The two largest parties got less than 60% of the national vote but over 80% of seats. FPTP is preventing us from being what we are: a multi party democracy.

Top hat wanker! Truss lost too, this is amazing.

Peter Mandelson? I think he had a point in that Starmer has changed the party from unelectable with Corbyn (which sadly, they were) to a more than realistic prospect for a sensible alternative to the Tories.

You're right of course that the Conservatives have utterly fucked the pooch (not to mention the country) but Starmer has nonetheless made a massive change in making the party palatable to many, many more people (not that I personally agree with quite a lot of his policies and policy reversals)

here is the entire exit poll for everyone interested btw:

I mean, I hate him, but he's right. Reform are basically the newest farage far right party, so the rabid nazis of britain aren't satisfied with the bullshit the tories are serving up.

EDIT : they got fed up of still seeing ethnic minorities after brexit, and don't want to vote for an ethnic minority for prime minister. It's disgusting.

After seeing the first few results come in, my main worry is how Starmer's Labour will react to the rise of Reform. If Labour cannot visibly begin to turn things around, and they also fail to effectively counter the building populist undercurrent, we could be heading for some dark times.

We will have to see what exactly Starmer's Labour will actually do once it has power.

Two Tories defected to them, and neither of them were standing for election this time, it was just a gesture against Sunak (although I do wish Labour had told them to fuck off).

And as for the S*n, they just put their weight behind whoever is going to win.

Labour and Starmer are far from perfect, but I think they will be far better, even if just from a competence and basic human decency standpoint.

And reform, its bloody terrifing seeing them get so much support

Minecraft.

And the chatters are absolutely insane. Not in a good way. There’s no attempt to discuss anything, just people spamming “💙💙 REFORM IS RISING 💙💙”

Reform have an online army that swarms comment threads. Not sure how many of them are based in Russia.

the proper way to watch youtube chat is to click on the x.

NW Cambridgeshire here, it's never been anything but Blue since it's formation, I still doubt it would change.

Edit: It went Labour by 40 votes. Damn never felt my vote mattered more than now. And thank you Reform for splitting it so close.

Direct proportional representation is easy enough. Just look at the number of votes each party got, and assign that percentage to their overall parliamentary representation. That roughly gives you the answer.

IRV is more interesting, but more complicated. It relies on some assumptions (e.g. Green, SNP, LibDem, Labour all preference each other 100%, Conservatives & Reform preference each other 100%) and takes a lot of effort to do on a seat-by-seat basis. And of course it all assumes ceteris paribus, when in actuality people would vote differently if the voting system were different.

As one example, here's the seat of Tatton:

Under IRV, with the above assumptions, Labour's Ryan Jude would have won with 26,005 votes to Conservative Esther McVey's 25,904. But tweak those assumptions just slightly (give 90% of LibDem votes to Labour, 10% to Conservatives) and it could go the other way (26,365 CON to 25,544 LAB). There are dozens or scores of seats where these sorts of interesting hypotheticals can be asked and analysed. IRV is actually, in my opinion, the next-worst voting system after FPTP (if you exclude weird and rarely-used ones like approval voting, range voting, etc.), but it's one of the most interesting to do analysis with.

STV is an utterly impossible comparison to make, because it relies on multi-seat electorates, which would probably be done by merging existing electorates into groups of 3–8. STV is a more generalised case of IRV so if you decided on how to do those merges, then you can get even more interesting analysis. As one example, if we imagine a merged electorate involving West Ham, East Ham, Ilford North, Ilford South, Leyton & Wanstead, and Stratford & Bow. Some assumptions are necessary to make this work, my assumption is that anyone whose party name says "workers" or "socialist" preferences Green and then Labour, while those mentioning religion preference Conservative, and if I don't know, I'm giving them to LibDems then Labour. I'm also assuming all voters for a named party vote as a block, preferencing the same candidate 1st, 2nd, etc., while independents get the votes as they were actually given. This is somewhat realistic because ballot paper design can be set up to encourage this in an STV context (see how Australia does it with "above the line" voting in the Senate, for an example). I've merged the minor parties named "workers" or "socialist" into a single party.

This is Labour heartland and in FPTP Labour won all 6 of these seats. My calculation ends up with 3 Labour, 1 LibDem, 1 Conservative, and 1 Green.

MMP ends up with basically the same overall result as direct proportional, but can be interesting in terms of independents & very minor parties and resulting overhang seats.

As an Australian, I have to once again apologise on behalf of my nation for the turd in a tuxedo that is Rupert Murdoch.

The fact it was even close is ridiculous. She's the most terrible MP and PM we've ever had and yet she got a large number of people to vote for her.

There's something in the water over there.

Their last two Labour MPs not only were kicked out in scandal, but also ran in this election splitting the vote. It looks like the Lib Dems also got a significant vote share which has helped the Tories.