24-29 was also a brief term of opposition. Even the 31-45 assertion isn't quite right: there were Labour ministers under Churchill!

You're quite right, I meant to include Wilson, the exception that proves the rule. I've amended the post.

Is the role of government to conspire to keep an opposition party out at the taxpayers expense? Gerrymandering parliament and the boundaries is not going to endear them to people, I hear even the Tories are vehemently opposed to this and say that it smacks of fascism and dictatorships. With "call me Dave" marching around the globe upsetting other countries and now selling arms to India, he is looking every bit the fascist dictator he is. People are actually releasing this very quickly and generally people in this country do not like people like Cameron. Sooner or later the Lib Dems will fall in and realise what they are doing, or they will get rid of Clegg force Cameron to go it alone and his minority government will fall and I predict this before he has a chance to pull off the gerrymandering.
The man is an arse!

If we're looking at the lessons from history, the current government is broadly analogous to Thatcher's of 1979. When the cuts and budget changes started, she was deeply unpopular as shown by the often dramatic loss of support in by-elections:

Southend East by-election (13 March 1980): -19.3%

Glasgow Central, 26 June 1980: -7.6%

Warrington, 16 July 1981: -21.7%

Croydon North West, 22 October 1981: -18.9%

Crosby, 26 November 1981: -17.1%

Glasgow Hillhead, 25 March 1982: -14.4%

Beaconsfield, 27 May 1982: +0.1%

It was the Falklands War that transformed her fortunes; she went from "pig-headed" to "staunch". The coalition is likely to be as unpopular as Thatcher, but I can't see that a short, popular war is going to come to their rescue.

@Rosie

I don't see anything unfair at all about reevaluating the number of people within electoral boundaries to reflect changes in population, the only problem with this is who decides where these changes are made. The electoral reform bill calls for the changes to be made according to history, local identity and geography, among others, so if these basic rules are followed appropriately then I don't see anything wrong with it at all.

I'm not sure with regard to union funding, it's a little akin to people establishing a 'welfare club' of some sort which funds whichever party hands out the most welfare. Stupid idea, but you get the point.

As for his 'upsetting other countries', it is not Mr Camerons job to pretend the world is a lovely place where everyone gets along. Indeed, in his position he is in the unenviable position of being the one who is supposed to make these assertations and bring problems to the forefront of global politics.

What about 70-74??

They were removed in 1970, and re-elected in 1974!