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 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/31/labour-right-support-trident

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Labour is right to support Trident Labour is right to support Trident
(6 months later)
As the next election gets closer, a steady stream of commentators have speculated that Labour could go back to the days of advocating unilateral nuclear disarmament by abandoning the programme to build the new submarines that will carry Britain's deterrent.As the next election gets closer, a steady stream of commentators have speculated that Labour could go back to the days of advocating unilateral nuclear disarmament by abandoning the programme to build the new submarines that will carry Britain's deterrent.
Some hope Ed Miliband will be different to the succession of Labour leaders who believed unilateralism would leave the UK more vulnerable to a future nuclear threat while doing precious little to advance the vitally important cause of global non-proliferation and disarmament. Others think that the need to restrict spending means that a future Labour government should write off the £3bn that will already have been invested in the new submarines to avoid the remaining construction costs over the subsequent two decades. Instead, so the argument goes, we could build greater numbers of smaller submarines and create smaller warheads and smaller missiles to go in them. This new missile and warhead building programme would apparently save money and have the presentational advantage of not being called Trident.Some hope Ed Miliband will be different to the succession of Labour leaders who believed unilateralism would leave the UK more vulnerable to a future nuclear threat while doing precious little to advance the vitally important cause of global non-proliferation and disarmament. Others think that the need to restrict spending means that a future Labour government should write off the £3bn that will already have been invested in the new submarines to avoid the remaining construction costs over the subsequent two decades. Instead, so the argument goes, we could build greater numbers of smaller submarines and create smaller warheads and smaller missiles to go in them. This new missile and warhead building programme would apparently save money and have the presentational advantage of not being called Trident.
The unilateralists and those pushing the mini-deterrent fantasy will be disappointed. Labour under Ed's leadership would never hand a gift to opponents by opting for a plan that might look fine in a Liberal Democrat election leaflet but would create a credibility gap in the eyes of the electorate, and do major damage to Britain's manufacturing base.The unilateralists and those pushing the mini-deterrent fantasy will be disappointed. Labour under Ed's leadership would never hand a gift to opponents by opting for a plan that might look fine in a Liberal Democrat election leaflet but would create a credibility gap in the eyes of the electorate, and do major damage to Britain's manufacturing base.
Labour has said that it would look at any genuinely credible alternatives to the current plan. But there is a reason why the last Labour government put in place the renewal programme for the continuous at-sea deterrent. The future is highly uncertain. If we cancel or delay renewal, it may be very difficult ever to get the capability back, such is the complexity of the submarine skills base that has been painstakingly assembled. And while the world has changed greatly since the 1980s, the political reality has not: we will appear dangerously weak as a future party of government if we are prepared to give up that insurance while the world remains so unstable.Labour has said that it would look at any genuinely credible alternatives to the current plan. But there is a reason why the last Labour government put in place the renewal programme for the continuous at-sea deterrent. The future is highly uncertain. If we cancel or delay renewal, it may be very difficult ever to get the capability back, such is the complexity of the submarine skills base that has been painstakingly assembled. And while the world has changed greatly since the 1980s, the political reality has not: we will appear dangerously weak as a future party of government if we are prepared to give up that insurance while the world remains so unstable.
There is no question that renewal requires significant capital expenditure. Yet we should focus on the £12bn to £17bn still to pay in the 20 years after the next election, not the inflated figure of more than £100bn over 50 years regularly used by opponents. There is no other investment, civil or military, where estimates of construction and long-term operating costs are conflated in this way.There is no question that renewal requires significant capital expenditure. Yet we should focus on the £12bn to £17bn still to pay in the 20 years after the next election, not the inflated figure of more than £100bn over 50 years regularly used by opponents. There is no other investment, civil or military, where estimates of construction and long-term operating costs are conflated in this way.
Those who understandably question this spending when money is tight should keep in mind that the cost of building the new submarines would give a near-unique bang for buck in boosting advanced UK manufacturing and creating highly skilled hi-tech jobs here in Britain, given that national security considerations require a very high proportion of the contracts to be let within the UK. With the government's much -vaunted rebalancing of the economy towards manufacturing stuck in the doldrums, it would be blinkered in the extreme to ignore that boost.Those who understandably question this spending when money is tight should keep in mind that the cost of building the new submarines would give a near-unique bang for buck in boosting advanced UK manufacturing and creating highly skilled hi-tech jobs here in Britain, given that national security considerations require a very high proportion of the contracts to be let within the UK. With the government's much -vaunted rebalancing of the economy towards manufacturing stuck in the doldrums, it would be blinkered in the extreme to ignore that boost.
The most high-profile jobs placed at risk by cancelling renewal are the 5,500 people employed directly by the shipyard at Barrow-in-Furness where the submarines will be manufactured. But the figure across the UK supply chain will be more than double that. The contracts for the new submarines could support around 1,200 individual firms, from small businesses to major British employers like Sheffield Forgemasters and Rolls-Royce in Derby.The most high-profile jobs placed at risk by cancelling renewal are the 5,500 people employed directly by the shipyard at Barrow-in-Furness where the submarines will be manufactured. But the figure across the UK supply chain will be more than double that. The contracts for the new submarines could support around 1,200 individual firms, from small businesses to major British employers like Sheffield Forgemasters and Rolls-Royce in Derby.
The precision involved in constructing nuclear-powered submarines is truly extraordinary. The vessels are feats of engineering more complex than the space shuttle, produced by men and women at the very pinnacle of British manufacturing. Renewal would involve sustained investment in this cutting edge, providing the opportunity to develop world-leading expertise in other areas of precision engineering with high export potential.The precision involved in constructing nuclear-powered submarines is truly extraordinary. The vessels are feats of engineering more complex than the space shuttle, produced by men and women at the very pinnacle of British manufacturing. Renewal would involve sustained investment in this cutting edge, providing the opportunity to develop world-leading expertise in other areas of precision engineering with high export potential.
With hi-tech jobs in the successor submarine supply chain spread across the country, continuing with the programme would also help rebalance the economy geographically. And with sufficient commitment to apprenticeships, the programme can contribute to a long-term renaissance of manufacturing and high-skilled work.With hi-tech jobs in the successor submarine supply chain spread across the country, continuing with the programme would also help rebalance the economy geographically. And with sufficient commitment to apprenticeships, the programme can contribute to a long-term renaissance of manufacturing and high-skilled work.
The decision to renew the deterrent-carrying submarines will rightly not be made on jobs and economic impact alone. But anyone who says we cannot afford the manufacturing boost it will bring should first take time to needs to understand the employment cost and damage that would be done to the UK's industrial base by cancelling or attempting to postpone it.The decision to renew the deterrent-carrying submarines will rightly not be made on jobs and economic impact alone. But anyone who says we cannot afford the manufacturing boost it will bring should first take time to needs to understand the employment cost and damage that would be done to the UK's industrial base by cancelling or attempting to postpone it.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.