Throwing good money after bad

Tweet

The way that the Labour Party’s spokesman on defence had his speech changed at the party‘s conference was reminiscent of the control freakery of the Blair years, albeit rather more publicly and considerably less competently.  But it was the substance of the issue which interested me more.

As I understand it, the argument being put forward by a number of people in the Labour Party (including the - now ex - Defence Spokesperson) is that, although there are many in the party who are personally sceptical about Trident, the decision has been taken in the House of Commons.  It is, therefore, too late to change it, so Labour should back it.  It’s a line which might help to heal some of the divisions within the parliamentary Labour party, but as arguments go, it’s one of the weakest I’ve ever heard.  On that basis, no party would ever be able to change any government policy on anything.

It amounts to saying that, since we’ve spent this much on the project already, all that will be wasted if we abandon it, so we’d better finish the job and spend the rest of the money.  The flaw in the line of argument is obvious; if it’s the wrong thing to do, then that amounts to throwing good money after bad.  It makes sense if, and only if, it’s the right thing to be doing in the first place.  It’s not much of an argument for spending huge sums of money on weapons of mass destruction which can never be used; indeed, it avoids even asking that question at all, treating it solely as a procedural matter.

Nuclear chickens and eggs

Tweet Yesterday, Baron Kinnock demonstrated his commitment to internal Labour Party democracy by telling the party’s duly elected leader that he will never win power promising unilateral nuclear disarmament.  Three things struck me about this.

In the first place, there is a serious question as to whether it’s actually true.  It’s one of those things that can never be known until it’s tested; so I can no more be certain that it isn’t true than he can be certain that it is.  I do seem to recall, however, that there is some empirical evidence to the contrary, albeit a long time ago.  I’m sure that the Labour Government elected in 1964 had a manifesto pledge to scrap Trident – it was one of the things that excited me at the time about the possibility of a Labour Government.

(They didn’t actually implement the promise of course.  But whether any government would ever implement such a promise is a rather different question from the one which Kinnock has raised.)

Secondly, even supposing that it were true, what does it really tells us?  At best it would tell us that if leaders of all the three major parties reiterate consistently and in unison for fifty years (with one brief, minor – albeit welcome – aberration under Michael Foot) that possession of nuclear weapons is essential, and manage to convince the electorate that it's true, then it’s unlikely that the public will change its opinion overnight.  That wouldn’t be an unreasonable conclusion to draw, but it’s a long way short of what he said.  Which came first - public opinion or the insistence of politicians?

There’s a fundamental logic flaw in the conclusion that he did draw, namely that no party can ever propose scrapping nuclear weapons because of the climate of opinion which politicians like himself have done so much to normalise.  It amounts to little more than saying that after telling people one thing for fifty years, you can’t simply tell them that it wasn’t actually true, and must continue to peddle the same line indefinitely, because you can only be elected by telling the same old lie. 

And thirdly, he didn’t even mention the question of whether the UK needs or should have nuclear weapons at all.  It’s as if that is entirely a secondary question to the Labour Party’s need to win elections.  Still, I suppose that saying we must build new nuclear weapons so that Labour can win the election is at least a bit more honest than the Labour Party’s official position, which is, if I understand it correctly:

1.    Nuclear weapons are bad

2.    No country which doesn’t currently possess them must be allowed to develop them

3.    Those countries which do possess them must negotiate to get rid of them

4.    The UK needs to spend £100billion on new nuclear weapons so that it has something which it can negotiate to get rid of

Trident renewal is thus either a £100 billion fling to get Labour elected, or else it’s a very expensive bargaining chip.  Or maybe both.  It’s a depressing lack of leadership and vision, an inability to imagine that politicians might have any responsibility to lead rather than follow.  And the issue is a classic example of what went wrong for Labour as a would-be party of peace, progress and justice.

