The lessons of the US ratings-cut are sufficient to ensure there's no let up in these.
Actually, S&P has stated it has no preference on the balance of cuts to tax increases. In fact, the main reason they lowered America's rating was because they had little confidence that the U.S. would ever be able to come to some sort of compromise to lower the deficit.
If anything, S&P supports increasing the balance in favor of more taxes, as indicated by this sentence in the report outlining their reasoning for the downgrade, "On the other hand, as our upside scenario highlights, if the recommendations of the Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction--independently or coupled with other initiatives, such as the lapsing of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners--lead to fiscal consolidation measures beyond the minimum mandated, and we believe they are likely to slow the deterioration of the government's debt dynamics, the long-term rating could stabilize at 'AA+'.
You can read the reasoning for the downgrade from S&P itself right here:
http://tinyurl.com/44xrv4f (It's a pdf, and you only need to read the first two pages
So, in the U.K, the extent of the cuts could be decreased and replaced by higher taxes. In particular, I favor an increased corporation tax as corporate profits have surged over the past two years, but hiring has not. This of course indicates that we could more heavily tax companies with very little effect on hiring.
In regards to the rioting in London, this is just more evidence that eugenics policies are direly needed.
(Sorry for going a bit off-topic there, but I wasn't going to let that go unchallenged.

)