During the election campaign the Liberal Democrats argued that with the Cold War long over, the ‘like for like’ replacement of Trident is both unnecessary and unaffordable.
The Lib Dem’s also pledged to include Trident in a full Strategic Security and Defence Review (SSDR). So far the Tory / Lib Dem coalition government has made no detailed statements about their policy on building new nuclear weapons and whether Trident will be included in the SSDR.
In the run up to the election 1000’s of Greenpeace supporters contacted their parliamentary candidates, to ask those candidates to commit to include Trident within the SSDR. You may have done this, and you may have received a reply from your Lib Dem candidate.
98 of those replies are posted here.
Now the election is over we’d like you to find out what your local Lib Dem candidates and MPs have to say about Trident. Please post any responses you receive below.
Facebook
Twitter
Flickr
YouTube
RSS
Dear Geoff,
I'm completely with you on Trident - but the lobbying process is going to be tricky. Including Trident in the SSDR is already manifesto policy and the Lib Dems negotiated freedom to campaign for further change, so somehow we need to influence the coalition process or public opinion to put pressure on the Government to shift on their policy.
The agreement currently states:
We will maintain Britain’s nuclear deterrent, and have agreed that the renewal of Trident should be scrutinised to ensure value for money. Liberal Democrats will continue to make the case for alternatives. We will immediately play a strong role in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, and press for continued progress on multilateral disarmament.
I don't know exactly what we're planning to 'make the case for alternatives'. Happy to try and find out.
Best wishes,
Martin
Is it possible that such 'alternatives' are simply other methods of mass destruction rather than actually strengthening and creating ways to uphold international law and to prevent conflict in the first place?
Perhaps we should be asking our Lib Dem MPs what they personally understand as alternatives to nuclear weapons.
Dear Pete,
Thanks for your email.
I know that the party is pushing for the inclusion of Trident in the SSDR – I'll certainly use whatever influence I have to "feed up" the chain these views.
In fact, I believe that its inclusion has already been agreed in principle as part of the coalition agreement, but obviously we need to keep up the pressure to make sure that this is followed through.
Best wishes,
Nick
Dear Andrew
Apologies to have taken so long to reply to your email.
Yes I have and will keep lobbying our leadership about the Trident issue. It is a hugley important issue and I agree that paying out for Trident for the next few decades is irresponsible when we are having to make such draconian cuts in other areas.
Thank you for your comments about the election results. I am considering my options for the next GE and still enjoying the challenge of being a local Councillor.
Kind regards
Nicola Turner
2 July 2010
Dear Ms. Williams,
Thank you for your email voicing your concerns about nuclear weapons and the proposed renewal of Trident. I also appreciate your kind words of support, and will do all I can to repay the trust that Eastbourne's voters have placed in me.
The Liberal Democrats and I share your feelings, both in terms of the moral reprehensibility of nuclear weapons, and that the replacement of Trident would cost many billions of pounds that this country can ill-afford to spend at present. Nuclear weapons are a terrible scourge, not just to national security but to that of all people.
Unfortunately, our coalition partners are keenly in favour of renewing the system, and along with Labour, have voted against its inclusion in the upcoming Strategic Defence and Security Review. It is also regrettable that as part of the Coalition Agreement, we will not be in a position to vote against the system's renewal. Instead, we were able to secure a clause to abstain from voting on this issue. By this, we may express our opposition to Trident's renewal, although not with quite the same vigour that a no vote would afford.
It is my hope that as the full financial implications of Trident's renewal become evident, even those most committed to maintaining it might come to see reason.
If there is anything further that I can be of assistance to you with, please do not hesitate to get in touch.
With best wishes,
Stephen Lloyd MP
Eastbourne and Willingdon Constituency
This is the short reply I got in response to my email:
Thank you for your email, the Lib Dems policy has not changed since the election and although the coalition may mean that we have to compromise we will still work as a party to put our policy into action.
