Labour MPs for Trident

A list of the Labour MPs who voted 'yes' for Trident

Following are names of the 235 Labour MPs voted on 14 March in favour of an amendemnt to renew the Trident nuclear missile system.

Nick Ainger
Bob Ainsworth
Douglas Alexander
Graham Allen
David Anderson
Janet Anderson
Hilary Armstrong
Ian Austin
Adrian Bailey
Vera Baird
Edward Balls
Celia Barlow
Kevin Barron
John Battle
Margaret Beckett
Hilary Benn
Clive Betts
Liz Blackman
Roberta Blackman-Woods
Tony Blair
Hazel Blears
Bob Blizzard
David Blunkett
David Borrow
Ben Bradshaw
Kevin Brennan
Gordon Brown
Nick Brown
Russell Brown
Des Browne
Chris Bryant
Andy Burnham
Stephen Byers
Liam Byrne
Richard Caborn
David Cairns
Alan Campbell
Ian Cawsey
Ben Chapman
Paul Clark
Tom Clarke
David Clelland
Vernon Coaker
Ann Coffey
Rosie Cooper
Yvette Cooper
David Crausby
Mary Creagh
Jim Cunningham
Tony Cunningham
Claire Curtis-Thomas
Alistair Darling
Wayne David
John Denham
Parmjit Dhanda
Brian H Donohoe
Jim Dowd
Angela Eagle
Maria Eagle
Louise Ellman
Natascha Engel
Paul Farrelly
Frank Field
Jim Fitzpatrick
Robert Flello
Caroline Flint
Barbara Follett
Michael Foster
Hywel Francis
Mike Gapes
Barry Gardiner
Bruce George
Linda Gilroy
Paul Goggins
Helen Goodman
Andrew Gwynne
Peter Hain
Mike Hall
David Hanson
Harriet Harman
Tom Harris
John Healey
Doug Henderson
Mark Hendrick
Stephen Hepburn
John Heppell
Stephen Hesford
Patricia Hewitt
Keith Hill
Meg Hillier
Margaret Hodge
Sharon Hodgson
Geoff Hoon
Phil Hope
George Howarth
Kim Howells
Lindsay Hoyle
Beverley Hughes
Joan Humble
John Hutton
Brian Iddon
Eric Illsley
Adam Ingram
Huw Irranca-Davies
Brian Jenkins
Alan Johnson
Diana Johnson
Helen Jones
Kevan Jones
Martyn Jones
Tessa Jowell
Eric Joyce
Gerald Kaufman
Sally Keeble
Barbara Keeley
Alan Keen
Ann Keen
Ruth Kelly
Fraser Kemp
Jane Kennedy
Piara S Khabra
Sadiq Khan
David Kidney
Jim Knight
Ashok Kumar
Stephen Ladyman
David Lammy
Bob Laxton
Tom Levitt
Ivan Lewis
Martin Linton
Andrew Love
Ian Lucas
John MacDougall
Khalid Mahmood
Shahid Malik
John Mann
Rob Marris
Eric Martlew
Thomas McAvoy
Stephen McCabe
Kerry McCarthy
Sarah McCarthy-Fry
Ian McCartney
Siobhain McDonagh
Patrick McFadden
John McFall
Anne McGuire
Shona McIsaac
Rosemary McKenna
Tony McNulty
Gillian Merron
Alun Michael
Alan Milburn
David Miliband
Edward Miliband
Andrew Miller
Anne Moffat
Laura Moffatt
Chris Mole
Madeleine Moon
Elliot Morley
Kali Mountford
Meg Munn
Jim Murphy
Paul Murphy
Dan Norris
Mike O'Brien
Edward O'Hara
Bill Olner
Albert Owen
Nick Palmer
Ian Pearson
James Plaskitt
Greg Pope
Bridget Prentice
John Prescott
Dawn Primarolo
James Purnell
Bill Rammell
Nick Raynsford
Jamie Reed
John Reid
John Robertson
Geoffrey Robinson
Terry Rooney
Frank Roy
Christine Russell
Joan Ryan
Martin Salter
Alison Seabeck
Jonathan R Shaw
Barry Sheerman
Jim Sheridan
Siôn Simon
Andrew Slaughter
Angela Smith
Angela Smith
Jacqui Smith
John Smith
Anne Snelgrove
Helen Southworth
John Spellar
Phyllis Starkey
Howard Stoate
Jack Straw
Gisela Stuart
Gerry Sutcliffe
Mark Tami
Dari Taylor
Gareth Thomas
Stephen Timms
Paddy Tipping
Don Touhig
Neil Turner
Derek Twigg
Kitty Ussher
Keith Vaz
Lynda Waltho
Claire Ward
Tom Watson
Dave Watts
Malcolm Wicks
Alan Williams
Michael Wills
Rosie Winterton
Shaun Woodward
Phil Woolas
David Wright
Iain Wright
Tony Wright
Derek Wyatt

Hana Bieliauskas is a junior at Ohio University majoring in magazine journalism. She is currently studying in London.
Jeremy Corbyn. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Lexit: the EU is a neoliberal project, so let's do something different when we leave it

Brexit affords the British left a historic opportunity for a decisive break with EU market liberalism.

The Brexit vote to leave the European Union has many parents, but "Lexit" – the argument for exiting the EU from the left – remains an orphan. A third of Labour voters backed Leave, but they did so without any significant leadership from the Labour Party. Left-of-centre votes proved decisive in determining the outcome of a referendum that was otherwise framed, shaped, and presented almost exclusively by the right. A proper left discussion of the issues has been, if not entirely absent, then decidedly marginal – part of a more general malaise when it comes to developing left alternatives that has begun to be corrected only recently, under Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell.

Ceding Brexit to the right was very nearly the most serious strategic mistake by the British left since the ‘70s. Under successive leaders Labour became so incorporated into the ideology of Europeanism as to preclude any clear-eyed critical analysis of the actually existing EU as a regulatory and trade regime pursuing deep economic integration. The same political journey that carried Labour into its technocratic embrace of the EU also resulted in the abandonment of any form of distinctive economics separate from the orthodoxies of market liberalism.

It’s been astounding to witness so many left-wingers, in meltdown over Brexit, resort to parroting liberal economics. Thus we hear that factor mobility isn’t about labour arbitrage, that public services aren’t under pressure, that we must prioritise foreign direct investment and trade. It’s little wonder Labour became so detached from its base. Such claims do not match the lived experience of ordinary people in regions of the country devastated by deindustrialisation and disinvestment.

Nor should concerns about wage stagnation and bargaining power be met with finger-wagging accusations of racism, as if the manner in which capitalism pits workers against each other hasn’t long been understood. Instead, we should be offering real solutions – including a willingness to rethink capital mobility and trade. This places us in direct conflict with the constitutionalised neoliberalism of the EU.

Only the political savvy of the leadership has enabled Labour to recover from its disastrous positioning post-referendum. Incredibly, what seemed an unbeatable electoral bloc around Theresa May has been deftly prized apart in the course of an extraordinary General Election campaign. To consolidate the political project they have initiated, Corbyn and McDonnell must now follow through with a truly radical economic programme. The place to look for inspiration is precisely the range of instruments and policy options discouraged or outright forbidden by the EU.

A neoliberal project

The fact that right-wing arguments for Leave predominated during the referendum says far more about today’s left than it does about the European Union. There has been a great deal of myth-making concerning the latter –much of it funded, directly or indirectly, by the EU itself.

From its inception, the EU has been a top-down project driven by political and administrative elites, "a protected sphere", in the judgment of the late Peter Mair, "in which policy-making can evade the constraints imposed by representative democracy". To complain about the EU’s "democratic deficit" is to have misunderstood its purpose. The main thrust of European economic policy has been to extend and deepen the market through liberalisation, privatisation, and flexiblisation, subordinating employment and social protection to goals of low inflation, debt reduction, and increased competitiveness.

Prospects for Keynesian reflationary policies, or even for pan-European economic planning – never great – soon gave way to more Hayekian conceptions. Hayek’s original insight, in The Economic Conditions of Interstate Federalism, was that free movement of capital, goods, and labour – a "single market" – among a federation of nations would severely and necessarily restrict the economic policy space available to individual members. Pro-European socialists, whose aim had been to acquire new supranational options for the regulation of capital, found themselves surrendering the tools they already possessed at home. The national road to socialism, or even to social democracy, was closed.

The direction of travel has been singular and unrelenting. To take one example, workers’ rights – a supposed EU strength – are steadily being eroded, as can be seen in landmark judgments by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in the Viking and Laval cases, among others. In both instances, workers attempting to strike in protest at plans to replace workers from one EU country with lower-wage workers from another, were told their right to strike could not infringe upon the "four freedoms" – free movement of capital, labour, goods, and services – established by the treaties.

More broadly, on trade, financial regulation, state aid, government purchasing, public service delivery, and more, any attempt to create a different kind of economy from inside the EU has largely been forestalled by competition policy or single market regulation.

A new political economy

Given that the UK will soon be escaping the EU, what opportunities might this afford? Three policy directions immediately stand out: public ownership, industrial strategy, and procurement. In each case, EU regulation previously stood in the way of promising left strategies. In each case, the political and economic returns from bold departures from neoliberal orthodoxy after Brexit could be substantial.

While not banned outright by EU law, public ownership is severely discouraged and disadvantaged by it. ECJ interpretation of Article 106 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) has steadily eroded public ownership options. "The ECJ", argues law professor Danny Nicol, "appears to have constructed a one-way street in favour of private-sector provision: nationalised services are prima facie suspect and must be analysed for their necessity". Sure enough, the EU has been a significant driver of privatisation, functioning like a ratchet. It’s much easier for a member state to pursue the liberalisation of sectors than to secure their (re)nationalisation. Article 59 (TFEU) specifically allows the European Council and Parliament to liberalise services. Since the ‘80s, there have been single market programmes in energy, transport, postal services, telecommunications, education, and health.

Britain has long been an extreme outlier on privatisation, responsible for 40 per cent of the total assets privatised across the OECD between 1980 and 1996. Today, however, increasing inequality, poverty, environmental degradation and the general sense of an impoverished public sphere are leading to growing calls for renewed public ownership (albeit in new, more democratic forms). Soon to be free of EU constraints, it’s time to explore an expanded and fundamentally reimagined UK public sector.

Next, Britain’s industrial production has been virtually flat since the late 1990s, with a yawning trade deficit in industrial goods. Any serious industrial strategy to address the structural weaknesses of UK manufacturing will rely on "state aid" – the nurturing of a next generation of companies through grants, interest and tax relief, guarantees, government holdings, and the provision of goods and services on a preferential basis.

Article 107 TFEU allows for state aid only if it is compatible with the internal market and does not distort competition, laying out the specific circumstances in which it could be lawful. Whether or not state aid meets these criteria is at the sole discretion of the Commission – and courts in member states are obligated to enforce the commission’s decisions. The Commission has adopted an approach that considers, among other things, the existence of market failure, the effectiveness of other options, and the impact on the market and competition, thereby allowing state aid only in exceptional circumstances.

For many parts of the UK, the challenges of industrial decline remain starkly present – entire communities are thrown on the scrap heap, with all the associated capital and carbon costs and wasted lives. It’s high time the left returned to the possibilities inherent in a proactive industrial strategy. A true community-sustaining industrial strategy would consist of the deliberate direction of capital to sectors, localities, and regions, so as to balance out market trends and prevent communities from falling into decay, while also ensuring the investment in research and development necessary to maintain a highly productive economy. Policy, in this vision, would function to re-deploy infrastructure, production facilities, and workers left unemployed because of a shutdown or increased automation.

In some cases, this might mean assistance to workers or localities to buy up facilities and keep them running under worker or community ownership. In other cases it might involve re-training workers for new skills and re-fitting facilities. A regional approach might help launch new enterprises that would eventually be spun off as worker or local community-owned firms, supporting the development of strong and vibrant network economies, perhaps on the basis of a Green New Deal. All of this will be possible post-Brexit, under a Corbyn government.

Lastly, there is procurement. Under EU law, explicitly linking public procurement to local entities or social needs is difficult. The ECJ has ruled that, even if there is no specific legislation, procurement activity must "comply with the fundamental rules of the Treaty, in particular the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality". This means that all procurement contracts must be open to all bidders across the EU, and public authorities must advertise contracts widely in other EU countries. In 2004, the European Parliament and Council issued two directives establishing the criteria governing such contracts: "lowest price only" and "most economically advantageous tender".

Unleashed from EU constraints, there are major opportunities for targeting large-scale public procurement to rebuild and transform communities, cities, and regions. The vision behind the celebrated Preston Model of community wealth building – inspired by the work of our own organisation, The Democracy Collaborative, in Cleveland, Ohio – leverages public procurement and the stabilising power of place-based anchor institutions (governments, hospitals, universities) to support rooted, participatory, democratic local economies built around multipliers. In this way, public funds can be made to do "double duty"; anchoring jobs and building community wealth, reversing long-term economic decline. This suggests the viability of a very different economic approach and potential for a winning political coalition, building support for a new socialist economics from the ground up.

With the prospect of a Corbyn government now tantalisingly close, it’s imperative that Labour reconciles its policy objectives in the Brexit negotiations with its plans for a radical economic transformation and redistribution of power and wealth. Only by pursuing strategies capable of re-establishing broad control over the national economy can Labour hope to manage the coming period of pain and dislocation following Brexit. Based on new institutions and approaches and the centrality of ownership and control, democracy, and participation, we should be busy assembling the tools and strategies that will allow departure from the EU to open up new political-economic horizons in Britain and bring about the profound transformation the country so desperately wants and needs.

Joe Guinan is executive director of the Next System Project at The Democracy Collaborative. Thomas M. Hanna is research director at The Democracy Collaborative.

This is an extract from a longer essay which appears in the inaugural edition of the IPPR Progressive Review.