One of the more intriguing exchanges at today’s Prime Minister’s Questions was between Julian Lewis and David Cameron on Trident. The chairman of the Defence Select Committee asked the following:
‘The debate and vote on the Trident successor submarine should have been held in the last Parliament, but was blocked by the Liberal Democrats. Given the fun that the Prime Minister had a few moments ago at the Labour party’s expense over Trident’s successor, it must be tempting for him to put off the vote until Labour’s conference in October. However, may I urge him to do the statesmanlike thing and hold that vote as soon as possible because everyone is ready for it and everyone is expecting it?’
Cameron replied:
‘We should have the vote when we need to have the vote and that is exactly what we will do. No one should be in any doubt that the Government are going to press ahead with all the decisions that are necessary to replace in full our Trident submarines. I think the Labour party should listen to Lord Hutton who was Defence Secretary for many years. He says: “If Labour wants to retain any credibility on defence whatsoever, it had better recognise the abject futility of what its leadership is currently proposing.” I hope that when that vote comes, we will have support from right across the House of Commons.’
Lewis’s suggestion that it is most statesmanlike to hold the vote soon will amuse those who are pressing for it to be held soon purely for political reasons, in that it will cause trouble for Scottish Labour in the run-up to the Holyrood elections. But he chairs a defence committee that includes Madeleine Moon (whose ‘Oh dear oh dear omg oh dear oh dear need to go rest in a darkened room’ tweet also came up at PMQs), Phil Wilson, John Spellar and Ruth Smeeth, all of whom could be described using the rather nebulous term ‘moderate’, and the ‘moderates’ are quite keen that the party does not have a chance to change its policy on the nuclear deterrent before the Commons vote on the matter. So perhaps Lewis was being helpful to his committee comrades.
But Cameron’s answer is being interpreted as a hint that he might not be pressing ahead with that vote as soon as possible. Saying ‘we should have the vote when we need to have the vote’ hardly suggests that the Prime Minister wants to create a sense of urgency. So has he decided that in the long-run the political ‘fun’ to be had at Scottish Labour’s expense with a March vote might pale into insignificance compared to the impact of an autumn vote?
Comments