Best wishes
Carol
I agree with you that the defence review should include a review of the replacement for Trident. When this was first suggested at our party conference a few years ago, I was one of the people who voted for this policy, which we did not pass until much later. I believe that the defence review should be comprehensive and leave no stone unturned, including Trident. The Defence budget has not been protected in the budget as you have been told, but is in fact in line for a 25% cut in funding, so there are going to be very difficult choices to make about what our armed forces should look like in the future.
I will be with senior party MP's in a couple of weeks, and will take your views directly to them, as a number of other people have expressed similar concerns.
I hope this makes clear my commitment to a policy I campaigned hard for within and outside the party, but please feel free to contact me again with any other concerns.
Regards,
Mark
Thank you for your email and support at the recent general election.
I am cc-ing in our local party chair and vice-chair in case this is an issue that they or colleagues are able to raise at the party’s Autumn conference.
I would also suggest that you email Nick directly at cleggn@parliament.uk
Best wishes and regards,
Andrew
[I have written to Nick Clegg, and if I get a response I will add it to this blog].
Letter dated 14th July 2010
Dear Mr Griffiths
Thank you for your recent correspondance with regards to Trident and the Strategic Security and Defence Review. Thank you also for your congratulations; I am honoured to have this chance to continue fighting for our community in Parliament.
Trident is being debated as part of the Strategic Security and Defence Review as is the Uk's nuclear declaratory policy. While the Strategic Security and Defence Review will focus mainly onwhether or not Trident provides a value- for- money, the Lib-Dems are adamant that the review will encompass a wider assessment of Trident and its possible alternatives.
Yours sincerely,
Tom Brake
Dear Mr Healy,
Thank you for your email to Gordon Birtwistle MP. Even though you work in Burnley, I am afraid you are not one of Gordon’s constituents. Strict parliamentary convention prohibits us from acting on behalf of those who live outside Burnley.
For your information, Gordon opposes “like for like” replacement of the Trident system. A policy paper recently published by Ming Campbell MP rightly underscores the absurdity of excluding Britain’s prohibitively expensive nuclear arsenal from the upcoming defence review.
Trident is a Cold War anachronism. Gordon will continue to make the case for alternatives that are cost-efficient and more informed by the foreign policy challenges faced by Britain in the 21st century.
I hope I have addressed your concerns. Thank you again for writing.
Yours sincerely,
George McFarlane
Assistant Parliamentary Researcher| Office of Gordon Birtwistle MP
Dear Geoff, I'm completely with you on Trident - but the lobbying process is going to be tricky. Including Trident in the SSDR is already manifesto policy and the Lib Dems negotiated freedom to campaign for further change, so somehow we need to influence the coalition process or public opinion to put pressure on the Government to shift on their policy. The agreement currently states: We will maintain Britain’s nuclear deterrent, and have agreed that the renewal of Trident should be scrutinised to ensure value for money. Liberal Democrats will continue to make the case for alternatives. We will immediately play a strong role in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, and press for continued progress on multilateral disarmament. I don't know exactly what we're planning to 'make the case for alternatives'. Happy to try and find out. Best wishes, Martin
Is it possible that such 'alternatives' are simply other methods of mass destruction rather than actually strengthening and creating ways to uphold international law and to prevent conflict in the first place? Perhaps we should be asking our Lib Dem MPs what they personally understand as alternatives to nuclear weapons.
