Liberal Democrats can be rightly proud of their record on challenging like-for-like Trident replacement and keeping Britain’s nuclear weapons near the top of the political agenda – certainly during the last general election campaign. But now it looks as though their coalition partners are moving to stifle the gains they have made. Not only has the Defence Secretary announced the suppression of the Lib Dem-led Trident Alternatives Review. He is also making a mockery of the delayed Trident replacement decision – scheduled for 2016 – by committing to spend £6 billion before that decision date. This is hardly fair play by any yardstick of coalition cooperation.
So it’s not surprising that Tessa Munt MP, well-known for her principled stance against nuclear weapons, had the following to say about this shabby and unaccountable behaviour:
I am becoming increasingly concerned about the lack of openness at the MoD regarding the review on alternatives to Trident. This must not be delayed or hidden or re-branded whilst more and more contracts are signed which make Trident unstoppable after 2015.
No doubt Tessa’s concern will be echoed by many Liberal Democrat members and supporters, particularly from amongst those who have fought hard in recent times to ensure that their leadership holds the line on Trident – even if it’s not the full anti-nuclear position that many of them would prefer. After all, 2010 Party Conference delegates fought hard to secure the emergency debate which demanded due scrutiny, cost-saving measures and a rigorous review of alternatives to like-for-like replacement of Trident and secured this commitment by top levels of the party.
It is impossible to know – until an insider publishes their memoirs presumably – the exact extent to which Lib Dem ministerial intervention contributed to the Trident replacement delay. But certainly former Party President Baroness Scott thought that it was a pivotal factor. As she said in October 2010, after the delay was announced:
So Trident will not be renewed this parliament – not on a Liberal Democrat watch. Let us be clear, this is a significant victory for Liberal Democrat campaigners, and a fantastic example of what our Ministers can and do achieve in government.
Not long after, in May of this year, then Defence Secretary Liam Fox announced the Trident Alternatives Review – under the auspices of Lib Dem Defence Minister Nick Harvey and reporting to the Prime Minister and his deputy – to “review the costs, feasibility and credibility of alternative systems and postures”. This would enable the Lib Dems to put forward credible alternatives to like-for-like Trident replacement. Whilst many of us have argued that a ‘no-nuclear’ alternative should also be considered, nevertheless it was another Trident victory for the Lib Dems.
But the trouble with victories is that those on the losing side will then work to redress the balance.
It’s taken a few months, but the Tory backlash has started. Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has stated, in an answer to a Parliamentary Question from Jeremy Corbyn MP, that “[t]here are…no plans to publish either the report or the information it draws upon.” Read that again. Now ask yourself how a review designed to open up debate and scrutiny of plans to replace our nuclear weapons system cannot be made public.
Following this, Defence Minister Peter Luff has itemised £2bn of spending at the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) in Aldermaston where our nuclear warheads are made – also prior to any decision on upgrading them. This is in addition to the MoD’s projected £4bn which will be spent on replacement submarines before the ‘Main Gate’ decision point in 2016.
Both these developments are an insult, to parliamentarians as a whole, whose part in the decision-making process is being denied, and to Lib Dems in particular, who have made advances only to see them unilaterally – presumably – reversed. Tessa Munt MP is absolutely right to highlight the ‘lack of openness at the MoD’ and the fact that come 2016, the replacement of Trident could be presented to Parliament as a fait accompli. This cannot be countenanced and doubtless this view is widely shared amongst Lib Dems. Their fighting spirit, I am sure, will not allow the Tories to roll over them on this question.
Kate Hudson is the General Secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Taking action to combat climate breakdown
What's the role for policy in winning elections?
Truths about Tax
The Joy of Six 1166
Give us the money
Fraser's weekly ward surgeries tonight! #dundeewestend
Conference Video Diary day 2
15 minute cities: what is it with the Tories and stupid?
Joe Bourke
Robin AG Bennett
Peter Davies
18 Comments
Why the surprise? The Tories had no intention of scrapping Trident; an “independent” nuclear capability (no matter that it is impossible to imagine a feasible situation in which the UK might use ‘nukes’ without the US) gives a government a seat at the big boys’ table.
It should be noted that, at the very start of the coalition, government statements were made regarding the ‘requirement’ for ongoing purchases on the Trident programme….
“This would enable the Lib Dems to put forward credible alternatives to like-for-like Trident replacement.”
There are no credible alternatives, as study after study has shown:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/parties_and_issues/8636879.stm
“Following this, Defence Minister Peter Luff has itemised £2bn of spending at the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) in Aldermaston where our nuclear warheads are made – also prior to any decision on upgrading them.”
