Labour's cognitive dissonance on nuclear WMDs

Labour’s 86-page Election Manifesto, published today, says at the start of its opening paragraph:” Every policy in this manifesto is paid for. Not one commitment requires additional borrowing.”

(http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/BritainCanBeBetter-TheLabourPartyManifesto2015.pdf)

 

Ed Miliband asserts in his Foreword “An economy built on strong and secure foundations, where we balance the books.”

 

But  when it comes to national security, the Manifesto  swerves off message: it pledges “Labour remains committed to a minimum, credible, independent nuclear capability, delivered through a Continuous At-Sea Deterrent.”

 

But, despite the upfront commitments to explain how expenditures will be paid for, Labour has no word of how it is going to find the £100 billion for Trident replacement.

 

Labour goes on to assert “ We will actively work to increase momentum on global multilateral disarmament efforts and negotiations, and look at further reductions in global stockpiles and the numbers of weapons.”

 

So it will first spend taxpayers’ money to build Trident’s replacement, than spend even more taxpayers’ money to dismantle it.

 

This madness is shared by the Conservatives too. In a Parliamentary debate on 20 January this year on the Trident nuclear weapons system, Defence Secretary Michael Fallon, who last week criticised Labour for having a secret plan to dump Trident in cahoots with Scottish Nationalists,  told MPs:
"we also share the vision of a world that is without nuclear weapons, achieved through multilateral disarmament.” (emphasis added) (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm150120/debtext/150120-0001.htm#15012040000001)

 

Labour’s Manifesto also pledges “One of our first acts in government will be to conduct a wide-ranging review of Britain’s place in the world and how we can best uphold our values and the national interest.” and adds “We will conduct a Strategic Defence and Security Review in the first year of government, with an inclusive national debate on the security and defence challenges facing the country.”

 

This is complete cognitive dissonance: believing two diametrically opposite things at the same time. Doesn’t the British electorate deserve better than this from the political parties from whom the next Prime Minister will certainly come?