Cameron 'committed to full Trident replacement'

There isn't all-party support for retaining the UK nuclear deterrent, though the BBC asserts that there is. The Green Party eg through Caroline Lucas MP, is very clearly and strongly opposed and regards both the threatened and actual use of any weapon of mass destruction as immoral and illegal - and there are other MPs that support this view. Ludicrously our PM David Cameron uses phrases like 'keep our guard up' and 'insurance policy' about nuclear weapons!

It is, sadly, right to say though that few politicians are now arguing a fundamental case against nuclear weapons. I watched the 1959 film On the Beach about a post-apocalyptic world again recently. Its not a cheery number - with characters played by Gregory Peck, Ava Gardiner, Anthony Perkins, Fred Astaire and others facing the end of their lives and the end of human beings as fatal radiation levels spread across the globe - but for me its a classic film that makes some very telling points.

I'm 100% with Fred Astaire's character when he says 'The war started when people accepted the idiotic principle that peace could be maintained by arranging to defend themselves with weapons they could not possibly use without committing suicide.' (see video clip). Our PM David Cameron continues, with the support of the Labour and Lib Dem leadership, to support this idiotic principle.

"In terms of the future, all I can say... is that I am in favour of a full replacement for Trident, for continuous at-sea deterrent, and to make sure we keep our guard up.

"That is Conservative policy. It will remain Conservative policy as long as I am the leader of this party."'

All-party support

Labour MP John Woodcock, whose Barrow-in-Furness constituency builds the Trident submarines, also asked Mr Cameron for reassurance that he would not go back on his word.

Mr Cameron said: "I profoundly believe we should maintain our independent nuclear deterrent. I have looked at all of the alternatives over the years and I am completely convinced that you need a submarine based alternative - a full replacement for Trident in order to guarantee the ultimate insurance policy for this country."

BBC News - David Cameron 'committed to full Trident replacement'

Green Party | Caroline Lucas MP makes case for nuclear cuts to save essential services

Green Party Caroline Lucas MP makes case for nuclear cuts to save essential services

Green Party leader Caroline Lucas MP today published a report identifying well over £100 billion of potential savings from nuclear arms projects and subsidies to the nuclear power industry.

In the report Britain’s first Green MP argues that cancelling the Trident renewal will save over £100 billion, while axing proposed new nuclear power stations will save the UK taxpayer around £8 billion in nuclear waste costs...

The report can be downloaded here: http://bit.ly/b9UnqL

Cut Trident, dont replace, save £97 billion

From Greenpeace UK: Right now the government is discussing exactly what to cut from national budgets. Over the next few weeks final decisions will be made - in the firing line are schools, hospitals, housing and disability benefits and essential support for renewable energy.

At the same time they seem determined to green light spending £97bn on a new generation of nuclear weapons. Spending which is due to start at the end of this year.

How can it be that spending on building weapons of mass destruction is protected while investment in the 20 year Schools for the Future programme is scrapped?

And how can they justify giving the nuclear weapons factory at Aldermaston an extra £1billion funding every year to build new nuclear warheads - while scientific research funding is cut?

Again and again polls show that the public don't want new nuclear weapons. Weapons that the international community is working to eliminate.

Meantime senior military figures are warning against spending billions on Cold War weapons that are irrelevant to our military needs, while troop numbers face sharp cuts.

Please make your voice heard. Write to Chancellor George Osborne today. Let him know that you want to protect essential public services and cut Trident.

Louise Edge
Greenpeace Peace campaign

Please pass this message on.

More Greenpeace...on the web
We're also on Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, Flickr, del.icio.us and twitter

After the bombs dropped: Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Asia, World - The Independent

After the bombs dropped: Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Asia, World - The Independent

An exhibition documenting the impact of the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II opens in London today.

Stopped clocks, flattened clothing, the charred contents of a tin lunchbox and a mangled glass bottle are among artefacts recovered from the wreckage of the two Japanese cities and brought to the UK for the first time to coincide with the 65th anniversary of the attacks.

