Tag Archives: Rachel Reeves

January 12, 2025 · 05:58

Who’s funny now?

It was just after midnight when an article hit the retinals of my eyes. It happens and most of the time it is just as it is. Not this time, this time was different. You see, a few days ago on January 9th 2025 in my view (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2025/01/09/is-it-semantics/) with the title ‘Is it semantics?’ I wrote “I will let you decide, yet consider that America opened to door to grow China in near exponential size, because they could end up with options in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.” As some people laughed at my ‘sense of humor’ they ridiculed the setting from ever happening. Now the BBC gave me a mere 4 hours ago ‘Reeves defends China visit and hails £600m boost to UK’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqx9jggw9ndo), as I see it the die is cast and now you (Americans) get to ridicule the setting. Perhaps it was a simple joke to keep the mind of tariff changes, but that is not how it is playing out, is it? The article gives us “Chancellor Rachel Reeves has defended her decision to travel to China to improve economic ties at a time when soaring government borrowing costs threaten to squeeze UK public finances.” The added “The Treasury said Reeves’ visit to China delivered on a “commitment to explore deeper economic co-operation” between Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and President Xi, made last year. BBC economics editor Faisal Islam said other European nations such as Spain have encouraged China not just to set up factories but to transfer its advanced battery technology, for example, into Europe.” Brings another setting to the table. Is that why Elon Musk wanted Starmer out? The timeline makes sense. America would have known about this in advance and the noise we heard was around the time this was going down on plan papers. So Elon Musk was pushing his ‘ideas’ through the populistic channels available to him? I knew nothing of the sort, but I predicted the setting as an available one. And now we get “other European nations such as Spain have encouraged China not just to set up factories but to transfer its advanced battery technology, for example, into Europe.” This implies that Spain is also on the China horse of economic opportunity. This implies that China is making progress towards the UK (and optionally also into Australia, Canada and New Zealand) as well as direct opening moves by Spain (and others) into Europe. America is not really laughing now, are they? In opposition we see “Tory MP and former security minister Tom Tugendhat told BBC Radio 4’s Today program that the timing of Reeves’ visit to China was questionable. “She’s going at a time when her Budget has sacked the economy, we’ve got debt rates going up, and she looks like she’s going with a begging bowl, not with a trading deal,” he said. “That’s a real problem because actually it makes the UK look more vulnerable, and others around the world will see it too.””

Well, the UK doesn’t look more vulnerable. It is more vulnerable and it started 8-10 years ago when Mario Draghi decided to push his idea for spending in excess of €2 trillion. Yup, the invoice is due at some point and the UK is actively seeking solutions now, preferable before European nations do. As such I saw that dinner bell chime over 5 years ago. And as such Tom Tugendhat going for the adjusted Oliver Twist quote which was “Can I have some more please?” Doesn’t really hold water or slice the cabbage. It is reality in a nasty setting. It is the consequence of Wall Street and friends pushing hardship forward and now it is due harder choices will be made, but at this time these Wall Street friends are nowhere to be found and it comes down to Wall Street and its administration to figure it out and the Trump administration can no longer cry wolf (make China the nasty one). These administrations are in a deeper setting and are willing to give China a go, which will be good news for Tencent and Huawei in the first instance and first degree. Tencent will personally aid my need for coins and selling my idea, but that is not the issue now.

And whilst the article ends with “Liberal Democrat deputy leader and Treasury spokesperson Daisy Cooper urged the chancellor to return to the UK “to urgently address the ongoing crisis in the markets and announce a serious plan for growth”.” I wonder if the BBC relied on “Cooper urged the chancellor to return to the UK” instead of “Cooper urged the chancellor to return to the UK before the China vote is in”, there is of course the setting that this is not the case. I do not know Daisy Cooper, merely to a minimal degree. Yet at present, she has more in her stride than Australian labor PM Anthony Albanese. Yet for me the real ‘victory’ was that I optionally saw the backlash from President elect Donal Trump correctly, at least in part. And that days before the BBC gave me the rundown. So will the commonwealth unite with China? It is too early to say, but the start is here and now America starts its new administration with serious other problems. You see the group five eyes (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and America) is nice but as it seemingly goes this setting could be 4 members short in the near future and that creates a new setting. The CIA will lose eyes in several places and they will not have the budget to rectify that any way soon (they lack other resources too). Still happy about the 51st state ‘joke’? We have asian food centers all over the commonwealth and these people feel happily fed and don’t see China as a threat. I am not saying they aren’t a threat, as I see it, merely America and its devoted fans do. The problem is that the economic hardships are real and the people are willing to give China a chance. It isn’t right or wrong. It merely is and it is a direct consequence of games that Wall Street enabled, as they disregarded a long term policy. It is the direct consequence of what I call short term Excel policies (not blaming Microsoft in this case).

