A press release arrives in the Lib Dem Voice in-tray:
Commenting on George Osborne’s announcement that the Ministry of Defence will be responsible for the cost of replacing Trident, Liberal Democrat MP, Sir Menzies Campbell said:
“This confirmation of what had already been predicted makes it essential that the case for like-for-like replacement of Trident should, as the Liberal Democrats have agreed, be part of the Strategic Defence Review.
“How can you possibly take on such a large financial commitment as Trident without considering the military and political implications?
“If fierce cuts are to be made in Britain’s conventional forces, surely we have to consider whether replacing Trident can be justified.”
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Migration: another shooting in the foot
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Pure heart
The refloating of the Baltic Arrow on the River Nene near Wisbech
Tiny Steps from Starmer but at least they are in the right direction!
Greg Hyde
Big Tall Tim
Suzanne Fletcher
expats
24 Comments
Seems to me that cameron and co are coming to our way on this and forcing the Mod this way to consider it without technically saying so.
It’s good to see that when it comes to questions of cost vs. appeasing mad Tories who’re still living in the cold war, Osborne is on the side of cost:
This would be a great opportunity to show we have influence on this coalition. Come on, Nick, Dave and Osborne – it’s the ideal thing to cut.
Yaaawwwnnnn
Meanwhile, the Nation comes to terms with Nick Clegg lies to his party and the electorate.
What World does Lib Dem Voice live on exactly?
>Meanwhile, the Nation comes to terms with Nick Clegg lies to his party and the electorate.
Yeah, that’s what everyone at work was talking about today. Oh, wait – no, that’s what no-one at work was talking about today. Even the Labour voters. (Mind, thin ice there, given Blair/Iraq)
>What World does Lib Dem Voice live on exactly?
One where defence spending and Trident aren’t something to yawn at.
(You missed the link to the Guardian page, btw. Feel free to add it to the next thread, whatever the topic).
On topic: yes, if it’s a choice between a Cold War-style deterrent we can never actually use in anger and money for our conventional forces, sticking to a like-for-like replacement surely becomes harder for anyone to justify.
I find it hard to imagine a meaningful strategic defence review that omitted the headline item of the UK’s strategic defence. That would make it quite a short review.
It’s not going to happen. If Cameron even floats the idea, the Tory right will be on him like a shot. There is no way that Cameron U-turns on this one.
@mpg
The significant U-turn has already been performed by Osborne. Inclusion in the Strategic Defence Review is the next logical step.
Replacing Trident with a cheaper alternative was an excellent Liberal Democrat policy. So was no increase in VAT, no cuts this year, a mansion tax, an immediate £10,000 tax starting threshold, and of course PR. It’s just a pity that not one of these policies will come to fruition under what’s called a coalition government but is actually the most right-wing government this country has had in living memory. The NHS, state education and the welfare state are being attacked by rabid Tories acting as if they won the election by a landslide, and the Liberal Democrats are allowing it to happen.
Is anyone in any doubt as to why the Liberal Democrats are facing extinction, when Clegg and his Orange-book cronies have destroyed so much of what the party stands for, and while so many members (if this board is any reflection) appear to be in complete denial?
@ Bert Finch
The only feasible alternative was a Conservative-only minority government. Do you really think that would have been more left-wing?!
As for being in denial, Labour cronies appear to suffer from this affliction the most. Ignoring the fact that Labour had planned £44million of cuts themselves. Or the fact that Darling wanted to raise VAT. Ignoring Labour’s disastrous (and criminal, by international law standards) invasion of Iraq (and no, after hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths it isn’t time to “move on” as some Labour politicians have argued). And ignoring Labour’s litany of broken promises, such as the abandonment of the 1997 manifesto commitment to change the voting system.
Yes. Wot Ralph said.
Ralph, a minority Conservative administration could have been stopped from pursuing its ideological vendetta against public health, education and welfare, and it couldn’t have increased VAT (one of the most regressive of all taxes) without Lib Dem support (in stark contrast to the Lib Dem manifesto).
It’s interesting that you prefer to attack Labour rather than the hideous measures which will see 1.3 million more people out of work, and that’s before IDS’s onslaught on some of the poorest people in society. Whether or not Darling wanted to increase VAT is irrelevant, it didn’t happen, and VAT has never been increased on Labour’s watch. Labour did recognise the need to make cuts – but not this year (something with which the Lib Dems used to agree) and not on the scale that Osborne proposes, which is far in excess of what the IMF deems necessary.
