Trident Replacement Consultation and Referendum

I voted in the Trident Referendum David Cameron and Nick Clegg didn’t want to have; you can too!

THE POLITICS OF TRIDENT

How they fooled us - what we now know: Vote LibDem; get Trident2

17 April: LibDem press release "Ridiculous not to consider Trident in the defence review”.

8 June: LibDem MPs join the Tories in voting down motion to include Trident in defence review but on 5 July Defence Secretary Liam Fox announces his Trident value for money study will feed into the defence review - how can people be expected to understand this?

21 June: LibDem Defence Minister Nick Harvey no longer calls Trident a “cold war relic with no relevance to security threats of today or tomorrow” but confirms like-for-like Trident replacement without considering alternatives. Greenpeace ask: why are all state-funded projects reconsidered except this £97bn cold war doomsday machine?

26 May: Foreign Secretary William Hague referred to building trust and setting high standards for nations to follow: “Time is now right to be more open about the weapons we hold,” – but government refuses international inspection of our nukes stockpile.

19 July: Liam Fox reveals no independent organisations are allowed to contribute to value for money study, no new National Audit Office review and no report to Parliament but his cost based on 4 subs remains £15-£20bn at 2006-07 prices with. more up-to-date costs to be released later this year.

The LibDems had announced their decision not to replace Trident back in June 2009 when the now Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said this was because of the rapidly deteriorating public finances and the case in the post-cold war world being "a complete fiction". Then on 16 August he appeared to break ranks by saying "Trident replacement makes welfare cuts harder to justify".

WHAT THEY SAID IN ELECTION
At a time when the threats to our country have changed dramatically, when President Obama has just warned of the greatest nuclear danger being from terrorist use of nuclear material and when our troops are short on vital equipment in Afghanistan, Labour wants to press ahead with a £100 billion nuclear weapons system designed for the Cold War and won't even consider Trident in the upcoming defence review [Nick Harvey LibDem Shadow Defence Secretary, 17/4/10 - now Armed Forces Minister in the Coalition Government]

I simply don't understand why both Labour and the Conservatives think we can have a strategic defence review which excludes Trident [Menzies Campbell, Liberal Democrat, 020410]

What the parties don't seem to grasp is that scrapping Trident would be a vote winner. It's not just that senior military figures now say Trident is militarily useless and should be scrapped. Opinion polls systematically show a substantial majority against Trident [Kate Hudson, CND Chair, 070410]

Any way you look at it - on moral, financial, or defence grounds - renewal of Trident is completely untenable Alex Salmond, SNP, 13/3/10]

Despite David Blunkett, Charles Clarke, David Owen and the late Robin Cook all opposing Trident2, Labour's manifesto was for replacing “Our Independent Nuclear Deterrent” (3 lies) just when the US announced a new policy!

Then following former defence chief Lord Guthrie declaring on 21 April his opposition to replacing Trident came The Day of the Generals as 4 generals branded doing it “a major strategic blunder”. On 1 August, former army defence chief Richard Dannatt resigned as the PM's special defence adviser over Trident2 not being weighed against other priorities and Treasury making MoD pay for it out of their own budget.

Latest Activity

DOROTHY FORSYTH posted a discussion

scrapping trident

Letter published in September Saga MagazineDear EditorI am surprised that Paul Lewis gives so little attention to the defence expenditure in his article, ‘Money works -The trillion pound challenge’, In July Saga Magazine .He writes “”with a war going on and equipment to be replaced, even a freeze will be hard to achieve , I put it at 0%”I would remind him that current annual expenditure on Afghanistan is nearly £4 billion, enough to build 200 new secondary schools.( The coalition has 15…See More

Sep 16, 2010

0 Comments

Prof David Seddon: If Government systematically underestimates real cost, could be fraud + deception: see our Forum

Aug 16, 2010

Hazel Dawe replied to Ad Min's discussion Time to call on the UN?

"Sounds great in principle but on what legal basis would the UN get involved? Surely if the UK government is making decisions based on false accounting then the best way to get the decision overturned is judicial review? Our judges have shown…"

Jul 30, 2010

DOROTHY FORSYTH replied to Ad Min's discussion What next for this site?

