Corbyn’s
reshuffle was an agonising thing to watch, although part of the reason for that
appears to have been his own willingness to listen to alternative points of
view. I’d have thought that a virtue,
and entirely in line with his stated wish for a different type of politics
(albeit badly undermined by some of the briefings which members of his core
team seem to have been giving), but from the reaction of some members of his
own party, they’d prefer the ruthless lack of consultation to which they’d
become accustomed.
I, for one,
welcome the fact that the Shadow Defence Secretary has been replaced by one
more in line with Corbyn’s own view on the renewal of Trident. It’s a step forward, although given that many
Labour MPs remain wholly committed to spending more resources on weapons of
mass destruction it’s a step along a path rather than the end of the
journey. It holds out some hope, though,
that we might see senior opposition spokespersons arguing, for the first time
since the 1980s, against the possession of nuclear weapons.
One
particularly disappointing reaction was that of the trade unions. One officer of the GMB was quoted as saying “We are absolutely clear and unequivocal
that we will be supporting Trident replacement and any suggestion that there is
alternative employment for people in that sector is utter nonsense and everyone
is going to have to wake up to that fact”.
I understand, of course, that it is the job of trade unions to protect
the interests of their members, but keeping people in jobs is not a rational
argument for building and maintaining weapons of mass destruction which no sane
person could or would ever use.
It’s even
sillier than arguing for a new nuclear power station on the same grounds – at
least Wylfa B will produce some useful electricity. It is an argument, in essence, for carrying
out a pointless activity simply to keep people working. I can think of a lot more useless activities
which would be less potentially damaging than building and maintaining nuclear
weapons if that’s really the way we want to run our economy.
But what it
really underlines is a willingness to accept what is rather than argue for what
should be. And that’s what disappoints
me most. The father of one of those
recognised by the GMB as a co-founder of the union coined the phrase “workers of the world unite”. I somehow don’t think that either he, or his daughter,
would have added “to build weapons which
we can use to kill workers of other countries”.
Posts
5 comments:
"to build weapons which we can use to kill workers of other countries”.
All this talk of 'Trident renewal' has got absolutely nothing to do with the nuclear weapons, just the replacement of the four nuclear submarines that actually carry the weapons.
By all means let's build New Wylfa, but I don't think there is any good reason to commission it as a new nuclear power station.
"All this talk of 'Trident renewal' has got absolutely nothing to do with the nuclear weapons, just the replacement of the four nuclear submarines that actually carry the weapons." That's true, as far as it goes; but it isn't the whole truth. If built, the first of the new submarines will not enter service until 2028 (on current plans; but history suggests that it would be later than that). The warheads will need replacement or refurbishment during the mid 2020s, and there is already a program to refurbish the missiles themselves, which would otherwise reach the end of their expected lives in the 2020s. So, both the missiles and the warheads will need replacement/refurbishment before the new submarines go into service. It might be strictly accurate to treat these as three separate programs, but they are inevitably interdependant.
"By all means let's build New Wylfa, but I don't think there is any good reason to commission it as a new nuclear power station" would make it one of the most expensive job creation programmes ever, for no return at all. It might be cheaper in the long run to simply drop money from an aeroplane for whoever is ready to catch it.
"
All this talk of 'Trident renewal' has got absolutely nothing to do with the nuclear weapons, just the replacement of the four nuclear submarines that actually carry the weapons."
Come on, that's totally misleading and pedantic. Replacing the submarines is utterly fundamental to maintaining the nuclear weapons and their ability to be used.
Of course, any usage of them would be utterly catastrophic, which highlights the stupidity of nuclear weapons.
No, talk of "Trident renewal" is literally and completely a debate about nuclear weapons.
Some considerations:
There are a great many people within the Labour party that oppose this spending on Trident submarine renewal but are very pro retention of the Trident missile programme as a whole.
If the submarines are not replaced they will carry on as now. Of that there is no question and therefore the upgrade question is no show stopper. At a later date the missiles will be be upgraded or handed over to the US to be used on patrol on our behalf (I find this rather suspect myself but ....).
Jeremy Corbyn is opposed to everything about Trident and opposed to our continued membership of NATO. This places him in an interesting position. Most within the Labour party remain very pro-NATO, irrespective of their views on Trident. I suspect it is much the same within the Tory party (interestingly, I myself see some merit in dismantling NATO because of its destabilising effects on modern world order).
Granted the purpose of New Wylfa as a 'job creation programme' might look expensive at the outset but when all the costs are factored in (operational and clean up of a power station facility the size of New Wylfa) might actually turn out to provide much better comparative value.
As for dropping money from an aeroplane isn't this what we have been doing for generations in the form of social security. It hasn't really helped us in the past.
Realisation that the price of oil can go down as well as up has forever changed the debate on Scottish independence. No, the matter has not gone away. But the rules of debate have changed. If George Osborne made clear that any savings from the Trident programme would only be used to pay down debt this argument too would change overnight.
"As for dropping money from an aeroplane isn't this what we have been doing for generations in the form of social security". No it isn't; but that's off topic, so I'll leave that one there.
"Realisation that the price of oil can go down as well as up has forever changed the debate on Scottish independence." No it hasn't. Indeed, there are even some who argue that a price drop brings net benefits to the Scottish economy. But they're not necessarily in the same place.
"If George Osborne made clear that any savings from the Trident programme would only be used to pay down debt this argument too would change overnight." No it would not. Most of those arguing against Trident don't do so on economic grounds.
Post a Comment