The exhibition brings together first hand accounts of what took place on the 6th and 9th of August 1945 with objects representing the 340,000 people killed when the United States dropped two atomic bombs- events which led to Japan’s surrender from the war only days later...

Its the 65th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima tomorrow and Nagasaki on 9th Aug. We then demonstrated the capability and willingness to deploy atomic weapons of mass destruction in a war situation, mass killing non-combatants on a scale and with a speed previously unmatched. We can kill on an even bigger scale now (there's 'progress' for you) and continue to regard the threat of mass destruction as acceptable and worth spending billions on to update systems. Presumeably the [growing number of] countries in possession of nuclear weapons are all willing to use them in certain circumstances. We cannot escape the consequences of our ethical choices - so lets hope nuclear disarmament proceeds ever more effectively and rapidly.

Cut Trident, save £97 billion, protect public services

Received the email copied below from Greenpeace today. I agree entirely with them that we should cut out the Trident nuclear weapons replacement and save £97 billion - and help protect essential public services from cuts. Whilst on the topic of military spending we've spent £8-£9 billion on the war in Afghanistan over the last 8yrs or so too - lets bring our troops home, save our soldiers lives and avoid spending a further £8-£9 billion in the next 8yrs too.
___________________________________________
Hot on the heels of our 'In the Firing Line' investigation, which showed that Trident replacement will cost UK taxpayers a shocking £97 billion, we’re busy campaigning to stop the UK building new nuclear weapons.

In December we projected a 100 foot high message to the Chancellor onto Big Ben – an image of a Trident missile with the caption: 'Darling...Cut the crap'.

But yesterday Alistair Darling missed a golden opportunity in the pre-election budget. He could have cancelled Trident, and used the money to help fund new green jobs, protect frontline services and reduce the nation's debts.

Instead, he preferred to effectively cut public sector pay and services by reducing government departmental spending by £11bn.

With an election in the offing, now is the time to tell politicians that we want our hard-earned taxes spent on things we actually need, not wasted on doomsday machines which many former generals admit have no military value.

So we've made it easy for you to write to all your parliamentary candidates in one go, to ask them if they are happy to waste £97bn on a weapon which is irrelevant to the real threats we face.

For inspiration, visit our video wall to get ideas about how we could better spend this enormous sum of money. For just £2bn, for example, we could reduce class sizes in UK schools down to an average of 20 by 2020. We could spend it on tackling climate change and fuel poverty.
On the wall you can post your own views about how this huge amount of cash could be better spent, and you can also watch our Cut Trident animation (complete with soundtrack by Massive Attack) or spread the word by sharing it with your friends.

With President Obama committing to reduce nuclear weapons, and the US and Russia close to agreeing a new arms control treaty, the possibility of a nuclear-free world is no longer pie-in-the-sky. With your help, we want to put the phrase 'Cut Trident' on everyone's lips in the run up to this election, and take a big step towards making it a reality.

Thanks so much for your support,

Defence and security

My response to CND, who are seeking the views of general election candidates...I'm an anti-nuclear campaigner, both nuclear weapons and nuclear power, of over 25 yrs standing. I would certainly vote against the replacement of Trident and would vote for a Nuclear Weapons Convention aimed at banning all nuclear weapons internationally.

As a Green MP I would work to:

*Ensure that the British military is only used in self defence, or as a last resort, within an international UN-led policing force;

*Improve the military to promote human security, by focusing only on defence not aggression and specialising in crisis prevention, emergency relief and conflict resolution;

*Seek binding global agreements against all weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons;

*End all export subsidies and increase controls on UK arms sales, especially to goverments who violate human rights.

Thatcherism is alive and well

Spent all my late teens, my twenties and half my thirties living under Tory governments. This had a huge effect on me, especially Margaret Thatcher and her 'no such thing as society' approach, Michael Heseltine and his love of American military bases and cruise missiles and Kenneth Baker's dictating to teachers (bear in mind he was in charge of education when I was training to teach and early on in my career after training). Since hundreds of thousands of people have had a go at redesigning that David Cameron poster I thought I'd have a go at it too.