So we accept that we will have a nuclear deterrent and yet you believe no further investment is necessary in the place the makes and tests those nuclear warheads…….bizarre!
“This is in addition to the MoD’s projected £4bn which will be spent on replacement submarines before the ‘Main Gate’ decision point in 2016.”
No doubt the Lib-Dem’s ‘credible’ alternatives will include provision for an expanded SSN force of eleven or twelve boats, up from the present seven? This being necessary given that SSN’s are considered a stragetic part of Britain’s capability, and as a consequence so is a nuclear submarine industry capable of designing and building them. This requires eleven/twelve boats built on a 22/24 month drumbeat, with a service life of 22/24 years, in order to maintain a viable industry. Tell me this will be considered when you present your value-for-money alternative?
It is crazy to spend any money at all on Trident or it’s replacement, not least given the austerity measures currently being persued by the government.
Whether we like it or not we cannot afford to be a nuclear weapons state anymore.
I took part in the debate yesterday on Trident, and am absolutely clear the right alternative is not to replace it; we need no nukes. I also proposed the emergency resolution that Kate endorses above.
I’ve spoken to Nick Harvey about this study, and it is clear that it would be inconceivable for the study not to be published in some form. Some details of the detailed analysis may have to be kept private, of course, but the rest should and must come out – that was the point of the study!
Ultimately the decision as to what to publish is for the PM and DPM – the study reports to them – and we must keep the pressure up on them to get as much released as possible.
Hello again Jedibeeftrix. Some time since we last sparred. You are right. There is no credible alternative to Trident simply because there is no credible case for Trident in the 21st Century in the first place. What the defence of the UK needs – both to protect itself and to assist in international actions – is lots of soldiers withe finest possible equipment for rapid deployment and their own protection; a flexible airforce likewise, which means smaller faster long endurance aircraft carriers for the Navy – not the woolly mammoths we are currently building – and numerous high speed vessels to deal with pirates and such like. Unless we envisage a first strike use of nuclear weapons our possession of such things is also an irrelevance. When I’m already dead the ability to retaliate loses its significance.
Hi ColdComfort – “There is no credible alternative to Trident simply because there is no credible case for Trident in the 21st Century in the first place. What the defence of the UK needs – both to protect itself and to assist in international actions – is lots of soldiers withe finest possible equipment for rapid deployment and their own protection; a flexible airforce likewise, which means smaller faster long endurance aircraft carriers for the Navy”
I am not unsympathetic to that argument.
I personally am most interested in how Britain can leverage its military to maintain its geopolitical influence, primarily through continued UNSC membership, and this new century makes owning nukes far less important than it once was.
This is why Britain & France are pushing R2P in Libya for all it is worth.
This of course is exactly what Britain and France want; to be the go-to guys in the security council when problems arise that require more stick than carrot.
We face no existential threats, but others do, so there will always be a requirement for someone to arbitrate disputes from the end of a gun barrel (lets call this the UNSC for now). Given that we face no existential threats, and that we have a population that is (still) accepting of elective warfare, it is at least appropriate that Britain should consider itself for the role of gun-barrel arbiter.
However, an appropriate ambition is not the same the as a realisable one, but on the other hand we will remain a top-ten economy beyond 2050 and likely a top-five military spender in the same timeframe, so perhaps it is a realisable ambition too.
As for what Britain gets out of its determination to play world-cop; arguably not enough if we are purely looking at this through the lense of national (self) interest. However, here is nothing immoral in this ambition as we have an interest in promoting an international rules based system where laws and norms are adhered to. Responsibility to Protect, a ‘norm’ now quite accepted in International Relations is a case in point (read: Libya). Britain’s position on the Security Council is in part justified by the strategic bargain with friends and allies that we will work to achieve collective security in the widest sense. We can choose not to meet the requirements of that strategic bargain, but then we really ought consider giving up our SC seat, and live with the fact that our successor will be acting to further their interest rather than ours.
Libya was a success and thus gives legitimacy to R2P as a template for the future, which is exactly what France and Britain want.All they have to offer the UNSC in the 21st century is their high-tech ability to project power as the worlds policemen.
France and Britain in the 21st century lack the prestige, industry, geography, population, wealth that justifies their seats, they need R2P, and they needed Libya to be a successful piece of supporting ‘case-law’.
And it appears to be be working…….
