A sunny Sunday and thoughts stray from leadership pretensions to nuclear interventions.

I know that Labour’s “official” position on a Trident replacement is that Labour supports it but, obviously, we all know that the main reason why this is so is because there are people in the party who are afraid that opposing a Trident replacement will send a message that Labour can’t be trusted with Britain’s security. What they are actually afraid of is their incapability to make the compelling case for why Trident is strategically unjustified and an enormous waste of money. True, there may be a few MPs who genuinely have an intellectual capacity that stopped developing back in the 1950s and have dug their own nuclear fallout shelter in their garden, stocked with tin peaches and light reading material but I would that that is not reflective of the majority. My previous thoughts on Trident.

It worries me if Labour don’t have MPs of the caliber who can make sound arguments for abandoning lunatic projects. Labour supporting a Trident replacement, like Labour supporting austerity, is an admission that there are MPs within Labour who are not good enough to make sound political arguments. That is woeful. It is the politics of coasting. A bit like those behind the “coup”, who hoped to oust Jeremy Corbyn from the leadership without offering a compelling and commanding case for why he should go, Labour seems to have far too many MPs not prepared to put in the hard yards to arrest power from the Tories. Labour seems cursed with lightweight ballast who seem happiest coasting along and hoping public opinion will just swing their way.

If they can’t make the case for Labour politics then, you have to ask, just how did they get elevated to positions of representing Labour in Parliament? Better at promoting themselves than promoting Labour values?

Returning to Trident. Has anybody ever asked the media why, when Blair raised the 45-minute threat from Saddam’s WMDs, they didn’t query why our Trident ‘deterrent’ wasn’t a deterrent? The same ‘deterrent’ that we are being told that is essential to our national security and, so, worth British taxpayers paying £300billion for it over its lifetime. Also, has anyone answered the question over which individuals will profit from a Trident replacement and how much money they will get? Don’t these seem like two very basic questions to ask about such an enormous expense that will be shouldered by generations of taxpayers.

Maybe one or more of our “celebrity” MPs could take time out of their busy schedules to try a little bit of hard lifting and get some answers. I’m aware that a junior one has had a go at producing a fictional review of Trident for some self-justified reason (I’m sure there were very good and self-evident reasons why they weren’t a part of Labour’s actual review). Possibly it was intended as a script for some future James Bond story, who knows. More useful if Labour started rolling up its sleeves to get involved in some genuine graft and not just for PR purposes as part of “leadership” impersonations.

Leave a Reply