If so how do you think the capital is going to be repaid ?
Some over the age of 75 should already have had time to pay back two standard mortgages.
When they die the capital is repaid from the value of the house.
So you borrow money promising to repay it after an agreed number of years and when the time comes you say you don't want to repay it until some vague time in the future ?
People need to start taking responsibility for their actions and to meet their financial agreements.
They shouldn't be in the position where they owe £180k on their house when they are in their late 70's, but that is the situation they are in.
From the banks point of view, it is a tricky one. In this case, the couple have not honoured the agreement they made 8 years ago to sell the property. If they are on a low income and are already struggling to afford the repayments, then obviously there is an increasing risk of default as time goes by, so the loan becomes more riskier. And, if it is hard to foreclose on the loan now, it will become even harder the older they get. But ultimately, the bank should be able to get its capital back, but they might need to wait until the couple die, which could be many years in the future.
On the other hand, from the governments point of view, it is better that they stay in the house, otherwise they have to be rehoused by the state at far greater cost than just letting the loan tick over on an interest only basis.
I think the first question should be why the bank advanced a nearly 100% interest only mortgage to a couple of that age over a ten year period.
Then the second question should be, are they still doing utterly cretinous things like this and if so how do we stop them?
It was a repayment mortgage.
The borrowers ran into trouble with the repayments so, rather than throw them out of their home, the bank switched to an interest only deal in return for a contractual commitment that they would sell the house when the mortgage expired in 2015...
Doesn't say that in the Guardian article. What's your source for it?
If so how do you think the capital is going to be repaid ?
Some over the age of 75 should already have had time to pay back two standard mortgages.
But if you have a property worth £1,000,000, why shouldn't you have a £100,000 mortgage on it?
In this particular case, they've already recanted on what they agreed to do ten years ago: get an interest-only mortgage and sell the house to clear the debt at the end - they decided they wanted to keep the house. They've been struggling to make the interest-only payments (they've been getting government assistance).
And, of course, "they" won't die. It's extremely probable that one of them will die first. The survivor will have a significantly reduced income and certainly be unable to meet mortgage payments. And if they refuse to sell up (as they have form for), the bank will be in the position of having to kick out a recently bereaved octogenarian, and the howls from the press and public will be "Why the hell were Santander offering a mortgage - an interest-only mortgage at that - to a couple of septuagenarians with no jobs?" And "Are they really so heartless as to foreclose on a widow/widower when they bent over backwards to encourage them into debt?"
For the amount of money they're paying in interest, they'd be able to get a rental place. Plus the £70k profit they'd make on sale of the house.
Voter suppression is a very dangerous trend, one that threatens the roots of democracy itself. It should be back to the drawing board until a bipartisan way forward is agreed.
There is zero evidence of voter suppression. There is a lot of speculation and scare stories but NO evidence. Plenty of hyperbole but no evidence.
There is plenty of evidence of corrupted electoral rolls, there is plenty of evidence of postal vote fraud. We don't know the scope of the personation problem - but given how easy it is to do, it is far from unreasonable to take steps to make it as difficult as possible.
We have to look at all areas of our voting system. It has to be secure to be democratic. At the moment, it isn't.
Nor, in fact, is it being made as difficult as is possible, it seems. The question is whether the making it a,bit more difficult is reasonable and proportionate.
It is a limited trial in 5 areas. These trials will be assessed and further steps taken. That is a reasonable and proportionate start to tightening up the process.
It is more gerrymandering from the Tories pure and simple.Cheating is fundamental in the Tory psyche.If they can't win fair,they'll win foul.
Voter suppression is a very dangerous trend, one that threatens the roots of democracy itself. It should be back to the drawing board until a bipartisan way forward is agreed.
There is zero evidence of voter suppression. There is a lot of speculation and scare stories but NO evidence. Plenty of hyperbole but no evidence.
There is plenty of evidence of corrupted electoral rolls, there is plenty of evidence of postal vote fraud. We don't know the scope of the personation problem - but given how easy it is to do, it is far from unreasonable to take steps to make it as difficult as possible.
We have to look at all areas of our voting system. It has to be secure to be democratic. At the moment, it isn't.
Nor, in fact, is it being made as difficult as is possible, it seems. The question is whether the making it a,bit more difficult is reasonable and proportionate.
It is a limited trial in 5 areas. These trials will be assessed and further steps taken. That is a reasonable and proportionate start to tightening up the process.
