Labour could lose out by not making it’s stance on Trident clear

Cutting Trident will be the price of support in a hung parliament. That’s the news reported from a meeting of the SNP, Plaid Cymru and Green leaders this week. With Labour’s slim lead and the SNP and Green vote threatening to impact on its share, this is a serious issue.

Labour’s policy clearly states, ‘Labour has said that we are committed to a minimum, credible independent nuclear deterrent, delivered through a Continuous At-Sea Deterrent. It would require a clear body of evidence for us to change this belief.’

So there is no chance of agreement there then. Or is there?

Labour policy on Trident agreed at the most recent Annual Conference is open to a number of interpretations but a further reading of the party’s policy developments suggest the party is in fact now keeping its options open. There may be more space for cross-party agreement on Trident than some in the party would care to admit.

One commitment was to include Trident in the post-election Strategic Defence and Security Review, with the finalised text stating, ‘Labour has said that the process and debate leading up to the next Strategic Defence and Security Review in 2015 needs to be open, inclusive and transparent, including examining all capabilities, including nuclear’ and that ‘a Labour Government will have a continuing consultation, inviting submissions from all relevant stakeholders, including Labour Party members and affiliates, on the UK’s future defence and national security issues.’

This suggests a Labour Government will avoid the rushed defence review of 2010 and allow time for a longer assessment which logic would suggest should include modelling of future defence and security capabilities without nuclear weapons. Labour should confirm this is the case.

And more broadly the policy focus was largely on international diplomacy and negotiation, in keeping with the commitment to move on from Iraq and the failures of New Labour foreign policy. It said ‘Labour would actively work to enhance momentum on global multilateral disarmament efforts and negotiations’.

This is pretty unspecific but, in acting on its policy, the Labour frontbench publicly – and successfully – urged the Government to join over 150 countries at the recent Vienna Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons, the third in a series that the Coalition chose to boycott on the first two occasions. The series of conferences have sought to generate new momentum in nuclear weapons negotiations following concern that nuclear weapon states have failed to disarm while hiding behind statements of commitment to do so.

And to follow up work on negotiations, the policy also suggested that the party might back a new mechanism for achieving disarmament, when it recognised the ‘success of past international bans on weapons of mass destruction such as landmines, cluster munition, chemical and biological weapons.’ The obvious, but in this case unwritten, conclusion is that Labour will support an international ban on nuclear weapons that complements the NPT and will deliver disarmament.

However this nod and wink, options-open approach, is likely to frustrate more than foster support as clear alternatives on disarmament open up on the party’s left. It would take a brave new candidate to tell constituents they would prioritise a Cold war weapon programme while terrorism, climate change, cyber warfare form greater threats – let alone channel billions into it while school dinners, social care and street lighting all face cuts.

That is why it is unsurprising a YouGov poll released at the Labour Party conference showed that a majority of prospective parliamentary candidates polled want scrapping Trident in the manifesto: candidates who believe Trident replacement conflicts with our commitment to delivering disarmament.

On the face of existing policy, Labour is trying to keep its options open, but it may lose out by not making a clarifying how it will deliver disarmament.