Labour didn’t invade Iraq, the American neo-cons did, with British support. Just because Clegg says the war was illegal doesn’t mean that it was, lawyers will argue about it for years. For example, UN Resolution 678 was still in force from the first Gulf War, and Saddam Hussein had not adhered to it. What I do know is the Lib Dem’s current coalition partners were keener on going into Iraq than most Labour MPs, but no doubt you’ve “moved on” from that.
Bert Finch wrote:
“Just because Clegg says the war was illegal doesn’t mean that it was.”
It isn’t just Nick Clegg who says the war was illegal, it is virtually every jurist with specialist knowledge of public international law. Also, the Foreign Office’s own legal advisers, and Lord Goldsmith himself, who only “changed his mind” when he was hauled over to Washington and roughed up by Cheney’s bully-boys.
“For example, UN Resolution 678 was still in force from the first Gulf War, and Saddam Hussein had not adhered to it.”
Wrong. Saddam Hussein had destroyed all his WMD in 1991, as the United States well knew, and he was cooperating more or less fully with the UN weapons inspection teams.
“lawyers will argue about it for years”
This reminds me of Bob Dole’s infamous: “Now, I don’t know that nicotine is addictive.”
“What I do know is the Lib Dem’s current coalition partners were keener on going into Iraq”
Keener than Tony Blair?
What you have made absolutely clear, Bert Finch, is that your loyalty to the Labour Party is so blind is that you are prepared to defend and rationalise absolutely antything.
Malcolm Shaw QC, Professor of international law, Leicester University:-
“On the basis of the intelligence we had at the time and the publicly available knowledge, there was a credible and reasonable argument in favour of the legality of the war. The authorisation to use force in [UN resolution] 678 included the restoration of international peace and security as well as the liberation of Kuwait. Resolution 687, after the 1991 ceasefire, included getting rid of… weapons of mass destruction.
The run of resolutions after that shows there was still backing for it in the Security Council. The possession of such weapons constituted a threat to international peace and security. Resolution 1441 [in 2002] reiterated that. It was the common belief of the Security Council that Iraq had such weapons, and that they constituted a breach of binding resolutions. We know [from the Blix report] that Iraq did not fully cooperate. Through that period there was a long series of Security Council resolutions condemning the Iraqis for what was believed to be their possession of WMD.”
Anthony Aust, former Foreign Office deputy legal adviser and visiting professor of international law at the London School of Economics:-
“There is a good legal argument that it was lawful on the basis of earlier UN resolutions, such as 678 passed in 1990 and 687 in 1991, and subsequent action by the Security Council during the next decade. Resolution 678 was still in force. To say it was no longer effective because it was 13 years old is spurious. If you follow that argument most of our domestic laws would be no longer in force.”
Sir Adam Roberts, Professor of international relations at Oxford University, and co-editor of Documents on the Laws of War:-
“There was in principle a possible case for the lawfulness of resort to war by the US and its small coalition. In a series of resolutions since 1990, the UN Security Council had authorised the US and partners to restore peace and security in the region, and that included helping to ensure Iraqi compliance with disarmament arrangements. Indeed, the 1991 ceasefire was contingent on full Iraqi compliance, and the coalition would not necessarily be bound by the ceasefire if Iraq did not comply. Many UN resolutions found that Iraq was not cooperating fully.”
Bert Finch,
I see you have dredged up the few academics willing to prostitute their reputations to further the neocon agenda.
This is what Phillippe Sands QC, a professor of international law and practicing barrister says about Goldsmith:
“The attorney general’s published opinion – that a non-existent authority to use force can ‘revive’ at the behest of three of the 15 members of the security council – makes a mockery of the UN system. How could the attorney general have been prevailed upon to lend Britain’s name to such a weak and dismal argument?”
Can’t argue with that, can you? Resolution 678 was in response to the invasion of Kuwait. It did not authorise force in a new set of of circumstances in 2003, which Cheney and Blair both knew did not obtain – ie, that Iraq retained WMD. Even Lord Goldsmith was telling Blair that a new resolution would be required, even as he flew to Washington to meet the heavy mob. Cheney didn’t get that new resolution, despite billions offered in bribes. And besides, as Ming Campbell has frequently pointed out, it is a rule of customary international law that war is only permissible once all diplomatic avenues been exhausted. In 2003, all diplomatic avenues had not been exhausted. The weapons inspectors had asked for more time, and were fast discovering that Iraq had no WMD, as Cheney and Blair well knew.