We can postulate all we want, but it depends on what Chancellor Rachel Reeves brings back to Number 10 and parliament. As I personally see it, President Xi (with aid from He Lifeng) gets the option to make a clean sweep into the hardship that America is ignoring for itself and with the settings as I observed it on defense spending in several places China can put pressure on America to a much larger degree. Life can throw us the strangest curveballs.

So enjoy the day and remember that in China, they will say “我可以再多吃一點嗎？”

Have a lovely day, only 120 minutes until breakfast for me.

Insecure Masturbation Fraternisers (IMF)

Yup, that is the slogan and to get there we need to take a little trip down memory lane before we get to the article that jogged my memories. You see, it all started on October 10th 2013 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2013/10/10/economic-management-through-newscasts/) where I gave the readers “The same day I get the news on a diplomatic escalation in the Netherlands, sky News UK comes with an entirely different matter. Two elements seemed to be in play. The IMF suddenly lifted the economic growth for the UK by 1.4% for 2013 and for 1.9% for 2014. Those are numbers that are beyond remarkable. Sky News showed Olivier Blanchard the Chief economist of the IMF to make this statement. It was interesting that the IMF calls on Christine Lagarde to give the bad news and Olivier gets to give the good news. There was a shimmer of hope for realism as Ed Conway, economic Editor at Sky News was happy to not reject the notion that the IMF have been lousy forecasters in the past to say the least”, as well as “‘Suddenly’ there was good news, a week before the debt ceiling needs to be raided, whilst the US is still in shutdown mode. Let us not forget that Greece, who also suddenly had ‘good’ news last week is still beyond broke, in addition France and Italy are still not in good shape. The biggest issue is that the UK forecast, which was +0.6%, which was a pretty good achievement to +1.4%. That boils down to a miscalculation of almost $18 Billion! That is a massive miscalculation. There is no indication that such errors were made. Consider that the IMF had high criticism towards the tactics by Chancellor George Osborne, UK’s faithful exchequer.” Are you clued in at present. There is now an indicator that the IMF is nothing more than a political presentation tool to hand out lollies for others to look away as credit limits are increased. It is one of the reasons I went towards Brexit. After the speech by Marky Mark of the British bank (aka Mark Carney, a Canadian no less), I saw the dangers of staying in the EU. Mario Draghi was using a Credit card for trillions after the first trillion was a miss. Now, that happens, solutions are selected hoping it will set the outcome to another stage. There is no fault there, but then he does it again for another 2 trillion. Wasn’t it Albert Einstein that stated that only a lunatic will do the same thing twice hoping for a different outcome? And it wasn’t just me, others had reservations too. There was no outcry when Mario Draghi was shown to be a member of an exclusive bank group. So how much did his friends end up with catering to that debt. Consider that bank bonds have a registration fee and commission. So how much commission did these two dozen people get over three trillion? I can tell you that is would be up to 2%, implying that two dozen people ended up with $600,000,000, not a bad run. So why should the UK pay for that?

