The Truth about Nick Clegg

[Barry the Badger]

I think you're very wrong on this, only today at work i converted someone from voteing Liberal by telling her some of their policies. The Liberals are riding high not on what they stand for, but because Clegg did well in a beauty contest.

 

Which ones did you tell her, out of interest?

[dune]

Which ones did you tell her, out of interest?

 

Scrapping the pound, giving more powers to Brussels, and the open door immigration policy and amnesty for illegal immigrants.

[John B]

Scrapping the pound, giving more powers to Brussels, and the open door immigration policy and amnesty for illegal immigrants.

 

So what is wrong with entering the Euro if circumstances are right but I dont really know there immigration policy but the amnesty seems a little far fetched I agree.

[dune]

So what is wrong with entering the Euro if circumstances are right but I dont really know there immigration policy but the amnesty seems a little far fetched I agree.

 

- No nuclear detterent under the Liberals is another madcap policy. Do we simply let Iran and North Korea overtake us and if the **** hit's the fan go and sort out some nukes of our own? That's what the Liberals are endorsing. We might not rule the world anymore but we're still a nation that packs a punch - do we simply bow out of our gloabl OBLIGATION and become a nation like Switzerland?

 

If you look past Clegg and look at the policies of the Liberals they are the policies of a party unfit for office in any capacity.

[Barry the Badger]

Scrapping the pound, giving more powers to Brussels, and the open door immigration policy and amnesty for illegal immigrants.

 

...and I am sure you presented these policies to her in a fair and unbiased way to help her decide.

 

Find me an example of the Lib Dems saying there will be an 'open door immigration policy'.

[pedg]

- No nuclear detterent under the Liberals is another madcap policy.

 

You appear to be mistaking not renewing trident with having no nuclear deterrent.

[Joensuu]

- No nuclear detterent under the Liberals is another madcap policy. Do we simply let Iran and North Korea overtake us and if the **** hit's the fan go and sort out some nukes of our own? That's what the Liberals are endorsing. We might not rule the world anymore but we're still a nation that packs a punch - do we simply bow out of our gloabl OBLIGATION and become a nation like Switzerland?

 

If you look past Clegg and look at the policies of the Liberals they are the policies of a party unfit for office in any capacity.

 

Firstly, the Lib Dems are not arguing for 'no nuclear deterrent'.

 

Even if they were, what use is a nuclear deterrent in today's world. Under what circumstances would the UK be squaring up to North Korea or Iran alone? And if bizarrely we were to be acting unilaterally, why would us re-developing nukes help the situation - do you really think that would make either country think twice? Do you think they care about their own people enough not to take the risk? Quite simply, our nuclear arsenal has no military purpose, it's not going to deter any real threat (it'll hardly help prevent a backpack being detonated, but it might go a long way towards attracting the attention of a person carrying a backpack when they are selecting their target). If anything I'd argue that having nuclear capacity in the modern world actually increases the chances that we will be a target, but does nothing to help protect us.

 

We only 'pack a punch' because we focus such a high proportion of our spending towards the MoD (to the detriment of our schools and hospitals).

 

What is this 'OBLIGATION' of which you speak? To whom are we obliged?

 

I for one wish the Lib Dems were braver, and actually calling to scrap our nuclear deterrent.

 

Oh and FWIW, I think Sweden or Norway are a better examples of countries that work well without needing to be able to wipe out 'enemy' cities at the touch of a button.

[Thedelldays]

high proportion of spending to the MoD..?

 

isnt it at a low point per % of the GDP..?

[Johnny Bognor]

high proportion of spending to the MoD..?

 

isnt it at a low point per % of the GDP..?

 

Indeed, 67th in the world ranking and less than notable countries like France, Russia, USA and Greece (FFS).

[pedg]

Indeed, 67th in the world ranking and less than notable countries like France, Russia, USA and Greece (FFS).

 

If only there was a way of spending more money on the armed forces without increase our defence spending? I am sure there must be some area we could get the money from but I am too busy building my nuclear fallout shelter for when the Chinese attack to try and figure out where.....

[badgerx16]

It is still the case that the ONLY country ever to have used a nuclear weapon in anger is the USofA. Germany, Spain, Italy, Japan, etc, do not have their own independent nuclear capability. It's about time we stopped living in the past - our days of being a world power are long gone, and the only reason the UK & France have permanent seats at the UN Security Council is because of the outcome of WW2, ( and God knows why the Frogs deserved their seat at all ).

[Thedelldays]

It is still the case that the ONLY country ever to have used a nuclear weapon in anger is the USofA. Germany, Spain, Italy, Japan, etc, do not have their own independent nuclear capability. It's about time we stopped living in the past - our days of being a world power are long gone, and the only reason the UK & France have permanent seats at the UN Security Council is because of the outcome of WW2, ( and God knows why the Frogs deserved their seat at all ).

 

 

more states are developing nulcear weapons

more states are trying to buy weapons of mass destruction

more states WITH such weapons ARE becoming unstable

 

the world is probably more fragile now than it was during the latter end of the cold war

 

so what do you want to do...ditch our ultimate insurance policy..

 

No thanks IMO

[Joensuu]

high proportion of spending to the MoD..?

 

isnt it at a low point per % of the GDP..?

 

Depends how you want to look at it. It is indeed a low point in terms of the percentage of GDP the MoD has had at it's disposal in the past, but I still see plenty of room for further reductions. I think it best to compare us to some the other larger economies to see what percentage of GDP we spend of defence:

 

USA 4%

UK 2.4%

France 2.3%

China 2%

Australia 1.9%

Italy 1.8%

Brazil 1.5%

Germany 1.3%

Canada 1.2%

Spain 1.2%

Japan 0.9%

 

Source: 2008 Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

[Johnny Bognor]

The funny thing is that the Blib Dumbs are talking about scrapping trident, presumably to win the student vote (and the odd poster on here).

 

However, in the last 24 hours it is clear that they are not anti-nuclear afterall. They want to replace trident with a fully uncosted replacement. Therefore, how can they claim to save £100bn (which is spread over 25 years BTW) when they have not factored in the cost of the replacement system.

 

They have also not considered that a new system would need testing, either breaking the treaty on nuclear testing or building a system that does not work which or could eventually cost even more than trident.

[Joensuu]

more states are developing nulcear weapons

more states are trying to buy weapons of mass destruction

more states WITH such weapons ARE becoming unstable

 

.. and how will nukes help us defend against this? If a crazed despot who happily murders his own were to get a nuke, why would he be be deterred from firing first? And if he/she did, would we really fire back?

 

the world is probably more fragile now than it was during the latter end of the cold war

 

so what do you want to do...ditch our ultimate insurance policy..

 

No thanks IMO

 

Fragile, perhaps, but not in a way that nuclear weapons will be of any benefit. Our risk comes from individuals and groups, not from states. Perhaps if you were arguing for more spending on Intelligence or the SAS you'd have a point - but Nukes don't serve any purpose in the world today.

[Thedelldays]

The funny thing is that the Blib Dumbs are talking about scrapping trident, presumably to win the student vote (and the odd poster on here).

 

However, in the last 24 hours it is clear that they are not anti-nuclear afterall. They want to replace trident with a fully uncosted replacement. Therefore, how can they claim to save £100bn (which is spread over 25 years BTW) when they have not factored in the cost of the replacement system.

 

They have also not considered that a new system would need testing, either breaking the treaty on nuclear testing or building a system that does not work which or could eventually cost even more than trident.

 

 

agree..the current system is in place, the know how is there...it works and is probably the best option (tactically)

 

where does it say it will cost £100bn..?

[Thedelldays]

but Nukes don't serve any purpose in the world today.

 

 

really, then why are more states trying to develop them..?

why are the taliban desperately trying to get more control in pakistan

why are Iran/north korea trying to build them..?

