You are here: Home » Comment »

We need an honest and mature debate about our defence spending priorities

June 19, 2012 5:15 pm

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

The Commons was enlivened by a debate on Trident replacement once again yesterday afternoon as the Defence Secretary was called to the Commons to answer an Urgent Question on his new £1.1 billion contract – heavily trailed in the Sunday press – to redevelop the Rolls-Royce plant at Raynesway in Derby and to produce the reactor for the first of the submarines replacing Vanguard.

The idea of ordering a submarine reactor ahead of the main decision on constructing the rest of the submarine, at a cost of several hundred million pounds, is something I’ve repeatedly condemned in debates with the Defence Minister. As one part of the £4 billion declared ‘necessary’ to design the submarines before the construction decision, it is simply part of achieving a fait accompli so that a future government’s hands are tied. On the Today programme yesterday morning, the Lib Dem Defence Minister said it would be down to a future government to negotiate its way out of the contracts in 2016, but the Defence Secretary yesterday afternoon clearly said that Rolls-Royce depend of the commitment of the government.

One only needs to look at yesterday’s Evening Standard to see the arguments stating that ‘Trident is too costly to cancel’.

It was not made clear but it looks like we need to add another £500 million to the Trident replacement tab if these new facilities are necessary. The whole thing is a project which everyone expects to grow in cost exponentially, and yesterday illustrated that it is already doing so.

I was encouraged to see more Labour MPs questioning the government. Not only Paul Flynn and Michael Connarty but the questions from David Lammy, Nick Brown and Sheila Gilmore show there is a serious debate to be had in the Labour Party. Why should police numbers be cut to pay for Trident, rather than the other way round, as David asked.

But given this announcement arguably adds £500 million to the cost of delivering the replacement, it was disappointing that Labour’s front bench response gave such a wholehearted welcome of the ongoing programme, rather than offering serious scrutiny.

Alison Seabeck wrote that ‘keeping our nation safe’ should be ‘above partisan politics’. Indeed it should, but how we achieve that should be open to discussion, particularly in the Labour Party. Even the government’s own National Security Strategy said the threat of another state attacking with nuclear weapons is now of ‘low-likelihood’ but we are cutting all manner of other defence and public sector programmes and workers while saving Trident.

The reports from last weekend’s National Policy Forum sound very positive for the future and Jon Cruddas’s appointment as chair of the policy review is welcome given he joined me and many other MPs in demanding a debate on Trident at annual conference in 2006 ahead of the Commons vote and he has argued in favour of scrapping Trident to focus on forces welfare or conventional equipment, I hope we can now have an honest and mature debate about our defence spending priorities.

Jeremy Corbyn is the Labour MP for Islington North

Related posts:

  1. The Government’s credibility deficit on Defence spending
  2. Why Trident must be included in the strategic defence review
  3. A controversial decision but the right thing to do
  4. The Westminster consensus on Trident is dead
  5. Missiles and missed opportunities
  • Lee Butcher

    These reactors will be fitted to all submarines, not just Trident. In effect cancelling or halting this order would also pause the plans to replace the Navy’s other submarine forces. It also seems like an issue of industry; the jobs and skills of these facilities are something we almost certainly want and which form an important basis of ‘Plan B’ – that is, rebalancing the economy. I believe the unions that represent the Rolls Royce workers also agree. I understand your concerns about Trident, but yesterday’s announcement is broader then that one issue.

    • Derek

      Whilst I agree with the positive economic impact I still think that a £4bn investment in areas where there is social benefit – eg. Council housing or transport infrastructure would secure and create more jobs and have a much greater economic impact with positive social outcomes. I understand that investment in a Trident replacement comes at a cost of £3,300,000 per job – sure I saw that quoted yesterday.

      • Lee Butcher

        On the industry front, I think we need both. High end technology like this is needed, as is infrastructure spending on roads, railways and new houses. The problem with those sectors is that once the houses and roads are built, the jobs go. We need them, but we also need other jobs. The skills generated at places like Rolls Royce are potentially of long term value – and once they’re gone they are very difficult to get back. These jobs, at this facility, will serve more then just the Trident submarines. I’m afraid Trident is something of a side point to this announcement. If this policy failed to go ahead it would stall the Navy’s entire replacement of their submarine force. The facility could also be used to manufacture reactors to be sold to our allies (India’s defence spending, for example, is on the up). It could be of significant commercial value. If we really want to get value for money, the U.S. Navy’s larger surface vessels use nuclear power – I don’t think the new carriers are planned to use nuclear power, but it could be a possibility if this goes ahead.

        • treborc1

          Then comes the day when these have to be decommissioned and the cost of this is added to it all, what you have made in the building you lose in the dismantling.