Green on Brown...

Responding to Gordon Brown's Labour conference speech, Caroline Lucas, leader of the Green Party, said: "Brown talked of Labour's onward march of fairness and justice - but we have a wider gap between rich and poor after 12 years of Labour. Labour has had 12 years to change the voting system, to restore the earnings link to pensions, 12 years to work for nuclear disarmament by axing Trident, to make the Post Office sustainable, and to provide fair wages for working people. And they have not."

"Brown talked of free education and expanded university places, but Labour has been the government to introduce tuition fees and rising student debt."

The Green Party welcomed Brown's aim for 250 000 new green jobs, and up to

10 000 green job placements for youth. But Caroline Lucas said that: "We cannot have a green economy with Labour promises of nuclear power and new coal plants at its core."

Lucas continued: "Unfortunately, Gordon Brown has a track record of grandly announcing projects that led nowhere -- whether it was midnight football, citizens' juries, or a NHS Constitution that ended up having no new enforceable rights."

Lucas also commented on the proposal that 16 and 17 year parents on public support would be sent to a new network of supervised homes: "We strongly object to the idea of forcing all 16 and 17 year-old parents on taxpayer support into a network of supervised homes. It would be a form of paternalistic, 21st-century workhouse. Teen parents flounder, as we've had 12 years of Labour without support for carers, and childcare provision that has been very patchy across the country. We need projects that encourage teen self-esteem and sex education, not punishment after the fact for teen mothers and fathers."

An audience with Tony Benn, political signpost not weathercock

Went to see Tony Benn speaking at the Bristol Colston Hall last night with my partner and daughter. The audience amounted to several hundred people. It was thoroughly enjoyable for each of us. He was open, honest and a great story teller. His relaxed humour was entertaining and ideas as thought-provoking and relevant as ever. He gave a 30 min or so presentation - covering big moral and political issues like war and peace, movements for justice and environment, the pace of technological change, how issues of human and social relationships were the same as ever... and then took questions from the audience on a very wide range of subjects for over 90 minutes.

They dont seem to make politicians like him - a political signpost as opposed to a weathercock - these days. I've always found him an inspiration and as I've said before he is part responsible for initiating my involvement in politics via CND. I dont agree with all his policy stances but find I have a lot of common ground with many of the basic principles he espouses and I love his radical, freethinking and clear approach.

Dawn Primarolo has been 'morphing' into Michael Cocks rapidly for years

The Bristol Blogger is having a go at Bristol South MP Dawn Primarolo today. Gosh what a great socialist she is...and I'm sure teaming up with Nestle and Boots will help her in 'building Jerusalem'!!

‘Red Dawn’ Primarolo has pretty rapidly ‘morphed’ into her Labour predecessor in Bristol South Michael Cocks since he was controversially deselected in the 1980’s . This article documents only part of her transformation - she's moved even further to the right since 1999.

Whatever happened to her being against nuclear weapons and nuclear power for instance?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyvsATYoZTM

Labour and Conservative 'green' policies not to be trusted

Let me get this straight...

In recent weeks both the Labour and Conservative parties have been at pains to stress their so-called 'green' policies. We had Gordon Brown and David Cameron stressing the need to tackle climate change as the biggest threat to a decent life for future generations.

Just after the spurt of pronouncements on climate change, the same two parties voted in favour of the UK retaining its nuclear weapons (Labour MP rebels excepted) by spending tens or even hundreds of billions of pounds on new nuclear submarines and weapons . Hang on though...

...aren't nuclear weapons a huge threat to a decent life for future generations too? Have I missed something here? Has a rational case for spending this huge sum really been made when the known threats to our future eg climate change, energy security...require large investment? Wont spending huge sums of money on nukes mean less is available for tackling real and known threats, thus making us less secure??

The 'green' policies of Labour and the Conservatives are not to be trusted. Where they are half decent they are inconsistent with or cancelled out by other policies. Political will for implementation of coherent policies is often lacking and in any case their political thnking and action has got us where we are (ie with huge environmental challenges!). How for instance are we going to build an environmentally sustainable world if accelerating globalisation of trade, with all its massive energy consumption and pollution, continues unchecked by environmental considerations ?