Morality in politics

Tweet In the first two elections that I can remember, those in 1964 and 1966, I was too young to vote.  But I can remember a certain amount of excitement at the time, and also some of the promises being made by the Labour Party under Wilson.  One of the headline policies was that Polaris, the UK’s nuclear-armed submarines, would be scrapped.  It didn’t happen, of course; and far from divesting the UK of its nuclear arsenal, the Labour Party have either taken, or been complicit in, every subsequent decision to modernise and replace the nuclear arsenal.  I ended up disillusioned with the promises of the Labour Party before I was even old enough to vote.

Although there has long been a strand in the Labour Party which has opposed the possession of nuclear weapons, and the issue looked like it might come to the fore again when Michael Foot was leader, time and time again the Labour Party has proved that it is not a serious party of disarmament, and with the other two main UK parties committed to retention as well, it has never really been an election issue for the last half a century.

The anticipated closeness of the coming election has created a situation where the Green Party, SNP, and Plaid can again put the matter on the agenda.  There’s a certain amount of posturing in this, of course (there is no conceivable outcome to the election which doesn’t result in a House of Commons containing an overwhelming majority in favour of the continued possession of nuclear weapons), and talk of ‘forcing’ the government into abandoning them is fanciful at best.  But at least it’s an issue which can be discussed in a way which hasn’t really happened for 50 years – and almost everyone in the UK looks like having an opportunity, at least, to vote for an anti-Trident candidate.

It’s hard to discuss the issue without getting into moral arguments.  For the three main UK parties, that’s something to be avoided at all costs.  For them, the ‘fact’ of deterrence is a given, the possession of these weapons is an inalienable right, and the only question is about the most cost-effective way of renewing them.  But for most opponents, there is always and inevitably a moral dimension to the debate.  

For the ‘deterrent’ to be in any way credible, those in charge of it have to be able to say convincingly that there are circumstances in which they would be prepared to give the order to obliterate whole cities. I have no doubt that Cameron, Clegg, and Miliband are all, in effect, saying that there are circumstances in which they would indeed be prepared to give that order, even if it meant killing millions of civilians whose only crime was to live in a particular place.

The comparison between the jobs provided by Trident and those provided at Auschwitz which was used by Dafydd Wigley earlier today was unfortunate, for a number of reasons.  The comparison is far from being a direct one and the timing on the day after the 70^th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz was awful.  It has also helped enable the cheer leaders for Trident to divert attention away from the morality of the possession of nuclear weapons and on to ground on which they feel more secure – criticising the poor choice of words of a political opponent.

Of course there's a huge difference between the actual deaths of the 6 million Jews slaughtered under Hitler’s orders, and the potential slaughter which would result from the use of nuclear weapons.  One is very real, it actually happened; the other is merely a potential scenario for the future.  But in the knowledge of the horrors of the past, the fact that any politician could seriously consider that it is ever right to threaten to unleash death and destruction on the scale of a nuclear war certainly makes me wonder whether we have really learned anything from the past.

Trident is more than just a technical matter; for many of us it is, at heart, a moral issue.  And I hope that those opposing it will continue to make that point, even if they need to choose their words with a little more care.

Not a very well-made point

Tweet

Apparently, Carwyn Jones wasn’t really serious when he suggested that Trident should come to Milford Haven.  He was just making a point.  And the point that he thought he was making was, apparently, that independence would cost jobs.

It seems to me that, far from making a point, he’s actually missing one, and rather spectacularly so.  Whilst it is true that the SNP have said that they would want to remove Trident from an independent Scotland, and whilst it is true that removing Trident from Scotland would mean that Scotland lost those particular jobs, it isn’t the process of becoming independent itself which leads to that outcome.  There’s a step missing from our First Minister’s thought processes here.

What we can say is that IF Scotland becomes independent, AND IF the SNP then form the government of that independent Scotland, then the Scottish Government will ask the owners of Trident submarines to remove them from Scottish soil (or should that be Scottish waters?).  But if Scotland becomes independent and then elects the Labour Party or the Conservative Party to govern it, then the probability is that the Scottish Government would be happy to keep Trident.