So, nukes shmukes, not too fussed, but the arguments i picked on above are flawed, deeply flawed!
“Libya was a success and thus gives legitimacy to R2P as a template for the future, which is exactly what France and Britain want. All they have to offer the UNSC in the 21st century is their high-tech ability to project power as the worlds policemen.”
Iraq and Afghanistan were failures. Keep it quiet though. Careers in the military-industrial complex are much more important than the lives of a few people in faraway countries of which we know little.
“Iraq and Afghanistan were failures. Keep it quiet though. Careers in the military-industrial complex are much more important than the lives of a few people in faraway countries of which we know little.”
Before we get snippy about the failures of previous interventions let us recognise a few facts:
1. HMG very firmly wants to be able to use HMF for political ends
2. SDSR was mainly about preserving power projection
3. R2P is seen as a ‘legitimate’ mechanism with which to do so
4. The british public told chatham house they were happy for power projection to continue
Many Lib Dems who like me were committed multilateralists while the soviet nuclear threat existed are now opposed to any replacement for Trident. Our army desperately needs equipment to deal with the 21st Century challenges they face. We surely cannot afford it and who do it’s adherents think we could concieveably use it on? In the end how can we criticise Iran’s nuclear ambitions if we are unwilling to set an example by reducing by one the number of nations with nuclear weapoons?
“In the end how can we criticise Iran’s nuclear ambitions if we are unwilling to set an example by reducing by one the number of nations with nuclear weapoons?”
easily:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#Iran
Sounds like we may be getting close to this coalition’s equivalent to the Welsh Lib Dem’ s Mike German moment. In the 2000-2003 coalition in Wales, a Labour minister failed/refused to implement a part of the agreed policy and the Welsh Lib Dems chose to cling to office rather than take a principled stand and vote them down.
I hope that Nick will have the bottle to take the principled approach if the Cons try to push ahead with this. It would get us out of the nightmare of this coalition and might even save the party’s bacon.
the purity of principle is remarkably satisfying to the self, but not necessarily very nourishing for a political party, and quite often foolish to boot.
Why don’t we spend money on defence kit we can actually use? Nuclear weapons were historically justified as being cost effective but how effective have they proved? No use against terrorism. No deterrent in the Falklands. No use in the Gulf. They won’t stop the next 7/7 or the next 9/11.
On the other hand they are an absolute guarantee that no nation ever practice industrial total war against Britain again.
Seems pretty good value for money at ~£2b/year………….
Jedibeeftrix – they offer no such guarantee. They only offer us protection against nations with rational leaders. Against irrational leaders they offer limited protection and only really the certainty of revenge.
It’s a jolly good thing this representative democracy business is catching on like wild-fire then.
Some remarkable comments here! A nuclear deterrent guarantees us a place at the top table, presumably one where the North Koreans sit, and from which Angela Merkel is excluded. That really counts for something. I could buy the influence argument during the cold war, not for the reasons stated, but because vulnerable Britain was almost certain to be a voice for moderation and weapons reduction in contacts between nuclear powers. Now it’s simply an expensive irrelevance. Why is it worth us keeping it when we can’t afford it and nations like Germany, Brazil, Japan, Turkey, South Africa, can do without?
Yes, one day in the distant future the threat of all-out war might return to Europe. If that happens, awake people will see it coming as they saw it before the two world wars. In such a situation, I hope the UK doesn’t stand alone and I’d much prefer the most destructive weapons to be in the hands of an alliance, not one nation which might itself become unstable, aggressive and extremist.
This is not a question of ideological purity, so smoothly sneered at by jedi (is that star wars title revealing?) but of rational risk analysis.
“A nuclear deterrent guarantees us a place at the top table, presumably one where the North Koreans sit, and from which Angela Merkel is excluded.”
You will have noted i hope that that was an argument i specifically rejected?
“I hope the UK doesn’t stand alone and I’d much prefer the most destructive weapons to be in the hands of an alliance, not one nation which might itself become unstable, aggressive and extremist.”
Do not alliances becomes unstable, aggressive and extremest too? It sounds like you are arguing for a nuclear weapon committee from which it will never be possible to receive a “go” order, in which case the principle of deterrence really is out of the window!
“This is not a question of ideological purity, so smoothly sneered at by jedi (is that star wars title revealing?) but of rational risk analysis.”
As noted above, I am not wedded to the notion of nukes. forced to choose; i would take that budget line and spend every penny on improving power projection via conventional forces, but neither do i object to them either. As to my name, it is merely a silly construction that i have taken a liking too.