Bert Finch, you are willing to defend the most heinous act that any Labour Prime Minister has ever committed. It is in that context that I will view anything else you say in defence of Labour Party policy.
Oh, and what’s this business about £1.3 million extra unemployed? You are grasping speculations about the future and treating them as if they are present facts.
BTW: Read what Sir Adam Roberts says, and what he doesn’t say. One of the things he doesn’t say is that the war was legal. Just thought I’d point that out.
“What you have made absolutely clear, Bert Finch, is that your loyalty to the Labour Party is so blind is that you are prepared to defend and rationalise absolutely antything.”
I make no secret of the fact that I’m a Labour Party supporter, but for approximately one-third of my voting life (forty years), I have felt very comfortable in voting tactically for the Liberal Democrats (and the old Liberal Party before 1988) where they were in the best position to defeat the Tories. I thought that the Lib Dems were a centre-left party and found many of their policies attractive, especially on taxation. What they have allowed the Tories to get away with in the last three months has shown me that I might as well ‘waste’ my vote on Labour rather than ever vote tactically again. Even if AV comes in, why should I give the Lib Dems my second preference?
I’ve always considered loyalty to be a good quality, though not blind loyalty. I did not support ID cards, HIPS or student tuition fees, and I do believe that the voting system should be fairer. ‘Blind loyalty’ might be an apt description of those Liberal Democrats who defend the indefensible, namely supporting the most right-wing government in living memory, one which is hell-bent on privatising health and education and destroying the welfare state.
There are a number of cogent economic reasons as to why Sir Ming is correct in in his analysis that a `like for like replacement’ for Trident would fit the defence bill from 2025 when the present Trident renewal date for renewal commences.
I understand that the proposal being put by Sir Ming side is that the cost of `like for like’ Trident is put into the Autumn Defence Strategic Review and this should be part of the Defence Budget remit.
Sir Ming has stated on Newsnight BBC2 that he wants to see a wider discussion on the exact future role of Foreign Policy for Britain in the future. This discussion should be held at the widest level of interest.
Sir Ming clearly perceives that the new defence strategic role, without the full replacement commitment of Trident from 2025 but still with a `like for like’ replacement that preserves an element of nuclear deterrent but not as costly.
If the `Coalition Government’ votes for a change in nuclear armament for Britain from 2025 surely the savings implicit would ensure that British troops have a boost in equipment and protective armoury support in their current global deployment and in their general effectiveness and state of preparedness?
But the main question that remains is `What is the British foreign policy role in new economic times?
Sesenco. The legality or otherwise of the Iraq War comes down to “opinions”, as you clearly indicate, therefore it’s not a “fact” that it was illegal. Resolution 678 in 1991 brought about the ceasefire which followed the expulsion of the Iraqis from Kuwait, the alternative would have been Norman Schwarzkopf leading the Americans into Baghdad. Saddam Hussein did not comply with that ceasefire. You may want to split hairs, but Sir Adam Roberts does say “the coalition would not necessarily be bound by the ceasefire if Iraq did not comply. Many UN resolutions found that Iraq was not cooperating fully.”
At the time of the invasion, I was 50-50 about whether it was right. Saddam Hussein was an evil swine and I’m glad he and his sons can’t terrorise people any more. I accept that’s a dangerous viewpoint which could be used to justify invading half of the countries in the world. With hindsight, I wish that the invasion had never taken place, because of the heavy casualties and also because of the lasting damage which it did to my party. However, the war would have happened, with or without Blair (and some very enthusiastic Tories, including their leader at the time, IDS). Bush and Cheney had their own agenda – oil, profits from reconstruction, and “he tried to kill my daddy” (reference to Saddam’s attempt to assassinate Bush Snr in Kuwait in 1995).
1.3 million more unemployed is the figure which was in a leaked Treasury document on the effects of the June Budget. Of course the figure will be much higher once IDS has turfed tens of thousands of unfortunates off benefits. By all means reduce welfare dependency, but create some jobs first, don’t destroy them!
@Bert Finch
The electorate thought Labour was a centre left party, but were astonished to find that it had morphed into an economically right-wing, warmongering, authoritarian party. It trampled over liberty and peace in ways that Thatcher never dreamed off. Where were you for the last 13 years?