Now that we are all caught up (to some extent) it is time to look at the article (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64452995) giving us ‘UK expected to be only major economy to shrink in 2023 – IMF’. Now I am not stating that this is not the case, it could be. Yet when we look to 2013 and later, the IMF has played the wrong spades in this game. So when I see words like ‘expected’ and ‘only major economy’ after it took the IMF and Creepy LaStrange (I think that was her name) a year to admit that they made an error of well over $18,000,000,000 I have issues with anything they claim. And when I see “The IMF said the economy will contract by 0.6% in 2023, rather than grow slightly as previously predicted” without clarity I have issues. The numbers could be true, but with the Russian clambake in the Ukraine, the Covid issues (especially in China), the labour shortages and a few other elements that influences the issues, we merely see “Chancellor Jeremy Hunt said the UK outperformed many forecasts last year. But shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves said the figures showed the UK “lagging behind our peers”” and charts and numbers how bad the UK is doing, but the problem is that the IMF (or Insecure Masturbation Fraternisers) have been too much like a political tool. They proclaim that Russia is getting a positive boost this year but we do not see that it might be mainly woodworkers to create the 126,650 coffins for lost troops, so their economy is up, but who pays that bill? And in the stage of presentation my issue is that these people are all about ‘forcing’ the UK back into the EU so that their GDP can be added to their credit limit. The EU is running out of credit card space, it has been for a year and the UK revenue is essential to turn that about and people need to wake up to the unaccountable overspending the EU is doing. At present the EU debt is well over €12 trillion with several nations having too much debt. We all know about Greece with over 193% of GDP, Italy surpassed 150% of GDP and Portugal surpassed 125%, Spain is almost at 120%, and France is at almost 115%. The credit limits have been reached and it does not bode well, so all hands on deck forcing the UK back into the EU, but the truth is that once the hardship is passed (which will take some time), the UK will become the power player and the EU will be reduced to a third world nation. So basically at present (a personal view) the German debt of 80% of GDP is the only economy keeping the EU standing. That is not enough and I spoke about that in the past (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2017/03/17/the-finality-of-french-freedom/) in ‘The finality of French freedom’ on the 7th of March 2017 where I wrote “Which is why France is a big deal, that whilst they represent one of four anchors keeping the Euro in place. With the British anchor removed, the stress on the three is intense, the Euro cannot continue with the remaining two anchors that is the desperate game Draghi is facing now. Weakness and non-decisions from 2012 onwards have caused this mess, and of course he is not done yet. As we see in Reuters, last Monday he stated “If non-high-tech companies adopt more innovative technology, that would provide a boost for European productivity“, speaking as the European Central Bank President last Monday, it that so? With what funds? Innovations requires money, such steps have a cost” here I compared the economy with a floating platform kept in place by 4 anchors. It used to be the UK, France, Germany and Italy. Now that the UK is gone, the platform is now in trouble as only the German anchor has any strength left. The economic sea is in turmoil and I already saw this in 2017. Then we got Covid and that stupid bear named Russia and now the economy is a problem, especially for the EU and when that breaks up, the US (Japan also) have no way to go but down and that is what they all fear, they can prolong this if they can bully the UK, but we have seen enough bullies. We all have had enough and that is why I chose Brexit. I could not predict Covid or Russia, but a next economic disaster is alway just past the horizon, there is always a next fire to put out and now the IMF wants to make matters look worse. As I see it, they need a whole range of better and more descriptive numbers. As it stands, at present I do not trust the IMF. Yes the UK could face another recession, but it will be nowhere as bad as the one the EU faces. In the end the UK is part of a Commonwealth and we all (Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand and the United Kingdom) need to united to face the headwinds of the coming storm, we owe it to each other with the acts of irresponsibility we do not owe the EU and we do not owe the US. The US has had over a quarter of a century to overhaul their tax laws. I made mention on this as early as in the age of President George H. W. Bush (1998) now 25 years ago. I say enough is enough and the IMF better give us a lot more and a lot clearer numbers than what we see in the BBC article. That is my personal point of view on the matter.

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as Australia, BBC, Brexit, Canada, Christine Legarde, Commonwealth, Covid, Ed Conway, European Central Bank, France, George H. W. Bush, George Osborne, Germany, IMF, India, Italy, Japan, Jeremy Hunt, Mario Draghi, Mark Carney, New Zealand, Olivier Blanchard, Rachel Reeves, Russia, UK, Ukraine, United Kingdom, US

March 23, 2018 · 10:27

Pinata whacking Couper

There is a little mean streak in me, you see, it started with Tesco, and it actually started a little earlier. But the gist is that when it concerns PwC (PricewaterhouseCoopers) I tend to take a swing at them whenever possible, I just roll that way. So there I was looking at ‘PwC charges more than £20m for first eight weeks of Carillion collapse‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/mar/21/pwc-charges-20m-eight-weeks-carillion-collapse-final-bill) when I realised that when I wack those boys I usually have good reason and supporting documentations to test my latest sledgehammer on a member of their board of Directors. In this article, when I saw “MPs have accused the accountancy firm tasked with salvaging money from Carillion on behalf of its creditors and pensioners of charging “superhuman” fees, after it racked up a bill for £20.4m in eight weeks” it took a mere 3.2 seconds from spitting in my hands and getting ready to swing that hammer at Kevin Ellis (yes all the way from Sydney, my arms are that long). I held off and went ‘wait a minute!‘

