Tuesday, 13 July 2010

Trident motion

News from the 'disgruntled radical' that I am not alone in wanting Conference to debate the Trident programme.  I reproduce below the motion that the conference committee is looking at and as a conference rep I would wish to see debated:

Nuclear Weapons and the Financial Crisis

Conference notes that:

i) Britain is currently in the worst financial crisis since the end of the Second
World War

ii) Britain’s capacity for independent military action is limited increasingly by financial constraint. The Strategic Defence and Security Review Green Paper (February 2010) called for Britain to act more in concert with our partners rather than attempting to bear the cost of fully-independent Armed Services.

iii) neither our coalition partners nor Labour, while they were in government, have indicated any willingness to include Trident in the Strategic Defence Review. 

iv) in the last two military conflicts in which Britain acted unilaterally - Sierra Leone and the Falkland Islands - nuclear arms were irrelevant.

Conference further notes that:

a) under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty all signatory states undertake to pursue negotiations, in good faith, on effective measures relating both to the cessation of the nuclear arms race and to nuclear disarmament at an early date and to negotiate a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

b) the cost of the proposed Vanguard submarine replacement contracts and lifetime running costs are in the order of £100 billion

c) the cost of replacing the current nuclear warheads will be a further £8 billion

d) any major military actions in the future are certain to take place as part of an international coalition for which purpose British nuclear weapons would be irrelevant

e) In a speech in May 2010 Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary, cast doubt on the future of the Ohio-class submarine and with it the Trident missile system

Conference welcomes this year’s agreement to reduce the number of nuclear weapons held by Russia and the US and notes the bilateral agreement reached by the two Presidents. Conference also notes, however, that the weapons which are to be removed are due to be retired from service anyway.

Conference therefore calls for:

1. Trident to be included in the Strategic and Security Defence Review

2. Confirmation of current policy to cancel any planned 'like-for-like replacement' of the Trident system

3. A freeze on any further procurement by Britain of all types of nuclear weapon

4. The retirement of the current Vanguard fleet at the earliest possible opportunity. 

These steps will save in excess of £108 billion during the planned lifetime of the Trident submarine replacement systems and the early withdrawal of the Vanguard fleet will save a further £2 billion per annum up to the year 2025.

Conference recognises that, under the terms of the Coalition Agreement, this policy cannot be implemented fully at this time but full implementation will be pursued once the party is in a position to do this.


  1. 100% agree - excellent! It will do the party a world of good to pass this.

  2. I was one of the conference reps who signed this motion so I really hope it gets picked. We ought to know any day as I had an e mail yesterday about the fate of another motion I was involved with!


I am happy to address most contributions, even the drunken ones if they are coherent, but I am not going to engage with negative sniping from those who do not have the guts to add their names or a consistent on-line identity to their comments. Such postings will not be published.

Anonymous comments with a constructive contribution to make to the discussion, even if it is critical will continue to be posted. Libellous comments or remarks I think may be libellous will not be published.

I will also not tolerate personation so please do not add comments in the name of real people unless you are that person. If you do not like these rules then start your own blog.

Oh, and if you persist in repeating yourself despite the fact I have addressed your point I may get bored and reject your comment.

The views expressed in comments are those of the poster, not me.