David Davis concludes that he cannot justify a wholesale upgrade of Trident, as he weighs into the debate about public spending

As a former chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, David Davis was always likely to want to contribute from the self-imposed freedom of the backbenches to the debate about how to get the public finances under control.

And today, through an article in the FT, the former shadow home secretary addresses the question of where the Government - and therefore a future Conservative government -  could find savings.

Firstly, he tackles the Labour language of "Tory cuts" head on:

"The choice we face is not between Labour growth in public services and Tory “cuts”. It is between taking a grip of the public finances and watching our people’s economic prospects, and our ability to afford decent public services, slowly dribble away."

Mr Davis goes on to suggest some of the ways in which he would find savings; several, such as abolition of ID cards and abolition of regional government, are already party policy - but others are not and therefore act as a useful contribution to the debate on the issue of how to tighten the nation's belt:

• A pay and recruitment freeze for the entire public sector;
• Close all public sector pension schemes to new entrants;
• Lower starting salaries in areas which "have really got out of line" such as doctors' pay;
• Cancel civil service bonuses;
• Cutbacks in MPs' expenses and cabinet ministers' pay;
• Abolition of ID cards;
• Abolition of other government databases such as its internet scrutiny scheme and the Contact Point children's database;
• Renegotiate every PFI contract now;
• Target child benefit solely on the least well off;
• Replace "gimmicks" such as winter fuel payments and free television licences for the over-75s with targeted help for poor pensioners;
• Abolition of regional government.

He then goes on to suggest that Conservatives should "address some of our own sacred cows". The one which he highlights this morning is Trident:

"There is no firmer advocate of nuclear deterrence than me, but even I have some difficulty seeing the justification for a wholesale upgrade of Trident. Our system was designed to maintain retaliatory capacity after a full-scale Soviet nuclear onslaught. Now our likeliest nuclear adversary will be a much smaller, less-sophisticated state. Should not the costs reflect that?"

Mr Davis concludes by reminding us that 70% of the public recognise the need to bring public spending back under control and welcomes the fact that the debate on how to save money is now being had out in the open.

And on that point, do remember to look a our Star Chamber each weekday, where you can contribute further to that very debate on where to find savings.

Jonathan Isaby

Comments

[Andrew Woodman]

Some good ideas here. I would be careful with the replacing 'gimmicks' like the winter fuel payment. We floated that idea in 2001 and it didn't go down well at all. If it's efficent, I don't see why it can't be removed for higher rate taxpayers so people like Bernie Ecclestone don't get it.

[Norm Brainer]

Well he's right on trident and most others but then there's some which are impractical like the pay and recruitment freeze - they would never get promotions? .. or be able to replace people if they die or move house?

...and some which are very new labour like the 2 'targeting' benefits. False savings.

[Think This]

I like his ideas, but the savings dont even make up £100 billion. With borrowing set to be $170 billion this year, the Conservatives are going to need to find a lot more cuts to balance the budget in the short term and then run a surplus to get our national debt in terms of GDP below 40%. I think this is a great opportunity to fundamentally shrink the size of the state and cut out huge swathes of public spending which simply are not needed. I think leaving the EU needs to be on the table especially when its estimated it losses us £50 billion annually, and thats a huge chunk of money.

[HF]

He is right on the Trident replacement. We could do with a series of debates on that.

[Malcolm Stevas]

Think This has it right: D.Davis's suggestions are sound (I even agree, reluctantly, about Trident) but for all their sincerity and worth they still amount to tinkering with the system. And it's "the system" that has got us into this mess: a top-heavy State delivering hugely expensive services that would be better & cheaper delivered by private enterprise, and not contribute to the diminution of privacy & individual freedom. Even were a Tory administration to succeed in reducing our breathtaking national debts over the next few years through the savings Davis outlines, if the same system remains in place it is liable to be abused all over again by future administrations. Enough! The giant State with its bloated welfarism is unsustainable as well as offensive.

[Thomas]

Once again Conservative Home puts words into people's mouth.

If Captain EJ Smith had ordered the lifeboats to be swung out and cut from the davits then the weight saved may have caused the titanic to stay afloat for a few seconds longer.

