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 »
Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”
“We haven’t seen a true leftist since FDR, so many millions are coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bernie Sanders; he is the Occupy movement now come to life in the political arena.” So says Bill Maher in his Hollywood Reporter cover story (more a stream-of-consciousness riff than an essay, actually). Conservative states may never vote for a socialist in the general election, but “this stuff has never been on the table, and these voters have never been activated.” Maher saves most of his bile for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, writing that by nominating Palin as vice president “John McCain is the one who opened the Book of the Dead and let the monsters out.” And Trump is picking up where Palin left off.