You see, I always had as I saw it good cause, but who are these MP’s thinking that they have good cause? The first is Rachel Reeves, the Labour MP in charge of the business select committee. So she mentioned that ‘superhuman’ part. What does she know? The Wiki claim states that she is an economist. So how much does one charge for 112 consultants? You see at £199 an hour we get £891K for these people working a mere 40 hours a week. As it is the UK, they are more likely to work 60 hours which gets us at flat rate £1.3 million a week which leaves PwC with an overhead of a mere £100K whilst I have not taking into account any additional expenses and they tend to get high. I reckon that these people are likely to make a lot more than 60 hours a week, that is the result of “£2bn to its 30,000 suppliers” and as the article states “a week to employ 112 staff to keep the company running and to honour government contracts” we do not see the inclusion of any additional staff that was not hired and that is still assigned via PwC. So that took a mere 6 seconds to realise that I was not getting to whack Kevin Ellis. Leave it to a Labour MP to spoil a perfectly lovely Friday morning feeling. Now, let’s also realise that my calculations could be way off, there are so little actual facts in the article (I am not blaming the article here) that there are hidden traps all over the place. I think that Rachel should have gotten up from the right side of the vibrator that morning, as we need to realise what an amazing mess Carillion is. The oversight had fallen short on so many sides, with the mention of pensions and a shortfall that is close to a £1,000,000,000 should be a much larger issue and the fact that this had fallen short implies a level of what I regard to be criminal negligence that is unheard of. We merely need to look at ‘Carillion’s pension crisis defies magic legal cure‘ (at https://www.ft.com/content/5041d10e-1a1c-11e8-aaca-4574d7dabfb6). So when we see “Yet in the seven years before its collapse, Carillion made contributions to the fund of just £280m while paying out dividends worth more than £500m“, my first idea is to look at the auditors and the accountancy firm. So how much overview did Rachel Reeves give regarding KPMG? We get part of this when we see ‘Why didn’t anyone working with Carillion say it was going to fail?‘ (at https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/carillion-kpmg-auditors-audit-hbos-financial-crisis-self-regulation-deloitte-a8185356.html). Here we see: “In March 2017, the giant audit firm KPMG signed off on the annual accounts of the construction giant-cum-outsourced services provider Carillion, saying they gave a “true and fair view” of the state of the company’s affairs. For this work, KPMG received a fee of £1.4m. This followed £1.4m of fees recouped the year before. In fact, KPMG had been Carillion’s auditor every year since it was founded in 1999. You don’t need to be an accountant to work out that that adds up to a very lucrative client relationship” that whilst we get the news that a mere four months later “its contracts to provide services were worth a remarkable £845m less than they had previously been valued on its books” that is an amount that exceeds whatever Richard Branson has in his wallet on his best days, so how was this overlooked? So as Rachel Reeves was kind enough that the value of KPMG is not good enough to audit the contents of her fridge, she should also be aware that this entire audit is not merely the outstanding invoices, there is a decent concern that the audit of KPMG has been unable to correctly assess issues for 17 years. So there is a real need to set up the correct framework to be able to take a long term look to the matters as well as the ability to set the right data dimensionality so that the data does not need to migrate over and over as more is found. I would think that an MP who part of the ‘the business select committee’, as well as a graduated economist would know that. You see as an experienced IT worker and a data analyst, I saw that coming a mile away.

So here I am partially standing up for PwC (so how fucked up will my day become?), news at 23:00. So when we get back to the Financial Times article and we see “As a House of Commons report has noted, Carillion’s growing borrowings were not used to invest in the company. In fact, while the group’s debt rose 297 per cent between 2009 and 2017, the value of its long-term assets grew just 14 per cent“, can we agree that there is a side that is terribly wrong here? These matters should have been clear in the KPMG reports, which now clearly overthrows the statement “they gave a “true and fair view” of the state of the company’s affairs“, I think that we can all agree that this part has been debunked in 30 seconds flat. In addition the Independent gives us “Moreover, KPMG was not the only auditor of Carillion’s numbers. Its 2016 report relates that it had a special “internal” auditor too, in Deloitte, with which it worked even more closely than with KPMG. So why didn’t Deloitte pick up on the dodgy contract numbers?” For me that is an interesting side as I have never seen anything dodgy in Deloitte. The fact that they might be part of the mess (unlikely though) is also cause for concern. More important, as I personally see it, it will be up to PwC to get that part out in the open. What was the exact assignment of the internal auditor, what data was presented, what data was accessed and used and who was part of the entire reporting stage of this internal audit? It would show more players in all this and could optionally give a better path in seeing the navigations that the decision makers in Carillion were involved in.