Trident's new submarines, and thats what they are, it isn't a replacement of trident as some imply, will cost 7 billion and the life extension on the missiles will cost 5 billion. Considering the fact that public spending is roughly 700 billion a year, I fail to understand why 13 billion over several years is so unaffordable.

If we want to disarm, GREAT! Let's disarm! But let's not pretend that the submarines can be 'delayed' or that we can replace a dedicated strategic force with a small and equally expensive tactical force.

[Anti-libertarian]

David Davis is certainly not right on Trident. This decision has ramifications for decades. Ok, right now we don't have a USSR-like enemy, but who knows what the geopolitical landscape will be in 10-15 years time. The prudential and wisest course of action is to play safe, and keep maximum trident capacity as a precaution. Trident is a drop in the ocean financially compared to many other items of public expenditure.

[jack iddon]

I am disappointed in David Davis. To help resolve our financial problems we risk our liberty?
Come on now I don't believe you can mean that.

[John Haynes]

I agree over Trident simply because ICMBs need to be reduced, they are Cold War weapons and as was pointed out by somebody, the UK having nuclear tipped Cruise Missiles launched from Astute Class submarines would likely be more appropriate.

Public Sector Pensions going forward and as part of a broader strategy on providing income and care for people in old age is obvious but, not immediate in cost savings and needs proper planning, debate and scrutiny.

However, there is one immediate thing that should be considered although it is not a universal panacea, job sharing in the Public Sector. Obviously you cannot have half a Policeman, Soldier, Doctor etc. But there are likely many "administrative jobs" where it might be feasible and if only 10% of the whole 600,000 half jobs would make a saving.

It would be better for the individual because 50% salary is likely to be a lot better than Job Seekers Allowance and better for the Public Finances.

[John P]

An excellent starting list. The only note of caution I would have is about 'targeted help'. This sounds like an extension or re focussing of tax credits, which cost huge amounts to administer. Broad brush targeting, such as excluding higher rate taxpayers from extra benefits is one thing, micro managing means tested benefits another.

A simple broad brush scheme will hand out more than a micro managed scheme, and it is entirely possible that it will cost more overall than it saves, although I do doubt that. There is however another significant benefit. The current complexity has managed to prevent a lot of those most in need from claiming benefits. A simpler scheme would help those people.

[John Moss]

To get the public sector to agree to a pay freeze and the changes to pensions, both of which are essential, we would first have to pledge that all MPs and cabinet ministers pay and pensions would be subject to the same treatment otherwise it would look like - and be - rank hypocrisy.

[grumpy old man]

Like Mr Davis, I was also a tiny piece of grit in the well-oiled machine that was cold-war NATO. I maintain that the purpose of the nuclear deterrent and the Force du Frapp, was not to scare off Soviet Russia but to give the USA pause for thought. That is still a defence task worth doing.

[Will Yoxall]

There is only one type of viable nuclear deterrent and that is Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles. With everything else the launch platform is too easily located and disabled or the projectile to easily shot down.

There really isn't a cheaper deterrent than Trident, because no other system is secure enough to actually deter.

[Matthew Lipson]

Thomas - why do we need it? Why?

[Iain]

So we can't afford our nuclear deterrent, yet we can afford to give £825 million to India and £665 million to Pakistan in aid to countries that do spend money on nuclear deterrents.

Only in the lunatic asylum that is the Westminster village can anyone consider that a sane policy. But then as the Westminster village brought us the EU as a policy which costs us £55 billion, I suppose we shouldn't expect too much from them.

[jack iddon]

Don't forget China Ian. We give aid to them as well. If that is not lunacy I do not know what is!

[David Belchamber]

People will not agree with every suggestion but there are several excellent proposals that need to be built on.

A challenge of this size gives us a wonderful opportunity to superimpose another social system on top of one that has failed. The new system should have as yardsticks: fairness, simplicity and moral integrity.

Thus on taxation, a flat tax (subsuming NI) should start at the current level of subsistence and sweep away the 50p band; all the various sources of benefit would be reduced if possible to one single one. Perhaps HMRC could again be separated, this time into Revnue and Benefits?

David Davis suggests a very positive way forward.

