Kate Hudson's Blog

Last month the Treasury invited the public to participate in its 'Spending Challenge' - asking for our views on what should be cut. The Treasury website has now stopped accepting submissions and has posted the contributions on its website. I am delighted to see that out of almost 2,000 entries tagged under 'defence' over a third of them called on the government to scrap Trident. There were a couple calling on the government to retain it, and perhaps two more calling either for a land-based or airborne launch platform, but getting on for 700 said Trident and its replacement should be scrapped.

In fact scrapping Trident was by far and away the most talked about issue on the Treasury's site. Probably next in line was bringing the troops home from Afghanistan - another good cut that should be made immediately. There were other ideas like closing military bases in Germany and Cyprus, but nothing seemed to exercise people as much as scrapping Trident.

And we can add to those online submissions around 800 Spending Challenge postcards which CND members stamped and posted to the Treasury. These have mysteriously been returned to the CND office without explanation. Despite being addressed to HM Treasury at 1 Horse Guards Road, and having been stamped 'Screened by Houses of Parliament Contractor', someone has sent them back via TNT, but without a letter explaining why. A source at the screening contractor, Pitney Bowes, said they must have reached the Treasury if they were stamped. On phoning the Treasury, we were told that many postal submissions to the Spending Challenge had been accepted. So why not ours?

Whatever the cause, we'll deliver them back, but how many other submissions never made it through the post - or have been rejected? One can only wonder.

Now the question remains: since the public consultation on spending cuts has provided such a clear message, will the government act in accordance with them and scrap Trident? Or will it continue with its head in the sand, refusing to hear unwelcome messages?

We now have another chance to get the mesage over. The Treasury is asking us to vote on the ideas submitted so please vote now on the Treasury site and keep Trident at the top of the agenda. Log in and vote here.

With David Cameron away on holiday, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has taken the opportunity to break loose from the coalition straitjacket. He has spoken out against Trident, once again articulating the Lib Dems' actual views on Trident and its replacement. As many who voted Lib Dem will recall, Clegg made a feature of his party's opposition to a like-for-like Trident replacement and called for Britain's nuclear weapons to be included in the Strategic Defence Review, with all options on the table, including non-replacement. The Conservatives remain committed to the submarine replacement backed by the Labour government, but under the coalition agreement the Lib Dems retain the right to argue for alternatives. Many of us were wondering when those arguments will be put. With Clegg's suggestion that the money for nuclear weapons would be better spent elsewhere, maybe we are now going to see the emergence of a strong Lib Dem argument that Trident should be axed. Certainly many Lib Dem members - and MPs -will want that to be the case. Clegg stated that the final decisions on a replacement have not yet been taken. All the more reason for Trident to be included in the Strategic Defence Review, as it was in 1998. How can decisions be taken on Trident without looking at it in the wider context of Britain's security needs, now and in years to come? As Clegg himself said, "The world has changed. That needs to be reflected." Please add your voice to those demanding that Trident is included in the Strategic Defence Review. We need to add to the pressure on government and let them know public views on this issue. Click here to email Defence Secretary Liam Fox and Nick Harvey, his Lib Dem Minister.

This year saw two significant developments on Hiroshima Day. Sixty-five years after the US dropped atomic bombs on Japan, an official US government representative attended the Hiroshima memorial ceremony for the first time. US Ambassador John Roos said, 'For the sake of future generations, we must continue to work together to realise a world without nuclear weapons.'

This is without doubt a result of President Obama's drive towards nuclear abolition. And without doubt critics will say it is just a gesture, but I for one think it is an important gesture - and one appreciated by the Japanese. Many hope that it paves the way for a visit to Hiroshima by Obama himself.

And it was notable that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon also participated in the Hiroshima memorial ceremony. Mr Ban is a real advocate of nuclear abolition as we have seen from his interventions over the past months and at the NPT Review Conference in particular.

Here's a taste of what he said at Hiroshima: 'Together, we are on a journey from ground zero to global zero - a world free of weapons of mass destruction...That is the only sane path to a safer world. For as long as nuclear weapons exist, we will live under a nuclear shadow.'

Quite right. And he also said that 'We see new energy from civil society'. I agree with that, but if we want to achieve the real change that we strive for, we must redouble our efforts now. All these small steps move things in our direction - we must maximise those steps. There is no doubt that global abolition is on the agenda. We mustn't miss the chance to help make it happen.

The Treasury/MoD row over who will pay for Trident has really hotted up. While Cameron was busy offending Pakistan in New Delhi, the Chancellor was busy upsetting the MoD. "I have made it very clear", he said "that Trident renewal costs must be taken as part of the defence budget".

So it looks like the cost of building new Trident submarines will come from the MoD's procurement budget (big spend items), taking up to 25% of it, according to an anonymous MoD source. This will average out in excess of £2 billion a year over the build period, in addition to over £2 billion a year from other MoD budgets on running costs for the existing system - and then the costs of running the new one must also be considered. And it may well work out to be a lot more than that.

Cost over-runs are a near certainty, with the current Astute submarine programme (nuclear powered subs with conventional weapons) running 48% over budget and almost four years late. Similar cost over-runs on the Trident replacement submarines could decimate army, air force and surface naval projects.

The vast spending on nuclear weapons is increasingly looking like a millstone round the neck of British defence policy, even to those who claim they want it - like Defence Secretary Liam Fox, who is reduced to scaremongering about runaway nuclear proliferation. But surely it is up to people like Fox to justify why there should be swingeing cuts to the rest of the armed forces - and government spending in other areas - to pay for them.

They say they want it, but clearly not badly enough to pay for it. They don't want to cut back anything else and want 'someone else' to fund it. But whichever budget it comes from, the reality is that we're all having to endure huge cuts elsewhere so that this white elephant can be retained.

You might think that the new government is super-keen to retain and replace Trident. You might think the MoD considers it indispensable to our national security. And you might think that if it is that important they would be willing to pay for it. Well, think again. Over the last few days we've seen a row unfolding between the Treasury and the MoD. Neither of them want to pay to replace Britain's Trident nuclear weapons system.
As far as I'm concerned - and the majority of the British population - I don't blame them. They would be irresponsible in the extreme, not only to waste up to £100 billion on nuclear weapons over the years ahead, but to risk provoking proliferation by saying that nuclear weapons are vital to a country's security.
But this new reluctance hardly fits with the rhetoric of the last two months, where the government has refused to include Trident in the Strategic Defence Review, claiming that it is so vital that its replacement cannot even be reconsidered.
Instead the government is reviewing its 'value-for-money'. Well if they continue along the lines of this current row, maybe they will decide it's not worth it. Just a thought!
Why not express your views to the Treasury on this matter? In line with the new 'big society' ethos of popular responsibility and engagement, I can now facilitate your participation in the Treasury's Spending Challenge process. Click here to make your suggestions about what the government should cut. We have a suggested text about scrapping Trident, but feel free to change it as you prefer. But it is essential that anti-Trident views are expressed because, after all, the only rational, legal, cost-effective, moral and safe option is to scrap it.

Since we marched in Strasbourg at the NATO Summit last year, a group of 'experts' has been busily preparing recommendations to shape NATO's 'new strategic concept' due to be unveiled later this year. Chaired by Madeleine Albright, famed for leading the NATO charge to illegally bomb Yugoslavia in 1999, the group has now reported.

Reading the document is another 'parallel universe' experience.  You will be interested to know that NATO is 'an essential source of stability in an uncertain and unpredictable world'.  Well maybe NATO is at least predictable. But killing is not the kind of predictability that I like.  It seems that NATO needs a new strategic concept because the world has changed since the last one in 1999, not least because of the 'deadly connection between technology and terror' demonstrated by 9/11. This has led to the euphemistically described 'response that has drawn NATO troops far from home', for which read 'Afghanistan'.

Rather alarmingly, the document states that 'the development of a new Strategic Concept provides an opportunity to introduce NATO to populations who know little about it'.  A regrettable formulation - I suspect the people of Afghanistan knew little about NATO before they started being killed by its forces.

And whilst trumpeting NATO's democratic principles, the document also  asserts that 'the geographic distribution of NATO nuclear deployments in Europe' will be made by the Alliance as a whole. What this means is that countries who want US nuclear weapons off their territory - the most recent to vote to get rid of them is Germany - will have to keep them as long as the US want them there. That doesn't sound very democratic to me.

Last Friday, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen announced that the new strategic concept will be adopted at the NATO summit in Lisbon on 18 and 19 November this year. You can be sure that CND will be part of the protest taking place there from across Europe. After all, it seems much the same old NATO to me: overwhelming military might, pseudo-democratic window dressing.

After Vince Cable's extraordinary statement on Question Time last week, that Trident doesn't cost us anything, I think it is worth setting the record straight.  Currently the government spends over £2 billion a year on nuclear weapons. By 2013 that figure will rise to £3 billion a year.  Given that the government's first stated cuts goal when it came into office was to save £6 billion, it is hard to see how this level of spending could be described as nothing. This and other issues on 'defence' spending will be discussed at CND's public meeting in parliament tonight - Monday 28th June, organised together with the Stop the War Coalition. See our website diary for full details.

The current amount is primarily to maintain the existing system but of course one has to add to that the cost of the replacement of the current system. That will add in excess of £76 billion to the bill. Like many others, I wouldn't want nuclear weapons even if they were free - they provoke proliferation and make us less safe, doing nothing to meet the security challenges that we face. So scrapping the existing system and cancelling Trident replacement makes sense on every count.

Think of what the money could be spent on instead, and how many skilled sustainable jobs could be created. The current figures in employment in the nuclear weapons sector are around 11,000 on four sites. That is a cost of several million pounds per job. In employment terms, that is not a good return on investment.  But a major programme of offshore wind and wave power could generate 50% of the UK's energy needs, substantially reducing carbon emissions and enhancing security of supply. It would also create new industries generating 25-30,000 skilled jobs.

It is about time the government thought about the best ways of regenerating Britain's economy, investing in growth and industries for the future, not obsessively clinging to the one area of public spending that actually would be a good cut.

 

According to the United Nations, Israel allows less than a quarter of the humanitarian aid that is needed into Gaza. Small wonder then that aid conveys are organised and people seek ways to bring essential goods into that blockaded strip of land. Last night I heard news that the flotilla of ships carrying aid was surrounded by Israeli war ships - while in international waters. This morning I awoke to a text informing me that at least ten unarmed civilians had been killed after Israeli troops entered one of the ships.

This atrocity must be protested in the strongest possible terms. The European Union has rightly called for an Inquiry. Our government must take immediate steps, not only to ensure the security of the flotilla and the safe arrival of the aid, but also to bring the Israeli authorities to justice. Such atrocities cannot go unchallenged.

Please join me today - Bank Holiday Monday - outside Downing Street at 2pm, to urge our government to bring pressure to bear on Israel before more lives are lost.

 

Bad news on the disarmament front. Today the new Defence Secretary Liam Fox said, ‘We have got a very clear agreement that we will continue with the nuclear deterrent. The Liberals have said they would like to look at what other alternatives in terms of cost of the nuclear deterrent will be. I will certainly want to scrutinise the cost of the Trident replacement programme. But the ultimate responsibility is to keep Britain safe and protect the generations of the future from whatever threats may emerge in a dangerous world.’

 

It is hard to read this as anything other than the LibDems abandoning the option of getting rid of Britain’s nuclear weapons, even though this had been one of the possible choices that they set out in their recent review. This appears to mean that the LibDems have accepted that Britain will have some form of nuclear weapons and will confine themselves to talking about different varieties and what is best value for money.

 

Frankly, no money at all should be spent on weapons of mass destruction. And even if they were free we shouldn't have them.  Continuing to be retain nuclear weapons and enter into a process of what is effectively rearmament, is making the world a more dangerous place by provoking proliferation. It also works counter to the current global trend against nuclear weapons and towards cuts in arsenals and recognition of nuclear weapons free zones.

 

No doubt this step by the LibDems will be very upsetting for many of their members and voters. It is also very dangerous for Britain's future security. So another reason then to include Trident in the forthcoming newly renamed Strategic Security and Defence Review.