I don't think there is any law to stop them, just banks don't normally offer it. because it carries extra risk for the banks.
I suspect, having not read the artical, that the MP is proposing the banks are forced to offer a product that they do not wish to, which will leave the banks more exposed to down-terns and then the rest of us facing the costs to bail them out.
On topic there is a simple compromise, the council is required to send out polling cards a few weeks before elections which should be kept in a safe place. I know some of them go missing but voters should be encouraged to request a duplicate if it hasn't turned up by 7 days before polling day. People attending the polling stations with the cards, should not normally have to show ID unless the officials have reasonable grounds to suspect that the person may not be the same person as on the card. Everyone turning up without a card should be required to produce ID and proof of address, if they can do that, they should be allowed to vote.
Whilst I agree with the lead that there isn't a problem to solve here, this suggestion doesn't even offer a solution. Anyone running a campaign in an urban area will come across dozens of poll cards lying about in HMOs or in the porch of houses of flats where the tenant has moved on. For anyone wanting to organise personation, taking the card alone as gospel would be no impediment. Indeed using unclaimed poll cards would obviously be the least risky way to go about it.
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.
They have already got an interest only mortgage. The issue is that Santander won't extend it. Given the couples options, it's hard to see why Santander won't extend the mortgage... they'll get their capital back eventually.
I've come across similar problem. I wanted a small loan for a 2nd house. It would have been covered over 5x by the value of my existing house which is mortgage free. Because of my age I could only get an interest free mortgage for a very short period and a repayment mortgage with a short life meaning the monthly repayments of capital were huge. I just want to pay interest. There is a bucket load of capital backing up the loan which will be released sometime in the next 10 - 15 years when I downsize.
I don't think there is any law to stop them, just banks don't normally offer it. because it carries extra risk for the banks.
I suspect, having not read the artical, that the MP is proposing the banks are forced to offer a product that they do not wish to, which will leave the banks more exposed to down-terns and then the rest of us facing the costs to bail them out.
Banks should not be forced.
I would expect, though, that so long as there is sufficient equity in the property, there'll be someone willing to take a risk.
I don't think there is any law to stop them, just banks don't normally offer it. because it carries extra risk for the banks.
I suspect, having not read the artical, that the MP is proposing the banks are forced to offer a product that they do not wish to, which will leave the banks more exposed to down-terns and then the rest of us facing the costs to bail them out.
Well, I have read the article and it looks like the MP is just being a good MP and speaking up for a couple of his constituents who are unhappy with the way their bank is treating them.
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. 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.
They have already got an interest only mortgage. The issue is that Santander won't extend it. Given the couples options, it's hard to see why Santander won't extend the mortgage... they'll get their capital back eventually.
I've come across similar problem. I wanted a small loan for a 2nd house. It would have been covered over 5x by the value of my existing house which is mortgage free. Because of my age I could only get an interest free mortgage for a very short period and a repayment mortgage with a short life meaning the monthly repayments of capital were huge. I just want to pay interest. There is a bucket load of capital backing up the loan which will be released sometime in the next 10 - 15 years when I downsize.
I don't think there is any law to stop them, just banks don't normally offer it. because it carries extra risk for the banks.
I suspect, having not read the artical, that the MP is proposing the banks are forced to offer a product that they do not wish to, which will leave the banks more exposed to down-terns and then the rest of us facing the costs to bail them out.
Banks should not be forced.
I would expect, though, that so long as there is sufficient equity in the property, there'll be someone willing to take a risk.
Like me.
I haven't been following this story and maybe I'm being thick but haven't they heard of equity release?
What`s wrong with showing id? You can`t go to a club without id, voting is far more important.
If it prevents several tens of thousands of additional votes for Corbyn come the GE irrespective of whether the voters were legitimate or not - what's not to like?
I don't think there is any law to stop them, just banks don't normally offer it. because it carries extra risk for the banks.
I suspect, having not read the artical, that the MP is proposing the banks are forced to offer a product that they do not wish to, which will leave the banks more exposed to down-terns and then the rest of us facing the costs to bail them out.
Banks should not be forced.
I would expect, though, that so long as there is sufficient equity in the property, there'll be someone willing to take a risk.
Like me.
I haven't been following this story and maybe I'm being thick but haven't they heard of equity release?
Don't you have to be mortgage-free to initiate equity release?
Edit: fromt the Guardian article: "The couple are said to owe £180,000 on the property, which was worth £250,000 – effectively ruling out downsizing or equity release, which allows people to unlock some of the value tied up in their property."
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.
These measures are really to address what was seen in Tower Hamlets and other areas. I would have preferred that they had sorted postal voting and intimidation near polling stations first, but they had to start somewhere.
IMO the need for ID to use or obtain something indicates how valuable it is. No ID means it is not worth anything. Surely a vote is worth more that borrowing a library book, so the need for ID is reasonable.
