Sunday, October 28, 2007

Still Questions for Chris Huhne on Trident

Thanks to those of you who tried to answer on Chris's behalf. But that still doesn't answer the question about why he kept quiet during the debate.

I have heard that at the hustings at the LDYS yesterday he reiterated that a) he didn't see the case for Trident AFTER the multilateral talks starting in 2010 (which equates current party policy) and b) he still believes in a replacement (if an independent one) for Trident.

So the obvious questions which Chris hasn't answered as yet -

  • does he believe in scrapping Trident now?
  • If only after the multilateral talks what's the big difference from current policy?
  • is it really realistic to scrap Trident and start all over again with a separate new system?
  • is he advocating a unilateral approach, or a multilateral approach surely he can't do both?

5 comments:

Jo Hayes said...

Linda, I did not try to answer your previous post on Chris's or anyone else's's behalf but I did make a comment in which I asked you for your grounds and information source for your suggestion that Chris had previously been guilty of opportunism.

linda jack said...

Jo my reason for accusing him of opportunism was his breaking ranks and standing in the leadership having said he wouldn't. I don't have a problem with opportunism per se, but I do if it is based on personal gain. I am willing to be proved wrong on this, but from where I stood 18 months ago it looked like that. Also he has not been clear about whether he is a unilateralist or a multilateralist and I am not convinced it is possible to be both.

Richard Huzzey said...

Dear Linda,

Chris has been very clear that he is not a doctrinaire unilateralist and would consider other systems if their cost and benefit added up, unlike Trident. You can read that on his website and in the Observer:

http://www.chris2win.org/news/000105/huhne_i_would_scrap_trident.html
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/libdems/story/0,,2200746,00.html

All very best wishes,

Richard.

Jo Hayes said...

What if he just changed his mind? He was entitled to, as there was no enforceable promise involved. And I don't know what you mean by personal gain. How are we to tell the difference between an MP who stands for leader for the sake of personal gain and an MP who just stands for leader? At that rate, every MP who stood for the leadership would be guilty of opportunism.

Hywel said...

Linda - I came here to get you to join the facebook group on unbanning the Euro candidates from endorsing leadership candidates.

Has that been lifted - or are you just ignoring it coz you don't look too gagged to me!

(and not particularly agreeing with your choice but this is the silliest party rule for some years - and that may be saying something!)