The former Deputy Prime Minister who coined the phrase "One Nation Labour", and who might remember all those upper-middle-class Mail and Telegraph writers who are now claiming that of course they would love to see more working-class people in politics, John Prescott writes:
To replace our Trident defence system is going to
cost at least £25billion. Lib Dem Coalition ministers recently published a
review to look at cheaper alternatives. It showed that a smaller replacement for the
present Trident submarine fleet would not be massively cheaper. According to
the Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond, it would only save £60million a year or
£1.5billion over 25 years.
Alternative nuclear options on land, ship or aircraft were also found to be less effective – and would actually cost more. The Government claims that to keep a Continuous At Sea Deterrence (CASD), with at least one nuclear sub at sea 24 hours a day, we need four submarines. In the review, Lib Dem Danny Alexander argued we could reduce it to three. The decision to replace Trident has to be made by 2020, although work on designs for the new subs is already underway and costing us many millions.
The question is whether we still need the round-the-clock deterrent brought in for the Cold War 60 years ago. These days Russia is more likely to cut off our gas supply than launch a nuclear attack. Labour’s defence spokesman Jim Murphy says it is current Labour policy to maintain CASD with four submarines. Ed Miliband says the party will debate this decision. Good. Let’s start by defining the enemy.
Those who argue for it say the Trident fleet was a deterrent against the Soviet Union in the Cold War. They also argue that North Korea and Iran could be a threat because they have the bomb, although they seem to forget that Pakistan, India and Israel have it, too. Presumably, they are seen as the “goodies”. I seem to remember Iraq was once seen that way, too.
Perhaps we should understand that North Korea and Iran have learnt that having nuclear weapons is actually about holding power and recognition in an international community and justifying it in the name of deterrence – or to stop the West attacking them. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty was designed when there were four nuclear nations who wanted to stop other countries getting the bomb.
The challenge now is to reduce nuclear weapons. Britain could make a major step towards disarmament if we were to drop our commitment to having a CASD and not replace Trident. My worry is that costs will continue to soar. Replacing aircraft carriers was meant to cost £3.5billion but it has doubled to £7billion. Clearly, in this period of austerity, which will last until well after the next election, along with struggling economic growth, health, welfare and public services, we’ve got to set our priorities.
I believe we should be bold and take the lead. Of course, the US won’t like it but the Scottish Government would – they don’t want Trident based in their country, as it is now. So let’s have a proper and informed debate, not one dominated by straw man defence priorities and lobbying from retired defence chiefs and political hawks.
The £25billion cost of Trident is exactly the same amount as the projected black hole in NHS funding by 2020. I say we scrap Trident for good, stop being the world’s policeman and spend that money protecting the health of the nation.
Alternative nuclear options on land, ship or aircraft were also found to be less effective – and would actually cost more. The Government claims that to keep a Continuous At Sea Deterrence (CASD), with at least one nuclear sub at sea 24 hours a day, we need four submarines. In the review, Lib Dem Danny Alexander argued we could reduce it to three. The decision to replace Trident has to be made by 2020, although work on designs for the new subs is already underway and costing us many millions.
The question is whether we still need the round-the-clock deterrent brought in for the Cold War 60 years ago. These days Russia is more likely to cut off our gas supply than launch a nuclear attack. Labour’s defence spokesman Jim Murphy says it is current Labour policy to maintain CASD with four submarines. Ed Miliband says the party will debate this decision. Good. Let’s start by defining the enemy.
Those who argue for it say the Trident fleet was a deterrent against the Soviet Union in the Cold War. They also argue that North Korea and Iran could be a threat because they have the bomb, although they seem to forget that Pakistan, India and Israel have it, too. Presumably, they are seen as the “goodies”. I seem to remember Iraq was once seen that way, too.
Perhaps we should understand that North Korea and Iran have learnt that having nuclear weapons is actually about holding power and recognition in an international community and justifying it in the name of deterrence – or to stop the West attacking them. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty was designed when there were four nuclear nations who wanted to stop other countries getting the bomb.
