Cameron declares the Trident review redundant

The PM's decision to reject calls for a "viable cheaper option" represents an opportunity for Labour to woo the Lib Dems.

The coalition is supposedly conducting a review into whether a £20bn like-for-like replacement for Trident is required but you wouldn't know it reading David Cameron in today's Telegraph. Following North Korea's sabre rattling, the PM denounces those who suggest that we "need to find a viable cheaper option", observing that our current nuclear weapons capability costs "less than 1.5 per cent of our annual benefits bill." 

There is a token reference to the review, currently being led by Danny Alexander ("all governments should, of course, carefully examine all options"), but Cameron immediately adds that he has seen "no evidence that there are cheaper ways of providing a credible alternative to our plans for a successor". All of which suggests that the official study into alternatives to Trident is little more than a Lib Dem face saving exercise. 

But Cameron's obstinacy should come as little surprise. It was only a few months ago that Philip Hammond announced £350m of further funding for a new generation of nuclear-armed submarines, appearing to rule out any option but the full renewal of a sea-based system. Back then, Clegg accused the Defence Secetary of "jumping the gun", noting that "The coalition agreement is crystal clear: it stands, it will not be changed, it will not be undermined, it will not be contradicted. The decision on the Trident replacement will not be taken until 2016, however much other people may not like it that way." Now Cameron has similarly pre-empted the conclusion of the review, how will his deputy respond? 

For Labour, the Tories' absolutism represents a political opportunity. By signalling that it is genuinely willing to consider cheaper alternatives to Trident, the party can lay down an important  bargaining chip for any coalition negotiations in 2015. So it is notable that while Labour has responded by declaring that it is "absolutely right and necessary that the UK retains an independent nuclear deterrent" (Ed Miliband has no desire to allow himself to be painted as a soft-minded unilateralist) it has also insisted that "the precise nature of the deterrent must be judged on meeting military capability requirements and cost". That proviso leaves Labour with significant room for maneouvre, a fact that won't have escaped the Lib Dems' attention this morning. 

HMS Vanguard sits in dock at Faslane Submarine base on the river Clyde in Helensburgh, Scotland. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.