Lib Dem responses

Dear Mr Cope,

Many thanks for getting in touch.
As you may be aware the Liberal Democrats are the only one of the three
main parties which is opposed to replacement of the Trident nuclear
missile system. I fully support that stance.
The Liberal Democrats also support a Nuclear weapons Convention which
would ban the use of nuclear weapons internationally.

I entirely agree with the other points which you make in your email.

Kind regards

Chris Nicholson

Dear Mr Mills,

Thank you for taking the trouble to write to me about defence spending and
in particular the renewal of Trident.

I certainly can reassure you that the Liberal Democrats consider it to be
essential that the question of whether to build new nuclear weapons is
included in an urgent Strategic Defence Review by the next government. Our
policy is that there should be no like-for-like replacement of Trident and
that should it prove necessary to maintain a nuclear deterrent as a result
of the Strategic Defence Review, Britain should adopt a cheaper, more
minimal system.

We unequivocally support the goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and we
will continue to support steps toward this multilateral disarmament. I very
much hope that this more measured stance that that currently taken by the
British government would aid rather than obstruct such a process.

Please do not hesitate to contact me again, should you have any further
questions, or wish to raise another matter with me.

Sincerely,

Duncan

Duncan Hames
Prospective MP for the Chippenham constituency (Liberal Democrat)
www.duncanhames.org.uk - duncan@duncanhames.org.uk
www.facebook.com/duncanhames - www.twitter.com/duncanhames

----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 3:22 PM
Subject: What are your views about spending £97bn on new nuclear weapons?

Mr Duncan Hames

Dear Mr Hames,

I am writing to you as one of the candidates standing in my constituency to
find out more about your views.

I am deeply concerned about the financial crisis our country faces, and the
prospects of cuts to our essential public services.

I find it very difficult, given the constraints we face, to understand why
the UK is set to spend an estimated £97bn on a new generation of nuclear
weapons.

There has been a lot of press coverage recently about the budget challenges
the MoD faces. At the same time more and more military people are saying
that they do not see nuclear weapons as relevant to the threats we face now
and in the future. Threats like climate change, competition over diminishing
resources and cyber-terrorism.

I have also heard people like President Obama speaking out about the need
for the world to embrace the aim of getting to zero nuclear weapons and
negotiating cuts with the Russians.

What I don’t understand is how politicians can say that the UK – which they
admit faces no known nuclear threat from another state - must build more
nuclear weapons in case a threat ever comes up in the future.

I can’t see how this position does anything other than say to other
countries that it is acceptable, even desirable, to build nuclear weapons of
their own.

I know we have a complete review of our defence and security planned for
after the election. This will be the chance to take a long hard look at the
different challenges we face, how they can be best dealt with and where our
limited funds should be focused.

I hope you can reassure me that your party would view it as essential that
the question of whether to build new nuclear weapons is included in this
review.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Mills
SN15 3DP
chipper170@hotmail.com

Dear Jill,

Many thanks for this e-mail. I am very sorry for the delay in my response.

As you may be aware from our previous correspondence on this matter, we share very similar views on Trident and nuclear disarmament.

In answer to the two specific questions you raise, I would certainly vote against the replacement of Trident.

Regarding your second question, my party and I unequivocally support the goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and we will continue to support steps toward such multilateral disarmament at every given opportunity.

Keep in touch,

Best wishes, Mark

Although I suspect Mr Tod himself wouldn't want nuclear weapons at all...party politics means that we have to be careful about weasel words!

The truth is that most of us here in this group wouldn't want any money at all spent on nuclear missiles and we wouldn't want them if they were free and not just internationally illegal, immoral and of course environmentally disastrous even in their manufacture and development (let alone deployment and use). We need also to ask our candidates the harder questions ...'how much _would_ you be prepared to spend on nuclear weapons?' 'If they're a good idea for Britain to have and develop...why aren't they a good idea for everyone?'
many of these party politicians have lawyers' minds and use language carefully and in some cases deceptively.

Thank you for your message. I am happy to advise you that the Liberal Democrats have identified £15bn of cuts for the coming year to address the huge budget deficit and one of the identified cuts is the planned replacement of Trident.