Paul, I can’t deny that your first sentence has a ring of truth about it. However, as the Liberal Democrats were widely perceived as being a party to the left of Labour, it’s all the more astonishing that they should prop up what, to all intents and purposes, is a very right-wing Tory government.
Your second remark, namely that Labour “trampled over liberty and peace in ways that Thatcher never dreamed of”, borders on the absurd. Compare Labour’s devolving of power to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London, with Thatcher’s abolition of the metropolitan borough councils and the GLC. Thatcher censored the BBC (re: Gerry Adam’s voice) and even raided the BBC offices. Thatcher banned unions from GCHQ. Peace, did you say? Policies which provoked inner-city riots and anti-poll tax demonstrations? Sinking the Belgrano when a UN peace plan was about to be published? Making us a nuclear target by letting Reagan station cruise missiles here and allowing him to bomb Libya from British bases? The passage of time may have dimmed your memory of Thatcher, but not mine.
Whilst it would be wonderful if Blair, Straw, Brown et al were arrested and taken to The Hague so that we could have a proper decision on whether or not the Iraq War was legal sadly this seems unlikely to happen in the near future.
So perhaps we can move from considering whether the Iraq war was legal or illegal to considering whether it was just or unjust.
The standard just war theory proposes six tests all of which have to be passed before a war is just. These are:
1. Just cause
2. Proper intention
3. Proper authority
4. Last Resort
5. Probability of Success
6. Proportionality
Clearly the Iraq war did not pass the “Last Resort” test because at the time the UN Weapons Inspection team led by Hans Blix was asking for more time to complete their investigations. The alternative to bombing Baghdad was letting this work continue. This alone is sufficient to render Blair’s war unjust.
Whether any of the six tests were passed is a moot point – for example if the “just cause” was Saddam’s defiance of UN authority then it seems that the proper authority to go to war must be the United Nations and not a collection of nations claiming to act on the UN’s behalf.
Doubtless as the government tries to deal with the deficit it has inherited we shall see the Labour party talking of early deaths as a result of fuel poverty, hospital cutbacks etc etc. We must always remember that this was the party who elected a leader who is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqi citizens and then took no action to remove him.
“We must always remember that this was the party who elected a leader who is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqi citizens and then took no action to remove him.”
So that will make it acceptable if there are “early deaths as a result of fuel poverty, hospital cutbacks etc”, will it? Nice to know how you intend to justify the misery which Osborne, Duncan Smith and their Lib Dem poodles can’t wait to inflict on the poor and vulnerable.
Bert Finch wrote:
“Thatcher censored the BBC (re: Gerry Adam’s voice) and even raided the BBC offices.”
You seem to have forgotten about Lord Hutton and his “inquiry” into the murder of Dr David Kelly. Hutton’s denunciation of the BBC for merely reporting the truth was the most serious attack by government on the independence and integrity of the BBC since Neville Chamberlain sacked Lord Reith. Without Hutton, would Frank Luntz have been brought on to “Newsnight” to promote David Cameron? Would Nick Robinson ever have been made Chief Political Correspondent?
If, as you appear to be suggesting, Resolution 678 authorised war in 2003, why did Cheney ask for a new resolution? And how could the war have been authorised by the UN when only three of the fifteen Security Council members supported it?
The US elite doesn’t seem to be taking any interest in who the Labour Party chooses as its next leader this time round (unlike last time, when Frank Luntz tried to foist Dr John Reid on us). That’s bad news for anyone in the Labour Party hoping to get back into government any time soon.
Three years ago, pro Europeans in the Party were humiliated by having our suggestion that we might rather seek a co-operative renewal of our nuclear deterrent with the French, and perhaps get some financial recognition from our non-nuclear EU partners that we were providing a defence umbrella for them, rejected summarily. This was accompanied by extraordinary expressions of hostility in some quarters to our EU engagement generally which made many wonder whether the Party had any meaningful pro-European commitment left. Is there a chance this initiative might now be revived? If the Party wishes to demonstrate it is different from the Conservatives and have a chance of defeating the clear Tory majority in the House against abandoning a submarine-based first strike proof capability, this is the only viable approach. It is also emphatically in the National interest. It would dramatically differentiate us from the Conservatives on ground potentially favourable to us. It might also demonstrate that pro Europeans have some reasons still for supporting the Party in the coalition (beyond getting the deficit down to within the Maastricht criteria, an argument strangely absent for current discourse).