Tory responses

Although this response I got from our Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for the Conservative Party, Nick Varley, wasn't a reply to an email generated from the Cut Trident website, I thought it might be useful anyway:

"The Conservative Party is committed to retaining Britain’s minimum strategic nuclear deterrent because, in an uncertain and volatile world, we believe it remains indispensable for our country’s national security. We support the decision to renew Britain’s submarine-based nuclear deterrent based on the Trident missile system."

Looks like the Tories are getting a stock response together, Jason McCartney has given me a very similar response to your's elisavetta...

"The Conservative Party is committed to retaining Britain’s minimum strategic nuclear deterrent and we will replace Britain’s submarine-based nuclear deterrent based on the Trident missile system. In an uncertain and volatile world, we believe it remains indispensable for our country’s national security. I support this policy.

All states signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) have always been committed to a world free of nuclear weapons. It could only come about if all fissile material was controlled or destroyed, so that no rogue state or terrorist could get hold of it. Although it is a very distant ideal, it is the processes of verified disarmament and proliferation control consistent with that ideal that really matter. We feel that the NPT is the right tool to achieve that end."

He also sent me a big chunk on Tory energy policy which I can pass on if you're interested.

Dear Mr Mills

The Conservative Party is committed to retaining Britain’s minimum strategic nuclear deterrent and we will replace Britain’s submarine-based nuclear deterrent based on the Trident missile system. In an uncertain and volatile world, we believe it remains indispensable for our country’s national security.

All states signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) have always been committed to a world free of nuclear weapons. It could only come about if all fissile material was controlled or destroyed, so that no rogue state or terrorist could get hold of it. Although it is a very distant ideal, it is the processes of verified disarmament and proliferation control consistent with that ideal that really matter. We feel that the NPT is the right tool to achieve that end.

Kind regards

Wilfred

Wilfred Emmanuel-Jones
Prospective MP for the Chippenham Constituency
Chippenham, Corsham, Melksham, Bradford on Avon, Hilperton and the surrounding villages

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

It is clear nuclear weapons cannot be uninvented; they will remain part of the international security picture in the future. We do not have the right to gamble and to play fast and loose with the security of future generations. I therefore believe that it is a strategic imperative that we maintain, update and replace our independent nuclear deterrent.

The last major defence review took place in 1998. On coming into office, we have said we will conduct a Strategic Defence and Security Review to ensure that defence spending matches our defence commitments. Thereafter, a review will be conducted every four or five years. The SDSR will identify Britain's strategic national interests; assess the threats we face; define the capabilities / equipment we need to protect our interests from those threats; define the programmes and military resources needed to achieve those capabilities; and assess the affordability and value for money of these programmes.

We are committed to retaining Britain's minimum strategic nuclear deterrent because, in an uncertain and volatile world, we believe it remains indispensable for our country's national security. We support the decision to renew Britain's submarine-based nuclear deterrent based on the Trident missile system. Like all other government spending programmes, it will be monitored to ensure it gives maximum value for money.

Dear Peter,

I supported the Labour party on the vote in Parliament regarding Trident renewal, the principle to one side however I have seen estimates of cost ranging from £15b to £130b so I'd be intrigued as to how you've estimated it at £97b,

kind regards

Mark

I completely agree with your point and so does my party,

regards,
Tim McKay (LIB DEM)

Dear Mr. Taylor,

Thank you for your recent email. The Conservative Party is committed to retaining Britain’s minimum strategic nuclear deterrent and we will replace Britain’s submarine-based nuclear deterrent based on the Trident missile system. In an uncertain and volatile world, we believe it remains indispensable for our country’s national security.

All states signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) have always been committed to a world free of nuclear weapons. It could only come about if all fissile material was controlled or destroyed, so that no rogue state or terrorist could get hold of it. Although it is a very distant ideal, it is the processes of verified disarmament and proliferation control consistent with that ideal that really matter. We feel that the NPT is the right tool to achieve that end.

Kind Regards,

Cllr. Andrew Bingham

Conservative Parliamentary Candidate

for the High Peak

Thank you for your email with regard to expenditure on new nuclear weapons. May I firstly point out that there is no intention to spend money on new nuclear weapons
per se but on a new set of submarines using the existing Trident missile system. In other words, it is not the weapons being renewed but the means for deploying them. Nevertheless, the fundamental point is still important.

