Pretty much, and I haven't ever voted for either party, during my lifetime.

Problem is, voting for anyone else, generally is the equivalent of deciding neither dentist, or dogs**t collection, and instead having to watch Flog It followed by Bargain Hunt.

They'll be no democratic changes in the UK without proportional representation. Something neither party will ever agree to, as it would break their hold on the system. It plays more to the Conservatives favour, but they 'get a look in and to wet their beak'.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Probably because Cameron is in the all together (or dressed head to foot in branded sponsored clothing).

The mistake is that one puppet of the elite is somehow better than a different puppet of the elite.

Neither is going to change a thing of substance.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Sorry, you'll have to do better than that Willo old son.
How much was the tories share down?

Don't discount that labour were starting from a fairly high watermark, so it's harder to make gains.

As for the average gain of 400 seats... well that's an average, what's the range of that data? How often does both main parties losing seats happen?

Both parties lost to independent candidates standing on local issues. UKIP made gains (in the Welsh assembly, how the f*** did Neil Hamilton ever get elected with the sort of past he has?) as did greens and other minor parties.

Many commentators have said that more people are turning to minority parties.

It's gone up by 100 now!
Are we talking mean, median or mode here?
Is your understanding of average the same as the tory mp who said they wanted all schools to be better than average?

Edited by nickgusset (09 May 2016 2.50pm)

Actually both the Conservatives and Labour party showed pretty much a 'hanging on'. Where as the real winners were UKIP, Greens and Liberal democrats.

The problem is that you're focused on an era where protest votes against government went to the opposition, which historically was true. However the last election saw protest votes go to UKIP

Arguably, to me, this suggests that Labour aren't really seen in terms of being the opposition, but that mantle belongs to the Lib Dems, Greens and UKIP.

Its increasingly less of a two horse system. The problem is that whilst Labour and Conservatives spend all their effort sniping at one another, the 'excluded' 25-30% of voters, who returned two seats, are increasingly making gains.

Its a victory really for UKIP and the Liberal Democrats, as unfashionable as that is to say. Greens were a concern down three seats.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

I get where you are coming from, but the losses of the conservatives to the liberal democrats and UKIP make more sense in the new perspective of changes in recent politics.

Labour definitely should have done better, but can at least take comfort in the fact they didn't suffer badly and the Conservatives can state happily that they didn't to badly at all, against their prediction.

The difference, I think, is that the last election saw a very different break down of how people voted within constituencies (if not in terms of seats one), that showed that UKIP and the Greens have become notable in winning seats off of Conservatives and Labour.

These days, UKIP, Greens, Lib Dems and SNP have all really established themselves as opposition, rather than Labour / Conservative. Hence Labour being beaten into third place in Scotland, because the SNP there beat Labour by being a more 'left wing' option than Labour.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]