Tag Archives: conference 2013

Julian Huppert: Trident – getting off the nuclear ladder

TridentI firmly believe that we do not want Trident. We simply don’t need the ability to blow up large parts of the globe. Frankly, the idea that we have spent decades with nuclear armed missiles cruising the oceans ready to fire on a moment’s notice seems absurd to me. I look forward to a world where we do not have such weapons, and where no one else does either.

Even those who believe that the MAD theory worked during the Cold War surely must accept that  the world has changed – I am always amazed by those who still live in the 60s.

The Tories are still wedded to that position – they seem to display some bizarrely Freudian attachment to having missiles which can explode violently.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | 40 Comments

Opinion: How can we advance nuclear disarmament?

To many the answer to this question is simple: de-commission Trident and don’t replace it. But this only leads to the next question – how do we get a British government to do this ?  It is a common mistake, and one that I have made too, to believe that passing a motion at our conference changes the world.  Trident

Of course, all we need to do then is win an election on the basis of policies agreed at conference and form a government.  Our brief current experience in government tells us that it may be a little more difficult.

The recent Trident Alternatives Review (TAR) and leaked versions of the party’s Defence Report to conference have become muddled and people are taking positions either before or without reading either document.  Certainly the speeches of Labour and Tory front and backbenchers in the Commons debate on TAR on 17th July revealed a depressing combination of wilful ignorance and prejudice. Both sides fell over each other to praise the need for a full Cold War system of nuclear deterrence and to denounce the Liberal Democrats for challenging it.

A couple of facts may bring some light instead of heat.  Firstly, all options including moving straight to no nukes would save nothing in the next parliament. Even decommissioning is expensive in the short run. As it is we still have old Polaris submarines awaiting safe removal of nuclear material. No option has a significant impact on the country’s current financial problems.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , and | 16 Comments
Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarPaul Walter 22nd Feb - 1:41am
    Yes, well done Tom for getting early to deliver Good Mornings. I was once reported to the police for walking around at 5am. A couple...
  • User AvatarMalc Poll 21st Feb - 11:25pm
    The above should read 115 % *TYPO*
  • User AvatarPaul 21st Feb - 11:19pm
    For the uninformed what is the difference between the federal treasurer and the nominated treasurer?
  • User Avatarmalc 21st Feb - 11:16pm
    Paul Reynolds "BTW it is not true that France and Belgium have a lower standard of living than the UK" I've tried researching this a...
  • User AvatarMalc Poll 21st Feb - 10:49pm
    So to sum up your figures Tony... The Tories are about 55 %.more popular than labour... We are a gnats whisker away from labour... And...
  • User AvatarTony Greaves 21st Feb - 10:23pm
    And just for the record the votes were: Conservative 689 Labour 279 Liberal Democrat 259 Independent 90 Independent 88