Dear Pete, Thanks for your email. I know that the party is pushing for the inclusion of Trident in the SSDR – I'll certainly use whatever influence I have to "feed up" the chain these views. In fact, I believe that its inclusion has already been agreed in principle as part of the coalition agreement, but obviously we need to keep up the pressure to make sure that this is followed through. Best wishes, Nick
Dear Andrew Apologies to have taken so long to reply to your email. Yes I have and will keep lobbying our leadership about the Trident issue. It is a hugley important issue and I agree that paying out for Trident for the next few decades is irresponsible when we are having to make such draconian cuts in other areas. Thank you for your comments about the election results. I am considering my options for the next GE and still enjoying the challenge of being a local Councillor. Kind regards Nicola Turner
2 July 2010 Dear Ms. Williams, Thank you for your email voicing your concerns about nuclear weapons and the proposed renewal of Trident. I also appreciate your kind words of support, and will do all I can to repay the trust that Eastbourne's voters have placed in me. The Liberal Democrats and I share your feelings, both in terms of the moral reprehensibility of nuclear weapons, and that the replacement of Trident would cost many billions of pounds that this country can ill-afford to spend at present. Nuclear weapons are a terrible scourge, not just to national security but to that of all people. Unfortunately, our coalition partners are keenly in favour of renewing the system, and along with Labour, have voted against its inclusion in the upcoming Strategic Defence and Security Review. It is also regrettable that as part of the Coalition Agreement, we will not be in a position to vote against the system's renewal. Instead, we were able to secure a clause to abstain from voting on this issue. By this, we may express our opposition to Trident's renewal, although not with quite the same vigour that a no vote would afford. It is my hope that as the full financial implications of Trident's renewal become evident, even those most committed to maintaining it might come to see reason. If there is anything further that I can be of assistance to you with, please do not hesitate to get in touch. With best wishes, Stephen Lloyd MP Eastbourne and Willingdon Constituency
This is the short reply I got in response to my email: Thank you for your email, the Lib Dems policy has not changed since the election and although the coalition may mean that we have to compromise we will still work as a party to put our policy into action. Best wishes Carol
I agree with you that the defence review should include a review of the replacement for Trident. When this was first suggested at our party conference a few years ago, I was one of the people who voted for this policy, which we did not pass until much later. I believe that the defence review should be comprehensive and leave no stone unturned, including Trident. The Defence budget has not been protected in the budget as you have been told, but is in fact in line for a 25% cut in funding, so there are going to be very difficult choices to make about what our armed forces should look like in the future. I will be with senior party MP's in a couple of weeks, and will take your views directly to them, as a number of other people have expressed similar concerns. I hope this makes clear my commitment to a policy I campaigned hard for within and outside the party, but please feel free to contact me again with any other concerns. Regards, Mark
Thank you for your email and support at the recent general election. I am cc-ing in our local party chair and vice-chair in case this is an issue that they or colleagues are able to raise at the party’s Autumn conference. I would also suggest that you email Nick directly at cleggn@parliament.uk Best wishes and regards, Andrew [I have written to Nick Clegg, and if I get a response I will add it to this blog].
Letter dated 14th July 2010 Dear Mr Griffiths Thank you for your recent correspondance with regards to Trident and the Strategic Security and Defence Review. Thank you also for your congratulations; I am honoured to have this chance to continue fighting for our community in Parliament. Trident is being debated as part of the Strategic Security and Defence Review as is the Uk's nuclear declaratory policy. While the Strategic Security and Defence Review will focus mainly onwhether or not Trident provides a value- for- money, the Lib-Dems are adamant that the review will encompass a wider assessment of Trident and its possible alternatives. Yours sincerely, Tom Brake
Dear Mr Healy, Thank you for your email to Gordon Birtwistle MP. Even though you work in Burnley, I am afraid you are not one of Gordon’s constituents. Strict parliamentary convention prohibits us from acting on behalf of those who live outside Burnley. For your information, Gordon opposes “like for like” replacement of the Trident system. A policy paper recently published by Ming Campbell MP rightly underscores the absurdity of excluding Britain’s prohibitively expensive nuclear arsenal from the upcoming defence review. Trident is a Cold War anachronism. Gordon will continue to make the case for alternatives that are cost-efficient and more informed by the foreign policy challenges faced by Britain in the 21st century. I hope I have addressed your concerns. Thank you again for writing. Yours sincerely, George McFarlane Assistant Parliamentary Researcher| Office of Gordon Birtwistle MP