It is more gerrymandering from the Tories pure and simple.Cheating is fundamental in the Tory psyche.If they can't win fair,they'll win foul.
Off topic, but does anyone have a solution to logging into PB on an iPhone 8? I post infrequently and usually on either my Mac or iPad, but whenever I try to log in on my iPhone I get a red Website Not Secure message and am unable to do so. Not being signed in means the comments are up to an hour behind. All software is up to date.
Works fine for me on my iPhone 8, although I access the site purely through politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com
What`s wrong with showing id? You can`t go to a club without id, voting is far more important.
Voting is a right. Going to a club is entering private premises and certainly not a right.
Leaving and re-entering the country, boarding a plane for which you have paid for a ticket, withdrawing money from your bank and 1001 other things are rights which can only be exercised on presentation of ID.
You don’t need to show ID to board a domestic flight. Or use a cashpoint.
They are holding up in the polls largely, I think, because a lot of people are terrified of a Corbyn government. They're certainly not wowing with their competence.
In local elections, are those who are casually supporting the Tories on that basis really going to turn out? Probably not. Labour voters will be more motivated this time.
I'm guessing Tory massacre in London and poor results elsewhere. Tory unrest will increase and the period from now until the summer recess could be incredibly dangerous for TMay (not that anyone else will do any better than her at the moment).
This is my general view as well. Also, any labour leaning folk who are put off by Corbyn need fear nothing, and can vote happily.
Voter suppression is a very dangerous trend, one that threatens the roots of democracy itself. It should be back to the drawing board until a bipartisan way forward is agreed.
There is zero evidence of voter suppression. There is a lot of speculation and scare stories but NO evidence. Plenty of hyperbole but no evidence.
There is plenty of evidence of corrupted electoral rolls, there is plenty of evidence of postal vote fraud. We don't know the scope of the personation problem - but given how easy it is to do, it is far from unreasonable to take steps to make it as difficult as possible.
We have to look at all areas of our voting system. It has to be secure to be democratic. At the moment, it isn't.
There is circumstantial evidence of voter suppression, and that that was its intent; we will know more soon what has happened in the trial areas today. There is evidence from previous elections of electoral fraud via postal votes and expenses but not personation.
Where is that circumstantial evidence? No-one has provided any links to that as far as I have seen. There is plenty of anecdote, speculation and scare story - but no evidence.
The level of ID being asked for in these trials is not demanding in the slightest. In Swindon, for example, you only have to produce your Polling Card. That is not suppressing anyone.
Of course the ultimate example of electoral fraud in British politics is Sinn Fein in the 1918 general election. Having won the majority of seats in what is now Eire, the majority of them using voters in multiple identities, they met as the Dail and declared independence.
Since then with rare exceptions voter fraud has not been a problem. Gerrymandering has been, especially in Northern Ireland, but not outright fraud.
If so how do you think the capital is going to be repaid ?
Some over the age of 75 should already have had time to pay back two standard mortgages.
When they die the capital is repaid from the value of the house.
So you borrow money promising to repay it after an agreed number of years and when the time comes you say you don't want to repay it until some vague time in the future ?
People need to start taking responsibility for their actions and to meet their financial agreements.
They shouldn't be in the position where they owe £180k on their house when they are in their late 70's, but that is the situation they are in.
From the banks point of view, it is a tricky one. In this case, the couple have not honoured the agreement they made 8 years ago to sell the property. If they are on a low income and are already struggling to afford the repayments, then obviously there is an increasing risk of default as time goes by, so the loan becomes more riskier. And, if it is hard to foreclose on the loan now, it will become even harder the older they get. But ultimately, the bank should be able to get its capital back, but they might need to wait until the couple die, which could be many years in the future.
On the other hand, from the governments point of view, it is better that they stay in the house, otherwise they have to be rehoused by the state at far greater cost than just letting the loan tick over on an interest only basis.
I think the first question should be why the bank advanced a nearly 100% interest only mortgage to a couple of that age over a ten year period.
Then the second question should be, are they still doing utterly cretinous things like this and if so how do we stop them?
It was a repayment mortgage.
The borrowers ran into trouble with the repayments so, rather than throw them out of their home, the bank switched to an interest only deal in return for a contractual commitment that they would sell the house when the mortgage expired in 2015...
What`s wrong with showing id? You can`t go to a club without id, voting is far more important.
Voting is a right. Going to a club is entering private premises and certainly not a right.
