EVERYTHING YOU WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT THE BRITISH ELECTION

After an unexpectedly exciting election, Britain is now without a government. For those who haven't been following closely, take heart: according to Bagehot's notebook (the blog for The Economist's British politics columnist), the election managed to be "wildly convulsive and somehow empty at the same time":

In campaigning terms, it had been dominated by the television debates. Bigotgate was the only other moment that got much of a look-in... I am a fan of the debates, but they have made the campaign feel like long bouts of pointlessness punctuated by brief periods of excitement.

And, in political terms, we've ended up not that far from where we started.

To find out what that means, it's worth listening to The Economist's (surely exhausted) Britain correspondents as they discuss the nature of the next government, voters who missed their chance and the importance of sorting out the deficit:

Article tools

Comments

Election

May 13, 2010 - 06:57 — Paul (not verified)

I would have said 'predictable election' inplace of 'unexpectedly exciting election'! However we now have a 'government' in place, with two leaders that up to the close of the election actually didn't get on very well. Supprise supprise, they are now best friends. The future of the UK can now be described 'unexpectedly exciting'.