That is a part that we need to realise and consider.

There is another concern that the Independent brought to light. With: “Previous probes by the FRC have produced nothing but clean bills of health for auditors. “In nearly every major financial scandal we’ve had since the financial crisis, the FRC decides none of its charges have done anything wrong,” notes Jim Armitage, city editor of the Evening Standard. Worse, these rulings come with no reports or published evidence, making a mockery of the FRC’s claims to “promote transparency”” we might think that it is merely the FRC, yet what Wall Street taught us is that the entire 2008 joke gave rise to an 8 trillion write off, whilst no actual laws were broken, or at least none that could be proven, so in that regard, if that happens again now, we can clearly look at the House of Lords, point fingers and tell them to improve laws immediately and hold any MP and minister accountable for naming and public shaming. It might work, but I doubt it. You see, until there are large and unforgiving prison sentences, whilst also remove all the rights of ownership to those involved in Carillion, nothing will change. I have seen people setting the ownership of their large estates to their wives and then deny that they had any outstanding financial responsibilities in more than one country. Until these matters are settled this game will continue because greed will always win in the end.

So when we get back to the initial article we get “Kelly, who said his personal rate was £865 an hour, said PwC’s costs would gradually fall as more parts of Carillion were sold and staff from the accounting firm stopped working on the project. He said the firm initially had 257 people working on Carillion, with a bill for about £3m for their services in the first week after its collapse“, we see where part of the costs went to, so as my calculations was based on smaller settings we see how easily these costs were attained and the end of it is not in sight. Rachel Reeves should have seen this clearly as she had access to data I still have not seen. I think it is much more interesting to look at “Finance director Richard Adam, who retired in December 2016 after nine years at Carillion received almost £1.1m in salary and bonuses in 2016“, which we get from the BBC. So if we get to see the wrongdoings of Richard Adams, this is a reasonable speculation as the entire mess goes back a lot further than 2016, will we see these same MPs demand the auctioning of the goods of Richard Adams to make up for the losses of Carillion? You see the article stated MPs, not singular. Rachel Reeves might have been the visible one, but I want to see all those names, because when we consider the BBC news (at http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42703549) as it gives us:

The £350m Midland Metropolitan Hospital in Sandwell: opening delayed to 2019 due to construction problems.
The £335m Royal Liverpool Hospital: completion date repeatedly pushed back amid reports of cracks in the building.
The £745m Aberdeen bypass: delayed because of slow progress in completing initial earthworks.

We need to ask questions on several MPs all over the field, all over the UK apparently. These three alone show a £1.3 billion issue are so out in the open that these three alone will constitute evidence of a much deeper required accountancy dig. Three issues shown last January and these three alone gives rise for me to think that PwC will be able to charge a lot more and in addition, the entire settling and selling could take a lot longer than some expect it to take. So these elements are the setting for additional costs, so those MPs might claim that there is a case of ‘milking the Carillion cow dry‘, but they better be ready for me to take a look at more than these three projects, because I will ask openly on their failings to get a handle on matters, because I am 99% certain that these three projects alone will lead to a dozen others all over the UK and if there are no clear memo’s from those MPs in regards to Carillion, they will be named openly to give rise to their shortcomings (perhaps also what was between their legs), because if you do not have the balls to go against the larger players, you should not be in office at all. Yet, that might be merely my warped expectation of elected officials.

Carillion is a clear mess that had been going on for a much longer time than some expect. You see, that part is seen in ‘cracks in the building‘, ‘construction problems‘ and ‘slow progress in completing initial earthworks‘ it implies optional failings going all the way back to the foundation of the works that were possibly never correctly done in the first place.

So I might still end up treating the bosses of PwC UK as piñatas, but at present there are plenty of other targets and so far (remember I say ‘so far’), in this particular case PwC seems to be in the clear (darn!).

