THE U.K. GENERAL ELECTION

Well, that was a bit of a humdinger! I watched it live on DR1 (Denmark's BBC), which put on almost two hours of coverage last night, before handing over at 12.30am to the BBC's live feed for Danes to watch it throughout the night. In moments of boredom - notably when Jeremy Paxman was interviewing, why is his combative style so irritating these days? - I tried to work out the likelihood of the BBC's showing two hours of prime time coverage of the next Danish general election, and kept getting stuck on the word "nil". Anyway, thanks to DR for giving this expatriate the opportunity to renew acquaintance with the swingometer and such like.

Watching from afar certainly gives a different perspective on things. The first-past-the-post system doesn't seem so bad in theory and I am used to it in practice. But when a Danish journalist tries to explain it in Danish - particularly the fact that the votes for the losing candidates in a constituency have no value - then it seems almost absurd. No self-respecting continental would accept that a U.K. political party could in theory get 49.9% of the votes in every single constituency, and yet end up with no seats in Parliament. They also find it very difficult to accept that what happens in the event of a hung Parliament is governed not by fixed rules enshrined in the constitution, but by "conventions" worked out over time.

The message I got from the election this time around was that everybody lost. Labour lost in the literal sense, with fewer votes, and a lot less seats. The Conservatives lost, since they campaigned strongly on the need for them to obtain an overall majority, and they didn't get one. The Liberal Democrats lost, since although Nick Clegg greatly raised their national profile, they only got a 1% greater share of the vote than last time, which actually resulted in fewer seats. And the people lost; they wanted a strong Government to get them out of the current economic mess, yet ended up with no Government at all.

What happens now is going to be very interesting, since there are many possible permutations. Gordon Brown remains Prime Minister (one of the conventions) until he either resigns or loses a vote of confidence in the House of Commons. Labour and the Lib Dems together will have more seats than the Conservatives, so a coalition - with electoral reform the price of the Lib Dems' support - is a possibility. Knowing that, the Conservatives could themselves offer the Lib Dems electoral reform, thereby allowing a coalition with a working majority, with David Cameron as Prime Minister. But would the Conservative Party, the oldest and most successful political party in the world, accept the end of the electoral system they have always defended to the death? If neither of those possibilities works, could the Conservatives run a minority Government alone, with support from the Celtic fringe, and tacit support from the Opposition on the big issues?

Lost amongst the intricacies of game theory are some notable nuggets. The Green Party won its first ever seat in Brighton, well done them. Brighton is an unusual place, but it is still very hard for a minority party to win a Parliamentary seat. The racist British National Party lost in Barking, a seat they had targeted, also good news. And a number of former Ministers (eg Jacqui Smith, who put her husband's porn video rentals on her Parliamentary expenses claim) deservedly got booted out.

Finally, it appears that a fair number of people ended up not being able to vote. Third world countries habitually harangued about the benefits of free and fair elections are probably chuckling at the sight of the Mother of Parliaments making a mess of things. No way to run a whelk stall, as they say in Zimbabwe ......

Walter Blotscher