This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/09/labour-accuse-tories-grubby-deal-lib-dems-trident-renewal

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Labour accuse Tories of 'grubby deal' with Lib Dems over Trident renewal Labour accuse Tories of 'grubby deal' with Lib Dems over Trident renewal
(about 2 hours later)
David Cameron pushed up the cost of building a replacement for the Trident nuclear deterrent by more than £1.4bn as a result of a “grubby backstage deal” struck in 2010 with the Liberal Democrats that was opposed at the time by the then defence secretary Liam Fox, Labour has claimed.David Cameron pushed up the cost of building a replacement for the Trident nuclear deterrent by more than £1.4bn as a result of a “grubby backstage deal” struck in 2010 with the Liberal Democrats that was opposed at the time by the then defence secretary Liam Fox, Labour has claimed.
The accusation of taking risks with national security was thrown back at Cameron on Thursday after the defence secretary, Michael Fallon, denounced the prospect of a grubby backstairs deal between Labour and the SNP to stop Trident in the next parliament. The accusation of taking risks with national security was thrown back at Cameron on Thursday after the defence secretary, Michael Fallon, denounced the prospect of a grubby backstairs deal between Labour and the Scottish National party to stop Trident in the next parliament.
Prominent Labour supporters of Trident also claimed that they and former senior Nato figures had urged Cameron not to politicise the Trident issue in the election campaign. Prominent Labour supporters of Trident claimed that they and former senior Nato figures had urged Cameron not to politicise the Trident issue in the election campaign.
Passionate supporters of Trident replacement, such as John Woodcock, the Labour MP for Barrow, Cumbria, where new submarines carrying nuclear weapons are being designed by BAE Systems, said the decision by the Conservatives to raise the issue in the election risked making it more uncertain whether replacements for the Vanguard submarines, which currently carry the Trident missiles, would go ahead. Passionate supporters of Trident replacement, such as John Woodcock, the Labour MP for Barrow, Cumbria, where new submarines carrying nuclear weapons are being designed by BAE Systems, said the decision by the Conservatives to raise the issue in the election risked making it more uncertain whether replacements for the Vanguard submarines, which carry the Trident missiles, would go ahead.
“There is a long supply chain, mainly of British small businesses, that is dependent on the certainty of Trident renewal. More than 90% of those small businesses are British,” he said.“There is a long supply chain, mainly of British small businesses, that is dependent on the certainty of Trident renewal. More than 90% of those small businesses are British,” he said.
The charge of hypocrisy about backroom deals was raised by the shadow defence spokesman, Kevan Jones, who claimed Fox had bitterly opposed the delay to Trident in the strategic defence review in 2010. He told MPs in November the cost of the delay was £1.4bn, but the figure has probably risen since then.The charge of hypocrisy about backroom deals was raised by the shadow defence spokesman, Kevan Jones, who claimed Fox had bitterly opposed the delay to Trident in the strategic defence review in 2010. He told MPs in November the cost of the delay was £1.4bn, but the figure has probably risen since then.
Cameron announced in October 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review that the current generation of four Vanguard submarines, which carry the Trident nuclear deterrent, would continue in service until 2028. This meant the new deterrent would come into force four years later than the planned date of 2024. Cameron announced in October 2010 strategic defence and security review that the current generation of four Vanguard submarines, which carry the Trident nuclear deterrent, would continue in service until 2028. This meant the new deterrent would come into force four years later than the planned date of 2024.
The decision allowed the prime minister to stabilise relations in the coalition by delaying the irreversible “main gate” decision on Trident, when binding contracts are signed, until the year after the current general election.The decision allowed the prime minister to stabilise relations in the coalition by delaying the irreversible “main gate” decision on Trident, when binding contracts are signed, until the year after the current general election.
Liberal Democrat ministers, who are opposed to a like-for-like replacement for Trident, openly admitted the deal allowed them to fight the current election calling for a downscaling of Trident while remaining in office.Liberal Democrat ministers, who are opposed to a like-for-like replacement for Trident, openly admitted the deal allowed them to fight the current election calling for a downscaling of Trident while remaining in office.
In a move designed to expose the cost of Cameron’s deal, Fox told MPs: “There will be additional costs to maintaining the Vanguard class through to 2028. We expect that to be around £1.2bn to £1.4bn extra to maintain those submarines for longer.”In a move designed to expose the cost of Cameron’s deal, Fox told MPs: “There will be additional costs to maintaining the Vanguard class through to 2028. We expect that to be around £1.2bn to £1.4bn extra to maintain those submarines for longer.”