Leaving and re-entering the country, boarding a plane for which you have paid for a ticket, withdrawing money from your bank and 1001 other things are rights which can only be exercised on presentation of ID.
You don’t need to show ID to board a domestic flight. Or use a cashpoint.
Do you not consider the combination of card and pin number to be some form of ID? Yes, you can give someone your card and tell them your pin number - but that is at your own risk.
Off topic, but does anyone have a solution to logging into PB on an iPhone 8? I post infrequently and usually on either my Mac or iPad, but whenever I try to log in on my iPhone I get a red Website Not Secure message and am unable to do so. Not being signed in means the comments are up to an hour behind. All software is up to date.
Works fine for me on my iPhone 8, although I access the site purely through politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com
If so how do you think the capital is going to be repaid ?
Some over the age of 75 should already have had time to pay back two standard mortgages.
When they die the capital is repaid from the value of the house.
So you borrow money promising to repay it after an agreed number of years and when the time comes you say you don't want to repay it until some vague time in the future ?
People need to start taking responsibility for their actions and to meet their financial agreements.
They shouldn't be in the position where they owe £180k on their house when they are in their late 70's, but that is the situation they are in.
From the banks point of view, it is a tricky one. In this case, the couple have not honoured the agreement they made 8 years ago to sell the property. If they are on a low income and are already struggling to afford the repayments, then obviously there is an increasing risk of default as time goes by, so the loan becomes more riskier. And, if it is hard to foreclose on the loan now, it will become even harder the older they get. But ultimately, the bank should be able to get its capital back, but they might need to wait until the couple die, which could be many years in the future.
On the other hand, from the governments point of view, it is better that they stay in the house, otherwise they have to be rehoused by the state at far greater cost than just letting the loan tick over on an interest only basis.
I think the first question should be why the bank advanced a nearly 100% interest only mortgage to a couple of that age over a ten year period.
Then the second question should be, are they still doing utterly cretinous things like this and if so how do we stop them?
It was a repayment mortgage.
The borrowers ran into trouble with the repayments so, rather than throw them out of their home, the bank switched to an interest only deal in return for a contractual commitment that they would sell the house when the mortgage expired in 2015...
Doesn't say that in the Guardian article. What's your source for it?
The comments under the article (which are very critical of the Guardian for partial reporting)
What`s wrong with showing id? You can`t go to a club without id, voting is far more important.
Voting is a right. Going to a club is entering private premises and certainly not a right.
Leaving and re-entering the country, boarding a plane for which you have paid for a ticket, withdrawing money from your bank and 1001 other things are rights which can only be exercised on presentation of ID.
You don’t need to show ID to board a domestic flight. Or use a cashpoint.
You need photo ID for the first, at least in the uk, and a card of which you know the pin for the second.
They are holding up in the polls largely, I think, because a lot of people are terrified of a Corbyn government. They're certainly not wowing with their competence.
In local elections, are those who are casually supporting the Tories on that basis really going to turn out? Probably not. Labour voters will be more motivated this time.
I'm guessing Tory massacre in London and poor results elsewhere. Tory unrest will increase and the period from now until the summer recess could be incredibly dangerous for TMay (not that anyone else will do any better than her at the moment).
Are you predicting a bad night for the Tories outside London?
If so how do you think the capital is going to be repaid ?
Some over the age of 75 should already have had time to pay back two standard mortgages.
When they die the capital is repaid from the value of the house.
So you borrow money promising to repay it after an agreed number of years and when the time comes you say you don't want to repay it until some vague time in the future ?
People need to start taking responsibility for their actions and to meet their financial agreements.
They shouldn't be in the position where they owe £180k on their house when they are in their late 70's, but that is the situation they are in.
From the banks point of view, it is a tricky one. In this case, the couple have not honoured the agreement they made 8 years ago to sell the property. If they are on a low income and are already struggling to afford the repayments, then obviously there is an increasing risk of default as time goes by, so the loan becomes more riskier. And, if it is hard to foreclose on the loan now, it will become even harder the older they get. But ultimately, the bank should be able to get its capital back, but they might need to wait until the couple die, which could be many years in the future.
On the other hand, from the governments point of view, it is better that they stay in the house, otherwise they have to be rehoused by the state at far greater cost than just letting the loan tick over on an interest only basis.
I think the first question should be why the bank advanced a nearly 100% interest only mortgage to a couple of that age over a ten year period.