[Ross Warren]

I agree with DD over Trident although I suspect that real savings from this cut will be far less than perhaps is hoped. We will certainly need to maintain a nuclear deterrent, so I imagine we will be refurbishing existing system's and setting up other tactical systems to deliver war heads if needed. Trident is a Royal Royce style solution where a mini-metro will do the job.Not as well I grant you, but we have to be realistic about what we can afford.
There is one issue which we cannot fudge or cut corners on and that is the production and maintenance of our war heads. As I said earlier savings are likely to be far lower than hoped for, as the cost associated with maintenance and refurbishment is almost always underestimated.

[Jules in London]

Good on David Davis, he should be made Shadow Defense Secretary, we do not need a bloody NHS Doctor running our Defense Dept when our troops are in theatre, we need someone who has served his country.

The axe on public spending must fall on the DSS budget first and foremost, some £200bn "think the unthinkable about Welfare" has been complete joke!(sic). Stop the lies about unemployment numbers, there are 3m on the sick and 2m on the dole = 5m out of work. Child benefit must be for a max 2 children and only means tested. My sister has 4 kids and doesn't need it, so it is put away for their "beer" money when they go to college! Foreigners must not be given welfare either.

Tory Govt must send in the independent forensic accountants to the Treasury on day 1 after the election and give an full assessment, to be made public, of Gordy's profligacy. Only then can the axe fall on public sector expenditure following public disclosure of Gordy's mismanagement of UK PLC.

[Graham]

Befor we do cutting defence or getting rid of Tridant should we not decide what we want our deference for? A review is needed.

Also it worth remembering that Tridant is a weapon of last resort. Its use lie in the hands of the PM and not the military, so should it be funded from the Defence Budget, because in a way it adds nothing to our defence, if Tridant is used all is lost.

[RichardJ]

"Well he's right on trident and most others but then there's some which are impractical like the pay and recruitment freeze - they would never get promotions?"

We have a pay freeze where I work, seems to work for us.

Re Trident - I'm in favour of the upgrade but don't object to delaying it until we have the public finances under control.

[Thomas]

"the UK having nuclear tipped Cruise Missiles launched from Astute Class submarines would likely be more appropriate."

WHAT ASTUTE CLASS SUBMARINES?

The ones that are being cancelled left right and centre? The ones capable of carrier fewing cruise missiles than a vanguard can carry ICBMs? The ones that are more expensive than trident?

What happens if we need to attack russia, will we build a canal though europe?

Let's review trident and the cruise alternative shall we?

4 vanguard class submarines
16 Trident type II D5 missiles per submarine
7000 mile range
4 multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) warheads
400 kt Yeild per warhead.
Total yield: 358400 Kt

Advantages:
Always one submarine at sea
Independently deployable warheads
Strong Yield
High Speed
Resistance to anti-missile defences
High Range
Few missiles

Disadvantages:

nil

Cruise Missiles

4 Astute class submarines
8 tomohawk nuclear tipped cruise missiles per submarine
1500 Mile range
1 fixed warhead
200 Kt Yield
Total Yield: 6400kt

Advantages:

Nil, same price as aformentioned trident

Disadvantages:

Development costs
Range
Yield

[Thomas]

"Thomas - why do we need it? Why?"

That is the debate to be had. If you re-read my comment, you will clearly see that I do not advocate a nuclear detterent. I am merely pointing out that if we have one, it needs to work.

[Martin Cole]

And the EU?

As EU Parliamentarians are going beyond a combined Nato and EU Army to contemplate a Global Army, read EU Parliament Document A6-0033/2009 (extracts on my blog),Trident as well as the two new carriers will all end under EU control.

As with the new combined cycle gas power plant for Pembroke Dock no benefit will return to the UK (see also my blog from yesterday).

The only real savings available to the nation by the time of a new administration must come from the EU as at that point everything else will already have been trimmed back to the maximum extent possible by Labour.

[resident leftie]

Our Trident deterrent has sufficient warheads to effectively destroy the 200 most populous cities knocking the world back into the Stone Age.

One tenth of that capability would be no less a deterrent. I don't dispute that we should retain nuclear armaments, but this level is quite ridiculous. So, an expensive upgrade is pointless.