  • Derek

    We are moving towards one of those societies where spending on arms comes before the needs of the citizen. It is dubious that such abhorrent sums do anything to protect us but it certainly allows the inflated egos of PMs and Foreign Secretaries to be maintained as they stride the globe as a super power.

    One could argue tit for tat as Blair left an incoming government with the legacy of the multi-billion pound Olympics (about as much use as Trident) so the Coalition knowing that they will be a single term government are getting their own back.

    If Osborne is to believed, and that is a very tall order, then surely Trident is unaffordable. As long as public spending in such areas continues his words will remain hollow.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephen-Collins/100000033820132 Stephen Collins

      You’re joking right?

      We spend £36 billion on the military and thanks to BAE Systems get very little value for money. In 2013 we’re going to spend approximately £373 billion on welfare, pensions and health. On top of that is another £90 billion for our second rate education system. Defence will be a poultry £43 billion. If that’s putting arms spending before the citizens, the Pope is a devout Muslim.

      • Blue Boy

        There are over a million young people unemployed. Why not draft them into the armed forced and train them up to be soldiers but not pay them proper wages? Kind of a cross between workfare and national service. That we we’d have a lot more expendable manpower on the ground, on the cheap, and could get much more for less from our military and whip the younger generation into shape at the same time. Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country and all that.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephen-Collins/100000033820132 Stephen Collins

          The military isn’t a camp for the unemployed.
          It’s supposed to be a professional fighting force. Last thing we need is unwilling meatshields. 

          • treborc1

             especially when they come home P*ssed off.

        • treborc1

          A group of highly trained killers, just what every government wants when your in a down turn.

      • treborc1

        Interesting how figures like £43 billion sound so easy to say, mind you it would be a lot higher if you added the  debt and over spends, it would also be higher if our troops who are  lets say in the line of fire were paid the same as the Police force.

    • hp

      No, we spend more on debt interest than we do on defence.
      Please keep up.
      Also, ‘defence’ is part of a citizen’s wants / needs.
      Whether Trident is the part of the best way to meet those defence wants is another matter.

    • KonradBaxter

      “We are moving towards one of those societies where spending on arms comes before the needs of the citizen”

      No we are not. You’re thinking of places like North Korea. ‘Spending on the needs of citizens’ – whatever that means – is still by far and away the lions share of the UK budget.

      Trident is not about getting your own back, the Tories were always going very likely to renew and it’s doubtful Labour would not do so either.

      • treborc1

         I’ve no doubt Labour would have done so, then again if your totally broke cannot afford to  keep the NHS going or benefits for the sick, the question is of course how can you afford missiles which will never be used.

  • ThePurpleBooker

    *sigh* A leftwinger seeing the brilliant appointment of Jon Cruddas as a crude opportunity to spread his outdated ideology.
    We need to keep our country safe however I think it will be fair to put Trident under an independent public value test on Trident as part of a tough fiscal plan in the future under a Labour government. Of course savings may be able to be made but defence of the realm is crucial!

    • Johnny

      So much for free speech, pluralism and debate, eh? Those jackboots must pinch something awful I would imagine.

    • Duncan

      Purplebooker – I just can’t follow your logic.  You argue that we might have to accept pay freezes, and pension cuts and all manner of other aspects of “austerity” in order to combat the deficit, and yet a possibility to save an extraordinary sum of money on something that will never be used – can never be used – and has no useful purpose is condemned as “outdated ideology”.

      There is a legitimate (though economically incoherent) centrist position that sweeping cuts need to be made but could be made with less devastating social impact than those pursued by the coalition, but you make all the wrong choices, all the wrong calls.  I don’t want to send this thread off on a tangent (because I think Jeremy’s article is excellent and deserves a proper discussion) but could you list your 5 least favourite policies of the current government?  I am intrigued to know the substance of your opposition.

    • treborc1

       This from an ex Liberal., now a so called soft Tory, brilliant

    • PJimH

      ThePurpleBooker – could you please explain why nuclear weapons are necessary for the UK, when every other country in Europe (with the exception of France) manages without them? What is so different about the UK  (or France, for that matter, but that’s for the French to answer)?

      • havanajo

        Well, Britain is currently at war with Islam, unlike its neighbours.  Perhaps that could be one reason.

        It’s a war we should not be in, and a hornet’s nest we should not have kicked, but it’s too late now, and, unfortunately Islam has a long memory.

        • PJimH

          What on earth are you talking about? How can a nation (the UK) be at war with a belief (Islam)? That’s as ludicrous as the idea of a “war on terror”. 

          • havanajo

            Well you might not think we’re in a war with Islam, and I’m sure a long term conflict with a worldwide religious faith that transcends national boundaries was not what Labour had in mind when Blair convinced the Parliamentary Party to vote for his war – but unfortunately millions of followers of Islam do consider themselves at war with you.

