I thought I’d use my slot on Lib Dem Voice today to set out clearly my views on defence. I hope you enjoy the video below.
Thanks again to Stephen and the LDV team for this chance to reach more Lib Dem members. I’m delighted at the momentum building in this leadership campaign and I’ll be back with another message for Lib Dem Voice readers on Tuesday.
Yours,
Chris.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
What would Keynes do? (Charlie Larkin)
Why Britain should be wary of Andy Burnham’s Devolution Revolution (Iain Donaldson)
“Build, baby, build” but don’t lower our ambitions on affordability (Victor Chamberlain)
Twenty-six years of evidence on drugs. Twenty-six years of cowardice. (Tanya Park)
Tom Arms’ World Review (Tom Arms)
Tastes change ~
Nine in ten paying more than necessary in Vehicle Excise Duty
A radical agenda but can Burnham deliver?
Reg Calvert and his boarding school of rock
A shocking abuse of the legal system where the rich try to bully the weak and poor into submission
The Joy of Six 1540
Are we doing enough to insure against climate change?
Steve Trevethan 
David Evans 
Jack Meredith 
GWYN WILLIAMS 
Graham Evans 
13 Comments
So have I got this right. We are no longer talking about developing a new nuclear weapons system now, but only doing so after the failure of the NPT talks. That is, we are following the current policy of not renewing trident but waiting and seeing. (And what is gained by ruling out one option in advance?)
To be honest I struggle to see how R&D spend on a new nuclear weapons system can possibly be value for money. If the minimal deterrent alternative were fewer subs, missiles and warheads, I could see the logic.
But would we really want to deploy a new nuclear weapons system without spending billions on R&D and testing?
Gosh you’re such an incredible communicator…just what the party needs…
er……..I feel a blog coming on!
Chris
That was great – concise, unambigous – and in my view absolutely the right stance in the context of today’s uncertain world.
Now I would like to hear your plans to address the inequlities in our country as well as our Party
Chris is right.
It is an absurd waste of money to replace Trident. And although I have asked the question, noone has answered who we are supposed to be negotiating with. Some have mentioned Russia, but since they no longer believe in communism, it is absurd to imagine they would use their weapons against us, or we will against them. Russia depends on Western Europe to buy their natural resources. We rely on them to supply us their natural resourses.
They don’t like us intervening in what they consider to be their sphere of influence, and we do not like their appalling human rights record, but neither will escalate into a nuclear conflict.
France and the US are no threat to us. China, Isreal, Pakistan, India, North Korea and Iran have their own regions to consider, and are no going to use nuclear weapons against us. Al Qaeda will never be deterred by nuclear weapons, this is something the party agrees on.
Look at the dithering of the US in bombing Iran. As far as we know, they are considering using conventional weapons, and even they are not sure whether it is a good idea or not. If a bunch of agressive neo-Conservatives can’t make up their minds, just on using conventional weapons, then nuclear weapons have simply outlived their usefulness, at least as far as the “West” is concerned.
Somebody please tell Chris to get rid of that horrendous tie!
So, if Chris is so fundamentally opposed to party policy then why did he not speak against it at Conference?
“So, if Chris is so fundamentally opposed to party policy then why did he not speak against it at Conference?”
In fairness Peter he would probably have needed to have resigned from the Shadow Cabinet and would certainly have gone head to head with Ming on an issue which had (impliedly) been made an issue of confidence in the leader.
I think he then took the least damaging course of action.
If the amendment that proposed not replacing Trident was passed, I have no doubt Ming would have resigned on the spot.
I reason I think that was because it was Ming himself who spoke against the amendment.
For that reason, if any frontbench spokesperson decided to speak in favour of that motion, his position would have been untenable. So none of them did. That is how “collective responsibility” works.
Sorry “The reason”. I should have breakfast first!
The ammendment did not propose replacing trident with some unspecified alternative nuclear deterrent, which is probably why Chris didn’t vote for it.
The mover of the ammendment was Phil Willis, who is backing Nick.
Will somebody answer my question, or are we agreed that Chris’s policy is a massive fudge?
And to repeat, party policy is not to replace Trident but to wait and see. It is only Chris who is talking about building a new nuclear weapon. A re-armer trying to sound like a disarmer.
Regarding Peter’s question, Richard answers it on LibDems4Chris:
So he’d have had to resign, and as the policy was merely deferring decision, decided not to. Sounds fair enough to me.
To answer Joe’s question (sort of), I think Chris sees it as three options, replace, minimal or nothing, and Nick’s position in his eyes is to consider the option to replace, he doesn’t like that and wants to rule out one of three.
TBH, I’m not 100% sure I agree with him, but he is ruling out Trident, which I think is a good call. The option of something smaller is something he hasn’t ruled out but doesn’t seem to want, Nick seems to be ruling that out on terms of illegality, which he might be right on.
But it’s not an issue I care enough about to dig into further—they both agree on my main areas from what I can tell.