"Keep site open for now until Carolyne Lucas MP and Public pressure might force Government to abandon Trident Dorothy Forsyth"

Jul 22, 2010

Sarah Lasenby replied to Ad Min's discussion Comments and Suggestions about this site

"Hi In view of the cost of Trident replacement being very controversial see press release below, I think this site should continue and ask us our views whenever the situation changes - they can stop at any point though the later the more expensive it…"

Jul 16, 2010

George Mason replied to Ad Min's discussion What do you wish to say in response to the (non-existent) consultation?

"David Seddon said on 25/6/10 that £30 billion would be saved at once if Trident were cancelled. I understand that the £30 billion is the cost over 20yrs so it would be a much less dramatic saving. Otherwise I support what he says. "

Jul 5, 2010

Ian McDonald replied to Ad Min's discussion What do you wish to say in response to the (non-existent) consultation?

"This and previous governments only like to consult us when they can safely predict the people will vote the way they want them too, or when the result does not make any difference (e.g. AV v FPTP). But on important issues like Trident they will not…"

Jul 5, 2010

Pat Bryden replied to Ad Min's discussion What do you wish to say in response to the (non-existent) consultation?

"I want to ask what we really want Britain to be: we score very low on poverty, in Europe, differences between poor and rich, general health and even education. As for environment??? And what ordinary industries are we building up? Why are we…"

Jul 2, 2010

George Crabb replied to Ad Min's discussion Comments and Suggestions about this site

"A weapon of nuclear mass murder cannot be used as a deterrent. Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki these weapons have done nothing to prevent wars and violent confrontation. We must all work for disarmament, both nuclear and conventional and for the…"

Jun 27, 2010

Hazel Dawe replied to Ad Min's discussion Comments and Suggestions about this site

"I can't answer this newst polling question: "Can Britain rely on a friendly Superpower to provide any necessary nuclear deterrent?" Because I don't believe there is such a thing as a NECESSARY nuclear deterrent.Y"

Jun 27, 2010

Cllr Gareth Epps replied to Ad Min's discussion What do you wish to say in response to the (non-existent) consultation?

"In response to the frankly ridiculous email I've just received from Paul Barasi, his party political nonsense needs to be debunked. The Conservative and Labour Parties - who together have more than 550 MPs - are fully in favour of renewing…"

Jun 25, 2010

david seddon replied to Ad Min's discussion What do you wish to say in response to the (non-existent) consultation?

"My One World column (Saturdays) in the Eastern Daily Press a few weeks back referred to the position of all the political parties on the so-called British independent nuclear deterrent and underlined that the Libn-Dems had never said they would cut…"

Jun 25, 2010

Paddy O'Dea replied to Ad Min's discussion What do you wish to say in response to the (non-existent) consultation?

"I've just found out from someone who is pretty reliable about this kind of thing that Trident would cost around £36billion to replace. Wow, that's a huge bunch of dosh............ I want the government to be brave and scrap Trident,…"

Jun 22, 2010

Obama vows to reduce nukes ... but that won't stop him basing his Trident nukes here

Mar 6, 2010

Make Trident an election issue: shun nuke-supporting candidates.

Jan 31, 2010

Poll result: 94% say we can't afford Trident replacement and should spend the money on protecting public services instead

Oct 18, 2009

New Champion John Wright invites 215 people to vote, smashing Sarah Lasenby's record of 97. Beat that!

Oct 7, 2009

Poll result: 97% say they have democratic right to be consulted on replacing Trident

Sep 30, 2009

Poll result: 94% don’t trust Government to do the shopping for Trident

Sep 30, 2009

Eastbourne Green Party Chair Dorothy Forsyth welcomes supporters MEPs Caroline Lucas & Jean Lambert GLA members Darren Johnson & Jenny Jones

Sep 28, 2009

Say no to no say on Trident - Vote now in the polls on this page!

You can sign a petition or statement, write to the papers or your MP, but you can't respond to a Government consultation on Trident. Why? Because both this and the last government have refused to hold one.

I believe it's my right and the right of every British Citizen to have a say on replacing Trident. So determined am I to vote on the related issues that I set up this independent site (not part of any organisation) just to do so.

