Wasteful in the extreme

He disassociated himself from the report commissioned by Liberal think tank Centreforum to cancel any replacement for the Trident nuclear-armed submarines in favour of boosting spending on conventional forces.

The Liberal Democrats have played for time over Trident, insisting that no decision can be taken on the issue until a cross-party commission, chaired by Campbell, reports back.

At the same time, however, the Tories, who are utterly committed to the supposed independent nuclear deterrent - in reality, it is neither independent nor a deterrent - are pushing ahead with Trident's replacement.

Disgraced former defence secretary Liam Fox announced 10 months ago that he had approved the spending of £3 billion on the first design stage for new submarines.

If that's the kind of small change that can be authorised on a military project that has allegedly not yet been agreed, we are clearly on a slippery slope towards further expenditure that will in due course be cited as the justification for pushing ahead to completion.

Listen carefully and you can already the sound of murmuring on the breeze as politicians explain that, with so much money already invested in Trident's replacement, it would be wasteful in the extreme to cancel the project now.

No-one understands this better than Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, but he is quite prepared to disappoint his party grass roots over nuclear weapons as he was over tuition fees and the NHS.

The attachment of his backside to a Cabinet minister's chair clearly trumps any lingering attachment to Liberal Democrat political attitudes.

While it would be tempting to welcome wholeheartedly the Centreforum report written by Toby Fenwick because of its forthright denunciation of the government plan to fritter away £25bn on replacement submarines, it is impossible to do so.

As Fenwick himself says, "It's not just about saving money but finding the most appropriate use of that £25bn."

The coalition government justifies all of its supposedly "tough" choices about slashing jobs, pensions, services, wages and benefits on its assertion that there isn't the money available to meet these needs.

How can that assertion be taken seriously when such a sum is being ring-fenced for spending on weapons of war?

The only debate is over whether our public finance should be wasted on a nuclear white elephant that can never be fired or on yet more beefing up of conventional forces to prepare for the next in a long-running series of overseas wars.

Fenwick himself argues that the current Vanguard class of submarines, which carry the Trident nuclear weapons, should be converted to use conventional cruise missiles.

Cruise missiles are, of course, those reputedly "pinpoint accuracy" weapons that routinely slammed into civilian targets in Iraq, causing death and destruction.

It is nothing less than shameful that the current Labour leadership has not moved beyond the imperial vanity stance of new Labour and remains wedded to the pretence of a nuclear deterrent, despite the possibility of constitutional change in Scotland meaning that the nuclear submarine fleet might have to seek a new home.

Peace campaigners should make use of the opportunity offered by this Centreforum report to pose serious questions about nuclear weapons and the need for a foreign policy based on peaceful co-operation rather than imperial military might.