It was the chap in the wing collar and spats who started all the trouble. He asked a question at last night’s meeting at the Royal Society for Arts (RSA) about nuclear policy - and what until then had been a reasonably interesting but fairly predictable debate between the leadership candidates, suddenly turned into something really quite interesting.
As Clegg said in response, this is an area where the two candidates really do disagree. Clegg backs existing party policy on this (which was agreed, let’s not forget, by party conference after extensive internal debate less then seven months ago) which would halve Britain’s nuclear capacity, and then promotes further nuclear disarmament on a multilateral basis.
Huhne is saying something different from that. But just exactly what it is that he is saying becomes less and less clear every time he answers a question about it - and I’m afraid it has now reached the point where I think what he is saying is totally confused and makes pretty much no sense at all.
The basic question that I am unclear about is whether Huhne supports unilateral nuclear disarmament by Britain, or not.
At the weekend, he made a seemingly simple statement that he thought Britain should not renew Trident when it comes to the end of its life (”Huhne Nukes Trident Fudge“). That seemed clear. Two of his main reasons seemed to be (a) the cost of replacement, and (b) the fact that the world’s security context had drastically changed since the 1980s when Trident was ordered.
But then it emerged that in fact he thinks that Trident should be replaced, not with a comparable submarine-based system, but by a “smaller” alternative system.
Clegg intervened last night to ask Huhne to clarify this, and things then got more lively - and even less clear.
He asked two questions: whether it wasn’t true - as experts had told him - that a “smaller” replacement would in practice be as expensive or almost as expensive as the replacement being proposed by the government, and that such a “smaller” replacement would probably have to be land-based rather than submarine-based, therefore making it effectively an “offensive” not a “defensive” system, and not really useful for dealing with the likely threats of the twenty-first century, rather than the Cold War situation.
In answer Huhne conceded that even a “smaller” system would indeed be expensive, and although he re-emphasised that the need now is to be ready to deal with rogue states rather than the Cold War certainties of the Soviet Union, he didn’t have an answer to the point that a likely land-based system would be less able to do that.
Huhne was clear that we had to wait and see whether the 2010 review conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NNPT) succeeded in making real progress towards global nuclear disarmament, and that we therefore couldn’t make a real decision until after that - which however then seems to contradict his attacks on existing party policy for also saying that we are not in a position yet to make a decision about it.
There is also a question about whether Britain commissioning a different, “smaller” system would be in breach of the NNPT, and Clegg also made the point that if we hope the 2010 conference will succeed then we need to retain some of our negotiating cards (though the party policy does already commit us to halving the number of nuclear warheads at a stroke).
I have read this morning the two candidates’ articles (here and here) about this on Lib Dem Voice, and I am afraid that Huhne’s has not helped to resolve this confusion. Some of the things he says are well-designed to push the buttons of the unilateralists in the party - saying the world has changed since the 80s, complaining about dependence on America, and talking up the need to support our boys with conventional equipment - but they don’t come close to addressing the fundamental confusion in his position.
So:
Ӣ He attacks replacing Trident on cost grounds - but then promotes a possible alternative which he concedes would be as expensive or almost as expensive.
Ӣ He attacks the existing policy for delaying a decision - but then proposes delaying a decision until after 2010.
Ӣ And he says we (might) need a nuclear weapons system that could respond to any potential aggressor - but then proposes a system which, being land-based, could not effectively do that.
And all this while giving out an overall tone of supporting unilateral nuclear disarmament - but yet saying that multilateral negotiations through the 2010 NNPT review conference, are the key.
The comments made at the weekend have clearly kicked off lots of interesting discussion within the party - but it is now clear that they do not add up.
Chris Huhne’s policy pronouncements on Trident replacement, I’m afraid, quite simply do not make sense.
November 1st, 2007 at 13:15
This is clearly worrying - if this policy falls so quickly on analysis what other ones of Chris’s do?
This is a failure on both communication and intellectual capacity!
November 1st, 2007 at 15:22
There is a risk that we could focus too much on this policy. The simple fact is that nuclear weapons are no longer the issue they were in the 1980s. This leadership contest really should be a ‘beauty contest’ for the voters and almost all of them couldn’t care a fig for this debate.