Iran/Trident nuclear weapons/Kerry McCarthy MP/lack of democracy

There has been a disinct lack of open, public debate about whether we should be spending vast sums of public money on updating our nuclear weapons systems. Its seems that even whilst debate is supposed to be happening both inside and outside of Parliament the government has already decided to update our nukes anyway! What a great democracy we have!

I wrote to my MP Kerry McCarthy about Iran/nuclear weapons a short while ago (see earlier blog posting) and have today received the reply below. Please feel free to contact her in response to what she says (my response to her points below are in bold italics).

___________________________________________________________________
Dear Mr Vowles,

Trident

As you are aware, the vote on Trident is taking place this Wednesday.
In reaching a decision as to how I intend to vote, my starting point was this: Labour stopped being a unilateralist party some time in the 1980s. It was clear at the time that the British voting public rejected unilateralism, and rejected Labour because of this. The Labour Party - and I, as a Labour Party candidate - stood in the 2005 General Election, and several elections before this, on a manifesto which said we would retain Britain's independent nuclear deterrent; we were elected on that basis. As a general rule, I believe that political parties should stick to the promises they make to the voters at a General Election, and that MPs should not vote against the Government on manifesto commitments, unless things have changed drastically since the election was held.

Many Labour MPs will be voting against the government on this issue! On such a major issue, which we have had no separate public vote or even widespread debate on, issues of conscience and principle and strong, independent thought and voting are highly relevant!

I certainly do not subscribe to the 'blind loyalist' view, that MPs should never vote against their own party - if Parliament had been recalled over last summer to debate the conflict in Lebanon (which I, along with a number of other Labour MPs, called for) and we had had a vote on whether to support the Prime Minister's stance, I would have felt compelled to vote against, and I made that clear to party officials at the time. That was not, however, a manifesto issue.

People vote for parties in general elections for all sorts of reasons. They dont go through manifestos generally and do not necessarily vote on the basis of one particular policy or another. Some Labour and other voters will certainly not like the government decision to update our nuclear weapons.

I am disappointed that there has not been more of a public debate since the White Paper was launched last year. I was unaware of Jon Trickett's EDM calling for more consultation until today - I might have signed it back in January when it was first tabled, in a bid to encourage more public debate before the vote in Parliament.

OK, this is somewhat encouraging to me as an anti-nuclear campaigner. Why not follow through forcefully and vote against the government because of the lack of debate!

Behind the scenes in Parliament, however, the issue has been debated at some length. I have attended several meetings, including one organised by Compass in opposition to Trident, and others where Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, has argued the case for Trident against Labour opponents.

Behind the scenes debate is not good enough. On such a big issue we need lengthy, open, public debate.

Having listened to those debates, I have reached the following conclusions:

(1) I do not accept that renewing Trident would put Britain in breach of its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, as that treaty was negotiated on the basis that we are a nuclear state and we would not increase our nuclear capability - in fact, we will probably be reducing it. I have been reassured to hear the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary propose a reduction in the number of subs from four to three, and a significant reduction in the number of warheads is also a possibility although I understand that this does not need to be decided for a number of years.

The destructive capacity we will retain is absolutely massive! We will be passing on to future generations the problem of what to do about nuclear weapons because we have not done anything significant about them ourselves. As time passes more and more countries have officially aquired their own nuclear arsenal (look at India and Pakistan..).

Some people have raised with me the question of double standards - i.e. why is it acceptable for the UK to have nuclear weapons and not Iran? In response to this, I would simply point to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory and, by signing up to the treaty, agreed not to develop nuclear weapons; whereas the UK, is signing the treaty, only agreed not to increase its nuclear capability.

The spirit of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has certainly been breached by the UK by deciding to update its nuclear arsenal and retain a massive destructive capacity. Iran has not yet broken the treaty - I very much hope that through dialogue Iran will take a path away from both nuclear power and weapons.