 

why, if nukes today are pointless..?

what happens if russia turns hostile again..? (which is a real possibility)

[Johnny Bognor]

Depends how you want to look at it. It is indeed a low point in terms of the percentage of GDP the MoD has had at it's disposal in the past, but I still see plenty of room for further reductions. I think it best to compare us to some the other larger economies to see what percentage of GDP we spend of defence:

 

USA 4%

UK 2.4%

France 2.3%

China 2%

Australia 1.9%

Italy 1.8%

Brazil 1.5%

Germany 1.3%

Canada 1.2%

Spain 1.2%

Japan 0.9%

 

Source: 2008 Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

 

But this doesn't factor that much of our expenditure is spent with the UK defence industry (which also happens to be the world's second largest exporter of equipment), meaning that our expenditure is re-cylced into the UK private sector economy.

 

Much of the expenditure in the other countries listed (USA excluded), is spent on importing such equipment from the likes of the UK.

 

Therefore, the overall net effect means that the true 'cost' to us, is far less than the true cost to these other countries.

[Joensuu]

The funny thing is that the Blib Dumbs are talking about scrapping trident, presumably to win the student vote (and the odd poster on here).

 

However, in the last 24 hours it is clear that they are not anti-nuclear afterall. They want to replace trident with a fully uncosted replacement. Therefore, how can they claim to save £100bn (which is spread over 25 years BTW) when they have not factored in the cost of the replacement system.

 

They have also not considered that a new system would need testing, either breaking the treaty on nuclear testing or building a system that does not work which or could eventually cost even more than trident.

 

Perhaps, just perhaps, the Lib Dem review will determine that we don't need a 'deterrent' anyhow... The review might be just enough to get past a few knuckle-headed voters who want our country to rambo up - but then most of them will vote BNP of UKIP anyhow, so I guess it doesn't matter.

[Johnny Bognor]

agree..the current system is in place, the know how is there...it works and is probably the best option (tactically)

 

where does it say it will cost £100bn..?

 

The Blib Dumbs scrapping it will save £100bn over the next 25 years

 

Next they'll be importing French tank gearboxes with no forward gears

[Thedelldays]

The Blib Dumbs scrapping it will save £100bn over the next 25 years

didnt used to quoted at around £40bn or so..?

 

ahh, just read a report claiming it would cost £75-100bn between now and 2055+

[Joensuu]

really, then why are more states trying to develop them..?

why are the taliban desperately trying to get more control in pakistan

why are Iran/north korea trying to build them..?

 

why, if nukes today are pointless..?

what happens if russia turns hostile again..? (which is a real possibility)

 

It's all about scale TDD. If you are a small country determined not to be push around by the big kids nukes give you some muscle. But if you are a large economy who has friends with nukes there really is little point in retaining your own.

 

If Russia turns hostile:

 

1) Why would we alone be facing them?

2) Are they more likely to nuke us if we have nukes or if we don't?

3) Are they more likely to trust us and not become hostile if we don't have nukes?

 

I can't remember the exact numbers, but wasn't the UK estimate something like 2 days (with nukes) that we could last out against a full on Russian attack (without US support). Oh no, if we didn't have nukes we might only hold out 30 hours instead...

[Thedelldays]

It's all about scale TDD. If you are a small country determined not to be push around by the big kids nukes give you some muscle. But if you are a large economy who has friends with nukes there really is little point in retaining your own.

 

If Russia turns hostile:

 

1) Why would we alone be facing them?

2) Are they more likely to nuke us if we have nukes or if we don't?

3) Are they more likely to trust us and not become hostile if we don't have nukes?

 

I can't remember the exact numbers, but wasn't the UK estimate something like 2 days (with nukes) that we could last out against a full on Russian attack (without US support). Oh no, if we didn't have nukes we might only hold out 30 hours instead...

 

might as well ditch the whole defence thingy all togther as we probably would get out numbered by many nations these days..

 

in answer to your questions

 

1. dont know

2. dont know

3. dont know

 

and for those very reasons..it would be stupid (imo) to ditch trident..

[Joensuu]

But this doesn't factor that much of our expenditure is spent with the UK defence industry (which also happens to be the world's second largest exporter of equipment), meaning that our expenditure is re-cylced into the UK private sector economy.

 

Much of the expenditure in the other countries listed (USA excluded), is spent on importing such equipment from the likes of the UK.

 

Therefore, the overall net effect means that the true 'cost' to us, is far less than the true cost to these other countries.

 

Not sure I understand how cutting trident will have an impact on the UK arms industry. They will still be able to produce their weapons for multiple countries to buy (including the MoD). Also scrapping Trident would mostly have an impact on that big British company, er, Lockhead Martin... er

[dune]

NICK CLEGG SAYS LET ISLAM PRAYER CALLS RING

 

THE Lib Dem leader is in favour of mosques being able to broadcast calls to prayer from loudspeakers in towns and cities across Britain.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/170893/General-Election-2010-Nick-Clegg-says-Let-Islam-prayer-call-ring-

[Joensuu]

might as well ditch the whole defence thingy all togther as we probably would get out numbered by many nations these days..

 

Ay, if it came down to numbers, last I saw we were 22nd... (with the 3rd/4th highest spending).

 

in answer to your questions

 

1. dont know

2. dont know

3. dont know

 

and for those very reasons..it would be stupid (imo) to ditch trident..

 

Well, I'm certain that 'not knowing' isn't really a good foundation to spend money on something. Surely, the very fact you 'don't know' suggests we should not waste the cash?

[Thedelldays]

 

Ay, if it came down to numbers, last I saw we were 22nd... (with the 3rd/4th highest spending).

 

in answer to your questions

 

1. dont know

2. dont know

3. dont know

 

and for those very reasons..it would be stupid (imo) to ditch trident..

 

Well, I'm certain that 'not knowing' isn't really a good foundation to spend money on something. Surely, the very fact you 'don't know' suggests we should not waste the cash?

Actually. It is the only foundation in spending government cash. Especially in defence.

[Johnny Bognor]

Not sure I understand how cutting trident will have an impact on the UK arms industry. They will still be able to produce their weapons for multiple countries to buy (including the MoD). Also scrapping Trident would mostly have an impact on that big British company, er, Lockhead Martin... er

 

My point related to your point regarding the expenditure on arms and how we compare to other nations. In terms of spending as a %age of GDP, ours is low in the world ranking and when considering that it also supports a defence industry, the true cost of our defence spending is even lower than many other western countries.

 

In terms of the defence industry, cutting trident would not impact that, but you can't say cutting x will save £££££ and we will replace it with y which is uncosted. Scrambled Egg is not being honest with us, is he?

 

Even St Vincent's halo has slipped in the last few days.

 

Give someone enough rope.......

[Joensuu]

NICK CLEGG SAYS LET ISLAM PRAYER CALLS RING

 

THE Lib Dem leader is in favour of mosques being able to broadcast calls to prayer from loudspeakers in towns and cities across Britain.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/170893/General-Election-2010-Nick-Clegg-says-Let-Islam-prayer-call-ring-

 

Ha, no quote from Clegg I see... Wonder why, oh, yeah, because he was actually reacting to a crazy comment by the Bishop of Rochester in the Telegraph, on January 6 2008, who said "those of a different faith or race may find it difficult to live or work [in such areas] because of hostility to them." And also that had been attempts to "impose" an "Islamic character" on certain areas in Britain, "for example, by amplifying the call to prayer from mosques."

 

So what was Nick's reaction to the Bishop?

 

Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats political party, also criticized the bishop's statements, describing his words as "a gross caricature of reality."

 

So not really 'hey let's introduce megaphones and the call to prayer' is it?

[Joensuu]

Actually. It is the only foundation in spending government cash. Especially in defence.

 

I don't know which car to buy, I'd best get the most expensive top of the range one, because if I don't er, I just don't know what might happen...

 

Surely defence spending should be based on an assessment of risk - as nukes don't help to mitigate against any risk, why waste the money, and make ourselfs a bigger target in the process?

[dune]

CLEG FLEW ECONOMY BUT TOOK BUSINESS CLASS FARES FROM EU

 

Asked if he had kept the extra cash, which came from EU taxpayers, Mr Clegg added: 'No, what I actually did was I put that money aside, didn't pocket it myself. I used it for my office in Nottingham and so on.'