November 1st, 2007 at 16:32
Jeremy,
Chris Huhne, if I understand him rightly, thinks there is no convincing case for replacing the Trident system with a system of equal capacity. So the decision not to do preparatory work on such a system can be made now. (Specifically, the Trident system has three parts: the missiles, which are American-owned, the 192 warheads, which are British-made and owned, and four British Vanguard-class submarines that carry and fire the missiles.) The decision to be made in 2010 after the next round of disarmament talks is whether to have some nuclear warheads (but less powerful and less numerous than Trident has), or no nuclear warheads at all. In the event of failure of the 2010 disarmament talks, even if the UK’s current nuclear weapon stockpile were dismantled the UK could assemble small fission weapons quickly using plutonium from the stockpile of about 70 tonnes at Sellafield, much of which comes from reprocessing fuel from the Magnox reactors in operation since the 1950s. The UK would continue to operate nuclear powered submarines whether or not Trident was replaced so it would only need to purchase a delivery missile from the US or France or alternatively use aircraft. If Nick Clegg suggested this would be as expensive or nearly as expensive as replacing Trident, I think he was wrong.
So what is your point, exactly?
November 1st, 2007 at 17:09
Thanks for comments.
Jo - my question is this: is Chris in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament by the UK, or not?
The headlines of his announcement seem to give the answer ‘yes’, but yet what he has said, and what you have said here, seems pretty clear that if the 2010 conference ‘fails’ (and of course it succeeds in achieving multilateral disarmament, then Huhne, Clegg and pretty much all of us will be happy), then he would indeed support maintaining a UK nuclear deterrent.
November 1st, 2007 at 17:10
I don’t know the rights and wrongs of the respective policies, but I don’t think that our current policy has a mandate from conference.
We have the policy we have because (in my view) it became apparent that the floating voters at conference wanted to vote for unilateral disarmament. The motion only passed unamended because a) the amendment was badly drafted and b) because party staff produced literature overnight on the day before the vote, and distributed it to delegates going in to the vote, with a misleading table that said ‘if you want disarmament, don’t back the amendment’ - If I Recall Correctly it said something like “the motion unamended is the true disarmament option”… the implication and inference being that those behind the policy fully understood that conference wanted to vote for unilateral disarmament, but conference didn’t have that option before it.
November 1st, 2007 at 17:23
Rob - on the facts I think you are probably correct, but I think it is very difficult indeed to start saying “well conference didn’t really mean to decide what it did decide”.
Furthermore, all the points you make here were also made in the (very good and full) debate itself at the time, so people were able to take them into account, and vote accordingly.
If, for example, a representative didn’t agree with the assertion that “the motion unamended is the true disarmament option”, then they heard the case for that point of view made, and were then able to vote for or against it as they wished.
November 1st, 2007 at 18:10
Jeremy, you now make a new point, but your original bullet points are all bad.
Chris Huhne does attack replacing Trident on cost grounds - but what basis have you for saying that his possible alternative would be as expensive or almost as expensive? Only a suggestion from Nick Clegg. Your own blog says Huhne only conceded it would be “expensive” - which in absolute terms must be so for anything involving nuclear technology, but it still could be cheap compared with Trident.
He attacks the existing policy for delaying a decision which on various grounds he says we should make, not to replace Trident with a system of equivalent scale and power. Having decided not to, the question for decision then becomes whether to replace it with any nuclear weapon at all. That is what he proposes not to decide after the talks in 2010.
You jump from a concession that an alternative system could be land based to a conclusion that it will be land based. Very poor reasoning!
His overall tone is to be against replacing Trident, which makes a lot more sense than the procrastinating fudge supported by a majority of FPC.
Would you like to retract your bullet points? They are all bad.
November 1st, 2007 at 19:02
Jo - with respect I don’t think my question is a new point - indeed it is almost word for word identical to a line in the original post!
Your paragraph:
He attacks the existing policy for delaying a decision which on various grounds he says we should make, not to replace Trident with a system of equivalent scale and power. Having decided not to, the question for decision then becomes whether to replace it with any nuclear weapon at all. That is what he proposes not to decide after the talks in 2010.
effectively says: he says we should declare now we will not replace Trident - and then after 2010 decide if a certain eventuality happens* - then we should decide after all, to replace it! This is not a decision now not to replace!
