Tuesday, 09 February 2010

‘Spend Trident cash on local jobs’

ANTI-TRIDENT campaigners have said money saved from scrapping the replacement scheme could be ploughed into Barrow to secure skilled jobs.

Chairman of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Dr Kate Hudson, told the Evening Mail she understood how important replacing Trident was for the shipyard but said the government should support the workers in an industry that is “socially benefiting”, not making weapons of mass destruction.

Speaking to the Evening Mail at the Labour Party conference she said: “Peoples’ jobs are extremely important and we do not take it lightly at all. Scrap replacing Trident and use some of the saved money to invest in sustainable industrial sectors. We want jobs in Barrow replaced like for like.

“We are not suggesting the shipyard workers should go and work in a burger place, they are a great asset to our economy. They are extremely skilled workers.”

Dr Hudson said Trident replacement has been estimated to cost more than £76billion including £20billion for replacement subs and then new missiles and warheads over time, based on figures from parliament. Instead, that cash should be ploughed back into British industry.

She added: “We have not got a campaign against Astute, we have a campaign against nuclear weapons.

“We understand the needs of the workers in Barrow and we understand the need for proper jobs for their expertise and skills.”

Barrow and Furness MP and former defence secretary John Hutton said: “It is not realistic or credibly possible to do this. CND has not changed its view in 30 years. The reality is, however, that the nuclear deterrent is the most appropriate way to secure our defence.

“The Barrow shipyard builds these vessels and it cannot be converted to another purpose. Any discussion has to recognise these realities.”

SHARE THIS ARTICLE

Have your say

This country is in a mess,because of Browns policies.
He deserted the Labour party faithfull,for his own agenda, by allowing those who should have put the country first,over their finacial gains,to keep their ill gotton gains.
He therefore rode rough shod over many of his faithful Labour supporters.
Some people can be made fools of some of the time,but this PM tried to make fools of his party voters all of the time.
He tried it once to often,and his fools have turned their backs on this unelected PM.
The one thing about the British that Gordon never counted on,was their abilty to see through a person.
The voters have now dug their heals in,and are not for turning.
Cameron has promised us a vote on Europe, now he is starting to back slide on his decision.
Why should a vote on Europe,that receives 12 billion pounds from the workers of this country per year,not have a right to a free vote on Europe.
Why is Britain dragging its feet on the vote.
Simple answer is -the British public have seen through Europe and the idiotic mess it has created in this country,with Brown as the leader of his embracement of Europe,as this unelected PM has set about to destroy our freedom of our British way of life.
Perhaps Brown and David may not get the vote they both dream of,because UKIP have guaranteed this country a vote on Europe.
I,like many others may have found a new British Party,that is proud to be British and will indeed give us our rights,that has been given to every other national in the EU.

Posted by r dawson on 5 October 2009 at 15:46

So if its about jobs then its ok to bribe a government official in a foreign country even if this means breaking our own laws and international anti corruption laws the government has signed up to. As long as British jobs are safe its ok for a poor country like Tanzania to buy a military radar system it doesn't need and that doesn't work so that a few people can share a few £ millions in backhanders. The golden rule then is he who pays the biggest bribe rightly saves the most jobs.

Posted by pete on 2 October 2009 at 15:43

View all comments on this article

Make your comment

Your name

Your Email

Your Town/City

Your comment


Vote

Should Furness Academy's new buildings be built at two sites or use the one site?

Two sites

One site

Show Result