(2) I do not accept the argument that , seeing as the Cold War is over and global terrorism is the main threat, a nuclear deterrent is unnecessary; we have no idea what the global political situation will be like in the 2020s and beyond, and who our political enemies will be, or whether they will have access to nuclear weapons. We therefore cannot base a long-term decision on a snapshot view of the situation in 2007.

We do know that very serious security threats are posed by climate change and energy security issues amongst others. Spending money on nukes means less money is available to counter known security threats. Retaining nukes may make us less secure, not more!

(3) I do not see much merit in the case for delaying the decision for a few years; it has to be made sooner or later. There is some dispute as to the lifespan of the current subs and the timescale for rebuilding them, although I cannot see how most people feel that they are in a position to judge; if the Defence Secretary says we need a 17 year lead-in time, then I accept that. At the very least, it would seem to me to be better to err on the side of caution and start the process now.

Far too unquestioning an approach for me to be comfortable with.

That leaves the question of cost. The Government says £15-£20 billion; others say it will be a lot more. Even if we operate on the Government's estimates, it is indeed a significant amount of money, which could fund a lot of other projects. However, that takes me back to my original point - if we accept the fundamental principle that we are not a unilateralist party, then we have to accept that it costs to have a nuclear deterrent.

Total cost over the life of the system are more like £75 to £100 billion. Not a bit of extra security against the real threats will be gained by spending this massive sum. There is so much else we could do with it and most other countries in the world are not spending such money on nukes.

I am sorry that this is not the answer you were hoping for.

It certainly is not what I'd like to hear from my MP.

Please do not hesitate to contact me again if there are any other issues you would like to bring to my attention.
Yours sincerely,
Kerry McCarthy MP

US and UK hypocrisy on Iran and its nuclear program

I've just wriiten to my MP Labour's Kerry McCarthy on the issue of Iran and its nuclear program. I've copied the letter below:

Dear Kerry McCarthy MP,
I feel that the UK must pledge itself to ensuring that what has happened in Iraq doesn't repeat itself with Iran and would like to know what your view is on this issue. Do you feel, as I do, that we must look hard for non-violent solutions to conflict situations, which take into account the interests of all parties as well as future generations in order to achieve lasting settlements?

Amidst the escalating rhetoric on Iran, its nuclear program in particular, there are some key facts:
Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and hasn't yet violated it. There are unresolved issues around full transparency of course but Iran's nuclear programme, including uranium enrichment, is perfectly legal under NPT requirements for non-nuclear states.

I believe along with fellow Greens that this encouragement of the spread of nuclear technology and nuclear power is a huge weakness of the NPT, but the fact remains that it is the operative legal framework.

Its my view that we are seeing extraordinary hypocrisy and double standards on the Iran issue. While the US accepts Israel's unacknowledged nuclear arsenal, and even rewards India's nuclear weapons status, it threatens war against Iran and fails in its own obligations to disarm under the NPT Treaty.

Our government is also guilty, apparently fighting wars to stop others gaining nuclear weapons while continuing to upgrade and refine our own. What moral authority can we possibly have to lecture Iran or anyone else about not developing nuclear weapons when we refuse to begin the process of disarmament ourselves, and indeed have decided to replace our own nuclear weapons arsenal even as the process of consultation on Trident is underway?

Have we forgotten the very real nuclear weapons are right here on our own doorstep, in Aldermaston, Fairford and Faslane. Will you please let me know how you view these facts and arguments?

The replacement of Trident is illegal, immoral, and hugely costly. It is dangerous, counterproductive, and places Britain at even greater risk of attack. Plans to replace Trident, together with the threat of first use of nuclear weapons, made by a Labour defence minister, risks making Britain itself a rogue state. The best policy on Iran is not to threaten attack but to engage with its people and its range of leaders to demonstrate the benefits to all of building positive relationships throughout the region and the globe. I hope you agree and look forward to receiving your views on this.