The Liberal Democrats believe that there should be no like-for-like replacement of Trident and that Britain should adopt a cheaper, more minimal system should it prove necessary to maintain a nuclear deterrent as a result of the Strategic Defence Review. We unequivocally support the goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and we will continue to support steps toward such multilateral disarmament. Regards

Andy Crick
Henley Liberal Democrats
www.andycrick.org.uk

Dear Cannula,

Thank you for your message.

I too am amazed that the government think renewing our nuclear weapons
capability is a priority. I would be against investing in nuclear weapons both
on principle and on practical grounds.

In principle I think they make the world less rather than more safe and go
against the drive to see peace in the future. I am a member of CND and active
with them locally.

Looking at the wider context we need to identify areas where spending can be
cut
so it can be maintained in the core areas. The party nationally has identified
not renewing Trident as a sensible place to begin some of that saving.

Not only are the public finances tight but it is out of step with the reality
of
the threat we face and some of that money could be better spent on decent pay
and equipment for our forces in the kind of conflicts that we do now face.

I trust you can feel suitably reassured on both the Liberal Democrat's and my
own personal commitment on this issue. Thanks for taking the time to contact
me.

Kind Regards,
Tessa.

Dear Ms Hancock,

Thank you for your email.

You are absolutely right to raise this issue.

The Lib Dem policy is that there should be no like-for-like replacement of Trident and that Britain should adopt a cheaper, more minimal system, should it prove necessary to maintain a nuclear deterrent as a result of the Strategic Defence Review. I am personally not convinced that it will prove necessary.

We unequivocally support the goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and we will continue to support steps toward such multilateral disarmament.

Therefore it is essential that the Strategic Defence Review considers all aspects of our defence spending, and the question of whether to build new nuclear weapons must be included in this review.

If there are any other issues I can help with then please do not hesitate to contact me.

yours

Paul Harrod

Dear Mr Watson,

Thank you for your email about my views on spending £97 billion on new nuclear weapons. Like you, I find it very difficult in the current financial circumstances to justify spending such an astronomical sum on weapons whose ‘usefulness’ is so open to question: as you rightly point out, the types of threat this country may face tend not to present an identifiable target, leaving aside the highly dubious morality of using such weapons in any case.

As such, I do not believe that a like-for-like replacement for Trident is necessary; in the event that the Strategic Defence Review to which you refer should conclude that nuclear weapons are still needed (and I very much hope it does not: I would certainly subject any such conclusion to very close scrutiny), a very much more minimal and cheaper system should be sought. I certainly consider it essential that the Review should cover the question of the ‘necessity’ of nuclear weapons, as does my party.

I also, along with the Lib Dems as a whole, firmly believe in the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons, and I would seek to work towards such a goal if elected to parliament. As such, I’m encouraged by the news which has broken earlier today that Presidents Obama and Medvedev have agreed a substantial reduction in their countries’ nuclear arsenals (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8589385.stm). Obviously, there is still a very long way to go, but at least this looks like progress.

Once again, many thanks for contacting me.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Goddard

Parliamentary Candidate

Oxford East Liberal Democrats

--

Dear Matt,

Thank you for taking the trouble to get in touch with me.

We believe that Trident is a Cold War system intended for a by-gone age. It is unnecessary and, at £100bn over a lifetime, it is unaffordable. Liberal Democrats believe that our security could be better served by different systems more suited to current threats.

We will hold a full defence review following the general election to help decide on this and other major defence procurement plans. The issue of nuclear weapons will form part of this review. There will certainly be no like-for-like replacement of Trident under a Lib Dem government.