Then the second question should be, are they still doing utterly cretinous things like this and if so how do we stop them?
It was a repayment mortgage.
The borrowers ran into trouble with the repayments so, rather than throw them out of their home, the bank switched to an interest only deal in return for a contractual commitment that they would sell the house when the mortgage expired in 2015...
If so how do you think the capital is going to be repaid ?
Some over the age of 75 should already have had time to pay back two standard mortgages.
When they die the capital is repaid from the value of the house.
So you borrow money promising to repay it after an agreed number of years and when the time comes you say you don't want to repay it until some vague time in the future ?
People need to start taking responsibility for their actions and to meet their financial agreements.
They shouldn't be in the position where they owe £180k on their house when they are in their late 70's, but that is the situation they are in.
From the banks point of view, it is a tricky one. In this case, the couple have not honoured the agreement they made 8 years ago to sell the property. If they are on a low income and are already struggling to afford the repayments, then obviously there is an increasing risk of default as time goes by, so the loan becomes more riskier. And, if it is hard to foreclose on the loan now, it will become even harder the older they get. But ultimately, the bank should be able to get its capital back, but they might need to wait until the couple die, which could be many years in the future.
On the other hand, from the governments point of view, it is better that they stay in the house, otherwise they have to be rehoused by the state at far greater cost than just letting the loan tick over on an interest only basis.
I think the first question should be why the bank advanced a nearly 100% interest only mortgage to a couple of that age over a ten year period.
Then the second question should be, are they still doing utterly cretinous things like this and if so how do we stop them?
It was a repayment mortgage.
The borrowers ran into trouble with the repayments so, rather than throw them out of their home, the bank switched to an interest only deal in return for a contractual commitment that they would sell the house when the mortgage expired in 2015...
If so how do you think the capital is going to be repaid ?
Some over the age of 75 should already have had time to pay back two standard mortgages.
But if you have a property worth £1,000,000, why shouldn't you have a £100,000 mortgage on it?
In this particular case, they've already recanted on what they agreed to do ten years ago: get an interest-only mortgage and sell the house to clear the debt at the end - they decided they wanted to keep the house. They've been struggling to make the interest-only payments (they've been getting government assistance).
And, of course, "they" won't die. It's extremely probable that one of them will die first. The survivor will have a significantly reduced income and certainly be unable to meet mortgage payments. And if they refuse to sell up (as they have form for), the bank will be in the position of having to kick out a recently bereaved octogenarian, and the howls from the press and public will be "Why the hell were Santander offering a mortgage - an interest-only mortgage at that - to a couple of septuagenarians with no jobs?" And "Are they really so heartless as to foreclose on a widow/widower when they bent over backwards to encourage them into debt?"
For the amount of money they're paying in interest, they'd be able to get a rental place. Plus the £70k profit they'd make on sale of the house.
So, in summary its a case of someone wanting to stay in a house they can't afford.
If so how do you think the capital is going to be repaid ?
Some over the age of 75 should already have had time to pay back two standard mortgages.
When they die the capital is repaid from the value of the house.
So you borrow money promising to repay it after an agreed number of years and when the time comes you say you don't want to repay it until some vague time in the future ?
People need to start taking responsibility for their actions and to meet their financial agreements.
T
I think the first question should be why the bank advanced a nearly 100% interest only mortgage to a couple of that age over a ten year period.
Then the second question should be, are they still doing utterly cretinous things like this and if so how do we stop them?
It was a repayment mortgage.
The borrowers ran into trouble with the repayments so, rather than throw them out of their home, the bank switched to an interest only deal in return for a contractual commitment that they would sell the house when the mortgage expired in 2015...
Doesn't say that in the Guardian article. What's your source for it?
The comments under the article (which are very critical of the Guardian for partial reporting)
There is a link to the 'eastbourne herald' article which has more detail. They are now saying that they will sell the house when they get to age 85!
Shadsy has brought in NOC and Lab win from 12-1 to 10-1 in Ken and Chel,a 9-2 Dutch.
A seasoned Labour activist who did not want to be named told the Morning Star that the buzz in the area for a Labour campaign has “not been the same” since the 1950 general election.
Well I saw a group of Labour canvassers out in Hastings during the general election which suggested that they were doing better than the papers were saying. Today I saw some Tories out and working. I wonder if the surprise will be the other way around this time.
If so how do you think the capital is going to be repaid ?
Some over the age of 75 should already have had time to pay back two standard mortgages.
