Hung parliament question
Discussion
I expect it would be an IMF jobby.
I think out of all of them, CMD is the only one who has a grasp of getting GDP up and running, and making cuts, rather than raising taxes.
If there are not tax cuts, to free up spending and spending cuts to sort out the "problem", IMF here we come.
The value of sterling will directly reflect the probabilities of this happening.
The silver lining is that hopefully, loads of investment will prop up the Euro and make the PIIGS situation even worse and then we can stand and laugh as the whole eurozone f
king well explodes.
I'm not really bothered about the success of the UK anymore, I think it's a lost cause as a country and more every man for himself. More than anything, I want the parasitic, eutopian socialist experiment over the water to fking well explode. I will be very excited and uncontrollably happy when this happens.
I think out of all of them, CMD is the only one who has a grasp of getting GDP up and running, and making cuts, rather than raising taxes.
If there are not tax cuts, to free up spending and spending cuts to sort out the "problem", IMF here we come.
The value of sterling will directly reflect the probabilities of this happening.
The silver lining is that hopefully, loads of investment will prop up the Euro and make the PIIGS situation even worse and then we can stand and laugh as the whole eurozone f
king well explodes. I'm not really bothered about the success of the UK anymore, I think it's a lost cause as a country and more every man for himself. More than anything, I want the parasitic, eutopian socialist experiment over the water to f
king well explode. I will be very excited and uncontrollably happy when this happens. IMO a hung parliament or another gordo government will mean parity with the dollar and then see how high fuel goes. First quarter next year the imf attack begins with taxes up, prices up and interest rates up. But fear not, hopefully the full list of the thieving champagne socialists will be leaked for us to go to for financial help.
Unlikely.
Far more likely, but arguably more damaging is we go into a period of stale nothing. Nothing much happens for the period of the Hung Parliament...probably 6 months before CMD calls another election as the majority leader...and so we are left hanging, waiting and wasting 6 months before we start to sort the mess out.
Far more likely, but arguably more damaging is we go into a period of stale nothing. Nothing much happens for the period of the Hung Parliament...probably 6 months before CMD calls another election as the majority leader...and so we are left hanging, waiting and wasting 6 months before we start to sort the mess out.
I've heard three different opposing views on the result of the election from three different people doing the same job. One believd we were going to hell in a hand basket, Hung or Labour, another that we would be fine and its all factored into the amrkets already, another that even if we lose AAA with a hung parliament/labour we will be merely like Japan and not like Greece.
I have to say I don't know which it will be but was most convinced by the last.
I have to say I don't know which it will be but was most convinced by the last.
ShadownINja said:
I heard some guy who claimed to work in finance on LBC radio saying this morning that if we get a hung parliament (which 32% of people want), then the GBP will plummet and inflation will soar due to markets not liking uncertainty from the lack of one party ruling. Is this true?
We won't get a hung parliament.However the claims above are self-fulfilling, since all these experts were predicting that, that is what would happen.
I do not know how the british system is...but the indian version which is derived from british parliamentary system woks on the basis that the biggest party is invited to form the govt... in coalition if they want to invite others. If that party declines the invitation, then the second largest party can take up the position provided they demonstrate a coalition with clear majority. An election is called if none of the parties can muster a majority coalition or the coalition itself disintegrates at anytime during the parliament.(issues that force a no confidence motion and is not fully supported by members of the coalition, thereby the govt losing majority)
bobbylondonuk said:
I do not know how the british system is...but the indian version which is derived from british parliamentary system woks on the basis that the biggest party is invited to form the govt... in coalition if they want to invite others. If that party declines the invitation, then the second largest party can take up the position provided they demonstrate a coalition with clear majority. An election is called if none of the parties can muster a majority coalition or the coalition itself disintegrates at anytime during the parliament.(issues that force a no confidence motion and is not fully supported by members of the coalition, thereby the govt losing majority)
thats seems to be the case here too. Thats not the issue though. The issue is should we get a hung parliament and labour or a coalition will it turn our economy to slurry
Will a hung parliament mean a weak government?
Not necessarily. A coalition of the kind common in European democracies with proportional voting systems is unlikely. More likely is an attempt to form a minority government and win support from the Lib Dems on a piecemeal basis.
There were only two hung parliaments in the 20th century. In 1929, Ramsay MacDonald had 27 more seats than the Tories, and led a minority administration fairly successfully for two years before the Labour party split over an austerity budget.
So today's fears that a hung parliament will lead to instability, spook the financial markets and result in an early second election derive from the only other example, 1974. That year saw two elections in which the term 'hung parliament' was coined by The Economist.
Back then the parties were so close (the Tories won the popular vote, just, but won four fewer seats than Labour) and had so little common ground that a rematch was all but inevitable. The same isn't necessarily true this time round.
Why not?
Both The Guardian's Larry Elliott and the FT's Martin Wolf argue that fears of what a hung parliament might do to Britain's credit rating, gilts market and currency have been much exaggerated.
Recent research by the House of Commons library shows that, of the ten largest fiscal tightenings in OECD countries since 1970, seven of them were pushed through by coalition or minority governments, all of them in Europe.
Any hint that tough decisions were being bottled – as per Harold Wilson in 1974 – would lead to a sell-off in sterling assets. But equally, cross-party support for tough measures might actually make British assets more attractive.
http://www.moneyweek.com/news-and-charts/economics...