On Twitter? Please Tweet this message to help spread the word: I voted in the Trident Referendum David Cameron and Nick Clegg didn’t want to have; you can too! Please RT http://bit.ly/g4W48

Evidence of Coalition Government duplicity on nukes policy
David Cameron, replying to Julian Huppert's question on 23/6 said “Britain should retain the nuclear deterrent and we should always keep that insurance policy,” whereas FCO affirms "the Government’s commitment to multilateral nuclear disarmament". William Hague's statement (14/6) on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference is actually titled "Working towards a world without nuclear weapons". Does the Government now have two multilateral nuclear disarmament policies: one for and one against?

● Read the left-hand panel The Politics of Trident which busts William Hague's pledge on trust and openness by exposing the government's refusal to allow international inspection of our nukes stockpile while Defence Secretary Liam Fox runs his secret Trident value for money study using Labour's absurdly low 2006 estimate. The first two polls below give you the chance to vote on these issues.

● The Treasury ruling on 29 July that the MoD must find the £20bn cost of Trident2 may conceal a £77bn funding gap, creating suspicions not just that the government's figures don't add up but that a fraud may be being perpetrated on the British people. The irregularities are such that I have asked Greenpeace to refer the UK Government to the United Nations. Read about this here - and please post your support and comments.

Do also read John Pilger's The Lies of Hiroshima Are The Lies of Today

Paul Barasi (Site Administrator) ● Follow me on Twitter
2r7cnxhjuy

What this site offers you

I would like you to sign up for this site but you can still vote without doing this. If you want to add a comment in the discussion forum then you must be signed in (of course, you can vote first before signing in).

● There are 5 polls on this page. Vote in all or any of these.
● There is a space in the discussion forum for you to suggest an additional poll.
● You can also say what you wanted to have been asked in an official
consultation - and what you would have wished to have said in your response.

[Site Navigation: Latest forum debate or when on the page, click: previous or next to see all discussions; you can also help decide the future of this website]

You can also put a link on other sites, let your local paper know you've voted in this referendum, even tell your MP.

Read: 4 Words – 3 lies: UK’s Independent Nuclear Deterrent on the Louder site

DEMOCRACY (Closed 30/9/09)
● 97% say they have the democratic right to be consulted on issues as big as Trident, whatever politicians or judges think (2% disagreed, 1% undecided).

ACCOUNTABILITY (Closed June 2010)
● 95% rated Labour Ministers and their government departments poor on being open, engaging and accountable on Defence, Nuclear and Foreign Policy (4% rated them "quite good" and 1% "excellent")

COST (Closed 10/10/10)
● 77% believe Greenpeace on how much Trident will cost (£97bn); 6% trust the Government's figure £20-25bn; 2% think The Observer is right (£16bn) and 15% are undecided. However, only Greenpeace have the honesty to give an estimate of the full lifetime costs whereas the others just present capital without running costs.

AFFORDABILITY AND PRIORITY (Closed 18/10/09)
● 94% agreed that we cannot afford Trident replacement: Government should instead offset the expected coming cuts in services or invest in things of real public benefit (4% disagreed, 2% undecided).

GOVERNMENT COMPETENCE ON PROCURING TRIDENT (Closed 30/9/09)
● 94% disagreed and 6% were undecided on this statement in the wake of the MoD procurement fiasco: If a Trident replacement is approved, Government can be trusted to get it within the originally estimated cost and delivered on time.

Can Britain rely on a friendly Superpower to provide any necessary nuclear deterrent? Members branded this a controversial poll (Closed 3/7/10)
● 63% said no; 19% yes; 18% undecided.

POLICING PROTEST (Closed July 2010)
● 89% rated Government oppressive on civil liberties in relation to policing public protest on war and environmental issues (2% rated them "fair and responsible;" 2% "too lax;" and 7% were undecided)

TRIDENT IS A BIG VOTE LOSER (2 polls Closed Sept 2010)
● How trident impacts on voting intention: more than half of polling respondents said that in a general election they would be less likely to vote for their party of choice if it supported Trident and 79% less likely to vote for their candidate of choice who supported Trident (with another 9% less likely to vote at all)