Trident, and it’s succesor is too expensive and if you want a nuclear deterrant, there are many other cheaper ways to deliver the weapon.
The trouble is that there cannot be a sensible discussion about the system.
The right press paint a picture of doom if the subject is even expressed and the rhetoric of traitor is banded about.
To a Labour government that is kryptonite
For the Tories it is much easier to sack teaching assistants and auxilary nurses than upset the armed forces.
Lib dems could have made a real difference with this but they bottled it

Which suggests to me that the only reason Labour didn’t put it in its manifesto anyway is that it was afraid of how the press would react. Our public discourse is so deeply distorted by the inanity of half of our media – and the unwillingness of the other half (especially the BBC) to point this out.

Imagine if Greece was saddled with a nuclear “deterrent” and was proposing to spend 100 billion euros over the next 50 years upgrading it. How many commentators in our media would be saying, “They must be completely and utterly insane”? And how many, on the other hand, would be saying, “They’re very wise. Who knows, North Korea could attack them at any time. If only Spain and Italy and Germany and the Netherlands and Sweden and all the others realised how fearfully exposed they are without a nuclear umbrella! They’ll feel so stupid when the North Koreans attack them…”

So much for saying Labour were dead set on wrecking the coalition and that the Lib Dems had no choice but to ally with the Tories; turns out Brown was willing to offer the Lib Dems a far more progressive set of policies than the Tories.

Regardless of your opinion about the merits of Trident, it is an aspect of the National Defence debate.

For the Prime Minister to be willing to jettison an aspect of the defence of the realm, for political gain rather than cold military reasoning – is worrying.

Ian you could say the same for the lib dems entering the coalition with the Tories

So much for saying Labour were dead set on wrecking the coalition and that the Lib Dems had no choice but to ally with the Tories; turns out Brown was willing to offer the Lib Dems a far more progressive set of policies than the Tories.

Talk about jumping to conclusions.

1. This is Ed Balls saying this – how do you know its not spin?

2. This is one policy where it is claimed Labour moved towards the Lib Dems. That does not mean that they offered “a far more progressive set of policies than the Tories”. There are hundreds of other policy areas.

3. The interview describes Balls as “anti-PR” and “anti-coalition”.

4. The coalition agreement has promised a review of Trident for cost-effectiveness. So it’s not clear that, even if Balls is speaking the truth here, Labour were closer to the Lib Dems on Trident in the negotiations than the Tories are.

@4: “For the Prime Minister to be willing to jettison an aspect of the defence of the realm, for political gain rather than cold military reasoning – is worrying.”

I’m willing to be convinced.

Apart from the 9/11 attacks, how was it that America’s formidable nuclear arsenal had previously failed to prevent the bombing of the US embassies in Nairobi (Kenya) and Dar-es-Salaam (Tanzania) in 1998 and the earlier bombing of the World Trade Centre in 1993?

What use were the Trident missile submarines in preventing the bombings on the London tube on 7/7 in 2005?

Just asking.

In previous times, this would be a disclosure that waited 20 years.

This story — true or not — indicates that the “old parties” have adjusted in some way to the idea of coalition government. The common manifesto demonstrates what Conservative and Liberals have given away. And this tale suggests that Labour had other things to give away.

Welcome to coalition politics.

So Sunny, this in fact slaps down your whole spiel about Labour mucking up the deal with the Lib Dems. This was a major concession.

The Lib Dems wanted power and that’s that.

Who says that Trident has anything to do with “cold military reasoning”? I remember Field Marshal Lord Carver saying that the very idea of a purely deterrent weapon was stupid. If you don’t actually intend to use it, he said, what’s the bloody point of it?

It’s often said that the reason we have hung on to our “nukes” – I hate to use a friendly slang word for such obscene weapons – is that it is because we possess them that we have held on to our permanent seat on the Security Council. I’ve also been told that in Whitehall the argument for retaining a nuclear “capability” can be summer up in one word: “France” – in other words, it’s about keeping up with the neighbours. Both of these are political reasons, and (frankly) thoroughly discreditable ones.

Does anyone seriously think that the men at the MoD lose sleep over whether North Korea is going to attack us? I don’t believe that even the people at the Daily Mail do – they just pretend that they do because they like exciting fear in the public.

