This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/19/anti-trident-arguments-blow-labour-apart
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Anti-Trident arguments must be heard but they can’t blow Labour apart | Anti-Trident arguments must be heard but they can’t blow Labour apart |
| (about 7 hours later) | |
| If we cannot have a rational debate about spending tens of billions of pounds on weapons that many senior military officials believe we do not need, what does that say about our democracy? | If we cannot have a rational debate about spending tens of billions of pounds on weapons that many senior military officials believe we do not need, what does that say about our democracy? |
| At Monday’s Trident debate in parliament, when Brighton’s Green MP Caroline Lucas dared to suggest that Britain’s possession of nuclear weapons encouraged their proliferation, our new prime minister Theresa May’s response was contemptible. “Sadly [Lucas], and some members of the Labour party, seem to be the first to defend the country’s enemies,” May declared, summoning the political ghost of George W Bush and his infamous judgment that “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” Given she was being smeared as borderline treasonous, Lucas’s response was dignified and restrained: “How dare you,” she mouthed. | |
| Related: This Trident vote is a contemptible trick. That’s why we are abstaining | Clive Lewis and Emily Thornberry | Related: This Trident vote is a contemptible trick. That’s why we are abstaining | Clive Lewis and Emily Thornberry |
| Those of us who believe Britain could set an example by disposing of its nuclear weapons should have the humility to accept we have not convinced the majority of people in this country, including those whose jobs currently depend on Trident and who have not been persuaded about an alternative economic plan. We have to at least start from there. That does not mean the compelling argument for unilateral disarmament should not be heard, or that it should be subjected to McCarthyite smears. | Those of us who believe Britain could set an example by disposing of its nuclear weapons should have the humility to accept we have not convinced the majority of people in this country, including those whose jobs currently depend on Trident and who have not been persuaded about an alternative economic plan. We have to at least start from there. That does not mean the compelling argument for unilateral disarmament should not be heard, or that it should be subjected to McCarthyite smears. |
| Take this argument: “Nuclear weapons have shown themselves to be completely useless as a deterrent to the threats and scale of violence we currently face or are likely to face, particularly international terrorism. Our independent deterrent has become virtually irrelevant, except in the context of domestic politics.” Jeremy Corbyn at the despatch box yesterday? No: that would be Field Marshall Lord Bramall and two other senior generals. Or this: “Strategic nuclear weapons have no military use. It would seem the government wishes to replace Trident simply to remain a nuclear power.” Which firebrand radical said this? Major General Patrick Cordingley, who headed UK forces during the Gulf war. Former supporters of Britain’s nuclear weapons – like David Owen and Michael Portillo – are among those who have since recanted. Even Tony Blair considered the force of the “common sense and practical argument against Trident. | Take this argument: “Nuclear weapons have shown themselves to be completely useless as a deterrent to the threats and scale of violence we currently face or are likely to face, particularly international terrorism. Our independent deterrent has become virtually irrelevant, except in the context of domestic politics.” Jeremy Corbyn at the despatch box yesterday? No: that would be Field Marshall Lord Bramall and two other senior generals. Or this: “Strategic nuclear weapons have no military use. It would seem the government wishes to replace Trident simply to remain a nuclear power.” Which firebrand radical said this? Major General Patrick Cordingley, who headed UK forces during the Gulf war. Former supporters of Britain’s nuclear weapons – like David Owen and Michael Portillo – are among those who have since recanted. Even Tony Blair considered the force of the “common sense and practical argument against Trident. |
| Yesterday’s debate was about deploying Trident as a weapon of mass destruction against the Labour party. The results were, indeed, explosive, with Labour parliamentarians openly turning on each other. But rather committing Britain to long-term multilateral nuclear disarmament, the government’s motion – that we retain a nuclear arsenal for “as long as the global security situation demands” - is vague enough to mean “indefinitely”. Politicians are often ridiculed for abstaining, but MPs such as Labour’s defence secretary Clive Lewis and Emily Thornberry were absolutely right to do so. This was a trap, nothing else, and an attempt to play politics with a critical issue, which should be treated with contempt. | Yesterday’s debate was about deploying Trident as a weapon of mass destruction against the Labour party. The results were, indeed, explosive, with Labour parliamentarians openly turning on each other. But rather committing Britain to long-term multilateral nuclear disarmament, the government’s motion – that we retain a nuclear arsenal for “as long as the global security situation demands” - is vague enough to mean “indefinitely”. Politicians are often ridiculed for abstaining, but MPs such as Labour’s defence secretary Clive Lewis and Emily Thornberry were absolutely right to do so. This was a trap, nothing else, and an attempt to play politics with a critical issue, which should be treated with contempt. |
| Related: Trident is useless. That’s why we must debate its renewal | Richard Norton-Taylor | Related: Trident is useless. That’s why we must debate its renewal | Richard Norton-Taylor |
| But should Labour go to the wall on this? On so many issues, the left has the support either of the majority, or at least a huge portion of the population: higher taxes on the rich, challenging the power of big business, investment rather than cuts, a housebuilding programme, increased workers’ rights, a publicly run and properly funded NHS, opposition to calamitous foreign wars like Iraq. Nuclear disarmament would free up money better spent on conventional weapons and public services – but it isn’t a precondition to an alternative to cuts. | But should Labour go to the wall on this? On so many issues, the left has the support either of the majority, or at least a huge portion of the population: higher taxes on the rich, challenging the power of big business, investment rather than cuts, a housebuilding programme, increased workers’ rights, a publicly run and properly funded NHS, opposition to calamitous foreign wars like Iraq. Nuclear disarmament would free up money better spent on conventional weapons and public services – but it isn’t a precondition to an alternative to cuts. |
| Nuclear weapons are a totemic issue for much of the British left: unlike, say, France, whose Communist party declared in 1977 that nuclear weapons were necessary “to neutralise any possible imperialist nuclear blackmail.” Prominent backers of Corbyn – from Unite to the journalist Paul Mason – support some form of nuclear arsenal. If Trident becomes the defining issue of the impending Labour leadership contest, that will further complicate Labour’s already imperilled chance of winning popular support. The debate must instead focus on the issues that millions of people actually care about, and on policies they are sympathetic towards. If unilateral nuclear disarmament becomes the one clear policy where the electorate are actually clear where Labour stands – the one key issue that cuts through – then the party’s electoral prospects are bleak indeed. | Nuclear weapons are a totemic issue for much of the British left: unlike, say, France, whose Communist party declared in 1977 that nuclear weapons were necessary “to neutralise any possible imperialist nuclear blackmail.” Prominent backers of Corbyn – from Unite to the journalist Paul Mason – support some form of nuclear arsenal. If Trident becomes the defining issue of the impending Labour leadership contest, that will further complicate Labour’s already imperilled chance of winning popular support. The debate must instead focus on the issues that millions of people actually care about, and on policies they are sympathetic towards. If unilateral nuclear disarmament becomes the one clear policy where the electorate are actually clear where Labour stands – the one key issue that cuts through – then the party’s electoral prospects are bleak indeed. |