Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-10975360-20140530130134/@comment-10975360-20140630153829

how the hell have i used an "insane level of venom"? your just being silly now, that comment really is beneath you. I use '''Evidence. '''You appear to simply assume that after the Gulf war thatcher could walk on water, and that people would simply forget the poor economic conditions (Britian entered a recession in the last quater of 1990), and the poll tax riots.

You clearly have not researched the 1992 election, Major ran a brilliant campaign, his "soapbox" campaign and populist image was much more down-to-earth than the rather truimphalist manchester rally held by Kinnock. Thatcher was no populist, and not really a great electoral asset. In 1991 thatcher might have had gordon reece, but not Tebbit (who ran a pretty good campaign in '87). In a snap election (as you argue for) in april 1991 Thatcher would have done very poorly (as i said, look at ribble valley), and would not have had the time to structure a strong nation-wide campaign at the drop of a hat. Conservative central office was preparing for the '87 election for over a year ahead, Ken Baker (tory Chairman) had scarce plans in November 1990 before thatcher resigned. A tory campaign in '91 would not have had the structure and professionalism of 79-83-87.

I dont think its a bad assumption at all, the SNP and plaid had worked with labour in the 70's, as had the liberals, and would be pretty likely to work together rather than allow another tory government (particularly one led by Thatcher).