Yardley – Your Candidates for GE 2015 & Trident

Yardley Image for GE 2015Information about candidates views and responses on Trident (various sources) is listed below in alphabetical order.

Grant Bishop - for GE (Greens) 2015Grant Bishop (Green Party)  From National CND website

(1) They very much agree that the next government should scrap its nuclear weapons rather than replace them with a new system.

Spending is about prioritising. That we would prioritise nukes over adequate healthcare or education is appalling. Not to mention that the mere idea of [using] nuclear weapons breaches nearly every sense of justice that we fight for.

(2) They very much agree that the SDSR should consider the possibility of non-replacement of Trident and a UK without nuclear weapons.

(3) They very much agree that the next government should support a nuclear weapons convention or ban, similar to those for chemical or biological weapons.

(4) They very much agree that the next government can not afford to replace Trident at an estimated cost of £100 billion.

It’s not just the cost of the bomb that we need to think about. It’s the human cost when we use it. It’s the financial cost if we replace it. It’s the moral cost when we decimate land and life. It’s the message, that we can afford to kill people but not to save them.Fantastic campaign – keep up the good work.

 

Eamonn Flynn  - AG Ward Candidate 2014-croppedEamonn Flynn (TUSC)  From a report on the Yardley Hustings

Trident: Where did candidates stand on the vote on Trident (Nuclear Submarine) replacement in 2016, and did they know how much it was costing us?

[…] it was crazy to borrow money to buy nuclear weapons when we could not afford to train nurses – given that there are many things we cannot afford at present, should we focus on Trident?  Flynn concurred more with this view, saying also that we need to get rid of Trident: it was built for the cold war and it is not going to protect the country against any present threats: invest the money where we need it.

(Mr Flynn  has been approached for his views in regard to the four questions, but so far there has been no response.)

John Hemming for GE (Lib-Dem)  2015John Hemming (Lib-Dem) (Sent to us and shared with National CND)

(1)   The UK’s submarine-based Trident nuclear weapon system is approaching the end of its operational life. Do you think the UK should replace its nuclear weapon system?

The party’s position on this was against a “like for like” replacement of Trident.  We have proposed a lesser scheme.

(2)   The next government will conduct a Strategic Defence and Security Review. Do you think that should consider the possibilities and implications of scrapping and not replacing Trident?

I do think the question as to whether or not Trident should be replaced should be kept under review.  Clearly we need to fund our conventional forces and this does conflict with the cost of Trident as well as the question of other public services and pressures on the public purse.

(3)   The next government will need to attend the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in New York. Do you think it should support a nuclear weapons convention or ban, similar to those for chemical or biological weapons?

I support a global ban on nuclear weapons, but am not per se a supporter of unilateral disarmament. (although I am supportive of the UK making steps towards a reduction in holding nuclear weaponry).

(4)   The next government will have to decide whether to carry out the current coalition government’s projected austerity programme. Do you think spending £100 billion on Trident replacement can be justified?

Our proposal is not to spend £100bn, but to spend less.   We should be able to find a route towards reducing the nuclear threat. (and the cost of the whole thing).

You probably know that I am a strong supporter of multilateral nuclear disarmament which is why I have assisted CND even though I am not a unilaterialist.

Peter JohnsonPeter Johnson (SDP) By email
Social Democrats recognise that the cost of retaining Trident are horrendous and that the money could be spent on more beneficial benefits to the nation’s people. But! Likewise the costs of maintaining a Royal Navy, Building war planes and war ships, tanks, and artillery pieces are also enormous. Wouldn’t it be more practical to oppose the futility of war rather than one aspect of it?

Unfortunately there are rogue political leader’s around the world and to ensure that we are  safe from their political or religious ambitions we have to make sure that such leaders are aware that the British people have it within their power to defend themselves against any potential aggressors armaments by matching like with like.

Jess Phillips (Labour) for GE15Jess Phillips (Labour)  From a report on the Yardley Hustings

Trident: Where did candidates stand on the vote on Trident (Nuclear Submarine) replacement in 2016, and did they know how much it was costing us?

Here Phillips placed herself firmly to the right of her own party .  She and  Photay largely concurred on this one.  They were both whole-heartedly in favour of Trident’s replacement.  […] Phillips guessed that Trident would ‘cost a bomb’ and  that it could pay for 20,000 nurses but also expressed anxieties about enemies who might want to attack us and who, she believed, could only be warded off with the nuclear threat.  We should only disarm ‘in a stable way’.  At present with ‘aggression from abroad’ she ‘does not think that there will be popular support’.  Referring again to her family she said that her mother had been a member of CND and at Greenham Common.  Phillips however made it clear that in this respect she rejected her mother’s views because she believed in a great (though unspecified) threat from enemies at present.

(Ms Phillips has been approached for her views in regard to the four questions, but so far there has been no response.)

Arun Photay for GE 2015-croppedArun Photay (Con)  From a report on the Yardley Hustings

Trident: Where did candidates stand on the vote on Trident (Nuclear Submarine) replacement in 2016, and did they know how much it was costing us?

[…] wholeheartedly in favour of Trident replacement.   Photay said that ‘we need to defend ourselves’.  If we aim to disarm later we should work with NATO on it.

(Mr Photay has been approached for  his views in regard to the four questions, but so far there has been no response.)

Teval Stephens (Respect) for GE - croppedTeval Stephens (Respect) (Sent to us and shared with National CND)

(1)   The UK’s submarine-based Trident nuclear weapon system is approaching the end of its operational life. Do you think the UK should replace its nuclear weapon system?  NO

(2)   The next government will conduct a Strategic Defence and Security Review. Do you think that should consider the possibilities and implications of scrapping and not replacing Trident? Yes

(3)   The next government will need to attend the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in New York. Do you think it should support a nuclear weapons convention or ban, similar to those for chemical or biological weapons? YES

(4)   The next government will have to decide whether to carry out the current coalition government’s projected austerity programme. Do you think spending £100 billion on Trident replacement can be justified? NO

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s