PFI contracts are legal documents. Where there are break points then of course there should be renegotiation, but that's not a new policy - it's just a fact of life. PFI has been an expensive and inefficient way of tranferring money from the taxpayer to the private sector, without the desired transfer of risk. These projects should not have been financed in this fashion, and the public should own buildings they have financed. However, Tory ideology will mean no doubt that PFI will continue. I just hope that the civil servants negotiating these contracts will be as well paid as the expensive lawyers who work work for the private sector.

I'd be very happy to see the back of the ID card, and "anti-terror" databases; they are an ineffective and intrusive waste of time and money.

Means tested benefits are much, much more expensive to administer than non-tested ones, and it makes sense to combine tax and benefits. Tax credits are a very good idea, but they have not been implemented perfectly.

You talk about attacking the public sector, most of whom are on very modest wages. You appear to dislike them as much as you think Labour supporters dislike the 1% of population who earn more than 150K.

Finally, there is one nettle which needs to be grasped, and I do hope the Tories come up with sensile policy on this, and that is pensions. First, the pensionable age needs to rise, with equity between men and women. We are much more capable if we wish of working longer. Second, retirement should not be compulsory. Third, by default, there should be an compulsory personal pension scheme for every single employee and even the self-employed, with the choice of where the money should go. If the person does not decide where the money should go, it should be split between funds provided by the nationalised banks, where it can be invested in UK industry, amongst other things.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

The Maastricht enforcer speaks. You just can't keep Davis out of the head lines can you, because that is where he likes to bask.
Whether he appoints himself seemingly as spokesman for those previously suspected of terrorism; ignoring the advice of the Anti-terrorist squad or wanting MI5 investigated because it might be involved torture compliance.

Now he wishes to diminish our ability to defend ourselves which once again gets himself in the headlines.

To quote Davis: "I wonder why he did that"? A quote he used after he resigned to fight a bloodless re-election as MP. He wrongly attributed the quote to Metternich (it was actually made by Talleyrand regarding the death of another tricky politician)

Well, I believe Davis is a great boat rocker and the sooner he rocks it enough to get thrown out the better. Then we might ask, "I wonder what made him do that"? He will probably have a reason. "Give me the moonlight, give me the girl and leave the rest to me". (The late Frankie Vaughan).
.

[UKIP Campaigner]

David Davis makes many sensible proposals but he dare not mention the EU.

Britain could save billions if it left the EU and joined EFTA instead. We could repeal the thousands of damaging laws imposed by Brussels over the last 35 years.

Relieved of the regulatory burden, an independent British government could attract massive inward investment by cutting personal and corporate taxes.

There is only one British party in the European Parliament that is pledged to leaving the EU - UKIP.

[Roy Seeman]

I am glad that David Davis is contributing to the debate. However, I strongly disagree with cutting out the winter fuel allowance etc, for the Senior Citizens, when we still give millions or even billions to overseas countries, a lot of which does not reach the people it was intended for. These "give aways" were never part of Labour's Manifesto, and therefore were never supported by the Public, and are only gimmicks by Tony Blair, and now Gordon Brown to massage their own Egos.

[Thomas]

"Our Trident deterrent has sufficient warheads to effectively destroy the 200 most populous cities knocking the world back into the Stone Age."

Where did you get that figure?

We don't even have 200 warheads, let alone 200 missiles.

[Iain]

"Relieved of the regulatory burden, an independent British government could attract massive inward investment by cutting personal and corporate taxes.

There is only one British party in the European Parliament that is pledged to leaving the EU - UKIP. "

Yes UKIP have an excellent argument that merits support, for this economic slump has brought into focus our membership of this expensive club, and as the only party prepared to do anything about it they have a very strong message to sell to the electorate.

[RichardJ]

"David Davis makes many sensible proposals but he dare not mention the EU."

What has that got to do with trident?

And UKIP wonder why they're perceived as a single-issue party.

[resident leftie]

Posted by: Thomas | April 30, 2009 at 10:55
Where did you get that figure?

We don't even have 200 warheads, let alone 200 missiles.

Perhaps foolishly I relied on wikipedia for information both on the UK Trident program and the ability of MIRVs to deliver ordance to multiple targets.