The Conservative Party has made it clear that if we win the election we will conduct a Capabilities Review to determine what the MoD and the Armed Forces need and this would take place alongside a Strategic Defence and Security Review to ensure that defence spending matches our commitments.

We will also be looking very carefully at whether the MoD is delivering value for money and we believe strongly that we could probably save 25% of the cost of running the MoD.

With regard to the specific of whether we should spend a large sum of money on renewing the deterrent I do believe that it is important that we retain a minimum deterrent because it remains indispensable for our country’s national security. Nobody can foresee the world situation in 20 or 30 years time and that is the timescale over which these weapons would be deployed. Just because it is not possible today to envisage their use does not mean that the world may not change. Certainly if you went back 30 years, nobody would have envisaged the dramatic changes in the Middle East and the rise of militant Islam which have caused much of the current uncertainty although, thankfully, no real risk of nuclear warfare.

Yours sincerely,

James Paice MP

Dear Ms Carlin

Thank you for your message.

The Conservative Party is committed to retaining Britain’s minimum
strategic nuclear deterrent and we will replace Britain’s
submarine-based nuclear deterrent based on the Trident missile system.
In an uncertain and volatile world, we believe it remains
indispensable for our country’s national security.

All states signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
have always been committed to a world free of nuclear weapons. It
could only come about if all fissile material was controlled or
destroyed, so that no rogue state or terrorist could get hold of it.
Although it is a very distant ideal, it is the processes of verified
disarmament and proliferation control consistent with that ideal that
really matter. We feel that the NPT is the right tool to achieve that
end.

With kind regards
Seema Kennedy

Dear Stuart Thank you for contacting me to ask my views about nuclear weapons. The Conservative Party is committed to retaining Britain¹s minimum strategicnuclear deterrent and we will replace Britain¹s submarine-based nucleardeterrent based on the Trident missile system. In an uncertain and volatileworld, we believe it remains indispensable for our country¹s nationalsecurity. All states signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) havealways been committed to a world free of nuclear weapons. It could only comeabout if all fissile material was controlled or destroyed, so that no roguestate or terrorist could get hold of it. Although it is a very distantideal, it is the processes of verified disarmament and proliferation controlconsistent with that ideal that really matter. We feel that the NPT is theright tool to achieve that end. Best wishesSian Flynn > Ms Sian Flynn

So, is Trident in or out of the planned defence review? My local candidate is absolutely clear about it:

Thank you for your email. Our position is clear – we are committed to keeping and replacing the submarine-based nuclear deterrent and it is the only programme that will be exempt from the defence review. The new deterrent will enter service in the 2020s and will likely be in service until the 2050s. No-one can predict what will happen over that time and the nuclear deterrent serves as an insurance policy against nuclear blackmail. It is also an unfortunate reality that the proliferation of nuclear weapons remains a significant issue in current international affairs. The concerns shared by the international community over North Korea and Iran illustrate this. Given this reality we feel it would not be wise to be contemplating scrapping our nuclear deterrent and we feel this expenditure is crucial for the security of this country.

