OnTheWight contributor, Hannah Brock, got in touch last Thursday to let us know that she was planning that day to take part in a peaceful protest against nuclear weapons.
The incumbent Conservative MP Andrew Turner, who is seeking re-election, voted in favour of renewing the UK’s Trident nuclear weapons system in January 2015.
As she made her way to the event, Hannah wondered how the Isle of Wight’s prospective parliamentary candidates feel about a Trident replacement.
So we asked
As Mr Turner’s voting record clearly illustrated his views, we got in touch with the other five candidates.
Labour
Stewart Blackmore, the Labour candidate, said,
“Although it is the Labour party’s national policy to replace Trident, I am not convinced. The huge cost alone, to defend this country against a tyranny which has not existed since the Cold War ended, does not seem to me to be proven.
“The enemies we need to defend ourselves against now are terrorism and cybercrime, none of which can effectively be fought with nuclear weapons.
“I think that our land forces and navy should be strengthened with the billions saved if Trident is not replaced, with the balance going to pay down the debt and help to end austerity.
“The use of a weapon which would, effectively, mean the end of the world cannot be justified.
“That is the more sensible and prudent course.
Liberal Democrat
David Goodall, the Liberal Democrat candidate, said,
“At a cost of £100 billion over a lifetime, we believe Trident is unaffordable and that Britain’s security would be better served by stepping down the nuclear ladder to a more modern nuclear deterrent.
“We believe that spending billions on a nuclear weapons system designed for the Cold War era is no longer acceptable and we remain committed to leading global nuclear disarmament.”
Green
Vix Lowthion, the Green Party candidate, said,
“Nuclear weapons do not make us safer. Threats to our peace coming from ISIS and other terrorist organisations do not fear the possibility of us using a nuclear weapon. Neither is Trident an independent nuclear deterrent for the UK – it is held in partnership with the USA.
“We cannot afford the £100 billion cost when people in the UK are going to food banks, losing vital local services and our NHS is suffering from a lack of investment.
“So no. We should not replace Trident.”
UKIP
Iain McKie the candidate for the UK Independence Party said,
“Like it or not, we live in a world where nuclear weapons exist. The issue of Trident is a complex one; numerous countries possess currently ‘undeclared’ nuclear weapons, and the absolute removal of all nuclear weaponry from the world seems at this time to be both unlikely and impractical. I learned more about the complexities of this issue from Kate Hudson, the General Secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) during my Master’s studies.
“During my time in the TA, I also gained a first-hand understanding of the issues the military faces on a daily basis. I do not agree with the Green Party’s dangerous plan to remove us from NATO. I agree on principle with anything which helps keep our soldiers and our citizens’ safe, and believe our own nuclear presence should be maintained through whatever is the most practical means. At this time, that would appear to be Trident.”
Independent
Ian Stephens told us,
“It is in my manifesto that I am not in favour of Trident. The discussion since 2010 has cost the British taxpayer £4.5 billion. The estimated cost until a decision is made in 2016-17 on a replacement is projected to be £6.5 billion. The replacement itself has been estimated at £25-45 billion. The cost of supporting the replacement is reckoned to be £100-200 billion.
“The replacement nuclear deterrent will obviously be debated, however at this moment there is nothing to measure other than the financial element and how secure the nation feels with a nuclear deterrent. I am aware that there are tensions in most political parties whereby some are pro and others against, We have seen quotes to support the training and equipping our conventional forces to the highest standards….we have indeed witnessed the assistance during the Undercliffe situation whereby our residents were evacuated safely and possessions recovered for safe keeping. There is then an argument for training in peace keeping and assistance in flood and famine.
“The world today is threatened by a new enemy, and that has more to do with terrorists and suicide bombing than nuclear warheads. Let us get involved with the debate and find the proposals before pre-judging, however to spend amounts of money as quoted above when our health and Social care is under threat there has to be good case. I do not rule out a jointly funded deterrent as my main concern is that of affordability.”
Hannah’s report
Hannah reported that the event went well, she said,
We visited the four offices of arms companies, delivered our letters to their workers asking them to reconsider their work on WMDs, sang songs, and leafleted passersby.
“Many people were really surprised that the buildings they work next door to hold the offices of some of the biggest weapons manufacturers in the world.
“The response was generally very positive: many members of the public are shocked at the cost of Trident replacement – at least £100bn – and alarmed that the government is prioritising these cold war weapons over public services.”
Article edits
Comment from Ian Stephens added 7.5.2015 at 6.56am
Comment from Iain McKie added 7.5.2015 at 14.02pm
Image: © Hannah Brock