This is not a barrier to any community or social class voting - there are routes for everyone to vote. It is a barrier to the lazy or forgetful who just rocked up. Well they'll know next time. Good.
I don't think there is any law to stop them, just banks don't normally offer it. because it carries extra risk for the banks.
I suspect, having not read the artical, that the MP is proposing the banks are forced to offer a product that they do not wish to, which will leave the banks more exposed to down-terns and then the rest of us facing the costs to bail them out.
Banks should not be forced.
I would expect, though, that so long as there is sufficient equity in the property, there'll be someone willing to take a risk.
Like me.
I haven't been following this story and maybe I'm being thick but haven't they heard of equity release?
Don't you have to be mortgage-free to initiate equity release?
Edit: fromt the Guardian article: "The couple are said to owe £180,000 on the property, which was worth £250,000 – effectively ruling out downsizing or equity release, which allows people to unlock some of the value tied up in their property."
You're right. That's what I get for not reading the article. Assuming the valuation is up to date they couldn't borrow enough on those figures.
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.
on topic, I don't really have any great ideological aversion to ID cards and they would be useful for things like voting.
What I had a problem with was Labours national database that went with it. You could see from a mile away that it was a statist, information-gathering exercise that took it too far.
The scandinavian countries I am familiar with have a centralised population registry. So, when you are born you get an ID number, like a national insurance number, which stays with you for life and then applies across all government services as well as your bank, utilities, etc. If you work in those countries for any amount of time, then you are assigned a number, which you keep.
I don't see what is fundamentally wrong with this system. It doesn't have to be backed up with biometrics to work.
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.
Messy. Banks tend to like having life insurance in place - problematic with >75s, though.
Messier than repossesion? - which is what Santander were progressing before the local MP stepped in.
If its allowed doesn't it lead to a big spike in house prices again, as it basically sets out that you'll never need to pay back capital till you're dead lol
I fear it will be mainly the middle one. Differential turnout is key to the results and if this Board is anything to go by the Tories are suffering a serious enthusiasm gap.
Everyone ready for another night of local elections fun on PB?
My first PB election night was 2007 locals so this will be my 11th (including three general elections, AV Ref, one Scot Ref and one EU Ref)
We've all come a long way since 2007.... A lot older, a bit fatter... But not necessarily all that much wiser?
Election night on PB usually consists of endless series of 20 consecutive posts by different people delivering exactly the same piece of news... But I wish all who enjoy that kind of the thing an enjoyable evening. LOL
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. 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.
Everyone ready for another night of local elections fun on PB?
My first PB election night was 2007 locals so this will be my 11th (including three general elections, AV Ref, one Scot Ref and one EU Ref)
We've all come a long way since 2007.... A lot older, a bit fatter... But not necessarily all that much wiser?
Election night on PB usually consists of endless series of 20 consecutive posts by different people delivering exactly the same piece of news... But I wish all who enjoy that kind of the thing an enjoyable evening. LOL
Wonder whether we'll be able to crash Mike's server? Don't think we've had a sever crash since around 10pm on 8th June 2017?
Everyone ready for another night of local elections fun on PB?
My first PB election night was 2007 locals so this will be my 11th (including three general elections, AV Ref, one Scot Ref and one EU Ref)
We've all come a long way since 2007.... A lot older, a bit fatter... But not necessarily all that much wiser?
That was also mine, although mine was the Welsh Assembly Elections. Much water has flowed under (and in the case of Tewkesbury, over) many bridges since then.
I don't think there is any law to stop them, just banks don't normally offer it. because it carries extra risk for the banks.
I suspect, having not read the artical, that the MP is proposing the banks are forced to offer a product that they do not wish to, which will leave the banks more exposed to down-terns and then the rest of us facing the costs to bail them out.
Banks should not be forced.
I would expect, though, that so long as there is sufficient equity in the property, there'll be someone willing to take a risk.
Like me.
Got there first
Not enough equity and, frankly, the couple sound untrustworthy
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. 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.
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?
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 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.
on topic, I don't really have any great ideological aversion to ID cards and they would be useful for things like voting.
What I had a problem with was Labours national database that went with it. You could see from a mile away that it was a statist, information-gathering exercise that took it too far.
The scandinavian countries I am familiar with have a centralised population registry. So, when you are born you get an ID number, like a national insurance number, which stays with you for life and then applies across all government services as well as your bank, utilities, etc. If you work in those countries for any amount of time, then you are assigned a number, which you keep.
I don't see what is fundamentally wrong with this system. It doesn't have to be backed up with biometrics to work.
It wouldn't take a massive leap to turn the NI Number into something like that...
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.
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?
"Voter ID is the norm in many European countries. What makes us so different?"
