Morning Call: pick of the papers

The ten must-read comment pieces from this morning's papers.

1. So you think you know why Blair went to war? (Independent)

Being seen as Bush’s poodle was much safer than being accused of anti-Americanism, writes Steve Richards.

2. Ed Miliband needs to strike home on the mansion tax (Daily Mirror)

The red dividing lines of the 2015 general election are being drawn and the Tories are positioning themselves as defenders of privilege, says Kevin Maguire.

3. Disarmed Europe will face the world alone (Financial Times)

One day Europeans may find that the US military is not there to deal with threats lapping at their frontiers, writes Gideon Rachman.

4. How to turn a housing crisis into a homeless catastrophe (Guardian)

From Westminster to Hull, the bedroom tax is proving to be the ultra-sharp end of three decades of failure to build, says Polly Toynbee.

5. Never mind the rich and poor, what about the middle classes? (Daily Telegraph)

In America, the middle classes are the most courted group in politics, writes Benedict Brogan. But here they have been erased from the debate.

6. Legalising drugs would be the perfect Tory policy (Guardian)

It would save money, aid global security and be tough on crime, writes Ian Birrell. What could appeal to Conservatives more?

7. Supply matters – but so does demand (Financial Times)

The UK needs more innovation, infrastructure and skills, write Robert Skidelsky and Marcus Miller.

8. Manic activity makes for bad government (Daily Telegraph)

David Cameron and the Conservatives should embrace 'masterly inactivity’ – it often yields better results, says George Bridges.

9. A Slippery Slope (Times)

A political bidding war over the mansion tax will inevitably end in higher property charges for the middle classes, says a Times editorial.

10. David Cameron should beware this war on ‘soft’ judges (Independent)

The Prime Minister must be watching Theresa May's manoeuvres with mixed feelings, says an Independent editorial.

Getty
Show Hide image

Trident is dangerous – and not for the reasons you think

Fixating on Trident is like replacing the guest bathroom while your own toilet flush doesn't work. 

Backing Trident is supposed to make a politician look hard, realistic and committed to Britain’s long history of military defence.That’s why the Tories delighted in holding a debate on renewing the nuclear weapons system in June 2016.

But it was the Tory Prime Minister who floundered this weekend, after it emerged that three weeks before that debate, an unarmed Trident missile misfired - and veered off towards the United States instead of Africa. Downing Street confirmed May knew about the error before the parliamentary debate. 

Trident critics have mobilised. Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, called the revelation “serious”. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, a longstanding opponent of nuclear weapons, said the error was “pretty catastrophic”. 

The idea of a rogue nuclear missile heading for the White House may have fuelled the disarmament movement. But even if you enjoy the game of nuclear poker, fixating on Trident is dangerous. Because while MPs rehearse the same old Cold War arguments, the rest of the world has moved on. 

Every hour debating Trident is an hour not spent debating cyber warfare. As Peter Pomerantsev prophetically wrote in April 2015, Russian military theory has in recent years assumed that it would not be possible to match the West militarily, but wars can be won in the “psychosphere”, through misinformation.

Since the Russian cyber attacks during the US election, few can doubt this strategy is paying off - and that our defence systems have a long way to catch up. As shadow Defence secretary, Emily Thornberry described this as “the crucial test” of the 21st century. The government has pledged £1.9bn in cyber security defences over the next five years, but will that be enough? Nerds in a back room are not as thrilling as nuclear submarines, but how they are deployed matters too.

Secondly, there is the cost. Even if you back the idea of a nuclear deterrent, renewing Trident is a bit like replacing the guest bathroom when the regular loo is hardly flushing. A 2015 Centreforum paper described it as “gold-plated” - if your idea of gold-plated is the ability to blow up “a minimum of eight cities”. There is a gory but necessary debate to be had about alternatives which could free up more money to be spent on conventional forces. 

Finally, a nuclear deterrent is only credible if you intend to use it. For this reason, the British government needs to focus on protecting the infrastructure of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, now under threat from a US President who declared it “obsolete”. Eastern Europe has been nervous about the bear on its borders for some time - the number of Poles joining the country’s 120 paramilitary organisations has tripled in two years.  

Simply attacking Trident on safety grounds will only get you so far - after all, the argument behind renewing Trident is that the status quo will not do. Furthermore, for all the furore over a misfired Trident missile, it’s hard to imagine that should the hour come, the biggest worry for the crew of a nuclear submarine will be the small chance of a missile going in the wrong direction. That would be missing the rather higher chance of global nuclear apocalypse.

Anti-Trident MPs will make the most of May's current embarrassment. But if they can build bridges with the more hawkish members of the opposition, and criticise the government's defence policy on its own terms, they will find plenty more ammunition. 

Julia Rampen is the editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog. She was previously deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.