Yours sincerely,
Annunziata Rees-Mogg

James Arbuthnot attached an extract from Hansard to describe his view on the subject:
Mr. James Arbuthnot (North-East Hampshire) (Con): Whatever the merits of the debate, the Royal Navy, Aldermaston and British companies have, with our American allies, maintained a continuous at-sea deterrent for many decades, which is an astonishing achievement of which they should be proud.
In this Parliament, the Defence Committee has conducted three inquiries on the future of the UK’s strategic nuclear deterrent. We have intended—successfully, I think—to encourage and inform a comprehensive debate on the future of the deterrent. I pay particular tribute to the members of the Select Committee for the constructive way in which they have carried out these controversial inquiries.
The White Paper is an important document. This is the first time that we have had such openness and such a debate at this stage. I welcome that, and I think that the courage of the Government in coming to the House in such a way should be commended. I have been waiting for this debate to make my conclusions. I do not want to disparage those who take a different view—I have found the decision extremely difficult.
First, I would like to go through the arguments against the Government’s proposal. This is an awful lot of money to spend on something of doubtful usefulness. At a time when we are funding our armed forces at a peacetime level, this seems an odd priority. We believe that we are the closest allies of the United State of America, and what do we add by buying this deterrent? We add a bit of uncertainty in the minds of the potential aggressor, but that is an awfully expensive bit of uncertainty. And how can we say to North Korea and Iran, “We can, but you can’t”? It is not that our going for unilateral nuclear disarmament would have any persuasive power with them—clearly it would not—but making such statements does reduce our moral authority.
The Government have made little attempt to explain how deterrence works. The purpose of having nuclear weapons will have failed if we ever have to use them, yet the only point of having them is that someone might think that we might use them. It is on the basis of such arguments that we are spending £20 billion. When could we use them? Perhaps the only scenario is that the United Kingdom will not know who has exploded a nuclear weapon, and then what would we do? Could we use them in retaliation? I believe that retaliation, as such, is illegal. We can use them to hit back in self-defence, but by the time that we are involved in a nuclear exchange, all thoughts of stopping anyone else doing anything again will be long dead, along with most of us. Perhaps those rules are suspended in war, but that is far from clear. Legally, perhaps we could only use the weapons if we were firing them in first use, and that is a rather scary prospect.
The Foreign Secretary said that the deterrent was an “insurance policy” against an uncertain threat, but talk of an insurance policy is simply wrong. If someone destroys a house, the purpose of an insurance policy is to pay to rebuild the house; it is not to destroy the house of the person who destroyed it. Let us find a better analogy. The best one that I can think of is a booby trap. The Secretary of State assures us that if someone walks into our “house”, there is a likelihood
14 Mar 2007 : Column 333
that that devastating booby trap, wandering round the oceans of the world, will go off. That is not like any insurance policy of which I have ever heard. In what circumstances could the horribly high rate of collateral damage caused by a nuclear weapon be justified? It is hard to deter those who have a religious conviction that death is better than life, or who are irrational, so the weapons are aimed at a tiny proportion of the threats against us—those from rationally led states. That is not a conclusive argument, but the equipment is very expensive for deterring that sort of threat.
I am not convinced that we can delay the decision; I think that we have to make it today.
Clare Short (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Ind Lab): The right hon. Gentleman has expertise as the Chair of the Select Committee on Defence. Could the UK purchase American submarines more cheaply, and delay the decision? I am asking him as an authority on such matters. Would that not be a possible strategy for the UK?
Mr. Arbuthnot: That is a good question, because the Secretary of State for Defence came before the Select Committee and said that there was no certainty that the Americans would sell us nuclear weapons. [Interruption.] Sorry, nuclear submarines.
As for the arguments in favour of the decision, given that other countries are pursuing nuclear weapons, it is an odd time to be disarming unilaterally. While our moral authority may be reduced if we tell Iran to do as we say, and not do as we do, our actual authority is increased by the possession of nuclear weapons. Unilaterally disarming would not have any beneficial effect on non-proliferation. Nobody reduced the number of their warheads when we reduced ours to 200. We gave ourselves moral authority by doing that, but countries such as Iran and North Korea were interested in military authority, not moral authority.
The world has become multipolar rather than bipolar, but it remains true that being strong discourages attack, and being weak can be an invitation to war. Theodore Roosevelt is quoted as saying:
“I have always been fond of the West African proverb: ‘Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.’”
I strongly believe that the UK does not want to be dependent on others, even including the United States, for deterrence. For those reasons, on balance, I am inclined to support the proposal, but I am deeply troubled by it.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): Before my right hon. Friend leaves that point, will he consider one other factor? How could this country engage in a conventional response to conventional aggression if the people who initiated that conventional aggression had even one or two mass destruction weapons, and we had been unwise enough to give up all of ours?
Mr. Arbuthnot: I was a grateful recipient of my hon. Friend’s brilliant essay on nuclear deterrence, which partly persuaded me. For the reasons that I have given, I have decided to support the proposal. I am not inclined to take the risk of allowing the unilateral nuclear disarmament of this country to send us naked into the conference chamber, as Nye Bevan once put it. The trouble is that those considerations apply just as strongly to Iran as they do to the United Kingdom. Why should
14 Mar 2007 : Column 334
we expect a proud Iranian nation to go naked into the conference chamber? It is a difficult question. My answer is that we have the world that we have.
We would like a world with no nuclear weapons in it, but there is not the smallest hope of achieving that without gradually reducing the nuclear weapons of those states that have them, while doing our utmost to ensure that no new countries acquire them. Will we succeed? I am sad to say that I doubt it, because I am profoundly pessimistic about the future of the world. Climate change has the capacity to make the planet uninhabitable for humans, and now that nuclear technology has been invented, it will never go away. There are nuclear weapons around, and sooner or later one or more of them will get into the hands of people who we would rather did not have them. We now have the ability to destroy the world, and I regret to say that it is natural human behaviour that when we have the ability to do something, sooner or later we try it out. I believe that that will happen before climate change has had time to do its work.

Seems she couldn't even be bothered to write a slightly different response and copied and pasted for everyone!

Thank you for your email. Our position is clear – we are committed to keeping and replacing the submarine-based nuclear deterrent and it is the only programme that will be exempt from the defence review. The new deterrent will enter service in the 2020s and will likely be in service until the 2050s. No-one can predict what will happen over that time and the nuclear deterrent serves as an insurance policy against nuclear blackmail. It is also an unfortunate reality that the proliferation of nuclear weapons remains a significant issue in current international affairs. The concerns shared by the international community over North Korea and Iran illustrate this. Given this reality we feel it would not be wise to be contemplating scrapping our nuclear deterrent and we feel this expenditure is crucial for the security of this country.

Yours sincerely,
Annunziata Rees-Mogg

Her reply when i asked her about trident missiles.

Dear Rosanna,

Thank you very much for your e:mail and sharing your thoughts with me. I have always supported the aim of eliminating all nuclear weapons. I applaud the recent agreement between the Russians and Americans to reduce the quantity of their nuclear weapons.

I am also very concerned about the Government's mismanagement of support for our armed services and decision to delay the Strategic Defence Review and Comprehensive Spending Review. This is particularly damaging given the dire state of public finances.

However, in an uncertain and volatile world, Conservatives believe that Britain should retain its minimum strategic nuclear deterrent and will replace Britain’s submarine-based nuclear deterrent based on the Trident missile system. We believe it remains indispensable for our country’s national security. The new deterrent will enter service in the 2020s and will likely be in service until the 2050s. No-one can predict what will happen over that time and the nuclear deterrent serves as an insurance policy against nuclear blackmail.

It is also an unfortunate reality that the proliferation of nuclear weapons remains a significant issue in current international affairs. The concerns shared by the international community over North Korea and Iran illustrate this. Given this reality we feel it would not be wise to be contemplating scrapping our nuclear deterrent and we feel this expenditure is crucial for the security of this country.

All states signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) have always been committed to a world free of nuclear weapons. It could only come about if all fissile material was controlled or destroyed, so that no rogue state or terrorist could get hold of it. We feel that the NPT is the right tool to achieve that end.

Should I have the honour of representing you as your MP, after the forthcoming General Election, I will take every opportunity to support the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty. I will also work hard to ensure that the long over due Strategic Defence Review is undertaken and our armed services properly supported.

Kind regards,

Sarah

Mrs Sarah Newton
Conservative Parliamentary Candidate
Truro & Falmouth
www.sarahnewton.info

Peter Hughes from Cornwall

Goerge Eustice has replied thus:

Dear Mr Hughes

Thanks for your email about the cost of replacing Trident.

The Conservative Party is committed to retaining a minimal nuclear deterrant.

There is a real prospect that countries like Iran will develop nuclear weapons in the near future and so I think this would be the wrong time to give up our own nuclear deterrant.

However, there are issues around the timing of any replacement and the type of system that would satisfy our needs in the future which I would want to weigh up carefully should I be elected.

Thanks again for writing.

Kind regards

George Eustice
Conservative PPC for Camborne, Redruth and Hayle

Thank you for your message about the decision to renew Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent.

The Government's White Paper, published in 2006, described the independent British nuclear deterrent as 'an essential part of our insurance against the uncertainties and risks of the future'. This is a statement which I endorse. No one can accurately predict the threats that the UK will face between 2025 and 2055 - when the next generation of the deterrent will be in service - just as no one 20 years ago could have anticipated the collapse of the Soviet Union, or the nature of the conflicts which currently confront us.

Nuclear weapons cannot be uninvented; they will remain part of the international security picture in the future. The acquisition of nuclear weapons by North Korea and their attempted acquisition by Iran are real threats to our security. We do not have the right to gamble and to play fast and loose with the security of future generations.

I therefore believe that it is a strategic imperative that we maintain, update and replace our independent nuclear deterrent and I voted accordingly in the House of Commons in March 2007. However, as with all major procurement programmes, we must ensure that we get good value for money for the taxpayer.

Conservatives are utterly committed to making this year's NPT review a success. William Hague has spoken on a number of occasions about the critical importance of the review and his fear that if it were to fail or be seen to have been a failure, it would in practice present a green light to other nations considering developing nuclear weapons programmes of their own.

I would like to see the parties to the treaty set themselves a number of objectives this year. One should be to strengthen the inspectorate by, for example, making the additional protocol, with its provision for unannounced inspections, mandatory for all signatories to the treaty. Another should be to make it easier for action to be taken against violations of the treaty or defiance of the IAEA. For example, there might be provision for automatic reference to the Security Council if a country acted in the way that Iran has done, having withdrawn from the additional protocol after originally subscribing to it.

Britain has already taken significant recent steps towards fulfilling its obligations under the NPT. Since the end of the Cold War, Britain has reduced its stockpile of nuclear weapons by around 75%, so that we currently have only around 160 such weapons operationally available. The WE-117 free fall nuclear bombs (dropped by Tornado aircraft) were withdrawn in March 1998. The UK has the smallest stockpile of nuclear warheads amongst the nuclear weapon states recognised under the NPT, and is the only one to have reduced to a single deterrent system. In addition to this, Britain signed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1996 which prohibits the testing of nuclear weapons.

The NPT has been the cornerstone of world security for 40 years. Conservatives call on our Government, ahead of the crucial review conference of the non-proliferation treaty in 2010, to build now the international consensus to make far harder the illicit production of nuclear weapons and the trading of their components. This, looking ahead, is one of the great global challenges, a challenge to which the next Conservative Government will rise.

Best wishes

Chris Grayling

Personally I find this to be the reply of someone too scared of those in charge to make any difference... "Just following orders" kind of concentration camp attitude...

Dear Mr Wakeham
Thank you for your email. At present the Conservative Party has said that Trident is in a different category to a strategic defence review. I will be asking that nuclear weapons are included as they are surely part of a strategic defence and foreign office review and will be putting my views forward very forcefully if elected.
I don't think there are many people who wouldn't like to see the end of nuclear weapons and their destructive capability. However, until the world is a much more secure place, sadly they will remain for a little longer. It is something we can continue to work towards and I hope that we can work together through the Non-nuclear Proliferation Treaty to make sure that the threat is reduced and we can finally move towards a more peaceful world.
Thank you again for writing to me,
Yours,
Flick

Flick Drummond
Conservative Parliamentary Candidate, Portsmouth South

So the nukes Britain already has are apparently not enough to make the world "a more secure place"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I received the same answer as a few of the other comments:

"Dear Ms Cattez

The Conservative Party is committed to retaining Britain’s minimum
strategic nuclear deterrent and we will replace Britain’s
submarine-based nuclear deterrent based on the Trident missile system.
In an uncertain and volatile world, we believe it remains indispensable
for our country’s national security.

All states signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) have
always been committed to a world free of nuclear weapons. It could only
come about if all fissile material was controlled or destroyed, so that
no rogue state or terrorist could get hold of it. Although it is a very
distant ideal, it is the processes of verified disarmament and
proliferation control consistent with that ideal that really matter. We
feel that the NPT is the right tool to achieve that end.

With best wishes

Sean Sullivan

Conservative Parliamentary Candidate for Tottenham"

And this is absolutely ridiculous, so we gotta keep spending billions of pounds, that could be so much better spent, on weapons 'just in case', so 'we don't look defenceless', cos we never know who's gonna attack us next year!!

Here's the answer I received by Conservative candidate Tim Archer about Climate Change:

"Conservatives are acutely aware of the threat posed to our way of life, our
economy and our environment from dangerous climate change. From the very
beginning of his leadership of the Conservative Party, David Cameron made
clear that Britain must take a position of leadership on the global - as
well as our own – environment. Conservatives were the first Party to call
for a Climate Change Bill and worked hard to improve the legislation as it
made its way through Parliament.

We believe that if we act now we can pass on a cleaner, greener planet to
our children. Each of us as parents, grandparents, or simply as citizens of
this world, owe that to the next generation. But the Conservative approach
isn’t about creating new rules, extra laws and higher taxes to make people
live in a more eco-friendly way. We won’t bring down carbon emissions by
just telling people what to do - we’ll do it by making it easier for people
and businesses to go green. That's why we have developed policies to cut
emissions and create green jobs. Our green policies include:

• offering every household a ‘Green Deal’ – an entitlement to up to £6,500
worth of energy efficiency improvements, paid for through savings in fuel
bills over 25 years;
• protecting the Green Belt and areas of environmental importance to
preserve our landscape and wildlife and stop unsustainable urban sprawl;
• not building the third runway at Heathrow – we believe that Heathrow
should be better not bigger. We will also prevent new runways being built
at Stansted and Gatwick;
• giving local communities stronger powers to stop ‘garden grabbing’,
allowing local people to protect the character of their neighbourhoods from
unwanted over-development;
• rolling out smart meters to every home so that families can cut their
bills and get paid for generating electricity from renewable sources such as
solar panels;
• creating new Green ISAs so that families can save and invest in the next
generation of green technology companies; and
• working with local councils to pay the public to recycle, in contrast to
Labour’s plans for new bin taxes which would fuel fly-tipping and backyard
burning.

So that’s the choice at this election: five more years of inaction on the
environment under Labour – or change with the Conservatives who have the
ideas, the energy and the personal commitment to tackle climate change.

Regards

Tim

Councillor Tim Archer
Conservative Councillor for Blackwall & Cubitt Town
London Borough of Tower Hamlets

Conservative Parliamentary Candidate for Poplar and Limehouse
www.timarcher.co.uk

Promoted by Adrian Thompson on behalf of Tim Archer both of Poplar and
Limehouse Conservative Association, Docklands Business Centre 10-16 Tiller
Rd, Isle of Dogs, London, E14 8PX"

Thank you for your email.

My party's position is that Trident should be replaced in order to ensure there is a deterrent and to protect jobs: the Conservative Party is committed to retaining Britain‘s minimum strategic nuclear deterrent because, in an uncertain and volatile world, we believe it remains indispensable for our country‘s national security. We support the decision to renew Britain‘s submarine-based nuclear deterrent based on the Trident missile system. Like all other government spending programmes, it will be monitored to ensure it gives maximum value for money.

We are also committed to a new defence review. The last major one took place in 1998. So, on coming into office, we will conduct a Strategic Defence and Security Review to ensure that defence spending matches our defence commitments. Thereafter, a review will be conducted every four or five years. The SDSR will identify Britain‘s strategic national interests; assess the threats we face; define the capabilities / equipment we need to protect our interests from those threats; define the programmes and military resources needed to achieve those capabilities; and assess the affordability and value for money of these programmes. Alongside a Strategic Defence and Security Review, we will conduct a Capabilities Review to determine what the MoD and the Armed Forces need. We will also, in particular, look at whether the MoD is delivering value for money. We will make 25 per cent savings in the cost of running the MoD.

I am grateful to you for contacting me and am sorry that this is not the response you wanted. Do spend me back any thoughts in response - of course, the recent announcement from President Obama may bring huge hope for this whole area.

Yours,
Nick

Our position is clear – we are committed to keeping and replacing the submarine-based nuclear deterrent and it is the only programme that will be exempt from the defence review. The new deterrent will enter service in the 2020s and will likely be in service until the 2050s. No-one can predict what will happen over that time and the nuclear deterrent serves as an insurance policy against nuclear blackmail. It is also an unfortunate reality that the proliferation of nuclear weapons remains an significant issue in current international affairs. The concerns shared by the international community over North Korea and Iran illustrate this. Given this reality we feel it would not be wise to be contemplating to scrapping our nuclear deterrent and we feel this expenditure is crucial for the security of this country.

I would say to you that I am already in contact with members of something called the ‘Top Level Group’ in Parliament which I am very keen to pursue if I am elected this year. See http://toplevelgroup.org for more information. I think Malcolm Rifkind’s reason for joining are very sound; “Nuclear weapons are a reality and Britain should not unilaterally disarm. There is, however, a very powerful case for far fewer nuclear weapons in the world and for a determined effort to see whether their complete elimination might be possible at some time in the future. It is an objective worth working towards.”

In closing, can I just say to you that the Winchester constituency is a highly marginal seat, the result here will be one of those that decides the result nationally – whether we wake up on May 7th with five more years of Gordon Brown or a new Government led by David Cameron.

I am a local family man. Susie and I didn’t move here to contest this seat – we’ve lived here many years and chose Winchester as a great place to live and bring up our family. We now have a two year daughter, Emily, and live right in the heart of constituency. This election will be close so please remember when you vote, we need a Conservative MP in Winchester if we are going to change the government at Westminster.