But if you have a property worth £1,000,000, why shouldn't you have a £100,000 mortgage on it?
In this particular case, they've already recanted on what they agreed to do ten years ago: get an interest-only mortgage and sell the house to clear the debt at the end - they decided they wanted to keep the house. They've been struggling to make the interest-only payments (they've been getting government assistance).
And, of course, "they" won't die. It's extremely probable that one of them will die first. The survivor will have a significantly reduced income and certainly be unable to meet mortgage payments. And if they refuse to sell up (as they have form for), the bank will be in the position of having to kick out a recently bereaved octogenarian, and the howls from the press and public will be "Why the hell were Santander offering a mortgage - an interest-only mortgage at that - to a couple of septuagenarians with no jobs?" And "Are they really so heartless as to foreclose on a widow/widower when they bent over backwards to encourage them into debt?"
For the amount of money they're paying in interest, they'd be able to get a rental place. Plus the £70k profit they'd make on sale of the house.
So, in summary its a case of someone wanting to stay in a house they can't afford.
Though nearly everyone in London and the SE lives in a house that they couldn't afford if they didn't own it already!
What`s wrong with showing id? You can`t go to a club without id, voting is far more important.
Voting is a right. Going to a club is entering private premises and certainly not a right.
Leaving and re-entering the country, boarding a plane for which you have paid for a ticket, withdrawing money from your bank and 1001 other things are rights which can only be exercised on presentation of ID.
You don’t need to show ID to board a domestic flight. Or use a cashpoint.
You need photo ID for the first, at least in the uk, and a card of which you know the pin for the second.
Depends on the airline. I've never had it checked on BA...
If so how do you think the capital is going to be repaid ?
Some over the age of 75 should already have had time to pay back two standard mortgages.
But if you have a property worth £1,000,000, why shouldn't you have a £100,000 mortgage on it?
In this particular case, they've already recanted on what they agreed to do ten years ago: get an interest-only mortgage and sell the house to clear the debt at the end - they decided they wanted to keep the house. They've been struggling to make the interest-only payments (they've been getting government assistance).
And, of course, "they" won't die. It's extremely probable that one of them will die first. The survivor will have a significantly reduced income and certainly be unable to meet mortgage payments. And if they refuse to sell up (as they have form for), the bank will be in the position of having to kick out a recently bereaved octogenarian, and the howls from the press and public will be "Why the hell were Santander offering a mortgage - an interest-only mortgage at that - to a couple of septuagenarians with no jobs?" And "Are they really so heartless as to foreclose on a widow/widower when they bent over backwards to encourage them into debt?"
For the amount of money they're paying in interest, they'd be able to get a rental place. Plus the £70k profit they'd make on sale of the house.
So, in summary its a case of someone wanting to stay in a house they can't afford.
Though nearly everyone in London and the SE lives in a house that they couldn't afford if they didn't own it already!
I spoke to the ERO at the polling staton today about Voter ID.He has over 40 years of experience in the administration of local authority elections.He said all his career had been spent in encouraging people to vote and now he'd be stopping people from voting.At my polling station there were numerous people without their polling card and who may not have the necessary ID with them who could vote today but would be excluded if Voter ID was introduced nationally.What happened today in the 5 councils involved in the trial means the whole thing is a disaster.I guess the Tories' explanation is that the wrong kind of people were being allowed to vote. My advice to government is to consult with the appropriate local authority election staff and ask people who know what they are talking about and be advised by them for a change.
Anecdotes prove nothing.
Voting should be secure. From point of registration through to the point at which you put your ballot paper into the box and then onwards through the counting and verification process.
Anything that reduces the potential for fraud is thus to be welcomed.
Voter ID works in Northern Ireland and in many other democracies round the world. Why should the rest of the UK be any different at all? Are we inherently more honest? No. Is the system robust enough at the moment? No.
We can argue about the forms of ID necessary - but surely protecting the integrity of the ballot is something everyone can agree on.
I agree to differ.As the Electoral Reform Society said it is a solution looking for a problem in the same manner as "Health Tourism" has been portrayed-both are tiny but made to appear huge by the Tory lie machine.
There are known flaws in our electoral system. To deny that is to deny reality.
Our electoral rolls have been compromised by fraud. Our voting systems are open to fraud - whether or not this is on a huge scale or not doesn't matter. I do not think it is in any way unreasonable to have an electoral system where only the people who are eligible to vote are allowed to vote. We do not have that at present.
