Alistair McGowan: Surely there must be better things to do with £97bn than blow up the world?

Posted by jossc - 15 April 2010 at 4:29pm - Comments

In the latest addition to our Cut Trident video wall, comedian and impressionist extraordinaire Alistair McGowan muses on alternative ways to spend the £97bn that the government is currently planning to blow on new nuclear weapons.

Whilst saving Chester City FC and gagging Jeremy Clarkson are at the top of his personal list, Alistair reels off a plethora of projects on which the money could better be spent, including regenerating our inner cities; reviving sea-side towns; or using it to help countries already affected by climate change.

Basically, though, our options boil down to this: we can either spend the money making this country and this world a far better place to live in, or we can spend it on threatening the world with entire destruction at the push of a button.

Tough choice, eh? You can see why our politicians have such a  hard time working out the right thing to do (an honourable exception being Lib-Dem leader Nick Clegg, of course, whose determination to cut Trident to save services proved very popular with the audience in last night's inaugural party leaders' debate)...

Take action

Visit our video wall and watch other suggestions about how to put £97bn to good use without anihilating the planet. If you've got a good (or funny) idea, why not upload a video yourself? We'd love to hear from you.

With an election in the offing, it's one of those rare moments when you can be sure that politicians will be listening attentively to your opinions. Email all your party candidates at once and ask them where they stand on wasting a fortune on new nuclear weapons in the middle of a recession?

Spread the word: watch our Cut Trident animation then share it with your friends »

Article tagged as: alistair mcgowan, nuclear weapons, trident, videos
  • share
Comments Commenting is now closed

Alistair, brilliant.
Trident - it doesn't make sense.

By Jenna Lane - 16 April 2010 at 8:51pm

I'd protect huge areas of rainforest and invest in sustainable business in the UK eg renewable energy.

By Jenna Lane - 16 April 2010 at 8:55pm

I am sure we have all been heartened by the progress made at Washington Summit and look forward to this being built on by further progress towards a nuclear free world.In addition you will be aware of the substantial reduction in Britains nuclear capacity whilst at the same time maintaining a viable deterrent.However,it is still uncertain as to the final outcome of these discussions and accordingly I think it necessary for us to retain our nuclear deterrent whilst still actively engaging in these dis cussions. Yours sincerely,Rt Hon John F Spellar,

By mrswoolvin - 19 April 2010 at 9:28pm

WHY ?

By mrswoolvin - 19 April 2010 at 9:29pm

Thank you for contacting me about potential expenditure on replacing Trident.

As you may already know, the last time this matter was debated and voted upon, I voted for a motion which notes the Government’s decision, but believes that the case is not yet proven and was unconvinced of the need for an early decision.

I understand your concerns about the scope of the Strategic Defence Review, and the exclusion of the question of the British nuclear deterrent.

However, please be assured that although my party has often restated its commitment to the proposed replacement of Trident, we will be reviewing all Government programmes to make sure they give value for money.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact me.

By HelenCurrie - 20 April 2010 at 6:38pm

My views are quite clear, in that I fail to understand the mentality of government that is prepared to spend so much on death and destruction while failing to address the real needs of those who require assistance both in financial and health terms.

When was such a destructive weapon last used? how many terrorists has it destroyed? did it stop the twin towers ? did it stop the busses and underground in London attack? did it bring about the end to violence in Northern Ireland? and does it make us a better more mature and understanding country?

Are we ever to learn as a species from our past mistakes, as in the song, "War what's it any good for , absalutley nothing".

I care about the future and all who want oportunities and respct in a fair and honest society.

I hope that this gives you a fair and acurate answer.

By Sophie_Bizenghast - 28 April 2010 at 10:14am

I support the retention of an independent nuclear deterrent. However, I do believe that the current financial problems should mean that the Trident replacement should be part of the strategic defence review planned to start after the election.

By Sophie_Bizenghast - 28 April 2010 at 10:15am

Trident is a waste of money ,again money spent to kill rather than heal, help and flourish a disgrace and a no brainer !!

By RedRorymacscot - 29 April 2010 at 9:03pm

Alistair, brilliant. Trident - it doesn't make sense.

By Jenna Lane - 16 April 2010 at 8:51pm

I'd protect huge areas of rainforest and invest in sustainable business in the UK eg renewable energy.

By Jenna Lane - 16 April 2010 at 8:55pm

I am sure we have all been heartened by the progress made at Washington Summit and look forward to this being built on by further progress towards a nuclear free world.In addition you will be aware of the substantial reduction in Britains nuclear capacity whilst at the same time maintaining a viable deterrent.However,it is still uncertain as to the final outcome of these discussions and accordingly I think it necessary for us to retain our nuclear deterrent whilst still actively engaging in these dis cussions. Yours sincerely,Rt Hon John F Spellar,

By mrswoolvin - 19 April 2010 at 9:28pm

WHY ?

By mrswoolvin - 19 April 2010 at 9:29pm

Thank you for contacting me about potential expenditure on replacing Trident. As you may already know, the last time this matter was debated and voted upon, I voted for a motion which notes the Government’s decision, but believes that the case is not yet proven and was unconvinced of the need for an early decision. I understand your concerns about the scope of the Strategic Defence Review, and the exclusion of the question of the British nuclear deterrent. However, please be assured that although my party has often restated its commitment to the proposed replacement of Trident, we will be reviewing all Government programmes to make sure they give value for money. Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact me.

By HelenCurrie - 20 April 2010 at 6:38pm

My views are quite clear, in that I fail to understand the mentality of government that is prepared to spend so much on death and destruction while failing to address the real needs of those who require assistance both in financial and health terms. When was such a destructive weapon last used? how many terrorists has it destroyed? did it stop the twin towers ? did it stop the busses and underground in London attack? did it bring about the end to violence in Northern Ireland? and does it make us a better more mature and understanding country? Are we ever to learn as a species from our past mistakes, as in the song, "War what's it any good for , absalutley nothing". I care about the future and all who want oportunities and respct in a fair and honest society. I hope that this gives you a fair and acurate answer.

By Sophie_Bizenghast - 28 April 2010 at 10:14am

I support the retention of an independent nuclear deterrent. However, I do believe that the current financial problems should mean that the Trident replacement should be part of the strategic defence review planned to start after the election.

By Sophie_Bizenghast - 28 April 2010 at 10:15am

Trident is a waste of money ,again money spent to kill rather than heal, help and flourish a disgrace and a no brainer !!

By RedRorymacscot - 29 April 2010 at 9:03pm

Comments

Follow Greenpeace UK