Expensive nukes dont make us secure

It is wrong for the Government to spend £15 to £20 billion on new nuclear submarines to carry Trident nuclear missiles not least because the spending simply is not focussed on real threats to the security of our society. Securing sufficient, clean, green energy supplies, global terrorism and organised crime, climate change and a number of other issues all clearly represent security threats that we know will be ongoing for some time but investing in new nuclear submarines tackles none of these. Kingswood MP Roger Berry may not be my preferred political colour (Green) but he is right to say, 'Today's security threat is not one that can be met by nuclear weapons' ('Blair faces fight over new nukes', Bristol Evening Post, December 5).

This is not the only sense in which the £20 billion (more like £70 billion if one adds up the weapons and submarine lifetime expenditure) will be misused. At todays costs £20 billion would be enough to build 800 new schools, and who would say they aren't needed. It could pay for the protection of over 700 million acres of rainforest, or meet our UN Millenium Goal aid target of 0.7% of GDP every year for the next eight years, thus fighting global poverty which will add to our insecurity if not tackled ! There are many other life and security enhancing ways to spend the money.

Just think of what could be done to enhance state pensions or improve care for the elderly or improve aspects of the NHS with the billions to be spent on nuclear submarines armed with nuclear weapons. And lets not forget that the Germans, Italians, Spanish, Danish, Swedish and others in Europe and around the world do not feel they have to spend billions on nuclear weapons to make them more secure - so why do we?

Bristol North West MP Doug Naysmith is no Green but he is in tune with what will make us more secure when he said, 'We should be reducing nuclear arsenals, not increasing them.' ('Blair faces fight over new nukes', Bristol Evening Post, December 5). He is right because by not reducing nuclear weapons significantly, an aspiration of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty signed decades ago, we have sent out the message to countries who have since developed nuclear weapons, like India, Pakistan, North Korea and possibly others, that possession and threatened use of nuclear weapons is a necessary and acceptable part of being a secure state. The resulting higher risk of wider availability of nuclear material may well enhance the ability of terrorists to terrorise on a larger scale, with 'dirty' bombs containing such material.

I'm glad that a number of MPs will oppose the Government, though I note that former radical left-winger, now Bristol South MP, Dawn Primarolo wont be among them. Tony Blair is likely to win the vote on this, most likely with Conservative support too. The Government have not and wont now be leading the world in nuclear disarmament. The destructive capacity they have decided to retain is equivalent to 1000 Hiroshima nuclear bombs. Why on Earth is such a massive capacity to indiscriminately annihilate needed? How can the Labour Government, or the Conservative and Lib-Dem opposition who also want a large nuclear arsenal, ever be considered Green if they favour 'defence' by threatening to destroy life on a mass scale?

Priorities should be health, education and environment!

The government just doesn't seem to have its spending priorities right. One day I read about the future of wardens looking after the elderly in sheltered flats across Bristol being threatened by govt funding cuts of up to £9 million (Care Wardens Job Axe Fears, Bristol Evening Post, 10 October). The next day I read about Bristol facing a GP crisis in five years if we continue to train doctors at the same rate (Family Doctors in Crisis, Bristol Evening Post, 11 October) and also the denial of drugs costing as little as £2.50 per day to those suffering from Alzheimar's (How can they deny people this drug?, Bristol Evening Post, 11 October). These are all areas where one would think caring people would prioritise spending, along with education.

Given spending priorities like these I just dont understand why the government has committed itself to spending, not millions, but billions on a replacement for Trident nuclear missiles by saying it will retain Britain's nuclear so-called deterrent. What is more we have always been told that nuclear weapons work because they will never be used (the mutually assured destruction argument)!!

Tony Blair stood outside 10 Downing Street the other day and made a statement rightly criticising North Korea for exploding a test nuclear weapon, saying that they had spent vast sums whilst their people were poor and sometimes starving. Why doesn't he then follow the same logic, get his spending priorities right and direct money to where it is needed, such as the examples I have given or perhaps additional flood defences for Weston-Super-Mare or for investing in a creating a green future for todays young people and their children?

It seems to me a double immorality to spend money on threatening mass destruction with new nuclear weapons and at the same time denying people decent health, education, environmental and social care spending.