Well, for one we don't have ID cards. (Personally, I think we should but many on the right seem to object to the suggestion.)
This is the most exciting night of the year for election anoraks.
Just ordered Chinese as a prelude.
Brexit night was a classic. I re-read the whole night's threads a few months ago. Second four figure win in 2 years; then the following day I was at a stag so as the only Leaver. They didn't complain about the magnum of Champers I bought, mind...
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.
Messy. Banks tend to like having life insurance in place - problematic with >75s, though.
Messier than repossesion? - which is what Santander were progressing before the local MP stepped in.
If its allowed doesn't it lead to a big spike in house prices again, as it basically sets out that you'll never need to pay back capital till you're dead lol
It will certainly lead to a riskier financial system, more chance of negative equity and more demands for government hand outs when things go wrong.
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.
This is the most exciting night of the year for election anoraks.
Just ordered Chinese as a prelude.
Brexit night was a classic. I re-read the whole night's threads a few months ago. Second four figure win in 2 years; then the following day I was at a stag so as the only Leaver. They didn't complain about the magnum of Champers I bought, mind...
As I said earlier it's possible one of the main party leaders could be removed from office by tonight's results if they're absolutely catastrophic for their party. That's not what we're expecting at the moment but who knows what will happen once the ballot boxes are opened.
When I was giving my franchise a good seeing to this evening, the queue was longer than I'd expected but on the other hand, capacity was reduced from a general election, so well, I've no idea either.
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.
Balls - these measures are essential to keep fraud as low as possible. Nothing more onerous that is required for many other transactions.
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.
Messy. Banks tend to like having life insurance in place - problematic with >75s, though.
Messier than repossesion? - which is what Santander were progressing before the local MP stepped in.
If its allowed doesn't it lead to a big spike in house prices again, as it basically sets out that you'll never need to pay back capital till you're dead lol
It will certainly lead to a riskier financial system, more chance of negative equity and more demands for government hand outs when things go wrong.
Yes and we can't have it both ways. We can't blame the banks for all our ills and complain about the financial system but also endorse and support easily available credit and risky lending.
Well, we can, but we're talking fantasy economics here.
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?
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.
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. 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.
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.
The first two pages of Guardian comments are supporting the banks...
Generation rent in particular will have absolubtely zero sympathy for people in this predicament.
That's true.
However, @Another_Richard's original post was criticising the MP:
"LibDem MP Stephen Lloyd thinks that people over 75, that's SEVENTY-FIVE, should be able to have interest-only mortgages".
That seems a bit harsh really - as far as I can tell he's only speaking up for a couple of constituents. They may or may not be authors of their own predicament to some degree but Ihope if ever I was in such a predicament my MP would help as far as he could*.
on topic, I don't really have any great ideological aversion to ID cards and they would be useful for things like voting.
What I had a problem with was Labours national database that went with it. You could see from a mile away that it was a statist, information-gathering exercise that took it too far.
The scandinavian countries I am familiar with have a centralised population registry. So, when you are born you get an ID number, like a national insurance number, which stays with you for life and then applies across all government services as well as your bank, utilities, etc. If you work in those countries for any amount of time, then you are assigned a number, which you keep.
I don't see what is fundamentally wrong with this system. It doesn't have to be backed up with biometrics to work.
It wouldn't take a massive leap to turn the NI Number into something like that...
I think everyone should be allocated an IP address when they are born - personal connectivity for all devices linked via biometrics
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. 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.
on topic, I don't really have any great ideological aversion to ID cards and they would be useful for things like voting.
What I had a problem with was Labours national database that went with it. You could see from a mile away that it was a statist, information-gathering exercise that took it too far.
The scandinavian countries I am familiar with have a centralised population registry. So, when you are born you get an ID number, like a national insurance number, which stays with you for life and then applies across all government services as well as your bank, utilities, etc. If you work in those countries for any amount of time, then you are assigned a number, which you keep.
I don't see what is fundamentally wrong with this system. It doesn't have to be backed up with biometrics to work.
It wouldn't take a massive leap to turn the NI Number into something like that...
I think everyone should be allocated an IP address when they are born - personal connectivity for all devices linked via biometrics
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.
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?
"Voter ID is the norm in many European countries. What makes us so different?"
Well, for one we don't have ID cards. (Personally, I think we should but many on the right seem to object to the suggestion.)
The Northern Irish Voter ID system works. I would have no problem in carrying a Electoral Identity Card - available free of charge and not used in any other context. It is not an ID card, it is just a form ID like a gym card or a library card.
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.
I first really became interested in politics in the 2010 GE campaign. Tories should be worried - if I grow bored of politics their run of being at least the top party will surely end.
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).
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.
Labour probably need a good turnout in London to hit their expectations.
Its a bit hard to build up much enthusiasm for the results night, I have only a few quid invested with Shadsy.
