This is why I'm scared of the Lib Dems..

[atlantis]

I know it's the DM, but all the other media are running this as well;

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1271739/Election-2010-Clegg-attacks-security-chiefs-critic ise-Lib-Dem-policy.html

He wont take advice from 'Mr Clegg insisted: 'I am not going to take lectures from a bunch of retired establishment figures about the security of this country."

Only the one's who back him it seems.

"The three former security chiefs had said that they were 'concerned' that the Lib Dem manifesto makes no mention of Nato and calls for a more distant relationship with the U.S.

'An enhanced European defence and security posture, however welcome, cannot substitute for American power,' they warned."

"'We believe that they need to clarify their position as soon as possible. All political parties must send the right signals to friend and foe alike.'

"British troops in Afghanistan deserve a 'clearer lead' than was offered by Lib Dem frontbenchers, who have adopted different positions on whether and when the UK contingent should be withdrawn, the three said.

Ruling out military action against Iran was 'precipitate', while the Lib Dems make no mention of North Korea, the other state threatening to acquire nuclear weapons."

"Lib Dem policy on the renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent was in 'potentially dangerous confusion', with several senior frontbenchers indicating they would like to take the 'colossal gamble' of scrapping it altogether, said the former security chiefs."

The man is as arrogant as he is stupid.

[OtterInaSkoda]

I'm inclined to agree with you, atlantis.

Which is why I'm voting Labour - possibly not what the DM intended mind

[weegiemum]

Scrapping trident?

I'll take that "collosal gamble"

I live on the Clyde!

[Chil1234]

Scrapping CTC for any family earning more than £31k...... makes the Tory policy look rather benign by comparison.

[scaryteacher]

FGS, there isn't a European defence posture - it is NATO! Many of the same nations are on the EU Military staff as in NATO, and NATO has Canada and the US as well.

[policywonk]

Possibly a naive question, as I'm not terribly interested in/well-informed about defence questions: but why should the UK, as a tiny European state, take it upon itself to square up to North Korea or Iran (accepting, for the sake of argument, that either presents a credible threat)? Why not band together with other European nations in a common defence policy?

[policywonk]

But given that the US will do exactly what it wants anyway, what does it matter whether we offer a pipsqueak's worth of dissent from its position? France has spent most of the last ten years telling the US to eff orf, and its national security isn't a matter of concern AFAIK.

[policywonk]

But the LibDems aren't proposing a withdrawal from NATO - are they? So we would be in exactly the same position as France. Sounds fair enough to me.

We don't have any influence with the US. Obama couldn't give two hoots about us, and I can't see any of the bizarros currently running the Republicans having much time for us either. As a country we're massively deluded on this point. Blair himself has admitted that he had much less influence on Bush - even after poodling along behind him for years - than he had hoped.

[scaryteacher]

The French have only recently rejoined NATO, and were given the Transformation job in the US as their 'reward' for coming back.

The security ex-chiefs can say what they like about the common European defence position - it doesn't exist, and getting all the Member states to agree on anything is difficult, let alone big issues like a common Defence position. If you think about it realistically, all the European nations are committed to NATO anyway, as is Turkey, Canada and the US, and that is where the majority of their troops would go if called on - look at Afghanistan and the ISAF force there.

[ASecretLemonadeDrinker]

Lib Dems live in a dream world. Yes, it would be nice for world peace blah blah but they will out this country at risk. HUGE risk. I feel physically sick that they may get in. People are being lured in. People watch a few hours of TV debate and think they know politics, that scares me. I hope to god half these people don't bother to vote in the end.

[snowlady]

chil1234 - The tories and lib dems are reducing tax credits for middle earners but the lib dems are offering to increase the tax threshold to £10,000 meaning you would pay £700 less tax on the first £10,000 of earnings. The tories are not offering anything to those on middle incomes other than that they won't raise national insurance as labour are planning to do. labour are leaving the tax credits unchanged but raising national insurance.

So do you think your family will be financially better off under the tories, labour or lib dems? I think you need to be earning over 100k to benefit under a tory govt if one looks at the tax issue alone.

As for the defense issue I'll leave that to policywonk to argue.

[daftpunksConscience]

Lib dems for me!!!

[atlantis]

" the lib dems are offering to increase the tax threshold to £10,000 meaning you would pay £700 less tax on the first £10,000 of earnings"

Not really helpful to people on WTC as it will decrease the amount you get and housing and CT benefit as you will pay more anyway.

[policywonk]

Heck, don't leave it to me I'm not even sure whether scaryteacher and I are in agreement or not... My basic position is that it's weird for the UK to have an independent nuclear deterrent. I'm pretty sure this isn't the LibDem position.

