What sort of campaign has it been?

Analysis
By Nick Assinder
Political Correspondent, BBC News website

It is a cry you hear at virtually every election campaign - "boring".

It seemed to reach a crescendo in 2001 when only the sight of John Prescott punching one voter and another voter, Sharron Storer, verbally thumping Tony Blair appeared to liven things up.

And they both came on the same day. The rest of that campaign has almost entirely faded from the nation's memory.

Result will not be boring

The record low turnout pitched politicians and media organisations into a frenzy of hand wringing and jazzy plans to re-engage voters with the political process.

Yet the 2005 campaign has, if anything, contained even fewer memorable moments or apparently pivotal developments.

And, with the exception of those who get their jollies from the minutiae of election campaigns, the old cry has once again gone up. There is a difference, though.

In 2001 it is believed people had decided long before polling day to give Labour a two-parliament crack of the whip - particularly as the Tories seemed incapable of presenting a united, alternative front.

The result was seen as a foregone conclusion. So no surprise people did not engage. There was no great sense that it was time to change anything so soon after the last big change in 1997.

Big themes

The 2005 campaign has been a bit different - most notably the impact of the Iraq war on potential Labour voters.

But it is also certainly true that, in a campaign dominated by television, there have been no great pictures with which to illustrate the big themes and inject a sense of soap opera-style excitement.

Blair stressed protest threat

The stage management and media manipulation has been at an unprecedented, and in some cases ludicrous, extreme with the parties' determination to "meet real people" often used as a cover to keep the national media well away from the leading players.

This campaigning fell far short of the old hustings-based contests with rowdy public meetings that used to dominate general election campaigns.

Probably more significantly, however, has been what many see as Margaret Thatcher's greatest victory - the creation of a one ideology state.

Socialism, it seems , is dead as far as being a serious political force is concerned.

There are no more debates over labour versus capital, privatisation versus nationalisation, a continuing nuclear defence policy or - and it even sounds quaint nowadays - workers versus bosses.

So the choice at elections has boiled down to a more detailed examination of which party will manage the economy and society most effectively or, to be cynical, will be the least likely to mess it up and cost you money.

Economic stability

That inevitably meant that, once the relative excitement of having a new kid on the block in the shape of New Labour wore off, political debate refocused.

But it refocused on those details of policy which - while maybe not as headline grabbing as, say, plans to scrap the nuclear deterrent, or privatise everything that moves - will have real effects on people's daily lives.

For Labour that has meant hammering home their message of continued investment in the public services, security and above all economic stability and competence

From day one Tony Blair and his team were eager to stress that the election was a stark choice between them and their policies and Michael Howard, who would return to the "bad old days" of the last Tory government.

Howard says he can win

Their campaign started with a controversial and disputed claim the Tories would make £35 billion cuts in public services, followed by a manifesto launch which put the emphasis wholly on the team and off the prime minister.

Then there was the so-called TBGB roadshow - the joining at the hip of the prime minister and Gordon Brown who, on the war in particular, spectacularly supported Mr Blair and, into the bargain, probably cemented his position as leader-in-waiting.

It ended with another team event and a repeat of the warnings that had grown during the campaign that a protest vote for the Liberal Democrats or a stay-at-home by Labour supporters would put the Tories into power through the back door.

New slogan

Michael Howard, meanwhile, started his campaign with the slogan "are you thinking what we're thinking" and claims it was time to wipe the smirk of Tony Blair's face.

He drove home five key themes of lower taxes, school discipline, controlled immigration, more police and cleaner hospitals combined with the controversial attack on Tony Blair as a liar, on Iraq and previous election pledges.

He found himself accused of concentrating too much on immigration and appealing to people's fears on the issue, as well as personalising the contest.

Kennedy looked optimistic

Half way through the campaign he switched tack with a new slogan, "taking a stand on the issues that matter ", and calls for voters to send a message to Tony Blair.

This was always combined with claims he was on the way to victory, and a refusal to pay any attention to his unmoving poll ratings.

As for Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats, they looked like becoming the story of the campaign as both the other big parties, but Labour in particular, showed signs of fearing a surge in their vote.

Art form

Mr Kennedy became a father at the start of the campaign then showed signs of human frailty by, through lack of sleep, forgetting details his own tax policies.

He refused to get into the name calling but promised to run a positive campaign centred around his plans to increase tax on earnings over £100,000 to spend on investment, to scrap the council tax in favour of a local income tax and abandon student fees and to give free long term care for the elderly.

He was attacked for lacking charisma and turning being an "ordinary bloke" into an art form.

Yet it appeared voters were, for the second election running, attracted by just those unconventional qualities. And he was certainly spooking Labour.

Smaller parties like the Greens, UKIP and Respect also hope to benefit from a higher profile after good showings in the European elections.

All this may well have led to a dull campaign, in so far as it is perceived through the media filter, but what all politicians seem to agree on is that things are going on underneath the televised contest, at grass roots level, in people's front rooms.

And one look at the faces of the leaders and it is evident they believe, or even fear, the outcome will be anything but boring.