However, further research leads me to think that figure is correct.

I am confident we have 200 warheads. They could wipe out about 20% of the world's population in a matter of weeks.

"The UK Trident programme is the United Kingdom's Trident missile-based nuclear weapons programme. Under the programme, the Royal Navy operates 58 nuclear-armed Trident II D-5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles and around 200 nuclear warheads on 4 Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines from Clyde Naval Base on Scotland's west coast. At least one of these submarines is always on patrol as a continuous at-sea deterrent, armed with 16 Trident missiles and 48 nuclear warheads (three warheads per missile), although each submarine can carry up to 96 nuclear warheads with six warheads per missile."

[Denis Cooper]

Yes, what a good idea; let's get rid of our nuclear deterrent, just as the religious maniacs in Teheran are coming close to acquiring nuclear weapons, and the means of delivering them to our cities. After all, we'll always be able to rely on the US to retaliate on our behalf, won't we?

[RichardJ]

"Yes, what a good idea; let's get rid of our nuclear deterrent"

Who is arguing for the abolition of our nuclear deterrent? The debate appears to be on the technology of that deterrent. Trident is useful for attacking countries like Russia with more advanced defence systems. Tehran could easily be taken down with a less sophisticated system.

[Henry Mayhew - Ukipper]

Can someone shut UKIP Campaigner up when he is off-topic, which is 100% of the time.

Graham, you've gone and missed the point Squire, at least, I hope you have. Trident is for deterrence not deference. We do that for free mate.

[Thomas]

"However, further research leads me to think that figure is correct.

I am confident we have 200 warheads. They could wipe out about 20% of the world's population in a matter of weeks."

Perhaps you should try using the national audit office figures: 160

Or even better, Gordon Brown's: "These warheads now number fewer than 160"

Ironically these figures are in the same wikipedia article that you just quoted. Yet you chose to ignore them, why?

Although the warheads are indpendently deployable, the world 20 biggest cities do not border each other.

[ToryBlog.com]

I agree Henry. Give it a rest UKIP campaigner.

[John Haynes]

The argument over Trident and ICBMs equals Nuclear tipped Cruise, there is no comparison the latter cannot compete with the former.

The "argument" is about moving the World on, in the UK we do not have the land mass to absorb a nuclear "First Strike", Trident was purely a retaliatory weapon fired from a submarine after the UK ceased to exist.

It was a Cold War Weapon and here comes the "Reality Check"

Iran's missile technology isn't yet very advanced and even the Russians won't help them with ICBMs and North Korea can't do those yet. After Iraq and Afghanistan there is no mood to invade a country like Iran however, if they are really naughty we could send in a few Trident Missiles.

Ask yourself if any British Government would ? I'm not being a pacifist but the reality is that these weapons are virtually unusable, very expensive and therefore both Britain's and France's ICBMs should be scrapped.

[Henry Mayhew - Here to help]

Yeah, sod off Campaigner, you Tory entrist. Go back to your little Roon friends.

[[email protected]]

Scrap the missiles but keep the aircraft carriers...... which weapon won us back the Falklands?

[Denis Cooper]

RichardJ, who says that Teheran would be the top priority for destruction? If you want mad Islamic fundamentalists to understand that in the event of a nuclear attack on Britain you would use your submarines to hit back where it would hurt them most, then you must make it clear that the cities they hold dear as holy cities would be top of the list - Mecca and Medina. They'd still be left with Jerusalem, unless they'd destroyed it themselves. Teheran has no significance as a religious centre, as far as I know, and in any case the madmen who pressed the button would probably have ensured that they were safe from any nuclear attack on Teheran.

[Thomas]

"The "argument" is about moving the World on, in the UK we do not have the land mass to absorb a nuclear "First Strike""

Question: How log did it take for the cold war to end?

Answer: Weeks

Question: How long did it take for the cold war to start?

Answer: Weeks.

Question: How long does it take for an ICBM to be launched and hit its target?

Answer: Minutes

Question: How long does it take to get submarines with cruise missiles into firing range: Days, posssibly weeks.

Question: How long does it take to build a nuclear detterent?

Answer: DECADES!

Whos to say there wont be another cold war in the next 20 years?

