Live UK election results - in full | Politics | The Guardian

Numbers suggest otherwise, they are now the third party. They obtained more votes that the Greens and the Lib Dems added together.

Not in terms of seats. The useless ***** lost one of the pathetic two they already had. The number of votes they received is alarming, but what did one expect from the dumbing down that has been taking place over the last 20 years in the UK?

A party massively increases its vote and has the largest swing?

Humiliated is an odd word.

Biggest loser obviously Lib Dems followed by Labour.

They lost 1 seat, and previously held only two. This is not likely to improve. Face it, they're shit. Though, I suppose they did help the Tories win so from Cameron's point of view they had some use.

Those twats humiliate themselves every time they open their mouths.

Still all in all a good result from my corner of the UK, anyway. Unionists increased their share of seats and the IRA lost one. Common sense still reigns, at least.

Isn't the "first past the post" system a concern where the governing majority got only 37% of the vote? The majority of the people did not vote for my beloved Tories. Will they govern against the will of the people?

Clearly, the system needs to be reformed so that parties receive a proportion of seats representing the proportion of the votes they received - even if that means that UKIP would be the 3rd or 4th strongest party in Parliament. The system does work in Germany. It's either that, or settle on two major parties as in this country.

They may be "shit" but about 1 in 7 of the country voted for them. I find that pretty disconcerting given some of their policies.

All governments end up working against the will of the people. If there was a better turnout, perhaps the majority would have voted Tory. I suspect a lot of would-be Tory voters didn't visit the polls as they felt it was a done deal.

Maybe, if we're lucky, they'll all just fade away into the background.

This! Gays make bad weather. Maybe with Farage resigning the party will disappear.

I guess with the imminent sell off of the nhs, the metric for deciding how expensive it would be to bring elderly parents to the US will change.

If we get a president next year who will fix the system here and introduce a reasonable single-payer model (we do actually have a candidate who wants to do that ...), it'll make the decision even easier.

Like Canada?

They of course limit sposnorship of parents for this very reason.

Germany or Switzerland, I think it was. There was a European analogy used when all the debate was raging about the ACA a while back, but I can't remember off hand.

Basically, not the system we have now, which I'm sure you'd agree is far from ideal.

Current system is not sustainable, brings me back to the EU/Euro, teeters on well past its logicality if those in power want to keep it going on life support.

There isn't an ideal system.

The system is too expensive in the US and demand is great and growing, so the question is do we want rationing based on government policy or rationing based on ability to pay? Starkly put, those are the choices, and while rationing based on ability to pay gets ugly, I don't think America is ready for rationing based on government policy.

You can probably get Milliband himself thrown in for free.