I was going to ask how pedantic Eldrick wanted to get, but then I realised where I was ...
Whether it's the case or not I don't know, but you could argue that a government term is only the length between general elections. Once parliament is dissolved, that's the end of whichever party's term in government. The fact of whether they're re-elected or not is rather irrelevant. Although I'm really splitting hairs here!
Anyway, unions have their good and bad points. Whatever abuses are committed are generally outweighed by the genuine protections they give. And I say this coming from a very definitely anti-union family. I'm wary of them, but I know if they weren't there, you'd have to reinvent them.
lonewolf wrote:Someone here made what I think is a valid observation that the problem with unions is not in principle but in practice... or somethng like that... Railroad featherbedding comes to mind, probably because I have a relative who works for a railroad and even he derides their economically unwise work limitations.
Which is why I noted that an election for a new union every 20-30 years or so would be good. Democracy works best when elections have meaningful competition, and in the world of organized labor that pretty much only happens when a union is certified.
My particular union local jumped the shark about seven or eight years ago. It's part of the AFT and replaced an NEA local in 1969 in a bitter fight. Another fight like that is warranted now.
Because the Unions that still exist in the Bay Area are in bed with the Democrats, and will look the other way when it comes to their friends.
The other big Democrat supporter in California is "the environmentalists".
Yet Pelosi, Feinstein, Boxer have all benefited from a sweetheart cash box of a water system that is an environmental disaster that dammed up the Hetch Hetchy valley. To compound the ridiculousness, the Sierra Club founded in the foot steps of John Muir, who fought for this valley with all he could and lost, is also silent when it comes to these Democrats.
*shudders* Thanks for posting copyrighted material from Y**T***, Eldrick.
Please tell me you're being ironic. I do remember. Thatcher did do some much-needed things, but the economic prosperity thing is a bit of bullshit. Yes, people in the South-West grew much richer. But if you lived in a community dependent on a particular industry for jobs, prosperity was very hard to find if your local coal mine/shipyard/steel mill/car factory had just closed. I live in an area that had 80% unemployment through many of the Thatcher years.
Some real manufacturing, even if it's light and small-scale, and actual products to export, are still desperately needed to balance the UK economy.