This has been an interesting thread with lots of respectful conversation, thanks OP for asking the question. I'm not a Tory but happy to answer some of the other questions that have come up from my point of view.
I grew up in a "true blue" household in the 70s, had a rosette stuck on me during elections, stuffed leaflets through letterboxes. As I grew up, my eyes were opened to inequality and injustice and I became more and more left wing. I always thought the reason MN was fairly left wing was because those inequalities and injustices were impossible to ignore here.
I was quite pro-Blair in some respects, but Corbyn has represented the first chance I have had to vote for something which more fully represents my beliefs. I have been disappointed on Brexit and antisemitism but as a person with principles and courage who ran a great campaign, I have been delighted with him.
One reason I am pleased with the result is that I hope it will make Brexit much more difficult to negotiate and that we will have to make more concessions in order to get a deal - i.e. keep certain economic ties and softer borders.
I don't know anyone who "voted for a hung parliament". Yes, there was some tactical voting and vote-swapping but much less than in 2015. Most voters seemed energised by their own parties and the presidential-style campaign meant that many people voted for a leader/manifesto rather than tactically. I think lots of Labour voters thought the best they could hope for was a hung parliament, because of the press and PLP campaign against Corbyn, but they all wanted and hoped for more.
While I can't stand the right-wing press or some of the language used against socialists, I have never agreed with people slagging off the Tories in such an aggressive and dismissive way, as that is what feeds a more sinister division in our country. I guess from my past experience I am more likely to see Tories as people who do genuinely believe in their party too.
I am really surprised that people are still talking about "safe seats" or "Fred West in a red suit" as surely this election has debunked all that - just look at John Cleese in Kensington. I read on the BBC that around 2500 votes one way or the other in 5 key constituencies for each party would have swung the result either to giving Cons an overall majority, or making a Cons govt impossible even with DUP. Some of those constituencies were places which had enormous majorities previously - look at Amber Rudd or Theresa Villiers for two examples where Labour nearly took them. So if you are a Tory wishing some constituencies had been taken or kept blue, it could easily have gone the other way and we are feeling that way too. Perhaps both sides are thinking "if only" about the small number of votes that would have swung it for them, so we do have that in common.
Finally the other reason I am happy is that the vote share was not only good for Labour, but also good for restarting the debate on electoral reform and FPTP/PR, which I would like to see changed.