Could people REALLY lose all their savings?

2010

Here`s where a lot of your hard earned goes:

It revealed that of the £2.1 trillion assets under management in the UK, £67.2bn a year (3.2 per cent) went on management charges - with the most being spent on wages and bonuses for traders and fund managers.
For their services, a fund manager will expect an average of about 1.5 per cent a year on the sum invested, but additional hidden expenses average 0.3 per cent a year and trading costs cut a further 1.4 per cent off an investment.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2075735/High-hidden-charges-City-fees-leaving-pensioners-savers-worse-off.html

GeorgeHowell

longleggedhair wrote: »

I am just relieved we dont have a labour government signing blank cheques to our european "allies".

You and me both.

Nobody who has sufficient interest in the health of their personal finances to read this forum should be voting Labour.

jamesd

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Nobody who has sufficient interest in the health of their personal finances to read this forum should be voting Labour.

I don't agree. It's key that we're wiling to throw out politicians who don't do what they should, so even strong supporters of the parties in the current government should consider voting against one or both of the parties involved to send a clear message. The same applied to Labour supporters in the last two elections who could have voted against Labour if they disliked some policies or practices, like perhaps the war in Iraq.

Those who are here should instead be active swing voters, participating in all possible elections and looking to actively maximise the effect of their votes. That can include things like voting for different parties at the same time in local and national elections, not just voting on party lines.

GeorgeHowell

jamesd wrote: »

I don't agree. It's key that we're wiling to throw out politicians who don't do what they should, so even strong supporters of the parties in the current government should consider voting against one or both of the parties involved to send a clear message. The same applied to Labour supporters in the last two elections who could have voted against Labour if they disliked some policies or practices, like perhaps the war in Iraq.

Those who are here should instead be active swing voters, participating in all possible elections and looking to actively maximise the effect of their votes. That can include things like voting for different parties at the same time in local and national elections, not just voting on party lines.

Labour is inherently unfit to govern. It has never missed an opportunity to demonstrate this.

talexuser

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Labour is inherently unfit to govern. It has never missed an opportunity to demonstrate this.

None of the parties are fit to govern. Labour only ever gets in when people are sick of the Tories mucking it up and vice versa.

jamesd

It's Labour that started on increasing state pension ages and reducing the costs of pensions for public sector workers, beating many European countries and even more the US on doing that bit of long term financial housekeeping. So that's one point to counter the "never" part of your claim. Now if you'd written often it'd have been harder to counter...

talexuser

And let us not forget Osbourne's visit to Ireland in 2006.

quote
"Ireland stands as a shining example of the art of the possible in economic policy-making….With its vision of a highly- educated, innovative, open, dynamic, low-tax economy and relentless focus on the long-term drivers of prosperity, Ireland’s economic miracle has shown that it has the answers to the challenges of the new global economy.”

There's a man with all the answers.:)

Derivative

If all of the UK banks collapse, noone would want to do business in the UK and the currency would be worthless.

The FSCS guarantee is good for if one or two banks go under. If the whole system goes, it's pretty much irrelevant whether it works or not. Money without banks is utterly worthless.

longleggedhair

jamesd wrote: »

It's Labour that started on increasing state pension ages and reducing the costs of pensions for public sector workers, beating many European countries and even more the US on doing that bit of long term financial housekeeping. So that's one point to counter the "never" part of your claim. Now if you'd written often it'd have been harder to counter...

I could not agree with George more, every Labour government that has ever exaisted EVERY SINGLE ONE has left office with the public finances in disarray, and the last one has left debts so huge that future generations will be lumbered with their mess for decades. As George says everyone who has a brain cell should NEVER trust them. As my grandad always said "Let the rich vote Labour they are the only ones who can afford to"

Glen_Clark

longleggedhair wrote: »

I could not agree with George more, every Labour government that has ever exaisted EVERY SINGLE ONE has left office with the public finances in disarray,"

When ANY government leaves office, you find the finances are in disarray.
They don't get voted out if the finances are doing well!