Why did Chris keep quiet over the Harrogate Trident vote? October 28, 2007
Posted by richardhuzzey in Campaign, Policy.trackback
Nick Clegg supporter Linda Jack has asked a very good question: why did Chris Huhne not speak at last Spring conference, when the Trident fudge was proposed by the leadership?
I thought this deserved an answer, so I phoned Chris this afternoon. He said that he had not changed his mind from the last leadership contest, but Ming had made it clear that this was a key issue for his leadership and that there was shadow cabinet collective responsibility on the matter. Moreover, the position effectively postponed a decision to 2010 at the time of the non-proliferation treaty review. As the close runner-up to Ming, Chris didn’t feel it was in the interests of the party for him to provoke a crisis by publicly breaking from the leader with local elections coming so soon.
It seems to me that this leadership contest offers a chance for him to show that he would offer conference honest choices on tough issues, rather than dodge difficult debates for the sake of fake consensus. This contest will not on its own change our party policy on Trident, but it will decide how we deal with issues like it in the future – and give a mandate to allow Chris to re-open the Trident question to a real debate at conference.
Also, for the record, Chris is not a doctrinaire unilateralist; he thinks Trident is a poor purchase for Britain on cost and benefit and that it will squeeze the resources available to conventional forces. A smaller independent deterrent could be in the frame.
[...] position is further clarified on the LibDems4Chris website: … for the record, Chris is not a doctrinaire unilateralist; he thinks Trident is a poor [...]
The intellectual somersaults the party has undertaken over trident are ridiculous. The debate is essentially that the Alliance had back in the 1980s when Mrs Thatcher first ordered Trident. Chris Huhne’s policy is that the Alliance adopted then.
It is essentially dishonest to suggest there can be a compromise position between Trident or another Ballistic system and unilateralism.
Our current four boat, SLBM system is essentially the minimum nuclear deterrant. We are already the only declared Nuclear Power to rely on a single system and the declared power with the fewest warheads any less capability and we would be spending a fortune without achieving deterrance. The suggestion that the abolition Trident replacement would make a significant difference to our conventional forces is a red herring – Trident simply isn’t that exciting. The conventional forces bought from the saving would not be sufficient to conventionally defend the United Kingdom and hence replace Trident’s role as a deterrent to conventional attack. What is more as Royal Navy Trident Missiles look identical to an aggressors defences to US ones, UK adoption of Trident locks the Americans in to their alliance commitments to us and Europe in a way an alternative system cannot – in essence we get added value from looking like the Americans.
The debate is 3 way between unilateral disarmament, multilateral disarmament and those who believe in nuclear deterrence.
What is meant by “not doctrinaire unilateralist” is not clear. There are three credible positions: (1) you believe deterrence is immoral and are unilateralist, or (2) you believe these weapons are required to deter nuclear attack and are multilateralists or (3) you believe that nuclear weapons required to keep the peace between the major powers and are pro nuclear.
Which position does Mr Huhne take? If it is (2) or (3) then he must support Trident replacement on a like for like basis with our current system.