Kind regards

Mike Barker

Defence
We ask so much of our Armed Forces. But they have never been rewarded with the fair pay and conditions they deserve. They are sent into conflict without proper equipment, have to put up with sub-standard housing and have been stretched to the limit by two wars. Too much money is wasted through poor decisions and waste. The brave men and women of our armed forces are the most precious military asset we have. They must be treated fairly, with pay and conditions that reflect their amazing commitment to this country. They must get the right
equipment to do their jobs properly and as securely as possible. Liberal Democrats would put the welfare of our forces first. We would ensure that no serviceman or women was sent into harm’s way on less basic pay than the starting salary of a police constable. We would spend
taxpayers’ money more effectively on equipping our forces for the tasks of the future, not old Cold War threats.
A pay raise for the lower ranks. Our brave troops put their lives on the line for this country. But too many of them are paid a pittance in reward. Liberal Democrats will give
lower ranks a pay rise, so that their pay is brought into line with the starting salary of police constables. We will also reduce the number of civil servants in the Ministry of
Defence and senior officer in the Armed Forces.
Homes for heroes. Too many armed forces’ families live in shoddy housing. The least our
heroes and their families deserve is a decent home. We would double the rate of modernisation of forces’ family homes.
No to like-for-like Trident. Full-scale Trident is a Cold War system intended for a by-gone
age. It is unnecessary and, at £100bn over a lifetime, it is unaffordable. We will hold a full defence review to establish the best alternative for Britain’s future security.

Dear Tessa,

Thank you for your email about Trident. In my opinion, spending £97 billion on a new generation of nuclear weapons wile the country is in financial crisis would be the most dangerous and wasteful things any UK government has done in recent decades. It would be irresponsibility on par with the Iraq war.

President Barak Obama has given his strong leadership to the case for global nuclear disarmament. Yet in the UK the Labour government is committed to escalating the nuclear arms race by spending a fortune on bigger and more deadly weapons. It is inconceivable that we will ever use nuclear weapons in anger, and so to spend such a huge amount of money on something we will never use is absurd.

It is impossible for us to argue to countries like Iran and North Korea that they must not seek nuclear weapons if we are at the same time doing exactly the opposite. It is hypocritical in the extreme, and it is no wonder that many countries see us as two-faced. Because of this, upgrading our nuclear weapons will make the world a more dangerous place, not a safer place.

The Liberal Democrats are committed to not renewing Trident. I am 100% behind that policy, and look forward to the day when the UK and the rest of the world dismantle their weapons.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Wright

--
Dr Mark Wright
Liberal Democrat PPC for Bristol South
www.bristolsouth-libdems.org.uk

Dear Andrew Flint,

Thanks for getting in touch with me for my views about Trident and nuclear weapons.

Regarding the Labour government's proposal to replace Trident, the Liberal Democrat policy on this important issue is that there should be no like-for-like replacement of Trident and that Britain should adopt a cheaper, more minimal system, should it prove necessary to maintain a nuclear deterrent as a result of the Strategic Defence Review.

The Liberal Democrats unequivocally support the goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and we will continue to support steps toward such multilateral disarmament.

CND was the first political organisation I ever joined at the age of 11 or thereabouts. I was terrified by the prospect of nuclear war and remember vivid nightmares I had as a child after reading Where the Wind Blows. Whilst I am no longer a member of CND, I am very glad my party is clearly set against continuing the madness of nuclear proliferation.

Many thanks again for your email. If you have any further questions or any other issues you want to ask me about I'll be happy to hear from you.

Kind regards,

Jo Shaw

Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Campaigner

Holborn & St Pancras

Hi Alexia,

Many thanks for your email.

I can happily say that the Liberal Democrats are very clear that the
nuclear question should be included in the post-election strategic
defence review and can reassure you that my party, and I, regard this as
"essential".

Indeed, we've said that there should be no like-for-like replacement of
Trident and that Britain should adopt a cheaper, more minimal system,
should it prove necessary to maintain a nuclear deterrent as a result of
the Review. We see no reason why the UK needs to spend £97billion on
renewing the Trident system on a like-for-like basis.

The Liberal Democrats unequivocally support the goal of a world without
nuclear weapons, and we will continue to support steps toward such
multilateral disarmament.

I hope that helps? Let me know if you'd like further information,

Best wishes,

Steve

Thank you very much for writing to me about new nuclear weapons.

I totally agree with the concerns you express. The Liberal Democrats and I think that replacing Trident would be a complete waste of money and would do nothing to enhance the defence of the nation. We are committed to scrapping Trident at the end of its life and not replacing it with anything similar. I stand firmly behind this commitment.

History tells us that battles are often lost by "old men fighting the war before". The Maginot defences would have stopped the First World War in its tracks, but proved useless against Hitler's highly-mechanised army with its flamethrowers and heavy artillery. It is time our politicians stopped fighting the Cold War and woke up to the realities of 21st century defence requirements.

These are my own views - but I am delighted to say that the substantive part is perfectly in line with Liberal Democrat policy, as illustrated by the quotes below:

"[...] cuts there will be. We have spelled out some of them. [...] Axing unaffordable defence contracts such as [...] the Trident replacement."

(Vince Cable, speech to Liberal Democrat Conference, 13 March 2010)

"Liberal Democrats have put our cards on the table... making longer-term savings too, by saying no to the like-for-like replacement of Trident."

(Nick Clegg, House of Commons, 24 March 2010)

"Liberal Democrats do not believe that the UK can afford the billions of pounds the Government wants to spend on a like-for-like replacement of the Trident nuclear weapons system. Full-scale Trident is a cold war system that we no longer need nor can afford."

(Official policy statement on Liberal Democrat website, http://www.libdems.org.uk/defence.aspx).

I hope this answers your concerns. Do please get back to me if you have any further questions.

Yours sincerely

Hugh Annand
Liberal Democrat PPC for North East Hertfordshire

Dear Lucy

Thank you for your eMail.
I share your concerns about nuclear weapons.

Our so-called "independent nuclear deterrent" is not independent, and is not likely to be an effective deterrent to the risks that we currently face in this country, or that the world faces as a whole. I personally cannot visualise a situation when the actual use of these weapons would be either effective or morally justifiable. The replacement of Trident with a more modern, and more powerful weapon system would almost certainly put us in breach of the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty. These weapons are also, as you point out extremely expensive, so that the opportunity cost of replacing Trident is enormous.

You will be familiar, of course, with the plea from Nye Bevan that we should not send him "naked into the negotiating chamber". That position, it seems to me, should encourage us to use the current window of opportunity for negotiations to encourage multi-lateral nuclear disarmament. It does not provide a valid case for escalation.

You may see that I believe that there are larger moral and practical issues around the deployment of these weapons, but to pick up some other points from your letter it seems clear that the great threats to our future peace and prosperity are not currently being adequately addressed.
The Labour Government was advised at the time of the invasion of Iraq that such a venture was likely to make the world a more dangerous place, and so it has proved. Nevertheless, both Labour and Conservative parties supported that invasion. We should remember that the attack on the Twin Towers was perpetrated by means of a handful of men with knives and a willingness to die for their cause. The London bombs of 7th July were similarly low-tech. We shall not achieve peace with such people by threatening them with a nuclear weapons launched from submarines.

You also touch on the issue of climate change. Unless we address the associated problems of global warming and peak oil we shall see global unrest, with starvation, mass migration and wars over the supply of land, water and energy. Even in the relatively short term Europe is becoming more and more dependent on gas from Russia. We need to invest in alternative energy supplies as a matter of great urgency.

Let me, therefore come to your question.
The answers to your questions, both from me as an individual and from the Liberal Democrats collectively is "Yes".
We believe that there should be no like-for-like replacement of Trident and that Britain and that the question of whether Britain needs any form of nuclear deterrent would be part of the Strategic Defence Review.
Please may I thank you for your interest, and for contacting me on this very important matter.

Yours Sincerely,

Dr Charles West
Parliamentary Candidate: Shrewsbury and Atcham Liberal Democrats

Dear ....

I agree with you. The Liberal Democrat position is that the future of Trident and the nuclear deterrent MUST be a part of any Strategic Defence Review. We find it quite unacceptable that the Labour Party has already ruled it out and that the Conservatives have already said they are committed to a new generation of nuclear weapons.

Of the three major Parties, the Liberal Democrats is the only one saying that nuclear weapons are a relic of the Cold War and with a commitment to nuclear disarmament.

We have said that we will not replace Trident and would immediately halve UK's stockpile of warheads. We would use this to kick-start multi-lateral disarmament at the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in May.

I hope this answers your question clearly and thank you for contacting me on such an important issue.

If I may, I will add you to my mailing list and send you my occasional enewsletters in which I report back on my activities and raise matters of local and national interest. You can of course opt out at any time.

Best wishes
Sue Farrant

Thanks for getting in touch. I am passionate about nuclear disarmament, and am proud that the Liberal Democrats have adopted a clear policy about not renewing Trident. If elected you can be sure that I will work hard to make sure that Britain plays a leading role in global disarmament. I believe this will go a long way to restore some of Britain's moral leadership, greatly damaged after the Iraq war, and will free up vital funds to ensure that hospital and education services are not affected by the need for the financial deficit to be reduced.

Obviously, I will only have a chance to vote for nuclear disarmament if I am elected. Since I understand that our current MP, Barry Sheerman, is against disarmament, I hope that I can count on your support on May 6th.

Regards,

James Blanchard
Liberal Democrat candidate for Huddersfield

Dear Neighbour,

I fully support LibDem nuclear policy. Here is a little more information on Liberal Democrat Proposals relating to nuclear weapons.

We do not support like-for-like renewal of this expensive Cold War system. The current submarines have many years of service left to run and will not be decommissioned until
the 2020s. A decision on a replacement system need not be taken until 2014 (later if the life of the system is further extended). The Government claims there are no credible
alternatives to their plans. We believe there are. We will consider the best alternative as part of a defence and security review, and in the light of the outcome of major multilateral talks in May, the negotiations on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Options include:
1. Life Extension – Experts believe that the submarines could have their lives extended by up to15 years. This would allow decisions on a replacement system to be deferred for several years.
2. Ending Continuous at-Sea Patrols – Without the Cold War threat of an overwhelming pre-emptive attack the case for continuous patrols is no longer compelling. De-alerting
the system could provide savings and further extend the life of current submarines.
3. Modified Submarine Platforms – Experts argue that the Astute-class submarine could be modified to carry a small number of Trident missiles, or nuclear-tipped cruise missiles.
4. Strategic Insurance Policy – Rather than building a new weapons platform, the UK would retain a certain amount of nuclear weapons know-how at the Atomic Weapons
Establishment. This would provide a long-term hedge against any unforeseen threats.
5. Complete disarmament – Liberal Democrats believe that the UK should continue with a nuclear deterrent for the foreseeable future. However, if talks made significant progress, the UK could consider disarmament. Trident should be on the table for negotiation.

I hope this sufficiently addresses your query.

Yours sincerely

Hazel on behalf of Cllr Andrew Dakers

Prospective MP for Brentford & Isleworth Constituency (including communities of Chiswick, Gunnersbury, Hounslow and Osterley)

Councillor for Brentford Ward - Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group

M: 07788 116159 E: andrew@hounslowlibdems.org.uk

W: www.andrewdakers.com

Dear Todd Oliver,

Thanks for getting in touch with me for my views about Trident and nuclear weapons. 

Regarding the Labour government's proposal to replace Trident, the Liberal Democrat policy on this important issue is that there should be no like-for-like replacement of Trident and that Britain should adopt a cheaper, more minimal system, should it prove necessary to maintain a nuclear deterrent as a result of the Strategic Defence Review. 

The Liberal Democrats unequivocally support the goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and we will continue to support steps toward such multilateral disarmament. 

CND was the first political organisation I ever joined at the age of 11 or thereabouts. I was terrified by the prospect of nuclear war and remember vivid nightmares I had as a child after reading Where the Wind Blows. Whilst I am no longer a member of CND, I am very glad my party is clearly set against continuing the madness of nuclear proliferation.

Many thanks again for your email. If you have any further questions or any other issues you want to ask me about I'll be happy to hear from you.

Kind regards,

Jo Shaw

Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Campaigner

Holborn & St Pancras

If I tell you I believe the creation of nuclear materials is an evil burden on future generations and I can't see that a moral case exists for nuclear weapons or power stations, I think you will understand my view on this subject.

Obsolete nuclear submarines are piling up in Portsmouth at the moment because no one can decide what to do with the reactors. Nobody wants that stuff, and who can blame them. We still haven't decided what to do the waste from all the power stations we have created to date.

If we are the people that have apparently just enjoyed the benefits of all this nuclear material and we can't accept that it needs to be stored somewhere, we are not mature enough to create any more.

Also, you may not know this but, we don't actually own our “independent”
nuclear deterrent, we lease it from the US and the targeting system uses a US military satellite system. Could we actually use it without the permission of the US, I'm not sure.

