IME, more people voted coservative this time because of what they perceived as Labour's faults than what they perceived as the Conservatives-under-Cameron's greatness.

My vote was fairly party-independent, I voted for who I perceived to be the best candidate. On the greater local election scale, based on soundbites and talking to people, the general feeling seemed to be that life-long labour voters had changed their spots for this one. I really hope it's not down to the economic downturn - that's too depressing a though, especially when aligned as you've done with the war that so many disapproved of. I'm wondering if the leadership change weakened something in the public's perception which made them feel OK about not voting labour this time round?

As I've said elsewhere, I'd love for this to have been the kick in the arse Labour needed to actually change, maybe back in the direction of Old Labour, away from spin and snake-smiles, but on reading recent papers, apparently they're blaming it all on the 10p tax thing.

That'll be blaming it all on one singular factor among many, and sticking the rest of the head in the sand then.

I really couldn't understand how Blair's disgusting Bush sycophancy didn't rile the British voters' blood. Granted, he seems to be a more eloquent speechmaker, but there was no shortage of people and press pointing out how slavishly he was following the American, Republican party line. I mean, forget the immorality and unworkability of the Iraq War, wouldn't be get pissed off out of pure old national pride?

I mean, for all of New Labour's surveillance state hijinks, the British public is still decidedly more liberal on most issues than the American public... the disagreement is real and pretty damn obvious from this side of the ocean. So why did the British public go numbly along with it? I know why we did; because a good half of this country would prance joyfully into the arms of theocratic, totalitarian militarism if the other half of us wasn't fighting them every inch of the way there. But I don't think the same reasoning applies... unless I misunderstand?

I dunno. All I know about British politics is acquired second hand through the Economist, BBC, and occasional Guardian articles.

Basically, we need to get the 80s back. With Thatcher, there was a real figure of hatred, that neither of the B's have been able to match. There was political passion, proper protest (instead of "hey, I can go on a march/sign an on-line petition and that's my bit done!) and... I can't explain it, but a deeper feeling. People hadn't become so disaffected.

My theory (stop me if you've heard it before ;) ) is that when Labour finally got in after 18-odd years of Tory government, people expected change. We were promised whiter-than-white, an end to sleaze, and finally, a left-wing government that cared more about people than big business. And, very quickly... nothing changed. We got the same sleaze, the same pandering to big business, cosying up to the US, warmongers that we'd just got rid of. I reckon the voter apathy, and the apathy that stops people being as political as they were in the 80s (when every 2nd song was political) came from a crushing realisation that they are actually all the same, they will all break their promises, and it's getting a bit painful bashing our heads against brick walls.

The thing about the 80s we will not get back in a hurry is the passionate disagreement about social and political ideas. That's what made Thatcher-hating possible. Now there is a mainstream consensus on most of the important questions. This is also why it seems nothing has changed, because much of the consensus is based on what appeared to succeed in 80s politics. (Labour stayed out in the wilderness until it semi-Torified itself; the Tories are now semi-Labourising themselves to try to claw back from their wilderness.)

The two big parties are now scrapping over that middle ground. They are desperate to differentiate themselves from each other but terrified to risk walking away from the safe consensus of the centre. I think that's why elections are coming down to personalities and protest votes (e.g. "we're tired of Ken"). There was little substantive difference between the declared policies of Ken and Boris.

I think the mystery of the two big parties is twofold. Firstly, the middle ground they are both occupying probably does reflect the "safest" (i.e. likely to gain most and lose least votes overall) position in UK politics for now. That is a bit depressing but means the democratic system in the UK, such as it is, is sort-of working.

Secondly, until there is electoral reform, in many constituencies a vote for any of the smaller parties will effectively be wasted. Because people know this, many calculate that their best choice is to vote for the least awful of the big two parties. This is depressing and means the democratic system in the UK is broken.

For some of us who marched, that wasn't quite the end of it. The Iraq thing made up my mind that, pretty much no matter what else happens, I'm not going to consider voting Labour until they've been voted out and had a long time to sit in the political dunce corner and think things through.