Comment Central - Times Online - WBLG

Does David Miliband support Trident?

The New Statesman has been circulating an interview given by David Miliband last September. Their purpose was to highlight his comments about the Lebanese war:

Over the summer, as Israeli forces swept north across the border into Lebanon, even the most loyal ministers could not take it any more. One of them was David Miliband, a former policy chief at Downing Street and everyone's next-leader-but-one.

Miliband, who had just been promoted to Environment Secretary, was reported as telling a cabinet meeting at the end of July: "Where is this all going to end?"

Until this past week, Miliband has refused to elaborate, for fear of undermining further a leader who has treated him well. But this has not been one of those ordinary weeks in politics. Many MPs saw Blair's refusal to call for a ceasefire in Lebanon in the first weeks of the conflict as the last straw. So how did Miliband feel about it?

"I don't think anyone was relaxed about the situation," he says. He does not deny making the remarks to cabinet. "I felt very worried because, put it this way, I don't think that Israel is safer and stronger now than it was two months ago. I don't think the prospects of a secure and just two-state settlement in the Middle East are closer than they were two months ago."

But almost as interesting was his response on Trident:

I fought [the election], like every Labour MP, on the manifesto. You can't pick and choose which bits of the manifesto you don't like and which bits you like.

This is something you say about a decision you don't agree with. If he agreed with it, he would have explained why.

The argument for Trident

Dr Julian Lewis articulates the arguments for Trident superbly on the ConservativeHome site.

Trident is really about Labour's discipline

The vote on Trident tomorrow, isn't really about Trident at all. It wouldn't be serious if it was, since the government will win and things will move on.

The rebellion is serious because it is about the discipline and coherence of the Labour Party.

Take Neil Kinnock's intervention yesterday. Kinnock is an opponent of nuclear weapons. Remember his proposal in the 1987 that Britain could defend itself with ditches full of exploding pig slurry? His defensive strategy was wonderfully characterised by SDP MP John Cartwright as involving the deployment of the Mujahidin in Penge High Street.

For a period, however, Kinnock suspended that opposition in order to help Labour win elections. He put discipline and electability ahead of his principled view.

The interesting thing about his latest pronouncement is that the order of his priorities and that of the other rebels has altered.

Nuclear or not?

There's no question what Labour's next debate will be, once the leadership has been settled. It's whether Britain should replace Trident and continue to have an independent nuclear deterrent.

To help you make up your mind on the issue, you can read Michael Portillo arguing against replacing Trident, Oliver Kamm in favour, and Max Hastings elegantly sitting on the fence, but appealing for more information before pragmatists like him can make up their mind.