The challenge now is to reduce nuclear weapons. Britain could make a major step towards disarmament if we were to drop our commitment to having a CASD and not replace Trident. My worry is that costs will continue to soar. Replacing aircraft carriers was meant to cost £3.5billion but it has doubled to £7billion. Clearly, in this period of austerity, which will last until well after the next election, along with struggling economic growth, health, welfare and public services, we’ve got to set our priorities.
I believe we should be bold and take the lead. Of course, the US won’t like it but the Scottish Government would – they don’t want Trident based in their country, as it is now. So let’s have a proper and informed debate, not one dominated by straw man defence priorities and lobbying from retired defence chiefs and political hawks.
The £25billion cost of Trident is exactly the same amount as the projected black hole in NHS funding by 2020. I say we scrap Trident for good, stop being the world’s policeman and spend that money protecting the health of the nation.
Prescott's party has kept "workinng class people" out of politics, by destroying the grammar schools and legislating to make them illegal.
ReplyDeleteThanks to Labour, schools are only legally able to select pupils on the basis of money.
Any party that promises to bring them back (right now, its only UKIP) gets my vote.
Thanks to Labour, schools are only legally able to select pupils on the basis of money.
ReplyDeleteI think you'll find that that goes back rather further than the foundation of the Labour Party in 1900.
Now, on the topic of this rather old school, realist Tory article, please.
I agree about nuclear weapons-but unfortunately Labour (in the person of Michael Foot) opposed them when we actually did need them.
ReplyDeleteWhen Scottish CND made the mistake of re-tweeting P.Hitchens article on nuclear weapons (as if he'd ever support THEM) he instantly Tweeted back "But you lot opposed nuclear weapons when we needed them".
Like Hitchens, I'm only interested in the patriotic case against Trident-most of the historical Ban The Bomb movement are anything but patriots.
Michael Foot is dead. And in any case, he was right, as it turned out, on this as on the EU. Like Enoch Powell, with whom he had co-operated in the past, and who also explained, exactly as turned out to be true, that the Soviet military threat did not exist.
ReplyDeleteHe was absolutely wrong at the time-when the threat of mutually assured destruction was the only thing that kept the peace.
ReplyDeleteBut, then, his anti-British party contained 32 MP's who even voted against retaking the Falklands.
The rest of Foot's manifesto was also wrong-from abolishing hereditary peers (which Labour finally achieved, anyway) to nationalising banks.
Electing Foot to leave the EU would have been like chopping off your leg to get rid of a lesion.
He'd have wrecked Britain.
Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.
ReplyDeleteNo serious person still believes that, "the threat of mutually assured destruction was the only thing that kept the peace."
At least arguably, no serious person, by definition, ever did.
Is it possible that John Prescott is so stupid he has confused the (total) 25bn cost of Trident with the (annual) NHS black hole?
ReplyDeleteNo.
ReplyDeleteRead it.
I have. That's exactly what he says. Cost of replacing trident - 25bn. NHS black hole (which must by definition be annual) - 20bn.
ReplyDeleteWow. So neither he nor you can tell the difference
Read it again.
ReplyDeleteI can see what Sam is missing. You can see what Sam is missing. But how long will it be before Sam can see what Sam is missing?
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't hold your breath. The Trident lot are impervious to rational or empirical evidence or argument. Just look at the above comments.
ReplyDeleteIt must be wonderful to be Sam and able to spot these things when an ex-DPM, his entire staff and the entire editorial staff of a national newspaper have managed to miss them.
ReplyDeleteThanks all! Yes it is wonderful. I credit the fact I had a gramma school education. And also, I'm from the south, where people generally have better schools than in the north.
ReplyDeleteBut go on then, "anonymous" (and my you sound like someone else, I can't put my finger on it) - what have I missed? Please quote direct from the article.
PS I don't think the DPM did miss it, necessarily. He wasn't the one that made the stupid equivalent to the NHS. THat was John Presott. Still, he's Northern too. And he didn't even go to a grammar school.
A bit of subbing by the Sunday Mirror wouldn't do you any harm at all, Sam.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, of course it is not one of the newspapers that officially exist, according to all the others and the broadcast media. Look out for a future post on that.