Poll: *** 2010 General Election Result & Discussion ***

Who did you vote for?

  • Labour

    Votes: 137 13.9%

  • Conservative

    Votes: 378 38.4%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 304 30.9%

  • UK Independence Party

    Votes: 27 2.7%

  • Green Party

    Votes: 2 0.2%

  • Scottish National Party

    Votes: 10 1.0%

  • British National Party

    Votes: 20 2.0%

  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 1 0.1%

  • DUP

    Votes: 4 0.4%

  • UUP

    Votes: 1 0.1%

  • Sinn Fein

    Votes: 2 0.2%

  • SDLP

    Votes: 3 0.3%

  • Other

    Votes: 16 1.6%

  • Abstain

    Votes: 80 8.1%
  • Total voters
    985
  • Poll closed .
Bar said:
The vast majority of tracker rates are X% above Bank of England base rate - take this from someone who has worked in pretty much every retail bank in the UK.

You can put use your savings to reduce your mortgage balance which will either:

a) reduce the time it takes to pay off the mortgage - assuming your regular payments stay the same.

b) reduce the amount you pay on a monthly basis as the overall balance will be reduced.

Your other option is to offset the interest you would earn on your savings against the interest you would pay on your mortage - a concept introduced by Jim Spowart at Intelligent Finance.

There are lots of ways to effectively manage your money and it depends entirely upon that persons individual situation - there is no "golden method" to most effectively manage money.
Click to expand...

PRECISELY.. THANK YOU!
 
Dolph said:
It can be, because there is the issue of additional cost vs flexibility. Pour all your money into the house and you can't get at it easily in the event of an emergency (because many of the emergencies that would require you to do so can also impede drawing on mortgage equity or getting a loan).

In absolute terms, you are right, in practical terms, there are many reasons for not putting all your apples into one basket.
Click to expand...

http://www.oneaccount.com/onev3/index.shtml

Liquid as you like baby!! And all effectively tax free!


/advert !!!
 
Right, oh dear, so who else had to quickly Wiki "Hung Parliament" :o.

I'm afraid I'm still reading about this - what does it all mean now then? The Lib Dems are open to being coaxed by either side?
 
Greenlizard0 said:
Right, oh dear, so who else had to quickly Wiki "Hung Parliament" :o.

I'm afraid I'm still reading about this - what does it all mean now then? The Lib Dems are open to being coaxed by either side?
Click to expand...

It means the libdems have the power to make any tory vote fail or pass by how the libdems vote.

So they ask for compromise for their votes. So they get some libdem policies in.

If Labour are prepared for BIG compromise, the libdems will form a 'coalition' with them - will vote with Labour on EVERYTHING. Therefore they will beat the tories at EVERY single vote and effectively the tories will have no power at all. Labour wins, albeit with having to compromise to the lib dems.
 
platypus said:
A coalition government worked fine after the Glorious Revolution, it works fine in Germany. I don't see why a coalition would be such a bad thing.
Click to expand...
It would work providing someone can form a workable i.e. 130+ MP coalition. It would be fine if one party was just short of a majority and the lib dems were prepared to join them in government.

However at the moment it looks like a Lib-Lab or a Tory-Unionist coalition and the majorities are going to be so small (possibly not even a majority) as to be unworkable. Every vote is going to rely on non coalition members to pass. This can only dead to deadlock and people like the SNP doing their best to foul things up all the time.
 
Last edited:
britboy4321 said:
Obviously he had good points and bad points.

The people here can't remember the previous tories.

So they think his time here was awful, because they have no form of comparison.

That's like me saying 'Modern cars have rubbish acceleration' without comparing them to anything at all, just kinda saying it! It's a no-sense statement.
Click to expand...
His time here was awful, just as the Conservative term before Labour was awful.
 
Dolph said:
Ouch, that's more than double my current mortgage rate :eek:
Click to expand...

Indeed - thats the problem with a lot of these products.

Ultimately there is nothing wrong with having debt IF it is properly managed. It is mismanaged debt that causes so many issues.
 
Bar said:
Just to confirm this is exactly what I was doing.
Click to expand...

And you worked in the banks?

Teller?

OK, I'll go AS SLOW AS I CAN

1) We all know the difference between mortgages
2) We all know what is taxed and what is not
3) We all know trackers are historically above BOE rates
4) We all know what a savings account is
5) The original bloke was arguing that HIGHER INTEREST RATES ARE GENERALLY BETTER THAN LOWER BECAUSE OF SAVINGS
6) HE said this because he said it was better for his savings, IF he had SAVINGS AND A MORTGAGE
7) His argument didn't factor in his savings tax.
8) His argument fails. With both a mortgage and savings, the higher interest goes, the LESS MONEY he has (if on same interest rate or similar) BECAUSE OF TAX
9) Therefore his argument was fundermentally wrong
10) And he should move his savings money into his mortgage, to AVOID THE TAX


That's it.

Sorry. This is very simple stuff. I thought everyone knew it :/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom