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 .
Squark said:
That seems to be the case at the mo
Click to expand...

britboy4321 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do you mean for this election or issues in the future that crop up as time goes by? :confused:

I don't understand something else. If a side needs to reach 326, and the Tories are at 291 with 621/650 seats results in, why is Parliament hung when they could still get to the required number?

Also by the fact that 326 needs to be reached, the the Lib Dems (52) siding with Labour (251) won't be enough. Can they only team up with the Tories on 291?
 
badcompany said:
lucky bugger :)
Click to expand...

For now, depending who gets in, Cons want to increase the base rate (were tracking at 0.5% as wor lass works for a bank and gets the exact base rate)

Were actually paying 3.5% off our own backs just in case an increase came along or she wanted to leave the bank so were used to paying around normal fees. (so were paying it off quicker till an increase)

Seems a smart move, I just nod, agree, and pay, let her deal with the details.
 
badcompany said:
I am still paying the 5% that it was when I took it out and I bet it will stay <3% until 2012
Click to expand...

We were on 5.5% and we bailed out last year, cost us £700, but worth it in the long run, we also thought of 2 more years at a reduced rate.
 
britboy4321 said:
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 :/
Click to expand...

As a business analyst, process analyst, process architect and lead consultant - working with a significant number of product development, credit risk and strategy teams - but what do titles have to do with knowledge.

Your argument is very much a theoretical one and does have some merits. However for the majority of people the decision will be based upon a number of factors: monthly cashflow, personal situation, plans and the amount of savings to name but a few.

If, for example, the OP has £15,000 in succesive ISAs are you telling me that he would be better off putting that into his mortgage?

For the vast majority of people with savings higher interest rates are better - up to a certain point. Your argument also fails to take into account fixed rate mortgages.

If you noticed I was talking in general terms and not focusing on a single specific example. Your post intimated that your theory and argument was "the" only way to manage savings and debt. I simply pointed out that it was not.
 
Greenlizard0 said:
Do you mean for this election or issues in the future that crop up as time goes by? :confused:

I don't understand something else. If a side needs to reach 326, and the Tories are at 291 with 621/650 seats results in, why is Parliament hung when they could still get to the required number?

Also by the fact that 326 needs to be reached, the the Lib Dems (52) siding with Labour (251) won't be enough. Can they only team up with the Tories on 291?
Click to expand...

Any issues for the next 5 years.

Either

1) The libdems will say 'We will vote for each issue individually how we feel is best'

or

2) They will say 'Any government that impliments some of our MASSIVE policies, they can have all our votes for 5 years'


The party that doesnt deal with the libdems will have no power at all if (2) is chosen. If (1) is chosen EVERY bit of legislation will involve talking to the libdems.
 
britboy4321 said:
Interest rates are mentally low, it's been awesome for mortgage holders.

All I can say is 'thanks Labour'. Fantastic.
Click to expand...

what about all those people who cannot get a mortgage due to the fact not many people cannot afford the deposit, who do you know that have a deposit of 15 - 25 k sitting around in there pocket. dont tell me about saving, cause it would take the average job holder on a current wage about 5 - 6 years of heavy savings to get that amount of money. some of the fact is due to poor money handling, and not keeping up with payments of 100% mortgages. but i can't see me voting labour ever, and thats why im out!
 
Greenlizard0 said:
Also by the fact that 326 needs to be reached, the the Lib Dems (52) siding with Labour (251) won't be enough.
Click to expand...

Remember the Libs have an extra Alliance seat in NI, and Labour have 3 extra seats in the SDLP in NI. Assuming they get 13 of the remaining seats that would give a Lib-Lab partnership 320 seats which is a de facto majority once Sinn Fein and the Speaker+Deputies have been accounted for.

The Tories + DUP, on the other hand, look likely to muster ~314 seats, which would mean minority government rule.
 
Bar said:
If you noticed I was talking in general terms and not focusing on a single specific example. Your post intimated that your theory and argument was "the" only way to manage savings and debt. I simply pointed out that it was not.
Click to expand...

OK cool. I was just talking about the situation the bloke presented me with.

His premise ---> Money in savings (not ISA), and money remaining on mortgage. Same interest rate. The higher the interest, the better.

It was that I disagreed with.

/end of that argument
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom