Plans to replace the British submarine-based nuclear deterrent could be losing favor among rank-and-file Labor Party lawmakers, the Guardian reports.
British Defense Secretary Philip Hammond reportedly called on defense ministers to seek increased union pressure on Labor legislators to support the potential replacement of all four Vanguard-class submarines that carry Trident ballistic missiles, the newspaper reported on Sunday. The “like-for-like” modernization plan has faced resistance from the Liberal Democrats, which led an exploration of alternatives as the junior member in a coalition government headed by Hammond’s Conservative Party.
“The [Conservatives] don’t want Labor having a wobble on this,” one government insider told the Guardian.
A Labor spokesman said the party remains an advocate of full Trident modernization.
Hammond, though, pressed for ship-construction unions to inform Labor politicians of their backing for the renewal plan after he received indications that certain party members were seeking a more impartial position.
The defense secretary recommended seeking a strong stance in favor of full replacement from Keep our Future Afloat, a group tied to a key Labor Party financial supporter. A final decision on moving forward with modernization is expected after the 2015 general election.
A Conservative insider said: “We are confident that Labor is committed to replacing the deterrent … unlike the Liberal Democrats who want some part-time deterrent with dummy missiles, providing Britain with no security.”
One-time Labor Party Defense Secretary Des Browne, though, said the modernization plan faces growing doubts from “from all parties and in both houses” of Parliament.
“In an age of austerity where public spending is reducing, they are much more skeptical,” Browne said. “If anything, I am surprised that it has taken ministers until now to wake up to this change. Fewer politicians accept the arguments for continuous at-sea deterrence without question than ever did before.”
What We're Following See More »
Paul Ryan told CNN today he's "not ready" to back Donald Trump at this time. "I'm not there right now," he said. Ryan said Trump needs to unify "all wings of the Republican Party and the conservative movement" and then run a campaign that will allow Americans to "have something that they're proud to support and proud to be a part of. And we've got a ways to go from here to there."
In The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin gives Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, the longread treatment. The scourge of corrupt New York pols, bad actors on Wall Street, and New York gang members, Bharara learned at the foot of Chuck Schumer, the famously limelight-hogging senator whom he served as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee staff. No surprise then, that after President Obama appointed him, Bharara "brought a media-friendly approach to what has historically been a closed and guarded institution. In professional background, Bharara resembles his predecessors; in style, he’s very different. His personality reflects his dual life in New York’s political and legal firmament. A longtime prosecutor, he sometimes acts like a budding pol; his rhetoric leans more toward the wisecrack than toward the jeremiad. He expresses himself in the orderly paragraphs of a former high-school debater, but with deft comic timing and a gift for shtick."
President Obama has announced another round of commutations of prison sentences. Most of the 58 individuals named are incarcerated for possessions with intent to distribute controlled substances. The prisoners will be released between later this year and 2018.
The Daily Beast has unearthed a piece that Donald Trump wrote for Gear magazine in 2000, which anticipates his 2016 sales pitch quite well. "Perhaps it's time for a dealmaker who can get the leaders of Congress to the table, forge consensus, and strike compromise," he writes. Oddly, he opens by defending his reputation as a womanizer: "The hypocrites argue that a man who loves and appreciates beautiful women (and does so legally and openly) shouldn't become a national leader? Is there something wrong with appreciating beautiful women? Don't we want people in public office who show signs of life?"