So, don’t give us any bullshit please about military reasons. There are none. Does anyone seriously think that our senior generals commiserate with their opposite numbers in Canada, Germany et al because those countries don’t have the capacity to incinerate entire cities? I suspect that most soldiers are actually rather more sensible – and civilised – than that. To be honest, I doubt that any submarine commander would even be willing, if push came to shove, to press the button.

So Sunny, this in fact slaps down your whole spiel about Labour mucking up the deal with the Lib Dems. This was a major concession.

Erm, did you read the bit where it says Ed Balls wasn’t particularly keen on the deal? How about Andy Burnham – who came on TV in fact to say that? And what about all the people who said the numbers weren’t there?

The deal didn’t happen either because Labourites & Libdems weren’t keen enough, or the numbers weren’t there. Take your pick.

“So Sunny, this in fact slaps down your whole spiel about Labour mucking up the deal with the Lib Dems.”

Not really. Ed Balls is trying to position himself to some sort of “left”, and lying, as usual.

If ditching Trident was not the deal breaker, then I shudder to think what was. Perhaps Labour’s reluctance to sacrifice the jobs and wages of the most disadvantaged in our society was the bridge too far for Clegg? Given the willingness of the Labour Party to jettison the Poor’s livelihoods in the past, I wonder what Clegg was demanding that the centre Rightists in the Labour Party baulked at?

Forced labour/virtual labour camps, perhaps? Watching Clegg gloating as he prepares to kick the lungs out of the vulnerable in society makes me want to throw up. I am an agnostic, but I hope there is hell for that weasely bastard to burn in.

@13

Lol, you lost. Get over it!

Agreeing a comprehensive defence review should also be allowed to assess the form of a nuclear deterrent (as the Coalition will also do) simply does not mean what the main post implies

… What would have been offered would be along ‘committed to an independent nuclear deterrent; prepared to assess scope, scale, timing on national security grounds; committed to multilateral reduction talks”

Blanco @ 14

Yes, perhaps I ‘lost’ in some senses, but it is not really abouth whether or not my candidate or Party won that is important here. The only thing that matters is what damage is being done by Clegg to the poorest in society.

The only thing that matters is what damage is being done by Clegg to the poorest in society.

In which case Labour should have done a better job while in power to renew itself, come up with an interesting and radical manifesto, and pick a vibrant and charismatic leader. There’s no point blaming Clegg for what was a terrible showing at the polls.

Did he mean “ready to ditch” or “deploy”?

Furthermore – the official coalition agreement suggests precisely what was in the Lib Dem manifesto, e.g. to look for cheaper alternatives to a like for like replacement of Trident:

“We will maintain Britain’s nuclear deterrent, and have agreed that the renewal of Trident should be scrutinised to ensure value for money. Liberal Democrats will continue to make the case for alternatives”

So Sunny, this in fact slaps down your whole spiel about Labour mucking up the deal with the Lib Dems. This was a major concession.

I hope for your sake that the Balls Kool-Aid at least tasted good.

@Laurence: “So Sunny, this in fact slaps down your whole spiel about Labour mucking up the deal with the Lib Dems. This was a major concession.”

The very same “concession” the coalition now has in place. Lib Dem objection to Trident was of a financial nature, and this is now being reviewed to include trying to find cheaper alternatives to the like-for-like replacement.

Perhaps he should have told Diane Abbott and her friends before they ruled out any possibility of doing a deal with the Liberal Democrats and the SNP?
Once the Labour neanderthal tendency said no, that was it.

Brown was so desperate to cling onto power he would have done a deal on ANYTHING.
13 Years of New Labour and where was ANY commitment form ANY leading Labour lights to abandon Trident?
Unilateral nuclear disarmament once a Labour mantra uttered by Michael Foot via CND has from Neil Kinnock to Gordon Brown been discarded, discredited and buried being replaced by Multi-Lateral nuclear disarmament as Labour’s political orthodoxy.

@13 – I’ll let you know when the boot lands. So far, nothing particularly painful seems to have happened in Poorsville. Unless I’ve missed something.