An interesting counter opinion to Our Resident Troll.

[non sociopath skin]

After his interesting lecture at Newcastle University this evening, General Sir Nick Parker KCB CBE, (former Commander-in-Chief, Land Forces) was asked by a member of the audience whether he thought that Trident had any place in the UK's 21st-Century defence strategy.

His reply was an unequivocal "No".

How lucky, I thought, we are to have leaders with degrees in PPE and History from Oxbridge and no military knowledge or experience to bring us back to the real world.

Not to mention non -combatant trolls.

The Skin

[LeftishBrit]

1. I would certainly trust Parker more than your average politician..

Though I was never a fan of Trident, I could perhaps see - though not share - the arguments for it during the Cold War. But I can't see the point nowadays at all. How would Trident help against the likes of Al Quaeda or ISIS?

[Ironing Man]

2. ...

there are three problems with that argument - which is used by our brain-inhibited friend - is that firstly just because something doesn't fit within one particular conflict, it is not by definition barred from being useful in any conflict. anti-cancer drugs - or indeed the anti-Ebola drugs and the kind of isolation facilities that we keep for diseases that happen so rarely that they are statistically irrelevent -are of no use whatsoever in our generational fight against type2 diabetes, so we should stop buying them. thats a stupid argument, anyone who used it on doctors.co.uk would be laughed at. why then should the same not apply to defence?

the second is that trident is a 50 year programme, one could certainly argue that its place within UK defence posture is somewhat limited now, but successor won't leave service till 2060. anyone care to not just hazard a guess at to what the last 40 years will have looked like in 2060, but to bet everything on it being OK?

the third issue is that once we get rid of trident because its not currently useful - or obviously useful - we would never be able to regain such a capability were we to decide in 2060 that such a capability would actually fit rather well in our defence posture. that, it seems to me, would be rather a high price to pay for saving an infitesimal amount of our annual GDP...

[LeftishBrit]

3. But it could apply the other way round too...

As you rightly say, we don't know what will be needed in 2060 - so perhaps the opposite applies. By committing ourselves to Trident, we may be reducing our flexibility, both technical and financial, and be less able to respond to future, currently unimagined threats.

[non sociopath skin]

10. Sir Nick didn't think that we should give up our nuclear "knowledge" as he named it.

However, he saw no conceivable use for Trident and felt the money could be better spent elsewhere in the Defence budget.

The Skin

[Donald Ian Rankin]

4. Two questions with (probably) different answers:

1) Is renewing Trident a good idea?
2) Should the Labour party support renewing Trident?

As far as I can see (and I should stress that I'm far from a foreign policy expert, and that opinion among those who are seems to be split), renewing Trident is probably not a good use of money; if I were running the country and did not have to worry about winning elections, I would probably not do so (although I'd seek expert advice first).

But the Labour party ought to worry about winning elections, and opposing Trident will make it much harder to do so. To win a general election, Labour would (I won't say "will&quot have to make a large number of painful compromises, and adopt suboptimal policies because they will be popular, and this is one where the gain in electability massively outweighs the cost in wasted money.

[T_i_B]

5. I would say yes to question #1

Which therefore means I would also answer yes to question #2. To say no to question #1 and yes to question #2 will look unprincipled and opportunistic.

The whole matter of whether or not a positive case can be made for Trident also matters. Labour has become too negative in recent times and needs to make more positive arguments about the merits of their policies.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

6. You're confusing "principled" with "simplistic".

The main principle I want politicians to apply is to do as much good as possible.

Doing that will mean sometimes adopting policies which are not the best possible, and will often mean flannelling rather than answering a question, because without doing to it's impossible to win elections, and hence hard to do any good at all.

It would be lovely to live in a fictional world where always voting your conscience and giving clear, complete, honest answers won elections. But we don't.

The opposite of "principled" isn't "cynical" or "opportunistic" - politicians can and should be all three simultaneously - it's "unprincipled".

[T_i_B]

7. I don't think that giving unclear, dishonest answers wins elections

See Labour's decline since 2001 for evidence of this, and the collapse of the Lib Dems under Clegg for even more evidence of this.

If people think that politicians are out to deceive and to obfuscate than they are far less likely to vote for them.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

8. I carefully avoided the word "dishonest".

The absolute first principle of media management is "don't answer the question". Not "give a dishonest answer" - if you tell an outright lie, it's very likely to come back and bite you - but find a way to turn whatever you've been asked into an excuse to deliver the message you've come to deliver, even if it's nothing much to do with it.

If you don't believe me, talk to anyone who gives courses on dealing with the press.

[T_i_B]

9. I see no reason to avoid the word "dishonest"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dishonest

dishonest

: saying or likely to say things that are untrue
: containing information that is untrue
: used to deceive someone

I don't think that's an unfair way to describe the approach you propose.

Now even if you disregard the obvious moral issues with taking the approach you propose, it has become very clear that people have come to associate Labour (especially the Blairite faction) with this approach, and that people have come to see through this and to become very weary of it. It's one of the major reasons why Labour has been in decline since 2001 IMHO.

[LeftishBrit]

11. I don't think the approach is necessarily dishonest; it depends on how it's done

If a party promises before an election to keep Trident/ avoid raising tuition fees/ keep tax credits/ whatever it may be, and then reneges on the promise after they're elected, that is certainly dishonest, and all too common.

However, if they say, 'I personally believe in doing X, but I know we don't have support for it, so I won't force the issue', this may be regrettable or cowardly, but it's not dishonest.

The issue may be: 'is it better to take a small risk of a truly disastrous consequence, or a high risk of a lesser, but still bad consequence?' I am anti-Trident, and think it's more dangerous to have it than scrap it. But if the political situation gives me the choice between taking the relatively low current risk of being nuked to kingdom-come, and taking the relatively high risk of another 18-year span of Tory rule, I might choose the former.

[T_i_B]

12. There remains issues with that approach

I personally don't think that politicans can go onto the Today programme and say 'I personally believe in doing X, but I know we don't have support for it, so I won't force the issue' because it will look like they are acting in a cowardly and insincere manner. Which causes politicans to become evasive instead.

There are always issues where this is the case for everyone. Imigration being a case in point for myself. In an ideal world we would have free migration, but we don't live in an ideal world and immigration is wildly unpopular (although oddly, it's most unpopular in areas with the least number of immigrants). Plus there are issues with what's happening in Calais and Syria that need to be addressed. Personally I think the best approach with that issue is to keep on pointing out how anti-immigrant views are often wildly unrealistic. The point is to at least try and change peoples minds.