Moneyweek, usually worth a read.
Not necessarily. A coalition of the kind common in European democracies with proportional voting systems is unlikely. More likely is an attempt to form a minority government and win support from the Lib Dems on a piecemeal basis.
There were only two hung parliaments in the 20th century. In 1929, Ramsay MacDonald had 27 more seats than the Tories, and led a minority administration fairly successfully for two years before the Labour party split over an austerity budget.
So today's fears that a hung parliament will lead to instability, spook the financial markets and result in an early second election derive from the only other example, 1974. That year saw two elections in which the term 'hung parliament' was coined by The Economist.
Back then the parties were so close (the Tories won the popular vote, just, but won four fewer seats than Labour) and had so little common ground that a rematch was all but inevitable. The same isn't necessarily true this time round.
Why not?
Both The Guardian's Larry Elliott and the FT's Martin Wolf argue that fears of what a hung parliament might do to Britain's credit rating, gilts market and currency have been much exaggerated.
Recent research by the House of Commons library shows that, of the ten largest fiscal tightenings in OECD countries since 1970, seven of them were pushed through by coalition or minority governments, all of them in Europe.
Any hint that tough decisions were being bottled – as per Harold Wilson in 1974 – would lead to a sell-off in sterling assets. But equally, cross-party support for tough measures might actually make British assets more attractive.
http://www.moneyweek.com/news-and-charts/economics...
Moneyweek, usually worth a read.
Fittster said:
Will a hung parliament mean a weak government?
Not necessarily. A coalition of the kind common in European democracies with proportional voting systems is unlikely. More likely is an attempt to form a minority government and win support from the Lib Dems on a piecemeal basis.
There were only two hung parliaments in the 20th century. In 1929, Ramsay MacDonald had 27 more seats than the Tories, and led a minority administration fairly successfully for two years before the Labour party split over an austerity budget.
So today's fears that a hung parliament will lead to instability, spook the financial markets and result in an early second election derive from the only other example, 1974. That year saw two elections in which the term 'hung parliament' was coined by The Economist.
Back then the parties were so close (the Tories won the popular vote, just, but won four fewer seats than Labour) and had so little common ground that a rematch was all but inevitable. The same isn't necessarily true this time round.
Why not?
Both The Guardian's Larry Elliott and the FT's Martin Wolf argue that fears of what a hung parliament might do to Britain's credit rating, gilts market and currency have been much exaggerated.
Recent research by the House of Commons library shows that, of the ten largest fiscal tightenings in OECD countries since 1970, seven of them were pushed through by coalition or minority governments, all of them in Europe.
Any hint that tough decisions were being bottled – as per Harold Wilson in 1974 – would lead to a sell-off in sterling assets. But equally, cross-party support for tough measures might actually make British assets more attractive.
http://www.moneyweek.com/news-and-charts/economics...
Moneyweek, usually worth a read.
Nice summary. Yours that is. Liked thatNot necessarily. A coalition of the kind common in European democracies with proportional voting systems is unlikely. More likely is an attempt to form a minority government and win support from the Lib Dems on a piecemeal basis.
There were only two hung parliaments in the 20th century. In 1929, Ramsay MacDonald had 27 more seats than the Tories, and led a minority administration fairly successfully for two years before the Labour party split over an austerity budget.
So today's fears that a hung parliament will lead to instability, spook the financial markets and result in an early second election derive from the only other example, 1974. That year saw two elections in which the term 'hung parliament' was coined by The Economist.
Back then the parties were so close (the Tories won the popular vote, just, but won four fewer seats than Labour) and had so little common ground that a rematch was all but inevitable. The same isn't necessarily true this time round.
Why not?
Both The Guardian's Larry Elliott and the FT's Martin Wolf argue that fears of what a hung parliament might do to Britain's credit rating, gilts market and currency have been much exaggerated.
Recent research by the House of Commons library shows that, of the ten largest fiscal tightenings in OECD countries since 1970, seven of them were pushed through by coalition or minority governments, all of them in Europe.
Any hint that tough decisions were being bottled – as per Harold Wilson in 1974 – would lead to a sell-off in sterling assets. But equally, cross-party support for tough measures might actually make British assets more attractive.
http://www.moneyweek.com/news-and-charts/economics...
Moneyweek, usually worth a read.
JagLover said:
cs02rm0 said:
TankRizzo said:
Why would people want a hung parliament?
Maybe so the bds can't do anything.The electorate don't want either Labour or Tories to win - as we can't see either achieving much.
With a significant percentage wanting a hung parliament it is almost a "that'll show them" attitude from the electorate but as mentioned above it really would do the economy no good.
Sterling has to be the obvious potential casualty - the last thing the currency needs when we are carrying so much debt is lack of leadership. When GBP/USD fell around 4c on March 1st many were laying the blame at weekend polls showing the chances of a hung parliament had increased.
I reckon inflation on the other hand is a potential problem whether hung parliament or not
Sterling has to be the obvious potential casualty - the last thing the currency needs when we are carrying so much debt is lack of leadership. When GBP/USD fell around 4c on March 1st many were laying the blame at weekend polls showing the chances of a hung parliament had increased.
I reckon inflation on the other hand is a potential problem whether hung parliament or not
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff