Aspiring to cut spending

Dirty Euro

So he is making them more right wing. Well thanks a bunch of stealing left wing votes and then turning right wing.

Chris lancashire

Nice to see touches of reality breaking out all over. There will be one overriding priority for the next Govt and that is to restore the nation's finances to a semblance of order.
Right now we live in a state of Micawberesque belief that something will turn up to sort things out. It won't, only an honest appraisal of what the nation can afford will restore sense.

Good to see Clegg joining the Sensible Party.

lawrence greek

DirtyEuro

You're fighting the last war. Thanks to Gordon we are all right wing now, whether you like it or not.

Penfold

Are we really bothered about Cleggyboy's reality check.
He is positioning the party to steal votes from the Tories, those lefties that will not vote NuLieBour, but have difficulty reconciling their change of heart with a Tory vote.
The Lib-Dems are as irrelevant today as they were a decade ago.
We need to ensure that they do not get to hold the balance of power and dictate policy, you will then see a very rapid volte face on policy issues.

Mitch

It's Lib Dem policy to join the Euro. How much will that cost?

Why not save money (and do us all a favour) by abandoning that commitment?

Mark

Who is this Clegg fellow?

Crystal Bullet

Clegg is the wolf in sheep’s clothing because his only real agenda is to influence Cameron’s thinking on the required Trident submarine upgrade. When in financial difficulties, it is the policy of the fool to slash insurance payments. That is exactly what Trident is. We cannot launch the missiles independently (dual-key) so it serves no military function, rather like any insurance, except in the worst case scenario. Clegg perhaps thinks we can find security like Spain does as just another European country. This is wrong-thinking because we are accustomed to play diplomacy differently from other nations. Nations like Zimbabwe and Iran provide ample evidence that a colonial past condemns us to be perceived as “the British spymasters” even without a shred of evidence. New post-colonial enemies will be discovered in the future, deservedly or not.

To not pay this insurance premium is equivalent to a GAP year student buying travel insurance that specifically excludes the hire of motorbikes. Planning British defence spending without paying the premium required by America to renew our insurance is a big gamble. Don’t expect the insurer to wade in as “honour bound” if you crash your motorbike abroad and your option excluded cover. If there was a chance your son would consider riding a motorbike, regardless of his promise, pay that little extra for peace of mind. Clegg and his party rationalise that the UK can survive without a nuclear defence capability.

Can Britain afford the Trident upgrade? It is erroneous to argue the payment is small. Such payments, like insurance, only mount up as the years pass and like insurance if everything goes well you get no return. It is the policy of a fool to say the bank is going to print X billion and support other banks by X billion, so the Trident upgrade is peanuts in terms of budgetary planning because it is much less. It is as much as the insurer (America) demands and in the currency of their choice. If we must sell our nation to the Euro fiscal beast, better to do so than risk allowing UK politicians loose on motorbikes with insurance not fit for purpose. The Conservatives face a Liberal Democrat party increasingly sceptical of the Euro. Moreover they are well-prepared to leverage the Conservative Party’s demons surrounding it. A new key aspiration of the Liberal Democrats is becoming “unilateral nuclear disarmament” as a logical response to the UK’s financial crisis. So when Clegg talks about “budget realities” I only hear “let’s go non-nuclear”. If Cameron follows that cross your fingers.

Jane Johnston

does today's document still support the disastrous local income tax idea?

Moraymint

Here's an interesting take on the forthcoming Dark Age

http://tinyurl.com/ludm6t

Hysteria

Crystal Bullet - but isn't your point about dual key important? If it is not truly independent, what's the point - other than to lock us into a very expensive system. I agree we need our own nuclear weapons - but isn't there a lower cost option more suited to asymetric threats - do we need a cold war era behemoth to deal with a rogue state - say?

Crystal Bullet

The phrase “supreme national interests are at stake” used in the statements of 1962 and 1980 permits the UK to launch her nuclear missiles independently. Since it is a submarine based deterrence, it means only after the UK homeland were to be devastated would the UK launch. The clear advantage of the UK’s submarine deterrence is that it is impossible for the British to use aggressively.

Any new focus on the asymmetric threat could destabilise the military set-up for the UK. It is in our self-interest to be able to defend our trading interests effectively. Since our comparative trade advantage will remain in servicing the global capital markets, our military hardware needs to be fit for purpose for use anywhere.

Budget realities mean speed, flexibility and innovative tactics are more important rather than might or American “shock and awe”. However this pro-active global commitment means leading from the front but realistically to the flank of the Americans. Would it be wise to contemplate continuing to do so, if defence of our homeland was not guaranteed by a nuclear deterrent?

In the worst case scenario, Anglo-American operations might lead to an escalation of any conflict anywhere and it goes nuclear. Without the current sensible set-up, it would be an open invitation for an aggressor to “take-out” the American’s flank (e.g. the UK homeland.) The strategy would be the bigger American nuclear power might pause for thought before escalating events to a doomsday scenario. That is why abandoning deterrent is destabilising. It creates an opportunity for a future and critical rift that a nuclear-armed aggressor might suddenly seek to exploit.