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1268147/General-Election-2010-Nick-Clegg-flew-economy-took-business-class-fares-EU.html#ixzz0lv6z5NFI

[Joensuu]

My point related to your point regarding the expenditure on arms and how we compare to other nations. In terms of spending as a %age of GDP, ours is low in the world ranking and when considering that it also supports a defence industry, the true cost of our defence spending is even lower than many other western countries.

 

In terms of the defence industry, cutting trident would not impact that, but you can't say cutting x will save £££££ and we will replace it with y which is uncosted. Scrambled Egg is not being honest with us, is he?

 

Even St Vincent's halo has slipped in the last few days.

 

Give someone enough rope.......

 

Our miliatary spending % of GDP is only lowish (67th out of 200) on the list of countries because the list includes about 50 small miliary dictatorships, in which generals desperately ramp up miliary spending to keep themselves in the hot seat. As such once you take these countries out, then take out countries such as South Korea & India who have miliarry problems with their neighbours, our spending is actually very high.

 

Who is saying cut trident and replace with Y? I'm calling for scrapping it all together. Nick Clegg is calling for a review of trident (neither scrap nor replace).

[badgerx16]

NICK CLEGG SAYS LET ISLAM PRAYER CALLS RING

 

THE Lib Dem leader is in favour of mosques being able to broadcast calls to prayer from loudspeakers in towns and cities across Britain.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/170893/General-Election-2010-Nick-Clegg-says-Let-Islam-prayer-call-ring-

Dune, sooner or later you will come to realise that the Express does, on the odd occasion, modify reality slightly to suit it's 'bandwagon of the moment".

[Thedelldays]

 

I don't know which car to buy, I'd best get the most expensive top of the range one, because if I don't er, I just don't know what might happen...

 

Surely defence spending should be based on an assessment of risk - as nukes don't help to mitigate against any risk, why waste the money, and make ourselfs a bigger target in the process?

You say that last bit as if it was a matter if fact.

[badgerx16]

CLEG FLEW ECONOMY BUT TOOK BUSINESS CLASS FARES FROM EU

 

Asked if he had kept the extra cash, which came from EU taxpayers, Mr Clegg added: 'No, what I actually did was I put that money aside, didn't pocket it myself. I used it for my office in Nottingham and so on.'

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1268147/General-Election-2010-Nick-Clegg-flew-economy-took-business-class-fares-EU.html#ixzz0lv6z5NFI

 

So, what exactly is the implied misdemeanour ? He was given a level of expense, ( note - he didn't claim it, it was given as a matter of course ), that exceeded his expenditure, so he used the excess to the benefit of his constituency.

There probably isn't a process for paying the excess money back into the EU.

[bungle]

If dune wasn't a self-confessed racist he would currently be my favourite comic figure.

[dune]

So, what exactly is the implied misdemeanour ? He was given a level of expense, ( note - he didn't claim it, it was given as a matter of course ), that exceeded his expenditure, so he used the excess to the benefit of his constituency.

There probably isn't a process for paying the excess money back into the EU.

 

Have you ever heard of the concept of giving money to charity?

[Barry the Badger]

Dune, you conveniently appear to have missed my request to back up your earlier claims.

 

Find me an example of the Lib Dems saying there will be an 'open door immigration policy'.

[Thedelldays]

Dune, you conveniently appear to have missed my request to back up your earlier claims.

 

Find me an example of the Lib Dems saying there will be an 'open door immigration policy'.

the amnesty os pretty much that

 

"want a free UK visa..come on down, the price is right"

[Barry the Badger]

the amnesty os pretty much that

 

"want a free UK visa..come on down, the price is right"

 

It's really not. It's a way of dealing with immigrants who have been here over 10 years, who we have little or no chance of deporting anyway.

 

It's a case of admitting things are far from good but actually starting to deal with it rather than ignoring it.

 

I don't buy into this theory that it will encourage more to come over here, it will be seen for what it is, a one off gesture to clean up some of the mess.

[badgerx16]

the amnesty os pretty much that

 

"want a free UK visa..come on down, the price is right"

If you have been here for 10 years already.