Having a secure voter registration system, a secure postal vote system and a secure in-person vote system are essentials for any voting system.
Voter ID is the norm in many European countries. What makes us so different?
Because we do not have ID cards.
Voter suppression is a very dangerous trend, one that threatens the roots of democracy itself. It should be back to the drawing board until a bipartisan way forward is agreed.
Anecdotes prove nothing. Nada. Zilch. Being turned away because you don't have the ID on you at the time is not stopping you from voting. It is just requiring you to go back home and follow the instructions you were sent in the weeks prior to the poll. Exaggerating the situation does nothing to take away from the basic principle of vote security.
Voting should be secure. From point of registration through to the point at which you put your ballot paper into the box and then onwards through the counting and verification process.
Anything that reduces the potential for fraud is thus to be welcomed.
Voter ID works in Northern Ireland and in many other democracies round the world. Why should the rest of the UK be any different at all? Are we inherently more honest? No. Is the system robust enough at the moment? No.
We can argue about the forms of ID necessary - but surely protecting the integrity of the ballot is something everyone can agree on.
I agree to differ.As the Electoral Reform Society said it is a solution looking for a problem in the same manner as "Health Tourism" has been portrayed-both are tiny but made to appear huge by the Tory lie machine.
I remember when people were saying that there was "no serious fraud issues with elections".
Then a group of councillors were arrested by the police in an honest to god vote factory, forging votes.
"no serious fraud in non-local elections"
Then Tower Hamlets happened
"no serious fraud outside local and mayoral elections"
The problem with believing that is that it requires believing the corrupt barstewards who corrupt local and mayoral elections suddenly develop a conscience or something when it comes to national elections. Despite there being no extra safeguards.
It's been sometime since the oft-quoted "banana republic" comments from a judge but we don't seem to have really done anything about it.
The voting ID being trialled today was one of the recommendations that came out of the review of various scandals. Tightening up on the postal votes has been happening in a quiet way, as well.
If you look at Lord Adonis's twitter feed today, he was praising ID cards in a House of Lords debate and then a couple of tweets later he was complaining about them being used in today's elections.
I've had a look at some of the comments now and I still don't absolve the bank of cretinous behaviour. They have an elderly couple struggling to afford a standard mortgage - which in itself begs a number of questions - so they move them to interest only. They as a result have only kicked the can down the road.
They may have acted from the highest of motives but it was still a pretty dumb thing to do - not least, give the real possibility at the time of a collapse in house prices. Better to have sold the house ten years ago when they were younger and better able to deal with the strain it would cause.
I've had a look at some of the comments now and I still don't absolve the bank of cretinous behaviour. They have an elderly couple struggling to afford a standard mortgage - which in itself begs a number of questions - so they move them to interest only. They as a result have only kicked the can down the road.
They may have acted from the highest of motives but it was still a pretty dumb thing to do - not least, give the real possibility at the time of a collapse in house prices. Better to have sold the house ten years ago when they were younger and better able to deal with the strain it would cause.
Banks are frequently cretinous but rarely malicious
What`s wrong with showing id? You can`t go to a club without id, voting is far more important.
Voting is a right. Going to a club is entering private premises and certainly not a right.
Leaving and re-entering the country, boarding a plane for which you have paid for a ticket, withdrawing money from your bank and 1001 other things are rights which can only be exercised on presentation of ID.
You don’t need to show ID to board a domestic flight. Or use a cashpoint.
You need photo ID for the first, at least in the uk, and a card of which you know the pin for the second.
Depends on the airline. BA require something with your name on it if you're checking bags, otherwise they don't require any ID for domestic flights.
If you look at Lord Adonis's twitter feed today, he was praising ID cards in a House of Lords debate and then a couple of tweets later he was complaining about them being used in today's elections.
We've been running an ID requirement for elections for donkeys years in this part of the country and it seems, by and large, soundly functional.
Whilst its likely there have been some administrative system errors I'd stick money on some people simply not turning up with the right stuff, even if they have it available to them. 1. Go back later with the right info, 2. if you are not paying attention, thats not the states problem.
Take those people out and lets then see how many genuine turn aways we got. If its tens of thousands its a problem if its 1000, it really isn't the death of democracy.
I've had a look at some of the comments now and I still don't absolve the bank of cretinous behaviour. They have an elderly couple struggling to afford a standard mortgage - which in itself begs a number of questions - so they move them to interest only. They as a result have only kicked the can down the road.