            Thank Mr. Blair, and a spineless bunch of MPs, for that

  • Tony

    If you want to help stop Trident replacement, please e-mail your MP and ask him/her to sign the Early Day Motion below.
     
    http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/96

  • havanajo

    First we need to make absolutely certain that we can’t be taken into war by a Prime Minister who is prepared to deceive Parliament and the British people with falsified evidence in justification.

    Secondly we need to make it the duty of any Cabinet Minister who serves in time of war to commit all necessary resources to equipping or troops properly for the job.  In wartime this is the first priority which comes before all others.  You can’t hope to succeed in a fight, even a righteous one, without being totally committed to it.  A Chancellor who dickers over arms expenditure, when he serves in a Government that has sent troops into war in a distant country, is not fit for purpose. 

    Thirdly, we should make it absolutely clear to the EU that Britain will veto any proposal for European armed forces.  What does Brussels want troops for?  It is not a country and has no need to defend itself separately from its constituent nations, who are bound by treaty.  The sole purpose of a European armed force, which we shall be asked to pay for, is to defend the increasingly powerful and undemocratic Brussels dictatorship from being overthrown by genuine democratic dissident movements – or weakened by the threat of withdrawal from the union by any member nation that wants out.

    Once the above future threats have been eliminated we can turn to the question of whether Britain should retain a nuclear deterrent.  Bearing in mind tha fact theat the last government embroiled us in a feud with Islam that will probably last a couple of hundred years, and that Iran is seeking to provide itself with nuclear weapons, my own view is that we’ll need to keep a credible deterrent for at least a couple more generations.

    The trouble with politicians is that they don’t think further ahead than the next election.  That’s why we shall soon have a very dis-United Kingdom, and why we have so hugely pissed off most of the Islamic world, and frankly, why education and the Health Service are in such a poor state.

    We must try to look 50 years or more into the future – that’s when, with a bit of luck, good planning, honest debate leading to definition of our long term goals, and a well-directed and continuous foreign policy which doesn’t change according to which party is in power, we might be able to give up having nuclear weapons.  

       

Latest

  • Comment Labour’s future schools policy: why accountability matters

    Labour’s future schools policy: why accountability matters

    By Mike Ion

    Stephen Twigg, Labour’s Shadow Education Secretary is one of the more thoughtful and pragmatic individuals to hold this vitally important brief for some time. To his credit Stephen has been out and about these past two years listening to pupils, teachers, parents and governors and finding out more about the challenges they face on a day-to-day basis. In addition Stephen has been looking closely at some local, regional, national and international programmes that have had a demonstrable impact in raising [...]

    Read more →
  • News Seats and Selections Falkirk selection process suspended by the party

    Falkirk selection process suspended by the party

    The Labour Party have this afternoon suspended the selection process for Falkirk, after concerns were raised about “membership recruitment”. We understand that Ed Miliband was “keen to act swiftly” as the selection process was due to formally begin on Sunday. An officer of the party – yet to be confirmed – will investigate. A Labour spokesperson told us this afternoon: “We have suspended the start of the selection process of the Falkirk parliamentary seat. Concerns have been raised about membership [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Seats and Selections Unions Working Class MPs – the end of a era?

    Working Class MPs – the end of a era?

    By Paul Wheeler

    It is interesting to see that the Labour Party is returning to the vexed issue of its parliamentary selection process. The changes may be well and good.  But maybe we should be asking a bigger question – are we  witnessing the end of working class representation in Parliament? When the Labour Party was first founded it was more simple. Then the explicit  aim was to secure working class representation, and specifically organised labour, in Parliament. Inevitably it became more complicated [...]

    Read more →
  • Local Government News An absolutely classic Lib Dem bar chart

    An absolutely classic Lib Dem bar chart

    Earlier this week we brought you a decidedly dodgy bar chart from the Tories, but it seems that they’re not the only party in Camden adopting dubious use of bar charts. Step forward Camden Lib Dems, with this classic of the dodgy Lib Dem bar chart genre (courtesy of Theo Blackwell). Even by the pretty shoddy standards of the yellows, this is a corker:   Update: Haringey Lib Dems might want to work on their bar charts  maths too (via [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured Modern life is rubbish – We need to put Work and Home at the heart of everything we do

    Modern life is rubbish – We need to put Work and Home at the heart of everything we do

    By Mark Ferguson

    “Work and home is what One Nation is about – family life, how people live everyday life.” That’s what Jon Cruddas – the man who will in all likelihood write Labour’s next manifesto – told the Guardian the party’s policy review is focused on. And it sounds so simple – doesn’t it? Critics will say it’s too simplistic a definition (and they’d be right – I’m cherry picking here), but it’s also a brilliant example of the distance between most [...]

    Read more →