Another conference, another debate on nuclear weapons. The anti nuclear weapons side has won once, in 1986, so the odds weren’t good. What would happen today, though, given that it was the first ever vote under OMOV.
Well, the party was clearly bringing out its big hitter so both sides. Conference darling Alistair Carmichael for the party working group position and Conference darling Julian Huppert for the anemdnemnt.
The working group was set up in Bournemouth in 2015 to look at the issues around nuclear weapons and drew up a paper which recommended keeping a nuclear deterrent and working for multilateral disarmament. An amendment recommended getting rid of nuclear weapons and spending the money strengthening our conventional weapons which, its movers argued, were actually what was needed to counter the global threats we face.
After a generally good-natured debate, Conference voted by 244 to 429 to reject the amendment.
Here’s a flavour of the debate:
.@JudithJolly proposes motion on nuclear weapons. This is a key moment for the party. We've fudged for year. Time to decide #ldconf pic.twitter.com/3alU28pzrR
— Caron Lindsay (@caronmlindsay) March 18, 2017
Huppert: We can't say that nukes are a bad thing then say we are going to keep them. It isn't moral or logical #ldconf
— Caron Lindsay (@caronmlindsay) March 18, 2017
@CuriousCabbage speaking passionately in favour of trident and the UK continuing as a global super power. #ldconf pic.twitter.com/fvz8hoeTol
— Dan Evans (@Dan_Ev) March 18, 2017
Paul Reynolds telling #ldconf we are closer to nuclear conflagration than at any time since Cuban missile crisis pic.twitter.com/QJbAuxdgsY
— Elisabeth Wilson (@elis_wilson) March 18, 2017
Our weekly Observations of an Ex Pat writer Tom Arms wanted the motion to go much further:
.@LookAheadTV speaking against motion and amendment. He says we have a corrupt nationalist expansionist. egomaniac in the Kremlin. #ldconf
— Caron Lindsay (@caronmlindsay) March 18, 2017
And when the red light came on, he endeared himself to Conference.
"Please could you draw your remarks to a close"
"Point three…"
Cue much laughter #LDconf— Joshua Dixon (@JoshDixonTweets) March 18, 2017
New Federal Policy Committee Member Christine Cheng gave a very thoughtful speech in which she said that now was not the time to leave the nuclear weapons club.
Elisabeth Wilson says there should be more examples of non violent conflict resolution citing collapse of Berlin Wall & S Africa #ldconf
— Caron Lindsay (@caronmlindsay) March 18, 2017
.@cajardine talks about being reassured by growing up near Faslane & about impact on Scotland of disarmament #ldconf pic.twitter.com/5Zj7nW7EuX
— Caron Lindsay (@caronmlindsay) March 18, 2017
Alistair Carmichael’s intervention was significant:
Fair to say @acarmichaelmp has convinced me of the case for backing #trident. What a tense debate though! #ldconf pic.twitter.com/eMUs0qX9WT
— Yan Malinowski (@Y_Malinowski) March 18, 2017
And the word of Conference?
David Grace just used the word "persiflage" in an #ldconf speech. No idea what it means, but I like it! #fb
— Zoe O'Connell (@zoeimogen) March 18, 2017
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings
6 Comments
As a teenager I joined CND and went on protest marches.
My late husband was half Polish, I was Polish Honorary Consul for the West Midlandsfrom 2008-16 and have relatives on my husband’s in Warsaw who I visit every year. When Putin annexed Crimea Poles started to stock up on supplies of tinned food and bottled water.
Our Central and Eastern European NATO and EU allies see Russia as a very real threat. Now is not the time to walk away however “moral” Julian Hippert may feel the unilateralist amendment to be!
I agree Fran. I’m against renewing Trident, but I’m not in favour of unilateral disarmament either. We should attempt to negotiate away or remaining nuclear weapons, so that Putin and other lunatics also have less nukes.
People like Kim Jong-un make me afraid to get rid of nukes, but we have to take the risk. We need to study how we can defeat a nuclear power in a war. If Nato and others mobilised completely we could do it. Arguably we need to expand Nato and rely on that for defence instead. Include democracies like South Korea, Japan and Australia.
So are we still lumbered with the ridiculous policy of paying the earth for a submarine that will sail on Mondays and Tuesdays but not on Thursdays and Fridays? And all with a weapon that no sane person would ever use? How very very sad.
On balance, this is probably the right decision for now.
Like virtually everyone, and I include those from other political parties, I’d love to live in a world free from nuclear weapons. However, I don’t think this is one of those situations where we simply offer to go first, and hope for the best. This is something we need to work towards, and reducing our arsenal is only part of that. We need to do the old Tony Blair hearts and minds thing, in the UK and beyond.
Speaking of Tony, we should be fair and give him credit for his role in reducing the amount of nuclear weapons kicking about, and the progress made by many other politicians whose names I never knew, never mind forgot.
The huge cost of the weapons cannot be ignored, and we should continue to explore how the money could be spent better. We then need to work to persuade the British public of this, and do it in a meaningful and compelling way. The tactic of some to shout that nuclear weapons are immoral is not any more effective than shouting that not having nuclear weapons is irresponsible. In fact, both sides simply pat themselves on the back, cause division, and gets us no-where.
I had a feeling either I was to be a tad disappointed over disarmament or faith schools.
It turned out to not be on disarmament.