Who will have the last laugh?

"The replacement of Trident is going ahead". It's the type of announcement that is guaranteed to raise the morale of Tory backbenchers and constituency foot-soldiers. After all, the ability to wipe out millions of people is the reason that most people get involved in politics, isn't it? David Cameron's announcement was met with loud cheers by his MPs and produced a muted response from the Labour members, recognition that they also support a replacement for Trident. So general agreement during PMQs? Not quite. Did I hear the sound of Coalition partners, the Lib Dems, voicing dissent?

The statement came as a result of Tory MP, Julian Lewis, asking the Prime Minister to assure his party that scrapping Trident would not be the price for continued Lib Dem support if there was a hung parliament following the next election. However, the decision to go ahead with the replacement has been deferred until 2016. I was not entirely sure if Dr Lewis (a Phd in Strategic Studies), was more concerned about the Trident replacement or the Lib Dems getting 'one over' their coalition partners: "...the Liberal Democrats from their President downwards had been boasting that this was their achievement." It would be so annoying wouldn't it?

Particularly annoying because during the Coalition talks, David Cameron personally guaranteed a meeting of all Conservative MPs that the Liberal Democrats would support the replacement of Trident.  Cameron explained the delay had absolutely nothing to do with the Lib Dems, but was because the Government had referred the proposals for a "value for money study because we desperately need to save some money in the Ministry of Defence so we can invest in some frontline capabilities." 


In giving out some reassurance the PM may have let slip the true situation. It is rare that you hear a politician, never mind the Prime Minister, admitting to 'desperation' but it would tie in with the evidence. Back in February last year it was widely reported that army chiefs were questioning the usefulness of Trident. The Guardian reported that 'senior army sources felt that British military capabilities lacked relevance and were still equipped for the Cold War.' The Commons' Defence Select Committee have warned the Government that the armed forces have been deployed above their planned resourced levels for eight consecutive years.

The National Security Strategy, published in October 2010, highlighted the need of our armed forces to adapt. 'A Strong Britain in an Age of Uncertainty' summed up the challenges:

'Britain today is both more secure and more vulnerable than in most of her long history. More secure in the sense that we currently do not face, as so often in our past, a conventional threat of attack on our territory by a hostile power. But more vulnerable, because we are one of the most open societies, in a world that is more networked than ever before.'  


The change in emphasis was highlighted once again in Cameron's speech to the Munich Security Conference last week. While the Prime Minister refuted the accusations that the UK, 'the fourth biggest military power in the world', were retreating from an activist role, almost the entire speech focused on defence needs associated with terrorism. He argued that the conventional forces in Afghanistan had a vital role in this battle and he highlighted the need to, "beef up Britain's cyber security programme and our readiness to act on counter-proliferation." Dirty bombs and chemical weapons in the hands of terrorists, possibly in the hands of British citizens. In Cameron's worldview the frontline is on our city streets. Nuclear weapons did not merit a mention.

I've been told that having costed the reductions announced in the Strategic Defence Review last year, the MoD have come up a long way short and there will have to be a further round of cuts. With resources stretched to breaking point and the MoD already taking a lighter hit than other departments, there are some difficult decisions to be made. 'Boots on the ground' are the operational priority according to the SDR. Back in February, General Richard Dannett, former head of the army and ex-Tory advisor, said that renewing Trident, 'on balance, on a very narrow points decision - is probably right for now.' Hardly a ringing endorsement and would that still be the conclusion?  

Since launching a strike against Commercial Road in East London is highly unlikely, it would appear that the 'delay' not only suits the Lib Dems but is quite convenient for Cameron. After all, having a button to press is one thing, but British politicians of all shades seem to love that 'activist role.' Nothing like strolling around with the troops and wearing a flak jacket. So what will Cameron do?

Despite Cameron's initial statement saying the Trident replacement will go ahead, no vote will be taken on Trident during this parliament. Nor did he confirm it would be a submarine based replacement. More interesting was his later comment, "In terms of the future, I am in favour of a full replacement for Trident, that is Conservative policy and will remain Conservative policy as long as I'm the leader of this party." Does that sound like prevarication to you? Not really answering Lewis' question. No guarantees about Liberal support and, is it me, or does the phrase 'I am in favour' sounds a long way from the categorical assurance that was demanded from his Party?

I wonder if Lib Dems might just have the last laugh?