Bollitics: The General Election 2010 Exit Poll

[snowychap]

Glad to see that the markets aren't suffering like people said they wouldn't with a hung parliament!

The markets have been very volatile as they have been (on and off) for a while (especially recently due to the problems in the Eurozone with Greece).

Suffering? I'm really not so sure.

Also talk of a review of our triple A rating.

Really?

Grauniad article

Credit ratings agencies have rushed to reassure jittery markets that Britain's coveted top notch rating is not under immediate threat following an inconclusive election result.

Investors fear that the incoming government will lack the firepower to cut Britain's deficit swiftly enough to stay the hand of agencies such as Standard & Poor's that have recently cut their assessment of Greece and Spain. But both S&P and Moody's today say nothing in their view of the UK will change for now.

Their remarks leave the door open for downgrades later in the year, but they helped stem losses in government bond prices which had sold off sharply this morning.

Moody's, which was already seen as the least likely of the three big agencies to act on the UK, commented that the election outcome was not a direct threat to Britain's AAA rating and that the differences between the three parties' fiscal plans were minor.

"Moody's stance assumes that the incoming economic team can muster convincing parliamentary support for a fiscal adjustment that is no looser nor slower than was outlined by all three political parties during their respective pre-election campaigns," said Arnaud Mares, lead analyst for the UK's sovereign rating.

Still, the agency added that the "implementation of fiscal tightening is key to Moody's stable outlook on the UK government's AAA rating."

S&P, which has cut Greece to a junk rating and last week downgraded Spain, was more guarded in its UK outlook.

It said that its view on UK creditworthiness was unchanged after the election but it has had the country on "negative" outlook for the last year, citing a one-in-three chance the AAA credit rating may be cut.

"The complexion of the new government is not, in itself, a rating factor for us. Instead, our focus is on whether the government's fiscal consolidation plan to be unveiled in due course is likely or not, in our view, to put the UK government debt burden on a secure downward trajectory over the medium term," S&P said in a statement.

S&P expects to review the rating after it has assessed the new government's medium-term fiscal strategy and hopes to complete that review by the end of the year.

Are you really saying that if a Tory majority government had been returned then today would have been substantially different and the ratings agencies would not have said the same thing?

[Awol]

Malachite, I said before the election they'll be going again in October. Looking at how things have panned out it then it might be even sooner.

EDIT: which is a pity because my mate got in last night by a very small majority and i know that going through it again in a few months would not be a pleasant experience!

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

What would be the point in going again though?

Labour will get a new leader, their vote will go up as a result (IMO), Tories will drop a few seats and Lib Dems will stay the same and it'll be as you were, only with Labour/Conservative even closer together.

Unless of course someone magically pushes through proportional representation over summer then goes again from scratch in november and see how it pans out...

[Malachite]

Malachite, I said before the election they'll be going again in October. Looking at how things have panned out it then it might be even sooner.

And so they should, point well made IMO, and to reiterate Cameron should get his thinking cap on and plan rather than think about the next 5mins and like the kid in the toy shop "i want it now"

Someone should tell him to be cool, think it through, what a true statement in that "patience is a virtue".

[Malachite]

What would be the point in going again though?

Labour will get a new leader, their vote will go up as a result (IMO), Tories will drop a few seats and Lib Dems will stay the same and it'll be as you were, only with Labour/Conservative even closer together.

Unless of course someone magically pushes through proportional representation over summer then goes again from scratch in november and see how it pans out...

A massive and huge victory, it will matter not if Labour put God in control of the party, any party that is in power over the next 6 months will be resented and hated as the Governor of the Bank of England said this week, tey won't get elected again for generations, now if that bloke is making sounds as to how serious things are you can pretty much take it they are probably worse.

[Awol]

What would be the point in going again though?

...

In a nutshell.. a coalition government is unlikely to be able to force through the required reform to economic policy that will prevent the markets from giving the UK a good kicking. Our budgetdeficit is worse than Greece and our official national debt is likely to double when/if a tory led government gets to see the books and exposes the trickery Labour have perpetrated (PFI, Pensions etc all off the books).

When it all hits the fan people will hopefully realise we need a decisive government (of whatever colour) in order to make some progress, but whether that actually happens is anyones guess.

[RunRickyRun]

Those on here who voted LIB DEM, and you know who you are!, how do you feel about a Lib dem Tory alliance

I'd be happy for Clegg to give enough rope to Cameron to hang himself. None of the parties have been upfront about their spending cuts and I think whoever forms the next government will struggle.

I think the Tories would gain even more votes and seats if no effective government could be formed and there was another election held.