They may have acted from the highest of motives but it was still a pretty dumb thing to do - not least, give the real possibility at the time of a collapse in house prices. Better to have sold the house ten years ago when they were younger and better able to deal with the strain it would cause.
Banks are frequently cretinous but rarely malicious
They've made things worse though.
I would think some hard-headed realism in 2007 would have served everyone rather better.
I've had a look at some of the comments now and I still don't absolve the bank of cretinous behaviour. They have an elderly couple struggling to afford a standard mortgage - which in itself begs a number of questions - so they move them to interest only. They as a result have only kicked the can down the road.
They may have acted from the highest of motives but it was still a pretty dumb thing to do - not least, give the real possibility at the time of a collapse in house prices. Better to have sold the house ten years ago when they were younger and better able to deal with the strain it would cause.
Banks are frequently cretinous but rarely malicious
They've made things worse though.
I would think some hard-headed realism in 2007 would have served everyone rather better.
No - the couple committed to sell the property. If they had stuck to their deal then we wouldn’t be reading about it today
I thought that last time they got 175, but are defending less because of defections By-elections and so on. I was comparing the losses and gains from last election, but I fully admit I have not checked.
Twitter has warned its 330 million users to change their passwords after a glitch exposed some in plain text on its internal network.
Why the f*** do they even hold passwords in plain text??? It never even occurred to me that any organisation, let alone one with a market cap of $550bn, would be so incompetent as to do that.
Comments
And, of course, "they" won't die. It's extremely probable that one of them will die first. The survivor will have a significantly reduced income and certainly be unable to meet mortgage payments. And if they refuse to sell up (as they have form for), the bank will be in the position of having to kick out a recently bereaved octogenarian, and the howls from the press and public will be "Why the hell were Santander offering a mortgage - an interest-only mortgage at that - to a couple of septuagenarians with no jobs?" And "Are they really so heartless as to foreclose on a widow/widower when they bent over backwards to encourage them into debt?"
For the amount of money they're paying in interest, they'd be able to get a rental place. Plus the £70k profit they'd make on sale of the house.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/vote-labour-twice-general-election-electoral-fraud-21-year-old-man-mohammad-zain-qureshi-wlatham-a8116671.html
and this one
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6131335/a-disgraced-former-labour-councillor-who-was-kicked-out-for-voter-fraud-is-shamelessly-re-standing-in-this-years-local-elections/
and these six
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/apr/05/politics.localgovernment
The level of ID being asked for in these trials is not demanding in the slightest. In Swindon, for example, you only have to produce your Polling Card. That is not suppressing anyone.
Since then with rare exceptions voter fraud has not been a problem. Gerrymandering has been, especially in Northern Ireland, but not outright fraud.
Voting should be easy, not an assault course comprising a series of hoops selected by busybodies in twinsets.
6m6 minutes ago
Told Labour aren't as confident in Wandsworth as previous; more Lib Dem votes than anticipated. Turnout low as expected.
A seasoned Labour activist who did not want to be named told the Morning Star that the buzz in the area for a Labour campaign has “not been the same” since the 1950 general election.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/992142482875015173
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/992143304203612160
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/992143914525216768
My Dad always used to say that banking was a utility - and should be regulated as such
lab +180
LD +20
Con - 50
UKIP -150
I've had a look at some of the comments now and I still don't absolve the bank of cretinous behaviour. They have an elderly couple struggling to afford a standard mortgage - which in itself begs a number of questions - so they move them to interest only. They as a result have only kicked the can down the road.
They may have acted from the highest of motives but it was still a pretty dumb thing to do - not least, give the real possibility at the time of a collapse in house prices. Better to have sold the house ten years ago when they were younger and better able to deal with the strain it would cause.
We've been running an ID requirement for elections for donkeys years in this part of the country and it seems, by and large, soundly functional.
Whilst its likely there have been some administrative system errors I'd stick money on some people simply not turning up with the right stuff, even if they have it available to them. 1. Go back later with the right info, 2. if you are not paying attention, thats not the states problem.
Take those people out and lets then see how many genuine turn aways we got. If its tens of thousands its a problem if its 1000, it really isn't the death of democracy.
...as there was no General Election in 2016...
* I chose not to point out that his firm had 23% Tier 1 capital and a 30% ROCE at the time...
I would think some hard-headed realism in 2007 would have served everyone rather better.
NEW THREAD