Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-10975360-20140530130134/@comment-32656-20140630144446

Try because of the insane level of venom you use both on this thread and others against UK Parties besides Labour. You're not seeing past your own blinders, and it is glaringly obvious. Far, far, far from the first forum topic I have seen this problem arise with you. Once? Ok. Twice? Pushing it. But more than that? Problem.

There is no "historical consensus." You made that up, imo.

Not hard to see that your case is flat-out wrong, Sam. Have carved holes in it the size of Olympus, but you don't seem to care.

Whip, those seats are switching between opposition parties, not the government and the opposition. In the end, it's irrelevant to the question of whether or not the government wins and by how much.

Can pretty easily assume that Thatcher's staff would have run a better campaign of going after Labour MPs. Major, by most indications, does not seem to have had any real focus on such matters.

The idea that such a result as you claim - not that it would be the net result - would automatically mean such a coalition happens is another bad assumption, fyi. Same goes for all of the talk of devolution, and support from/for the nationalist parties.