[snowlady]

A secretlemonadedrinker - you don't need to worry - the lib dems won't get a majority on a voting share of 28%. However if they get more MPs they might have more say in a hung parliament and I think their priorities are fairer taxes, better education, fairer voting system. I think their policies in these areas are better than the other main parties so it would be good if they had more MPs. I also think Osborne would be a risk as chancellor.

[snowlady]

atlantis - what level of income is WTC paid on? Surely people who qualify for WTC will still get tax credits under lib dems or tories?

[atlantis]

" Why not band together with other European nations in a common defence policy? "

You mean piss into the wind as usual?

"France has spent most of the last ten years telling the US to eff orf, and its national security isn't a matter of concern AFAIK. "

France has a big yellow streak running down it's back and always has.

"We don't have any influence with the US. Obama couldn't give two hoots about us"

That's because nobody likes Labour. Obama likes Cameron that was evident, but all the more reason to have an active defence policy if America will leave us high and dry.

[atlantis]

" what level of income is WTC paid on? Surely people who qualify for WTC will still get tax credits under lib dems or tories? "

under proposals it would be up to £50,000.

But barring in mind if you get an extra £700 per year in tax refund (under lib dems) this will be taken off any benefits you get which could mean some people move out of financial help with Council tax etc and then may not qualify for other entitlements like university funding (ou etc).

It's not been properly thought out at the 'disadvantage' level.

[Takver]

I would ask:
What is Denmark's defence spending as a % of GDP, and their links to the US?
And Belgium
Holland
Norway
Austria
Sweden? (to name just a few)

Because I don't see that any of these countries are (a) having any less influence with the US or
(b) over-run by barbarian hordes

I remember a Conservative MP way back when (sorry, can't remember which one) saying 'we can't give up our nuclear deterrent, we'll turn into a sort of Denmark'
Well, I don't know about him, but (apart from the expensive beer) I'd be quite happy to live in Denmark with Danish social security, employment et al

[snowlady]

I thought working tax credit was paid to people on low incomes who will not lose their tax credits. Which party is saying it will be paid on salaries up to £50,000?

[atlantis]

"I thought working tax credit was paid to people on low incomes who will not lose their tax credits. Which party is saying it will be paid on salaries up to £50,000? "

Ok your confusing me.

I think we have crossed wires somewhere.

[atlantis]

Ok, I think I know why there's confusion, I was speaking of the low incomes and WTC and CTC and you were specifying WTC.

Here;

If you receive CTC only you will be entitled to the full amount of that tax credit until your annual income reaches £16,190.

If you receive WTC on its own or with CTC and your annual income (or your partner's and your annual income) is below £6,420 you will receive the maximum amount of all the elements you qualify for.

If your income is over £6,420 your maximum amount will be reduced in the order:
WTC (apart from child care element)
Child care element of WTC
Child elements of CTC
Family element of CTC

The family element of CTC will not be reduced until your annual income exceeds either £50,000, or (if higher) the point where all other credits ? WTC and the child elements of CTC ? are withdrawn. The family element is then reduced by £1 for each £15 of income you receive over £50,000, or (if higher) the point at which all WTC, childcare element of WTC, and individual child elements of CTC are tapered away.

So instead of tapering the amount over £50,000 it will be tapered from £40,000.

[snowlady]

Atlantis - as far as I'm aware the people who would lose family tax credits under tories or libs do not qualify for WTC as WTC is only paid to those on low incomes.

If you are on an income that qualifies for WTC I don't think you will not lose your family tax credits as surely WTC is not paid if your income is over £31,000? Under the lib dems you would keep your family tax credits if you receive WTC and you would not pay income tax under £10,000. I don't know what effect this has on the level of WTC as my family doesn't receive WTC so I don't know much about it.

Can you show some sample figures to explain how anyone on an income of less than 100k would be financially better off under the tories than the lib dems or labour as I don't think this would be the case.

[scaryteacher]

NATO is currently run by a Dane.

All of Denmark is shockingly expensive, and all that lovely social security etc has to be paid for from high taxes.

It ain't all it's cracked up to be. A friend left a very secure well paid job to move back to Denmark, and had to pay import tax on her car, and now her mat leave has finished, has had problems finding a job. Rent is very high there as well.

The grass is not always greener. The beer is better in Belgium anyway. Belgium doesn't have a huge amount of Armed Forces; there are only 47,000 serving members of the Armed Forces here.

The Flemish Belgians consider the Walloon (French speakers) to be the barbarian hordes and vice versa. Even worse, the EU is here as is NATO, so lots of Barbarian hordes, especially Brits are here too!