is to all intents and purposes the effective government of the country, but above the commons sit the lords, who have authority on whether proposed new laws are passed. Above the Lords is the Queen. The Lib-Dems have got the tories to agree to have a committee look at proportional representation to elect the members of the house of Lords. It's currently a un-elected, 'old boys club' made up of former commons ministers. I'm getting a bit out of my comfort zone discussing this, but it would be a very signinficant change, although it would not be likely to effect much on a day to day basis, as the Lords tend to pass most things that the commons throw at it, as these represent the will of the people (the commons being democratically ellected). Phew!

One of these days I'd love to see the Queen flex the muscle that she technically has. Like how the current PM had to ask her to accept his resignation. I'd love to see her decline the resignation. Or how she technically can fuck with Canada, according to their constitution.

[bobbynewmarkiii]

Or how she technically can fuck with Canada, according to their constitution.

I didn't know that! Go Liz!