I keep banging my head against the wall trying to understand how all 3 main parties in Westminster have agreed in the Trident Commission that we should spend £30bn to £100bn on replacing Trident. We will also have to find a few more billion to move the accursed things out of Scotland, if there is a “Yes” vote.
I saw that Labour’s “Britain’s Global Role Policy Consultation” document states :
“Labour has said that we are committed to a minimum, credible independent nuclear deterrent, which we believe is best delivered through a Continuous At-Sea Deterrent. It would require a substantial body of evidence for us to change this belief, which the Government’s Trident Alternatives Review does not appear to offer”.
I had a look at the “Trident Alternatives Review” which is a semi-technical analysis of the various alternatives to Trident. This kind of document is a little mesmerising because one can subtly be drawn into MOD-speak and start to expend intellectual energy weighing up the technical pros and cons of different WMDs. I had to keep my head a little to remember that the whole point of WMDs is the ability to kills thousands or millions of people, just like you and me. And this is the world of technical analysis of immoral weapons which Labour has allowed itself to be drawn into.
The Review document starts off by saying:
“The credibility of the UK‟s deterrent is crucial; a potential aggressor needs to believe that the UK has the capability and resolve to deliver “unacceptable loss‟ in response to an actual or imminent attack. ‟Unacceptable loss‟ [is defined as] the ability to inflict a level of damage that a potential aggressor would judge outweighed any benefit they might gain by a particular course of action.”
Bringing it back to reality again, “unacceptable loss” involves the killing of huge numbers of people. Somehow, the political establishment in our country seem to think we should spend billions of pounds to play mind-games with potential aggressors over the potential killing of their citizens. Labour has swallowed the deception that underlies the rationale for nuclear weapons and is now engaged in technical comparisons between different types of them.
Last year, Labour was talking about having only 3 new submarines but, in the cross-party Trident Commission (minus the SNP), they have now joined the Tories on 4. Of course there are many Labour activists who hate Trident as much as I do. But how could the Labour Party have fallen so low that its support for replacing Trident didn’t even trigger a serious debate in the party? I want to cry some times.
What should I think of an institution that is committed to spending up to £100bn of my country’s tax revenues of building arms that can wipe out the world, by accident or design? Even if it never uses them, the money it spends on them could be used to improve the lives of so many people in the UK and in poorer countries around the word. Actually, I have reached a conclusion on this. Such an institution is fundamentally evil – evil at its core.
There are many Labour activists who do far more for their country than I do, in their local areas. The Labour Party does not deserve to have them. The Labour leadership is a parasite on them. I look forward to the institution of the Labour Party disappearing into electoral oblivion. I hope it dies. I am an enemy of few people – but I am an enemy of the Labour Party. Hopefully, the good people left behind when it dies will go on, in a different guise.