Why didn't Labour scrap nukes?

[MrsT]

from 1997 to 2010 pretty much all the front bench were uniilateralists, most of them had been in CND at one time or other. Probably most of the rest of the party too. So why didn't they scrap nukes altogether?

[jomifl]

because they would have lost the next election owing to all the defence industry workers on the dole. Also there were contracts.

[jake-the-peg]

There is something in that but most notably it was politically difficult.

Because of the unilateralist history scrapping Nuclear weapons is as difficult for the Labour Party is as difficult as scrapping the NHS would be for the Tories.

It totally leaves you open to the other side going "you see we were right all along".

Both are emotional issues.

Trident is bound up with the patriotic feelings lots of people have about us still being a major power in the world - the fact that it's a huge white elephant doesn't come in to it.

Scrap it and give the money to MI5 and GCHQ and we'd be vastly more secure

[MrsT]

But if you'd spent your whole life up to then trying to attain power, to be in a position to change things, you'd joined CND as a student, you were passionate, finally power is delivered, surely all other considerations would go out of the window, they had a massive majority, who cares what the otherside think? I don't get it, what happenned to the Labour front bench in 1997?

[jake-the-peg]

Preservation of the UK nuclear deterrant was in the manifesto.

It was part of the Blair bargain - reassuring people that they'd not scrap Trident if elected.

A bit like the way Cameron kept telling everybody the NHS would be safe in his hands.

Politicians are pragmatists If they feel passionate about half a dozen issues they'll be willing to compromise on one or two if they can achieve the others.

Where pragmatism and compromise end and doing anything to get power starts is a question best aimed at Cameron and Clegg

[eyethenkyew]

The only reason we've never been "nuked" is simply because we have our own nuclear deterrent in the shape of Trident. Strip that away and you just may as well turn the lights off on the way out.

Don't let any of the pinkos fool you, none of them seriously believe that scrapping Trident is the real way to preserve our security, they'd have been out of power long ago had that been the case.

No, even your most committed Commie would have to retain it - just have a look at those great bastions of "socialism", China and North Korea, not exactly without nuclear defence, are they?

It's all very well living in cloud cuckoo land with your rose tinted glasses on, but the reality is that the likes of Trident is vital for the deterrent and peace of mind factors it brings to our nation. I live in the real world and would quite like to continue doing so in the relative safety which our deterrents presently guarantee instead of stripping us bare and ending up the victims of a nuclear holocaust.

[mike11111]

Ideology in opposition is one thing, but it tends to fade into the background when confronted with the realities of power.

[rov1200]

When you get into power and have the generals on your back advising you to keep the status quo what hope have the politicians got in over-riding them. Other advisers say you will lose your seat at the top table in the UN where only 5 members including France, China, the US, Russia and ourselves are involved. This was set up after WWII but since then our arsenal and world influence has plummetted. As we no longer make any important decisions we have to go along with everything the US decides.

Blair thought he was keeping Britain involved by joining the US in the Iraq war. He couldn't even make an independent decision.

[mike11111]

There was a time when politicians, being wealthy in their own right, had no need to have their snouts in the public trough of largesse and acted upon principle. The classic example is that of Stanley Baldwin who succeeded Arthur Bonar Law, who, shortly after becoming Prime Minister in 1923, was diagnosed with terminal cancer and resigned immediately. Confronted with the realities of government Baldwin realised that he had to reverse a policy of his predecessor, who had promised that no such change would take place without a general election. He duly called, and lost that election, whereupon he resigned after being defeated in a motion of no confidence. (No one party commanded an absolute majority.) I can't see today's bunch of politicos acting with such altruism.