(For completeness, we should also consider the theoretical possibility that the Scots would elect a Lib Dem government, in which case the government would probably be both for and against on alternate weekdays, and agnostic on weekends.)

It’s clear to me that the key event in deciding whether Scotland loses Trident jobs isn’t whether the Scots vote for or against independence; it’s what sort of government they elect if or when they become independent.  I suspect that SNP will be mildly pleased (insofar as they care at all what Carwyn Jones thinks) that such a senior member of the Labour Party is unable to conceive of anyone other than the SNP governing an independent Scotland, but the rest of us certainly can conceive of such an outcome.

The only real conclusion that Carwyn Jones or anyone else can draw from what the SNP is saying is this – if the people in a country elect a government opposed to the siting of nuclear weapons on its territory, then those weapons will be removed, and the jobs of the people involved in manufacturing, deploying, and maintaining those weapons and their delivery systems will be lost.  Well, duh! 

Of course they will.  And those of us who are opposed to nuclear weapons whether pre or post independence have always known that those particular jobs would be lost by disarmament.  But diverting expenditure from nuclear weapons into peaceful purposes will almost certainly generate more jobs in total than it loses; and will certainly be more sustainable.

There are plenty of people, even in Carwyn Jones’ own party, who understand that.  And there are plenty of people who would like to see the rest of us having the sort of choice over nuclear weapons which the SNP would give to Scotland.

Jobs based on a different future, please

Tweet

Last week’s news that the Labour Party in Wales would support the move of Trident to Milford Haven if Scotland becomes independent caused a flurry, but was hardly a surprise.  It’s entirely consistent with Labour’s position on nuclear weapons over many years.

But the underlying reasoning behind the move by the First Minister is really nothing to do with the argument about nuclear weapons per se.  It is, rather, based on a much simpler logic which runs something like this:

·        Wales needs jobs

·        ‘This project’ provides jobs

·        Wales should welcome ‘this project’.

One could substitute almost anything for ‘this project’; and in that sense, Carwyn Jones’ position on Trident isn’t that different from the position of many other politicians on other projects – such as Wylfa B or the Severn Barrage for instance.  The logic is exactly the same.

There is scope for debate, of course, about how many real jobs ‘this project’ provides.  The only certainty is that the numbers will be overstated by supporters of the project, and will inevitably include a number of jobs to be filled by those relocating with the project.  And whilst the debate about the number of jobs is far from irrelevant, it has more to do with whether any particular project represents value for money than with the underlying principle.

And it’s the consideration of the principle which is missing from the logic above.  It’s easier to see a principle in relation to Trident than it is for a number of other projects, but that simply underlines the fact that different people draw the line in different places.  Rather then admitting that the real issue is where to draw the line, most politicians seem to fall back on criticising anyone who opposes ‘this project’ as being anti-jobs – and it was notable that that was exactly what Jones did last week, in his side-swipe at Plaid over Trident.

I’m clear that I want to see a demilitarised Wales (and world, come to that, but let’s start with that part for which we bear the most direct responsibility), and that Trident, or any other variety of WMD, doesn’t fit with that view.  (Just as I’m also clear that I want to see an energy policy based on renewables, and that Wylfa B doesn’t fit with that view.)  That means that there are some projects to which I would be opposed, no matter how many jobs they would bring.  Ultimately, I want to see employment in Wales based on creating a new future, not on simply perpetuating the status quo.

To argue that we should ignore such questions – and all the strategies produced by government – in pursuit of jobs, in whatever field, is to avoid taking responsibility for building a different kind of future for our country and the world.  Politicians who argue otherwise are simply reacting to and managing ‘what is’ rather than building ‘what should be’.