It is great when the policies of your own party coincide with your thoughts on something. To my eyes already, I need to see something quite strong to change my mind about the need to renew Trident, and if we do need nuclear weapons, surely it can be cheaper.

Kind regards

Kevin Barron
Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Spokesman for Wellingborough www.kevinbarron.org.uk
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/Kevin-Barron/238453310228

Dear Mr Wrycraft,

Thank you for your letter of concern.

You are completely right in your assertion about the role of nuclear weapons in relation to the security issues that face our country today. Security is changing, it is no longer about 'warfare' in a generic sense. It is paramount that we focus on the new security threats, like those that you outlined, climate change, diminishing resources and cyber-terrorism. We unequivocally support the goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and we will continue to support steps toward such multilateral disarmament.

With respect to the complete review of our security and defense plan for after the election, the Lib Dems want to ascertain a more cost-effective and less outdated defence policy. With the military being stretched with the involvements in Iraq and Afghanistan, the budget challenges facing the MoD are critical to the future of the military of this country. However,
our use of nuclear weapons in these states would be unnecessary and downright hypocritical. We have only two examples of the use of nuclear weapons, and we can see the unnecessary destruction that they caused.

Your point about President Obama is also very relevant. He has made nuclear disarmament a significant part of his presidential term and it should be the responsibility of countries such as the UK to support him in his efforts to make the world safer. It is hypocritical to criticise the nuclear policies of Iran and North Korea if we ourselves are unwilling to debate our own forms of deterrent.

I hope this reassures you on our position on the role of nuclear weapons in this country,

Regards,

Chris Burgess
Press Officer & Researcher for Mike Simpson, Prospective Lib Dem MP for South-West Surrey

Dear Ms Gourlay,

Many thanks for your email on the issue of Trident. I certainly appreciate you taking the time to contact me on this most serious of issues.

I strongly believe that full-scale Trident is a Cold War system intended for a by-gone age. Practically speaking, I believe it is unnecessary and, particularly given the current state of the public finances, the replacement of Trident is simply unaffordable at an estimated cost of £100bn over a lifetime.

The Liberal Democrats believe that our security could be better served by different systems more suited to current threats. This is why we would hold a full defence review to help decide on this and other major defence procurement plans.

I believe that Labour and the Conservatives are both stuck in the past by committing us to this expensive, outdated weapons system that doesn’t protect us appropriately from modern threats. I believe it is simply reckless and irresponsible to plough ahead with the like-for-like replacement of a weapons system designed to take out several major Russian cities simultaneously from anywhere in the world. We must put the Cold War behind us and look at what defence equipment we need for the world of today.

For these reasons, I can tell you that, if elected, I would strongly oppose the replacement of Trident as my Liberal Democrat MP colleagues have done in this Parliament.

I do hope this information is helpful. Thanks again for taking the trouble to contact me.

With best wishes,

Kevin

Kevin Lang
Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Candidate
Edinburgh North & Leith

Dear Mr Smith,

Thank you for your email. The Liberal Democrats are absolutely opposed
to a like-for-like replacement for Britain’s aging nuclear arsenal. At
a time of severe constraint on the public purse, it is ludicrous to
suggest spending billions on a weapon system we would never use,
particularly when both Russia and the United States are reducing the
size of their own stockpiles. It’s clear that Britain’s security is
far better served by alternatives. For that reason, I'd vote against
Trident's replacement in the next parliament.

The Lib Dems support multilateral nuclear disarmament and would, in
government, work closely with other countries to reduce the number of
nuclear weapons across the globe. We would also hold a full defence
review to determine the best ways to ensure Britain’s security in the
21st century.

A full guide to Lib Dem defence policy is available on the web (at
http://www.libdems.org.uk/defence.aspx). If you have any further
questions about this or any other issue please don’t hesitate
to contact me.

Thanks again for getting in touch,
Ruaraidh Dobson
Prospective MP, Paisley & Renfrewshire North

Dear Gemma

The Liberal Democrats are opposed to spending £97 billion on a new generation of nuclear weapons (as indeed am I). We would certainly want it included in the defence review.

Vince Cable and Nick Clegg have repeatedly highlighted the Trident replacement programme as one of the cuts we wish to make to public spending. This has just been confirmed in our manifesto, published today.

Best wishes,

Martin Tod