It prompted Julian Lewis, the Conservative MP and former shadow defence minister, to complain: “The appalling decision to postpone signing the ‘main gate’ contracts leads us to a situation where if, heaven forbid, there is another hung parliament the Liberal Democrats, who are really unilateralist, would be able to blackmail both parties to cancel the deterrent entirely.”It prompted Julian Lewis, the Conservative MP and former shadow defence minister, to complain: “The appalling decision to postpone signing the ‘main gate’ contracts leads us to a situation where if, heaven forbid, there is another hung parliament the Liberal Democrats, who are really unilateralist, would be able to blackmail both parties to cancel the deterrent entirely.”
Woodcock said he knew senior Nato and defence figures had personally asked Cameron not to make Trident an issue in the campaign. He said he had also personally asked Fallon but was rebuffed both in private and public, with the defence secretary telling him it was an election.Woodcock said he knew senior Nato and defence figures had personally asked Cameron not to make Trident an issue in the campaign. He said he had also personally asked Fallon but was rebuffed both in private and public, with the defence secretary telling him it was an election.
Conservatives argue that Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish National party leader, has not been clear how far she would push her “red line” of not renewing Trident so it is a legitimate issue to raise. Conservatives argue that Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP leader, has not been clear how far she would push her “red line” of not renewing Trident so it is a legitimate issue to raise.
SNP leaders, such as Sturgeon and Angus Robertson, the party’s leader in Westminster, have insisted they will not agree to a confidence and supply arrangement with Labour if Trident is in the party’s programme. Speaking on BBC Radio 2, Robertson said on Thursday: “There would be no confidence and supply arrangement with the Labour party if there was a renewal of Trident commitment by the Labour party.”SNP leaders, such as Sturgeon and Angus Robertson, the party’s leader in Westminster, have insisted they will not agree to a confidence and supply arrangement with Labour if Trident is in the party’s programme. Speaking on BBC Radio 2, Robertson said on Thursday: “There would be no confidence and supply arrangement with the Labour party if there was a renewal of Trident commitment by the Labour party.”
Sturgeon said: “We will not vote for anything that facilitates the renewal of Trident. I cannot be clearer than that.”Sturgeon said: “We will not vote for anything that facilitates the renewal of Trident. I cannot be clearer than that.”
The SNP has been less clear about whether it would vote for a budget that set aside money for Trident, but it is quite possible that this section of the budget could be agreed in an alliance between Conservatives and Labour.The SNP has been less clear about whether it would vote for a budget that set aside money for Trident, but it is quite possible that this section of the budget could be agreed in an alliance between Conservatives and Labour.
Fallon argued “It is now clear that unless Conservatives win a majority on May 7, Ed Miliband will be on the SNP’s hook and forced to do whatever Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond demand.” Fallon argued: “It is now clear that unless Conservatives win a majority on 7 May, Ed Miliband will be on the SNP’s hook and forced to do whatever Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond demand.”
Woodcock insisted: “There is no possibility that parliament will vote to defeat Trident since there will be a combination of Conservative and Labour MPs prepared to vote it through. It is nailed on.”Woodcock insisted: “There is no possibility that parliament will vote to defeat Trident since there will be a combination of Conservative and Labour MPs prepared to vote it through. It is nailed on.”
He added that it was inconceivable that the SNP would vote against a Labour’s Queen’s speech since that would mean the defeat of a Labour government and the introduction of a Conservative government, something Sturgeon has vowed to prevent.He added that it was inconceivable that the SNP would vote against a Labour’s Queen’s speech since that would mean the defeat of a Labour government and the introduction of a Conservative government, something Sturgeon has vowed to prevent.
Lord West, a former first sea lord and a Labour peer, said: “I thought there was a cross-party consensus on this so suddenly to bring this into a dirty political fight is unfortunate. I am surprised and shocked. I am quite clear, because I have spoken to them, that both Ed Miliband and Ed Balls are absolutely adamant that they will replace Trident.Lord West, a former first sea lord and a Labour peer, said: “I thought there was a cross-party consensus on this so suddenly to bring this into a dirty political fight is unfortunate. I am surprised and shocked. I am quite clear, because I have spoken to them, that both Ed Miliband and Ed Balls are absolutely adamant that they will replace Trident.
“I think Ed should now just ignore it but it was an outrageous thing to say,” said West.“I think Ed should now just ignore it but it was an outrageous thing to say,” said West.
He added that Cameron “could have brought forward the ‘main gate decision’ in the last parliament and a number of his own MPs such as Julian Lewis said let us to do that. He added that Cameron “could have brought forward the ‘main gate decision’ in the last parliament and a number of his own MPs such as Julian Lewis said let us to do that. There was a dirty deal with the Liberal Democrats to stop that. There is a saying ‘people in glasshouses should not throw stones’”.
“There was a dirty deal with the Liberal Democrats to stop that. There is a saying ‘people in glasshouses should not throw stones’.”