Labour should make the case for libraries not nuclear bombs

By Daniel Blaney

As part of a political fudge, the coalition government agreed that any decision on progressing from concept and then design phases of Trident replacement to the construction phase will not take place until 2016: i.e after the next general election.

The reality is exposed by a recent freedom of information request from Greenpeace and further confirmed by Defence Secretary Liam Fox’s own answers in defence questions this week. The government is planning to spend millions, specifically on various components of the first submarine, which should not be spent until after the “Main Gate” (construction phase) decision has been taken on Trident replacement. Fox attempted to explain this away, despite agreement to the contrary with his coalition partners, by stating that “we would expect to purchase some long-lead items so that the first boat can be delivered in 2028”.

Julian Huppert, Liberal Democrat MP for Cambridge posed the key democratic question:

“Will [the Defence Secretary] seek parliamentary approval of such spending?”

Liam Fox didn’t answer the question, although the answer is obviously no. Such a parliamentary vote would lead to a Liberal Democrat rebellion to rival that on tuition fees; meanwhile increasing numbers of Conservative MPs are questioning the point of spending billions on a replacement relic of the cold war. A proper public debate and parliamentary vote is simply too risky for the coalition so the issue is kicked into the long grass. As Lib Dem defence minister Nick Harvey clearly acknowledged in the autumn, that decision to delay Main Gate until after the general election is not based on military, but political considerations.

Kicking the issue into the long grass does however raise the next obvious question, and was put by another Liberal Democrat MP, Tessa Munt, during defence questions:

“Will we be so financially committed that the whole main gate decision is made irrelevant?”

Liam Fox’s answer gave away his political strategy: “technically it is up to any parliament at any time to determine.” It seems Fox is preparing to advance as far as possible prior to Main Gate, even encroaching on the construction phase, whilst asserting truisms about the sovereignty of future parliaments. Much more money will already have been spent than was intended by the coalition agreement.

Liberal Democrat MPs were asking useful questions in parliament this week, but it was Labour MP, Paul Flynn, who asked the central political question. It is a question that should be being posed by the Labour front bench:

“How can the government, who plan to save money by closing libraries and selling off our forests, justify tens of millions of pounds on a useless virility symbol when they cannot give any plausible future situation in which Britain might use a nuclear weapon independently?”

This issue – the scandalous waste of tens of billions on a political status symbol – should be at the heart of any critique of the government’s cuts agenda. The government cannot afford the political headache of further public debate, and Labour should be at the forefront of exposing its difficulties in this area. Labour should make the case for libraries not nuclear bombs. CND will make the case loudly at the TUC March for the Alternative on 26th March. Before that Labour CND, a caucus of CND members who are also in the Labour Party, will make the case at its conference “Values Not Alliances” on March 5th at Birkbeck College.