* and the eventuality is the “failure” of the conference - which I must say most people think is much the most likely outcome - does anyone really expect that we are just 3 years away from the USA, Russia and China all agreeing to give up all their nuclear weapons?
On the points about cost of an alternative and being land-based, it was my clear impression from his response that CH conceded these points, and he certainly didn’t contest them, which I would obviously have expected him to have done if he didn’t accept them. I don’t have a transcript of this so I’m afraid I can’t quote any greater reference for this - though the RSA did say at one point that they expect to put up a video on their website “in a few days” so we should all hopefully be able to look it up then.
November 1st, 2007 at 21:22
Er, I think you have overlooked my phrase “with a system of equivalent scale and power”. And according to your own account, Chris conceded that a new system would be expensive and might be land-based (no surprises there!) but those concessions don’t justify your bullet points at all. It is about time we had some precision on this issue. I think you should retract.
November 1st, 2007 at 21:40
Sorry Jo, I’m afraid I still think those bullet points are correct so I’m not going to remove them.
November 2nd, 2007 at 1:15
Actually I think the main feeling amongst those sponsoring the amendment at Harrogate was that wheeling out the party leader to speak against was what did for it. That enough reps were swayed by the notion that here was something so important that the leader had to make an extraordinary intervention in a policy debate for the first time since merger to make the difference and that this was a bit of a “dirty trick”.
November 2nd, 2007 at 19:21
Actually you should retract the posting as a whole because it first set up a bogus doubt about Chris’s stance on unilateral nuclear disarmament and then suggested his policy statement did not dispel the doubt. There never was a doubt - his policy statements are clear that he is not a unilateralist. This is not just a chat in a pub, an indefinite number of people may read it and I suggest they should conclude they might have expected better from a vice-chair of FPC.
November 3rd, 2007 at 1:26
Jo
I’m afraid I still don’t agree.
It is my view - and it is widely shared by others, for example the uncommitted Bernard at Clowns to the Left of Me - that the original statements at the weekend were aimed at unilateralist members and intended to imply that he shared their approach. They were issued under the title “I Would Scrap Trident”, the statement on the campaign website is accompanied by a large logo carrying the slogan “No New Trident”, and the item on his campaign’s blog (libdems4chris) is headed “Huhne Nukes Trident Fudge”
In my view that all this was intended to create the impression that Huhne proposed unilaterally ending Britain’s nuclear capacity.
As detailed above, further statements later in the week were not so clear. However there remained confusion: for example an article in the Independent linked to approvingly from the Huhne site reports his view as that Britain’s “should either give it [ie Trident] up unilaterally or maintain a minimum deterrent.” (my emphasis; and I realise that the Huhne camp aren’t directly responsible for what the Independent writes but the paper was reporting what he had told them).
The other elements of confusion which I highlighted in the original article also remain - though I know you disagree about this.
I believe the criticisms remain valid and I do not therefore see a need to withdraw them.
I am happy to keep responding but I’m afraid I do not feel we are breaking a lot of new ground here now.
Jock - I think there is a lot in what you say: I also am pretty clear that Ming speaking swung votes. However I do still think that starting to unpack decisions and arguing that some decisions are in some sense “not proper decisions” once they’ve been taken, is a slippery slope to start down!
November 3rd, 2007 at 12:19
Sorry I missed all this debate last night! Unusually (pinch yourself Jeremy!) I find myself agreeing with you and not Jo. I also agree with the point made by Bernard about this being about Chris pushing the unilateralist buttons in the party, whilst clearly remaining a multilateralist. That is fine, I don’t agree with the position, but to try and ride the two horses of multi and unilateralism - just aint gonna work - and he may end up with a big pain in the butt to boot! Chris is good at playing to the gallery and perhaps he has taken a decision that this is his best bet in a contest where he is the underdog. But frankly if he is going to do that he would be as well to take a clear and unambiguous stance, as I have pointed out elsewhere, there are many anti-trident members who, if they don’t have a choice of a unilateralist contender, are choosing to back Nick.