Trident Replacement

We are beyond the moment in history when upper echelons in government and society can award themselves an absolute right to keep decisions that are taken in the name of the people, from the people. This lesson needs to be learnt across all sections of the establishment and political life.
For governments seeking to strengthen their own agendas it can help to have a minimally informed or, at least, somewhat apathetic electorate. And so important political decisions are often veiled in a cloak of terminology that alienates voters - especially young voters.
The reality is that the UK cannot rely on weapons that were designed for a different world and political context to fight these modern day security threats.
Why are we planning on spending £100 billion to renew a weapon system floating around in submarines off the coast of Scotland when it could completely destroy us and our climate, leaving radiation for years to come? If Britain chooses to renew Trident in 2016, this is ultimately the choice we will make.
A layer of our political elite still thinks that Britain's power and status can be secured by Cold War weapons. But others already understand that the challenges lie in climate change, hunger, injustice - and the asymmetrical warfare in varying forms that those problems will increasingly bring if unresolved. This is where the thinking of our political class needs to be.
It's easy to say you want a world without nuclear weapons. Nearly everyone does: even David Cameron. It's like saying there should be no global poverty: the hard part is taking action to do something about it.
Labour are "open" to cheaper alternatives for the Trident nuclear deterrent but have stopped short of committing to ditch
Many people from across the political spectrum are opening their minds to a reconsideration of Britain's strategic and security needs.
The government today awarded contracts worth £350m to UK companies to design the next generation of nuclear submarines. Most