[KT3AVFC]

As a Labour voter I'd be happy to see a minority Tory Government or a Tory/LD alliance. The City may want savage cuts and the public may say that they understand the need for them but I'm far from convinced that savage cuts in public spending is a vote winner.

Six months ago I thought Labour would be out in the wilderness for as long as the Tories post 97. Now I don't think so.

[avfc89]

We need this situation to be resolved fairly soon, the longer it lingers the bigger it becomes.

[mjmooney]

OK, here's a prediction: whichever of the two main parties that forms the alliance with Clegg will lose the next election.

The smart move right now is to go into opposition (and change your leader if you're Labour), and.... wait....

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

In a nutshell.. a coalition government is unlikely to be able to force through the required reform to economic policy that will prevent the markets from giving the UK a good kicking. Our budgetdeficit is worse than Greece and our official national debt is likely to double when/if a tory led government gets to see the books and exposes the trickery Labour have perpetrated (PFI, Pensions etc all off the books).

When it all hits the fan people will hopefully realise we need a decisive government (of whatever colour) in order to make some progress, but whether that actually happens is anyones guess.

But isn't the danger Labour won't (and in fact I'm sure they wont) intend to push through most of their big cuts well into next year anyway? At least this is what we've heard from them. And if they were left in charge until, say, October, they won't actually bring the big austerity budget people are fearing to the table, and leave it for the Tories to come along, win the election, then bring the cuts?

I know the Lib Dems/Tories have huge differences in regards to how to handle the economy, but I'm sure if Cameron was to say to Clegg 'you can't have everything, but we'll protect child tax credits and scrap our plans for inheritence, the rest you leave to us' then he'd seriously think about it?

I personally can't see the Tories risking waiting until October, they are in a position of power now and they must have the same inkling I do that if they leave Brown in charge until then he'll just avoid as much of the big cuts he can.

[Demitri_C]

Only a Tory voter could think that would make a fairer society! The vast majority of people earning over £150k pa have been lucky enough to have enjoyed far greater opportunities in life than most basic rate taxpayers so I think it is their moral duty to contribute more into the pot. If I were ever lucky enough to earn over £150K pa I would have no problems at all with the new tax rate

your only saying that because you are not in their postion. i agree they should pay more but at least make it fair 50% abit ott

[avfc89]

Michael Meacher for Labour leader!

[Reality]

Good joke laaaaad.

[Guest Ricardomeister]

^ The Trees is advocating a "fairer" system. You however seem to want to punish people for daring to do well. The politics of envy, aka, socialism (or the equal sharing of misery).

Total, complete and absolute rubbish! I was lucky enough to be educated at what is generally regarded as the best school in Birmingham and one of the best in the country. I worked damned hard to get into the school and continued to work damned hard and achieved excellent academic and professional qualifications. However, I appreciate that the vast majority of people never had the same opportunities as myself and therefore I think I have a moral duty to put back more into society so that more people can have similar opportunities to those which I enjoyed.

Both of your attitudes reek of the Tory "me, me, me, I am better than you because I get paid more money" attitude that I find abhorrent. I would actually benefit from the Tory's (imo) immoral Inheritance Tax policies to the tune of £20-30k but just because I would benefit does not make it right. There are plenty of people who have not had the same opportunities as me who could benefit from that money more than me. I know this is an alien concept to many Tory voters but it is called having a social conscience. Making people who work just as hard as you, but who have not had the same opportunities, pay a substantially higher proportion of their wages is totally immoral imo. Your claims that the 50% tax is discriminatory and that it is fair to tax the low paid at a much higher proportionate rate would be truly laughable if they were not so cruel. Rather than my views being about the politics of envy, which is quite obviously total nonsense, it is actually about your views and those of the Trees being about the politics of greed and selfishness. I just hope that Nick Clegg manages to help to dilute such selfish attitudes at least a little.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

There should be a cap on wages anyway tbh.

[avfc89]

Good joke laaaaad.

- He is a decent guy and honest

[Condimentalist]

Boris

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I love Boris, never fails to bring a laugh or two.

[TheDon]

Only a Tory voter could think that would make a fairer society! The vast majority of people earning over £150k pa have been lucky enough to have enjoyed far greater opportunities in life than most basic rate taxpayers so I think it is their moral duty to contribute more into the pot. If I were ever lucky enough to earn over £150K pa I would have no problems at all with the new tax rate

your only saying that because you are not in their postion. i agree they should pay more but at least make it fair 50% abit ott

What else would you put it as? As the next bracket down is already 40%?