It would be wrong to draw direct parallels between what has just happened in the UK and what might occur at the next Australian federal election.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
While the founders of the Australian federation revered Westminster as "the mother of all parliaments" and incorporated many of its traditions into the way both the Senate and the House of Representatives conduct their affairs, the electoral processes are chalk and cheese.
Take, for example, the "surprise defeat" of former PM Liz Truss in what was traditionally a Conservative seat. If Ms Truss had been standing under the Australian system in which voting is compulsory and preferences are counted she would probably have romped it in.
Unfortunately for her the UK does not have either compulsory or preferential voting. It is strictly "first past the post" and "winner takes all". The rise of Nigel Farage's Reform Party (formerly the Brexit Party) siphoned off right-wing voters and opened the door for a narrow Labour victory.
This was in line with a pattern repeated across numerous former Conservative seats. It is why, when speaking after his win in Clacton, Mr Farage - who has been elected to Parliament for the first time after numerous previous attempts - was happily blowing his own trumpet.
"There is a massive gap on the centre-right of British politics and it is my job to fill it," he said. "This is the beginning of the end of the Conservative Party."
He went on to say the Reform Party would "now be targeting Labour votes" at the next election. Given he had just overturned a 25,000 vote Conservative majority to win Clacton by 8000 votes his confidence is understandable.
That said, while Reform's success in coming from nowhere to win an anticipated 13 constituencies is notable, the real winners were the Liberal Democrat candidates. They went into the election with 15 MPs and are expected to have 61 when the dust settles.
The real takeaway has been the fragmentation of the traditional two-party vote, something we have seen in Australia at recent federal polls. While Labour is expected to come close to Tony Blair's 1997 landslide in terms of the number of MPs, its vote is lower numerically than Blair's.
The overall voter turnout was down on the last election and incoming PM Keir Starmer is not expected to exceed the 10,265,051 votes Jeremy Corbyn was able to capture on that occasion by a significant margin.
While the incoming PM has been quick to brand this as a vote for change and a new start for a United Kingdom that is in much worse shape economically than Australia, he would be well aware Labour owes most of its victory to the incompetence and dysfunction that has been a hallmark of the Conservatives since before Brexit.
Like Anthony Albanese, he went into the snap poll with a "small target" strategy that was short on policy but big on being a "safe pair of hands". This is much more a Conservative defeat than a Labor triumph.
The real questions for Australia are what position will UK Labour take on AUKUS and our trade agreement?
While Mr Starmer has a handsome majority he has inherited an economy that is a basket case and a country that is facing a serious challenge in terms of social cohesion.
Although he has pledged to lift UK defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP from its current 2.3 per cent, he may have to cut his suit to fit his cloth if he wants to fix the broken National Health Service. In politics domestic issues trump foreign commitments every time. Watch this space.