All Change?

Tony Blair's resignation has prompted rejoicing among those who want to see him as solely responsible for UK involvement in the mess of Iraq. Yet many of his sharpest critics still see military domination as the ultimate solution to a political crisis, rather than as part of the problem.

Conscience is working hard to remove the blinkers, showing that there are many realistic, hard-nosed alternatives to militarism with its huge social, economic and environmental costs. Conscience is campaigning for the right to have the military part of our taxes go to these alternatives, not to war.

As Gordon Brown moves next door, help to make a deeper change. Click here for a short animation.

Why zero carbon homes aren't enough

Another great round up on MSN Money - this time about greening your home and how Labour are failing to use the tax system to promote green action.

Whatever happened to Green Gordon?

Once again the Greens are setting the agenda, with the first-ever carbon-costed budget. Even MSN are critical of Gordon Brown's failure to take serious steps to tackle climate change.

"If you were hoping for a green budget, you might be disappointed. In Gordon Brown’s 11th budget, the cut in the basic rate of income tax was the main event; green taxes were a mere sideshow."

Tories prop up Blair to push Trident vote through

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament today strongly condemned parliament’s decision to support the government’s plans to replace Trident, Britain’s nuclear weapons system.

The government’s motion to replace Trident passed despite a significant rebellion by backbench Labour MPs. The government was forced to rely heavily on the Conservatives in order to pass the controversial motion. This was the biggest rebellion during Blair’s tenure other than the Iraq war.

An amendment tabled by Jon Trickett, Sir Menzies Campbell, Dr Gavin Strang, Nick Harvey, Peter Kilfoyle and Joan Ruddock, which stated that the case for Trident replacement is not yet proven and expressed doubt about the need for an early decision, was also defeated by the Blair – Cameron alliance.

Kate Hudson, Chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, said:

"This decision represents a serious democratic deficit. A recent poll shows that 72% of the British public do not want the government to replace Trident now. How is it that so many MPs, and the government itself, is able to so wilfully ignore those they are meant to represent?"

"It is a significant moral and political victory that the vast majority of the public oppose Trident replacement. We welcome the principled stand of the MPs who voted against the government’s motion, and we encourage them to continue pressuring the government to reverse its shameful position."

"The government never allowed a genuine consultation and debate to take place. Six hours of debate on the day of the vote is an affront to the vast majority of people in this country and around the world who oppose nuclear weapons proliferation."

CND will continue campaigning against British nuclear weapons, and will continue to push for multilateral initiatives to achieve complete nuclear disarmament. A draft Convention banning all nuclear weapons is already lodged at the United Nations.

The nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory conference next meets in May 2007. There is still time for Britain to reverse its decision to replace Trident and fulfil its obligations under Article VI of the NPT to disarm.

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.

Blair: "I don’t really know the answer"

Following the government's court defeat over the nuclear power "consultation", CND today reveals that Labour's leader hasn't got a clue why there has been no consultation over plans for Trident replacement.

Speaking at a Young Labour conference in Glasgow today, Tony Blair said that he ‘doesn’t really know’ why there has not been a debate on Trident replacement in the Labour Party.

After Blair’s speech in front of hundreds of Young Labour members at today’s conference, the press were asked to leave the room prior to the question and answer session.

During the Q&A, a delegate asked the Prime Minister why there has not been a debate and vote in the Labour Party on Trident. Mr Blair, visibly caught off-guard by the question, replied:

‘I don’t really know the answer to be frank. I think in the end there will be a vote in the Commons. There should be a very lively debate in the party and elsewhere. The trouble is we need to take a decision at some point…In terms of the process I honestly don’t know the answer. I know it was an issue at the National Policy Forum and so on but I don’t have a problem with people voting on it at all. Let the party express their view on this but we will need to take a decision on this as a government.’

Seventeen motions on Trident replacement from Constituency Labour Party groups were ruled out of order before the Labour Party conference in 2006. In January 2007 three motions on Trident from members of the Labour National Executive Committee, including CND Vice President Walter Wolfgang, were again ruled out of order.

It's good to know that democracy is alive and well in the Labour Party.

Government loses nuclear power case

An excellent result for Greenpeace in the High Court today, means that the government will have to re-run the consultation on new nuclear power stations.

But don't worry, Alistair Darling made it clear on the World at One that Labour are planning to ignore the result of any new consultation as well.

The Guardian article is here.

Road pricing is not the answer

The Times front page today is all about the mass opposition to Labour's plans for road pricing. While I have little sympathy with the lobby that says driving is too expensive already - the cost of motoring has fallen in real terms while the cost of public transport has soared - I agree with them to the extent that road pricing is a typical wrong-headed Labour solution.

It would be just like Blair to push through the wrong solution just because there is massive opposition ("It's almost as unpopular as the war colleagues, it MUST be right"). But if Labour succeed in setting up road pricing they will be creating a licence to pollute if you can afford it. The only real solution to congestion, air pollution and carbon wastage is carbon rationing. Whilst we might not favour the wartime slogan "Is your journey really necessary?", we could well ask people "Is it really necessary to go by car?"