Wednesday, 10 February 2016

The Trident debate + what use / or not you make of the submarines is the debate occupying the Labour Party party now in Westminster

Having the expensive submarines without the missiles [The Corbyn Approach] seems to be the one course of action that no one else in the Labour party thinks is a good idea. Except Emily Thornberry, their defence spokesman.
Whatever your views on Trident as a defence mechanism the one thing everyone seems to agree upon is that you either have the missile system and believe in deterrence, or you do not have the missile system and do not believe in deterrence. Yet there is a difference on so many things between leadership, Labour party policy, and the views of the MPs and membership.


This from Jamie Reed Labour MP in this weeks Spectator:
"These are wild times in the Labour party, as an appetite for self-destruction grips the party leadership. Central to the ‘new politics’ approach of the party leadership is a deliberate abandonment of basic political professionalism. Positions don’t have to make sense, policies don’t need to be thought through, the political concerns of the public can be dismissed and the media should be hated at all times and ignored wherever possible.
This new approach represents an orgiastic embrace of the chaos theory: anything goes and no one is to blame. To understand this approach is to understand the Labour leadership and it is through this peculiar prism that the internal Labour debate about Trident should be seen.
Trident renewal is Labour party policy; it is the settled will of the country, and every decision relating to it will have been taken by 2020. Renewal is morally right, strategically justified and overwhelmingly in the national interest.
Creating our independent nuclear deterrent and our civil nuclear industry should be a source of immense pride for Labour. We should take great pride in being the standard bearers for one of Attlee’s most important legacies."

No comments:

Post a Comment