The day after the election before

It is nice to see the fallout reign over papers and TV shows alike. How some Tories see the demise of Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage entertaining, I myself have mixed feelings on such an act! The right party won as I see it, yet that is no grounds to see the others kicked when they are down. It also seems a little silly to replace one leader for the next wannabe because the previous one lost. That is a loser’s mentality! You see, in my view there is no better Labour consideration, who will fill his seat? Liz Kendall? I took her apart in that tech article she added her name to in the Guardian, if she takes control, great! That means the next two administrations are extremely likely to be Tory too, works for me! Andy Burnham? Seems like a decent labour man. I do not know too much about him other that he seems to be devoted to his wife, his children and the labour party (in that order). He does not seem to be a strong leader, but his last true test was when he turned 40, so he might have risen to the occasion, if he wins time will tell!

If Miliband is not an option, it seems to me that Angela Eagle, Rachel Reeves and Chris Leslie are worthy options here. I consider the two ladies because no matter what rises to leader in any party, it is best that this person comes with a few awesome economic degrees. Chris Leslie is not that but still has a decent view on matters, in addition to whatever he brings, he was able to overturn Keighley from Tory to Labour and did so with a decent margin. That makes him a tough opponent and a possible political price fighter. The fact that he was a former private secretary to Lord Falconer would work in his favour too (footnote: not the same Falconer as in R v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30).

I have a limited view on who should lead Labour. Even though Ed Miliband made his share of errors, especially as he went into the final lap, there is no guarantee that the replacement politician will not make the same mistakes (or worse).

When we look at the Liberal Democrats, there seems to be only confusion. That is to be expected, the Liberal Democrat fighter goes into the ring, got his fists ready and gets clobbered with a spiked bat. That is what losing 49 seats is likely to feel like. I always thought of Nick Clegg as a decent fellow, yet how wrong was his message to lose THAT many seats? Of course Scotland costed him a bundle (except for Shetland, them pony’s be faithful). The only way to restore the party is by finding a true visionary. It seems that Lord Ashdown has one massive fight on his hand finding that person. To be honest, I reckon that as we see the current choice is Norman Lamb and Tim Farron, Tim Farron would be the favourite here as I see it. The main reason is that Tim is a little left leaning. He can rally the ‘deserters’ on the right and sway several labour players on the left. This would give him the tactical move to restore the party to power, but that is not done overnight, it will likely take more than one election, so if He can sway enough people before the next general election, the Liberal Democrats would regain party fame as well as visibility.

Now we get to UKIP. I will not bore you with too many details, the issue here is who would be good. Here I take the current achievements in consideration. Steven Woolfe falls off the map then. He is bright, but consider that he has Stockport and he trailed both Conservative and Labour by a lot, being 50% below conservatives and almost 75% below Labour is not a good place, if you have your constituency at 13% you are not doing too well and the same can be said for Patrick O’ Flynn, who is trailing the four bigger ones by an uncomfortable margin, which is the only reason why I do not see them as UKIP party leader successors. Even though, according to the BBC article Douglass Carswell took himself out of the race, I am not convinced that this would be in the interest of UKIP. He won his place from the conservatives with a comfortable margin and squatted Labour ‘choice’ Tim Young like nothing you saw (likely with support from Giles Watling). My only concern here is that I personally feel that any party leader needs to have a decent degree in economics, because the next 5 administrations will all be about the economy and finding new ways to boost it to better heights, no matter who gets to be in charge. Although, the reasoning Carswell is the right one, Nigel Farage might have lost his constituency, the rise in votes is almost astronomical. If we go by the numbers of the last election we can see that there are at least 5 constituencies where winning is a realistic option for the next time around. They can give serious worry to at least 6 additional constituencies. That makes for 11 constituencies that obtainable if the right paths are walked, before Farage that was never even an option. If UKIP keeps its heads together and do not waste energy on futile public exclamations that only confuse the voters they could win a lot more, they basically got 5% of the votes. If they can rise to 11%-13% several locations will fall in favour of UKIP, which is not an outlandish goal or even an unrealistic one.

Now to the Conservatives, my own side!

There is a comfortable margin for the Tories, but as stated above, UKIP has the power to grow. Tactically speaking the best thing conservatives can hope for is that UKIP takes over a few more LD constituencies and try to have a go at the labour won areas. That tactic will work fine form UKIP for now, yet, to some extent it will work favourably for the conservatives too. Yet, there are areas, especially around Manchester where UKIP is a close third to the Tories with Labour on top, getting those people active in a decent and thought out way could pave for a strong third administration in 2020. As UKIP needs to focus on the attack and swaying, the Tories can for now rely on building a strong foundations within their constituencies, that strength could be the path for administration 3 and 4. It is not a given, but it is a realistic view.

(Source: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2015/may/07/live-uk-election-results-in-full)