The argument that the world has changed so much in 15 years is risible considering that it could change back and we would still be running to try catch up.

The point of trident is to stay ahead of the curve, I'm not sure why some people can't understand this.

[John Haynes]

michael alldis

I understand the sentiment but really these two "Dreadnoughts" should never be built, too big, the planes too expensive and we wouldn't have the support vessels to keep both at sea at any one time. They represent all our Naval assets in 2 baskets and as such become a military liability, not a military asset.

We do need new carriers perhaps as many as 6 but probably a lot smaller in size crew and sophistication. Also they should only fly unmanned aircraft (UAV -Predator types)and helicopters.

However, what we really need is a public debate on what we will accept our Armed Forces doing on our behalf and from there, shape our capability. Every "Defence Review" I have ever seen over 50 years has been based upon some politician cutting forces to save money - time we looked through the other end of the telescope.

[UKIP Campaigner]

"Yeah, sod off Campaigner, you Tory entrist. Go back to your little Roon friends.

Posted by: Henry Mayhew - Here to help | April 30, 2009 at 12:44"

I am a UKIP campaign official and unlike Henry Mayhew, a member of the party.

If Britain left the EU, it could allocate savings to improving our independent defences. That is the relevance to this thread.

[resident leftie]

Posted by: Thomas | April 30, 2009 at 12:27

Although the warheads are indpendently deployable, the world 20 biggest cities do not border each other.

Let's go with 160, then shall we? The warheads can be independently targetted. Do you actually dispute my point that we have far more firepower than we could possibly ever need? If we exploded every nuke we have, there is every chance it would completely destroy civilisation. 10 warheads would be deterrent enough.

[Freddy]

@All UKIP supporters/members etc.

This is CONSERVATIVEHOME, not, I repeat NOT,
UKIP corner!

[UKIP Campaigner]

Freddy, there are many ex-Conservatives in UKIP who wish to comment here. Conservative Home posters are welcome to debate at Independence Home - indhome.com.

Henry Mayhew is taking an aggressive stance towards my posts here because I revealed that he his UKIP membership lapsed over 18 months ago and he is not active in the party.

I apologise, as a party official, to the editors and posters for the spat here but the responsibility lies with Mr Mayhew who is not an active Ukipper.

[Francis]

"Question: How long does it take to build a nuclear detterent?

Answer: DECADES!"

Posted by: Thomas

Firstly, we already have a nuclear deterrent. Trident is already capable of detering any present or foreseeable enemy.

Secondly, the idea that we should spend to defend against notional enemies, as well as real and potential ones, is strategic suicide.

No nation, not even a superpower, can afford to do that without facing economic collapse.

[Henry Mayhew - Genuine Kipper]

For the last time (today) Campaigner, will you please go away.

I am a paid up member of UKIP, the parliamentary candidate for West Ham in 07 and a friend and supporter of Nigel so why don't you put a sock in it and toddle off.

I have discussed you and the pathetic image you give with Nigel, who reads this site, but since, bizarrely, you don't use your name there is little we can do about you.

Apologies to readers. I hope Tim bans his url.

[Francis]

"@All UKIP supporters/members etc.

This is CONSERVATIVEHOME, not, I repeat NOT,
UKIP corner!"

Posted by: Freddy

I think they make a good contribution.

Just as many Arabs revere the Bedouin as being their cultural ideal so I, as a Conservative, think of UKIP.

They might not be altogether practical, but it's nice to know that there are people who are so uncompromising about the nation's sovereignty.

[RichardJ]

"RichardJ, who says that Teheran would be the top priority for destruction?"

I chose Teheran because you mentioned it previously. I'm happy to substitute Mecca and Medina. My point is that somewhere like Moscow (with a more sophisticated missile defence system) would probably require Trident. Fortunately the main threat comes from the Middle East.

[RichardJ]

I have no objection to UKIP supporters posting here (as long as they're not just trolling), the site would be dull if we all agreed with each other.

[John Bright]

Now, now, do stop squabbling like this.

Both parties wish to uphold Britain's sovereignty.

It would be far more constructive for both to attack ZanuLabour instead, considering the damage they have done over the last 12 years.