The extinction of UKIP and where those votes go is the main interest, I suppose.
What's more exciting that results night if you're interested in politics? I know a general election or a referendum would be more interesting than local elections.
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...
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.
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.
You have to consider that the losers from this are most likely to be the Tories because older voters are less likely to have ID. This is the right thing to do, it doesn't matter which party loses out.
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.
Labour probably need a good turnout in London to hit their expectations.
Its a bit hard to build up much enthusiasm for the results night, I have only a few quid invested with Shadsy.
The extinction of UKIP and where those votes go is the main interest, I suppose.
What's more exciting that results night if you're interested in politics? I know a general election or a referendum would be more interesting than local elections.
The way things are going, we might get both fairly soon...
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).
My wife and I were voting yellow - she didn't bother in end.
I nearly didn't and then decided to go but changed my mind several times in booth lol.
The first two pages of Guardian comments are supporting the banks...
Generation rent in particular will have absolubtely zero sympathy for people in this predicament.
That's true.
However, @Another_Richard's original post was criticising the MP:
"LibDem MP Stephen Lloyd thinks that people over 75, that's SEVENTY-FIVE, should be able to have interest-only mortgages".
That seems a bit harsh really - as far as I can tell he's only speaking up for a couple of constituents. They may or may not be authors of their own predicament to some degree but Ihope if ever I was in such a predicament my MP would help as far as he could*.
(*I doubt he would - he's a Tory. )
I disagree - people need to take some responsibility for their own actions and that includes not only people who have borrowed money they can't pay back but also politicians with which causes they chose to support.
MPs should not be defending every sort of financial idiocy their constituents indulge in.
Not least because it encourages still further such behaviour.
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.
Comments
I suspect, having not read the artical, that the MP is proposing the banks are forced to offer a product that they do not wish to, which will leave the banks more exposed to down-terns and then the rest of us facing the costs to bail them out.
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.
I would expect, though, that so long as there is sufficient equity in the property, there'll be someone willing to take a risk.
Like me.
Mortgage translates as "Death grip" as I recall.
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.
Edit: fromt the Guardian article: "The couple are said to owe £180,000 on the property, which was worth £250,000 – effectively ruling out downsizing or equity release, which allows people to unlock some of the value tied up in their property."
Then after a spot of dinner and washing up decided to do my civic duty.
Voted for the party promising weekly bin collections round here.
IMO the need for ID to use or obtain something indicates how valuable it is. No ID means it is not worth anything. Surely a vote is worth more that borrowing a library book, so the need for ID is reasonable.
This is not a barrier to any community or social class voting - there are routes for everyone to vote. It is a barrier to the lazy or forgetful who just rocked up. Well they'll know next time. Good.
Green -4
Others -18
The other twenty don't exist at the moment but are magically created.
Probably should adjust for that.
Let's say
Labour +130
Cons -94
LD+1
Everyone ready for another night of local elections fun on PB?
My first PB election night was 2007 locals so this will be my 11th (including three general elections, AV Ref, one Scot Ref and one EU Ref)
We've all come a long way since 2007.... A lot older, a bit fatter... But not necessarily all that much wiser?
I think it will be low, but don't now what finger
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/992124225820528640
People need to start taking responsibility for their actions and to meet their financial agreements.
I don't see what is fundamentally wrong with this system. It doesn't have to be backed up with biometrics to work.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/british-man-who-never-even-12465021.amp
But borrowing money and then attempting to not repay it as per the agreed terms is rather different.
Not enough equity and, frankly, the couple sound untrustworthy
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?
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.
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.
Well, for one we don't have ID cards. (Personally, I think we should but many on the right seem to object to the suggestion.)
Brexit night was a classic. I re-read the whole night's threads a few months ago. Second four figure win in 2 years; then the following day I was at a stag so as the only Leaver. They didn't complain about the magnum of Champers I bought, mind...
Well, we can, but we're talking fantasy economics here.
Then the second question should be, are they still doing utterly cretinous things like this and if so how do we stop them?
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.
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.
However, @Another_Richard's original post was criticising the MP:
"LibDem MP Stephen Lloyd thinks that people over 75, that's SEVENTY-FIVE, should be able to have interest-only mortgages".
That seems a bit harsh really - as far as I can tell he's only speaking up for a couple of constituents. They may or may not be authors of their own predicament to some degree but Ihope if ever I was in such a predicament my MP would help as far as he could*.
(*I doubt he would - he's a Tory.
The extinction of UKIP and where those votes go is the main interest, I suppose.
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).
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...
I nearly didn't and then decided to go but changed my mind several times in booth lol.
Weekly bin collections swung it for me :-)
MPs should not be defending every sort of financial idiocy their constituents indulge in.
Not least because it encourages still further such behaviour.