[Thedelldays]

If you have been here for 10 years already.

this is a serious question

 

how can you tell for sure if someone here illegally has been here over ten years..?

 

do you take someones word for it..?

[dune]

Giving an amnesty on illegal immigrants would encourage more illegal immigrants to come because it sends out the mesaage that Britain is a soft touch. Come to england and hide in the shadows and eventually you'll be allowed to stay is the message this loony policy sends out.

[badgerx16]

this is a serious question

 

how can you tell for sure if someone here illegally has been here over ten years..?

 

do you take someones word for it..?

When the LD candidate comes knocking on the hatch of your sub, ask him / her.

 

However, if they have children, they have to be at school, so there will be school records and home addresses. I would have thought there are very few who have been here that long who don't have a 'footprint' from the NHS, Council services, or the benefits system.

[badgerx16]

Giving an amnesty on illegal immigrants would encourage more illegal immigrants to come because it sends out the mesaage that Britain is a soft touch. Come to england and hide in the shadows and eventually you'll be allowed to stay is the message this loony policy sends out.

No, it's a two edged weapon; you grant the amnesty, to save the time and effort of trying to deport them - given the UK & European courts, Human Rights, Foreign Relations issues, etc. At the same time, you bring in a new, much tougher, immigration process, that aims to stem the 'flood' ( as per the Daily Hail ), so that the chances of anyone in future being able to be here for 10 years are greatly, ( hopefully totally ), diminished.

[Thedelldays]

So. Unless they have kids that have been at schoolfor a few years. We would simply have to take their word for it

 

Sounds workable to me - lol

[Barry the Badger]

Giving an amnesty on illegal immigrants would encourage more illegal immigrants to come because it sends out the mesaage that Britain is a soft touch. Come to england and hide in the shadows and eventually you'll be allowed to stay is the message this loony policy sends out.

 

No you're right, let's just continue to sweep the issue of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants under the carpet.

 

As it happens there is already a 14 year rule in place in this country anyway, I don't hear the Tories saying that they are going to abolish it.

 

Paragraph 276B of the Immigration Rules currently state:

 

Requirements for indefinite leave to remain on the ground of long residence in the United Kingdom

 

276B. The requirements to be met by an applicant for indefinite leave to remain on the ground of long residence in the United Kingdom are that:

 

(i) (a) he has had at least 10 years continuous lawful residence in the United Kingdom; or

 

(b) he has had at least 14 years continuous residence in the United Kingdom, excluding any period spent in the United Kingdom following service of notice of liability to removal or notice of a decision to remove by way of directions under paragraphs 8 to 10A, or 12 to 14, of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 or section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 Act, or of a notice of intention to deport him from the United Kingdom;

[badgerx16]

So. Unless they have kids that have been at schoolfor a few years. We would simply have to take their word for it

 

Sounds workable to me - lol

So what's the alternative ? Unless you can pass Tebbit's "cricket test", have the Union Flag tatoooed across your back, stand up whenever "Land of Dope & Tories" is played, and only ever drink bitter, you're chucked in the ENGLISH Channel ?

[Joensuu]

So. Unless they have kids that have been at schoolfor a few years. We would simply have to take their word for it

 

Sounds workable to me - lol

 

Imagine the burden of proof would be on the illegal immigrant. There is no way that UKBA will accept hearseay. As badgerx16 pointed out, there are loads of ways for them to leave a footprint in the UK. In reality this policy will be a lot tougher than it initally sounds, and is likely to drive a lot of illegal immigants out of the shadows. Many of them will then be returned to their country of origin, but some many be able to provide enough proof to stay in the country.

 

Point is, the policy is both workable and more likely to succeed that the Tory's unworkable rounding up of people who are hiding nonsense. Let the immigrents reveal themselves, assess their cases fairly and then put them into either 'return' or 'taxable' categories...

[dune]

No you're right

 

Thanks, I know i'm right. It's common sense that an amnesty will encourage more illegal immigration just like it's common sense that paying randsoms will encourage more kidknappings by Somali pirates. This is the real world, not some fluffy pink eutopia as seen through the eyes of the Liberal party.