[Thomas]

"Firstly, we already have a nuclear deterrent. Trident is already capable of detering any present or foreseeable enemy."

You're an idiot. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TRIDENT!

"Secondly, the idea that we should spend to defend against notional enemies, as well as real and potential ones, is strategic suicide."

I repeat: You're an idiot. How did you find a way of contradicting yourself in one sentence. Notional and potential? Pathetic

"No nation, not even a superpower, can afford to do that without facing economic collapse."

And yet that is what every country that is not at war does.

[Thomas]

"If we exploded every nuke we have, there is every chance it would completely destroy civilisation."

History would suggest otherwise. Many more nukes have been detonated in tests and most of them had a higher yield and yet we are still here.

[Henry Mayhew - not a professional psychiatrist]

Thomas that is completely uncalled for.

Please explain how you can read a thread on which UKIP Campaigner has posted a thought and call somebody ELSE an idiot.

Don't you worry about embarrassing yourself in public?

[National Interest]

Let's get rid of Trident and focus all our attention as a country on childhood obesity. Children are the future of our country.

[Thomas]

"Please explain how you can read a thread on which UKIP Campaigner has posted a thought and call somebody ELSE an idiot.

Don't you worry about embarrassing yourself in public?"

OK I'm not sure who UKIP campaigner is, but I'm sure he is also an idiot. ;)

[Freddy]

@Francis

You have got to be joking. UKIP are a tinpot, single issue party. The little spat we've had on this thread has reinforced my views.

Anyway, I thought the subject was Trident, which I support, rather than UKIp, which I don't support because I am, have always been, and always will be a CONSERVATIVE.

[Francis]

Thomas,

You obviously don't understand that we are talking about whether to keep the deterrent that we have or to upgrade it.

Now is not the time to upgrade our deterrent, as it remains fit for purpose for the forseeable future.

You also don't seem to realise that the word potential and the word notional have different meanings.

A potential enemy is Iran, for example. A notional enemy is the unquantifiable bogeyman who you think we should be spending billions to arm ourselves against.

To do so would be the classic strategic mistake which has broken economies and empires throughout the ages.

Finally, if you want to discuss this further, keep a civil tongue in your head. Being out of punching distance is no reason to be abusive.

[Francis]

@ Freddy

UKIP are a small, single issue party, but I don't hold that against them. They're honest about what the believe in, and I can respect their position even if I don't quite share it.

As for Trident, I believe in it too. That's the point; it will do as a deterent until we can afford a upgrade.

[Agincourt]

We always need the certain ability to retaliate against an actual or threatening agressor. This means having a weapon that can't be found, & then destroyed, by an enemy before we can retaliate. And that weapon is Trident. But do we need 4 subs with 16 missiles (plus multiple warheads) in each?

Brown has suggested that 12 missile launchers on each of our current & future 4 boats (with one alweays on patrol) will be enough. I would instead suggest that 10 launchers would be enough per sub if we have 5 boats, with 2 always on patrol.

Why 5 boats? In case one is sunk or seriously damaged. Currently 2 out of our 4 boats are in dock - 1 for a shortish repair after colliding unbelievably with a French missile sub! The other one needs a major 3.5 year refit. Therefore, with only 2 active missile subs at present available, there will be brief periods when we have no missile subs at sea at all. And that's why we need 5 - though 10 (or a maximum of 12) missile launchers on each should, I believe be enough.

[Glyn Gaskarth]

Cancelling public sector pension schemes to new members helps ease the long term affordability problems in pensions. However, David Davis seems to have forgotten one major thing which is that we have a major deficit now. New members pay into the system and meet the costs to people who are retired and retiring. In short closing schemes to new members will lead to an immediate major crisis in funding existing public sector pensions. A better idea would be to increase the contribution rate for existing members.

[Glyn Gaskarth]

Also means testing child benefit is a stupid idea. How much would it save? My guess is very little. What is the economic cost of doing it? My guess is it would be very high. Also given it would be monumentally unpopular we should expend this political capital getting rid of more expensive structures like the Quangos etc.

Furthermore getting rid of the winter fuel allowance and free tv licenses is very bad politics. Old middle class people love them and old middle class people are more likely to vote and the measures themselves are not that costly. In short he has come up with a few politically very expensive ways of saving very little money.

