What do you wish to say in response to the (non-existent) consultation?

[Ad Min]

This is your space. Imagine the Government has consulted and is interested in what you think of their Trident replacement proposals. Reply here with what you would have wished to have said.

[DOROTHY FORSYTH]

The government should say in what circumstances it would wish to use Trident?
Who is the enemy?

[Tom Forsyth]

I agree.
Iwould wish to know under what circumstances the government would threaten to use Trident
Tom Forsyth

[david seddon]

The security of the british people is not assured by mid 20th century nuclear weapons. we need a new approach to security and to 'defence' linked to a new enlightened foreign policy.

[Ad Min]

Colin Fulker, when signing up to this site on 09/10/09 wrote:

"Get rid of it and use the money to pay off the national debt. maybe that is a unilateral move that others would be tempted to follow."

[Ad Min]

Duncan Macintosh, when signing up to this site on 12/10/09 wrote:

"Trident replacement is damaging prospects for multilateral disarmament, strengthens the threatening posture of the UK as seen by Russia, costs money needed for essential services, without adding to the wider economy, and is not necessary to maintain employment at Faslane due to other changes due there."

[Paddy O'Dea]

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, and to use the £36b to keep and improve front line services, to take a chunk out of our structural debt, and direct some of it towards funding schools across the UK to continue developing and offering their fantastic xtended services to the children, young people and their families in their communities. If they did that, this would raise aspirations, move people out of moribund unemployment ruts, and we could finally make a decent job of eliminating child poverty, pretty much, by 2020. I think that doing this might make it harder for fundamental, toxic ideologies to take root in our society.

Wouldn't that be a great UK to live in?

[Ad Min]

Thanks for this. Yes indeed but, hmm, it may cost even more and anyway the MoD never comes in on budget. Maybe the new government will do something about that but all their cuts could be offset by cancelling the Trident replacement. I agree with what you say about how we could use the Trident money. The Government's policy position is now a bit odd: supporting multilateral nuclear disarmament but arguing for Trident because some rogue state may develop nukes in future. US Defence Secretary seems minded to end Trident: UK cannot go it alone.

cheers

paul

[DOROTHY FORSYTH]

Its like Faulty Towers, "don't mention the war " (orTRIDENT in the budget )

23.6.10
The Editor Letters Mature Times Page

Dear Editor

I 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 Millionaires among its 23 member in Cabinet, with a majority having received public school education and 15 of them Oxbridge graduates.)
Scrapping Trident now and not replacing it would save £100 billion, much more than the total amount the government wants to cut from the deficit in the next five years.
If we need to save money, then the government should cut Trident expenditure and withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq.
Many surveys and demonstrations show that this is what the people want.

Why should ordinary people bear the brunt of the cuts caused by the banks?

Yours sincerely

Dorothy Forsyth
Dorothy Forsyth

[david seddon]

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 Lib-Dems had never said they would cut back on or scrap Trident, merely that they might not renew 'like for like' or would seek alternative nuclear options. Only the Green Party and later Plaid Cymru were opposed to Trident. If cuts are needed this is somewhere around £80 billion that could halve the deficit at once. The piece is on line and has been reproduced in the most recent newsletter of the UNAssociation (Norwich Branch).

we should encourage Caroline Lucas and other critics of Trident and our nuclear policy to speak out in the House of Commons on this whenever possible

david seddon

[Cllr Gareth Epps]

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 Trident. The Liberal Democrats as a party are not in favour of like for like Trident replacement, but the party is not (though I and many others are) in favour of no Trident replacement at all.

The Liberal Democrats are in a coalition Government, but are not the largest party in that coalition. If a vote was taken at a Lib Dem Conference now, it is quite possible the Party would move to a position opposed to Trident replacement altogether.

Until parties opposed to full Trident replacement are elected, that position is unlikely to change. Anyone therefore wishing to effect change would be better off working with the Liberal Democrats, not indulging in mindless party political slagging off.

[Pat Bryden]

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 'taken over' by companies/businesses/shops/hotels from the USA and elsewhere?
Our investment should be on helping the health/wellbein g and environment in a holistic way, not creating weapons, maintaining them and spending more than we have on their renewal/replacement and thus furthering the culture and values of continual war.

[Ian McDonald]

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 consult, in case we vote against them!