If you have a moment, take a look at my website (as below) or my You Tube TV channel at www.stevebrine.tv

Kind regards,

Steve Brine
Prospective Winchester MP
www.stevebrine.com

No, we're not saying that nuclear power would be a solution to climate change if this proposed new generation of stations were to come online tomorrow. There would still be the waste issue which no one has an answer to, plus the very real possibility of accidents or leaks. The time it would take to build these new stations only demonstrates how they aren't a viable proposition - we need action to cut our emissions right now, not in 15 or 20 years time. web editor gpuk

Hi in this enviromental booklet it said about the energy usage in old fridges compared to new fridges but if an old fridge works perfectly well would it be more harmfull to change fridge due to the cfc's? thnx gaza

A message which appears automated, so does that mean they are receiving substantial messages regarding the Challenge, or have I really received an email penned by the CEO himself!! Whatever it is they have produced a nice response, but what I can't understand is the problems they are referring to which haven't been encountered by other retailers, can someone help? Anyway here it is, and yes that is my real name and not one I made up when I contacted them... Dear Mr Coffin Thank you for your email. The John Lewis Partnership is fully supportive of moves by industry and the Government to improve the energy efficiency of consumer products. We have been closely consulted on the Government's plans to phase out incandescent lightbulbs and we support this action and other initiatives to raise the energy efficiency of lighting products. While we want action in this area to be as progressive and far reaching as possible, timing is, in part, determined by the rate of product development and cost efficiency by manufacturers. As retailers we encourage energy efficiency both in our own usage and by making customers aware of the choices they have to reduce energy usage in lighting. However, we do not believe the performance of energy efficient light bulbs is yet at a level that allows incandescent light bulbs to be removed from sale. Unlike some of the retailers you mention, we have a full range lighting offer and energy efficient bulbs (CFL and halogens) are not currently available for all of the light fixtures our customers want. We also believe our customers should be able to continue to purchase replacement bulbs for existing light fixtures they have bought from us until such a time as there are suitable alternatives. Also, in some lighting categories, energy efficiency light bulbs fail to meet minimum performance standards. For example, failure rates for CFLs are currently above acceptable tolerance levels, especially in some applications such as where dimmer switches are used. However, we are fully supportive of a campaign to phase out incandescent bulbs progressively over the next two to five years. This timescale should provide sufficient time for product development to ensure that energy efficient light bulbs are available as a substitute for all conventional light fittings, and that minimum performance standards are achieved. In the meantime John Lewis will continue to promote the sale of energy efficient light bulbs and light fittings. As a direct result of our efforts over the last three years, we have seen a significant increase in the sales of energy efficient and halogen bulbs, which have doubled since 2004 and these categories now represent 40% of all bulb sales. We expect sales of energy efficient and halogen bulbs to continue to grow and we have in place a number of new initiatives to promote sales. These include price reductions - our Energy Saving Genie range, for example, is half the price it was a year ago. We also have a policy to use energy efficient bulbs in our light fitting displays, and we have significantly increased the availability of light fittings which only use energy efficient bulbs. We are also developing better in-store signage for energy efficient light fittings and bulbs, and as part of a new labelling policy, we will soon promote energy efficient bulbs in our bulb fitting instructions. John Lewis is firmly committed to reducing its environmental impact and to encouraging our customers to do the same. We fully support the phase out of incandescent lightbulbs but this must be undertaken over slightly longer timescales than you suggest for the reasons outlined above. Yours sincerely Charlie Mayfield Chairman John Lewis Partnership ************************************************ This email is confidential and may contain copyright material of the John Lewis Partnership. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately and delete all copies of this message. (Please note that it is your responsibility to scan this message for viruses). Email to and from the John Lewis Partnership is automatically monitored for operational and lawful business reasons. ************************************************ John Lewis plc Registered in England 233462 Registered office 171 Victoria Street London SW1E 5NN Websites: http://www.johnlewis.com http://www.waitrose.com http://www.greenbee.com http://www.johnlewispartnership.co.uk ********************************************

I understand the problem with newly created bio fuels, feeding cars over people, but what about the reuse of old or waste oils? Is the government considering the recycling of oils, for instance the gathering and filtering of the millions of gallons of catering oil that is poured away each year causing huge problems for the sewage systems?