Guardian calls for delay on Trident vote

Today's Guardian leader is calling for a delay to allow proper debate on Trident replacement.

The balance of the argument runs in the rebels' favour. The case for renewing Trident at all is weak and the case for renewing it now is even weaker, more to do with the timing of Labour's change of leaders than with military or industrial requirements for an immediate decision.

The defence white paper describes Trident as an insurance "against an uncertain future" but is of course no such thing. Insurance carries with it a guarantee of protection. The renewal of Trident is simply a bet that the best protection for Britain over the next half-century will be a small, very expensive and US-dependent nuclear system. But the evidence for this is questionable. The low-intensity debate that has followed the paper's publication has not tested the relevance of nuclear deterrence to a changed strategic environment. When they debate this week, even MPs who accept nuclear weapons in principle should ask the government to delay and offer better evidence. Those who oppose them altogether can vote against secure in the knowledge that there is no longer any certain conflict between their moral position and the security of the country.

The editorial starts by quoting my local MP, Emily Thornberry, who seems to be less worried about rebelling than might be expected from someone who is clearly hoping for a government job when Gordon Brown becomes Prime Minister. But the first comment online comes from the infamous MarkGreen0 (a notorious NewLabour Troll on the Guardian site) who seems more in line with Labour policy:

Labour created the bomb for this country; Blair and Brown will ensure we keep that great Labour legacy.

And we've just had the first resignation over Trident - Deputy leader of the Commons, Nigel Griffiths. Indications are that he won't be the first to resign a government post over this issue, but it seems that none of Labour's rebels feel so strongly that they will resign the whip on this issue of principle.