Fig leaves and WMD

Tweet

Both the Telegraph and the BBC carry stories claiming that the UK Government is about to order nuclear reactors for the submarines which will carry the replacement to Trident, and that this will cause problems for the Liberal Democrats. 

Peter Black, on the other hand, is clear that the UK Government has not yet committed to the Trident replacement and that the Liberal Democrats will continue to oppose the simple replacement of Trident.  Technically, he’s correct; the final decision on Trident replacement has not yet been taken and will not be taken until conveniently after the next UK General Election. 

And of course, for a government building aircraft carriers with no aircraft, there’s probably nothing at all strange about building submarine nuclear reactors with no submarines in which to fit them.  It still looks like a strange decision to me though, and it makes the ‘main gate’ timetable of 2016 look increasingly like a fig leaf to cover for Lib Dem complicity in an unpalatable decision.

There is something odd about the Lib Dems position anyway.  Although presented as opposition to Trident replacement, they are not actually opposed to the continued possession of nuclear weapons, or even to the upgrading or renewal of those weapons.  Their opposition is concentrated on the means of delivery – their objection is to the submarines which would carry the warheads, not to the warheads themselves.

In short, they want to retain the weapons, but develop a less effective way of delivering them.  There’s something very Liberal Democrat about that position.

Not just Scotland's dividend

Tweet

There was a suggestion a week or two ago that Wales could gain the dubious privilege of hosting Trident if the Scots vote for independence.  It was described as Wales being the ‘winners’; not the sort of thing that I’d call much of a ‘victory’, although in the light of the St Athan debacle, I don’t doubt that there’d be plenty of politicians queuing up to welcome such a move.

I’m not over-worried about it though – I just don’t see it happening.  Firstly, it depends on the Scots actually supporting independence.  Much as I’d like to see such an outcome, I still have a feeling that the result of the First Scottish Independence Referendum will be a ‘no’; albeit by a closer margin than many supporters of the union are expecting.  Given the multi-billion pound cost of relocating the base, it’s not going to happen before a ‘yes’ vote.

But let us suppose that it does happen.  The top brass in the MoD will then be faced with deciding whether to site any new base in England or in Wales.  I can’t believe that, having seen the base kicked out of one departing country, the idea of putting it into another country where there is also a movement seeking independence, no matter how weak, is likely to come anywhere near the top of the MoD’s list.

For sure, they won’t state that as their reason, and there’ll be a Welsh site on the list for consideration before the carefully chosen experts come out with all sorts of practical reasons why the Welsh site isn’t the best one.  It’s the way they work.

However, an American Peace Institute came out with a much more helpful suggestion today.  They propose that if the Scottish base has to be closed, then the UK should be seriously thinking about nuclear disarmament, rather than relocation.  That would mean that it isn’t only Scotland which would see a significant dividend from becoming an independent state.  England and Wales could get one too.

The quiet man

Tweet Generally, the most effective criticism is not that delivered vituperatively or in anger, but that delivered in calm, quiet, measured tones. Hans Blix gave us a beautiful example yesterday in his evidence to the Iraq enquiry.

His killer line was when he said that he didn't doubt the good faith of Bush and Blair, but "What I question was the good judgement". This was a man who was closer than anyone else to the key question of whether there were or were not WMD in Iraq, and to hear him confirming that he had explicitly and personally warned Blair, before the invasion, that there might be none to be found was extremely damning. It confirms that Blair knew that the 'dodgy dossier' might well not be correct, but chose to ignore any evidence which didn't fit with the view which he and Bush had already formed.

Dr Blix is a Swede of course. His country has a long and honourable tradition of providing men like Dr Blix who will look at the evidence carefully and thoroughly from an objective perspective rather than being bullied into agreeing with the US government. It's the sort of contribution which many of us would like to see Wales making to world affairs, rather than being dragged into illegal wars on someone else's coat-tails. Might isn't right, and long may there be people like Dr Blix to tell us so.