[Thatcherite88]

Mostly good ideas, and Trident upgrade should be scaled back, but not stopped altogether. the nucleur threats of this world are still all too real: Iran and North Korea are two particuarly worrying cases.

[Thomas]

"You obviously don't understand that we are talking about whether to keep the deterrent that we have or to upgrade it.

Now is not the time to upgrade our deterrent, as it remains fit for purpose for the forseeable future."

Let me put it into words that you can understand.

We either have trident or we don't. The new submarines have to be built IMMEDIATLY to replace the outgoing subs. If these subs are not replaced then we dont have any. Their life cannot be extended and they must leave service when they reach 25. If they don't, then they have a high likelyhood of making their way to the bottom of the north atlantic, spreding several thermonuclear warheads across the seabed.

Understand?

"A potential enemy is Iran, for example."

Russia and China pose a much greater threat. they regularly threaten us. They are capable of attacking us. They are a thousand times a belligerent.

I do not view Iran as a threat.

[thaggie]

if we don't pay for a nuclear deterrant ourselves, we'll still be under the US' umbrella. this strikes me as immoral, expecting them to pay for it when we can't be bothered to ourselves.

so we need to renew trident.

[The Bishop Swine]

thaggie

Trident is only a small part of our deterrent. We have a number of other delivery systems. In addition our current fleet can be refurbished. As for our independent deterrent, its been a mute point for a number of years. We are so tied into NATO that in effect we can do nothing without the permission of the President in any case. Don't fret to much we can still reduce a vast number of cities to smoking radioactive rubble.

[Thomas]

"Trident is only a small part of our deterrent."

Wrong. It is the sole part and has been since the early noughties.

"We have a number of other delivery systems."

Wrong, We have no other way of delivering a nuclear warhead to its target.

"In addition our current fleet can be refurbished."

WRONG!

They HAVE to be replaced! They were built to last 20 years, with a 5 year extension if needed. Mrs Thatcher had always intended for the submarines to be replaced now. It was clearly outlined when trident was ordered. The 5 year life extension is already factored into the governments plans.

In other words, because we have left it, we now have to pay for the 5 year life extension so that the current submarines will last until the new ones are built.

[Joe James B]

David Davis, and it would appear David Cameron, are quite right on Trident.

We must find a nuclear program which is lower cost, and genuinely British.

I agree with most of David Davis's other proposals for savings aswell.

[Thomas]

"David Davis, and it would appear David Cameron, are quite right on Trident."

How can they be right? They haven't set out a position!

David Davis questioned whether we should have trident, he didn't say that we shouldn't and David Cameron said that Trident would be replaced, although that wasn't reported on conhome. They merely pointed out that he said he would look at all options.

[Joe James B]

I don't have time to be on here all day Thomas, and haven't read all of it.

The point is if they are considering scrapping Trident replacement, and going for a cheaper nuclear option, then I would strongly support that, as it is measured and sensible.

[Thomas]

"The point is if they are considering scrapping Trident replacement, and going for a cheaper nuclear option, then I would strongly support that, as it is measured and sensible."

They are not, and they are not considering it because it is not sensible it would involve pissing money away.

This is a fantastic example of conservative home's selective reporting. It also shows that ability that conservative home now has to distort party policy in the MSM. The guardian is the only paper reporting the non-story of David Cameron pledging to replace trident but saying that all options would be considered.

In case anyone was not clear on this matter, David Cameron's policy is to take the cheapest most sensible option. Now admittedly Trident is an expensive system, but it has already been bought. You can't throw away the missiles after they have been paid for and 31 years before they are due to be retired.

If this were a debate on the replacement of trident due in 2040, then it may be sensible to go for a cheaper system. But you cannot replace an expensive system with a cheap system after the bulk of the expensive system is already paid for.

I repeat, the vanguard class submarines that carry the trident missiles are being replaced. It is both David Cameron's and Gordon Brown's policy to do so.

If you bought an Aston Martin DBS V12, and six months after driving it the tires wore out, would you replace the tires or rerplace the car with a skoda?

The submarines will be replaced, it is by far the cheapest option.