The new Government has started with some good moves and a few shockers. By far the worst is continuing with the Tories' defence programme, costing nearly £22 billion a year. A review is now starting - and not before time. Unfortunately Defence chief George Robertson, holds that "it must not be Treasury led" which means it must not aim at cutting the arms bill.
Tony Blair has successfully pressed three other governments to join in spending £42 billion on the Eurofighter 2000 - certainly a gross under-estimate which does not include annual costs for fuel, maintenance, staffing and crew training.
What the hell is this colossal expenditure for? Who threatens the country's "security"? Certainly not the Russians. Their production has fallen by more than 50% since 1990. Their military has been drastically cut back. Invading Britain is the last thing they think of.
If Tony Blair believes that the massive arms programme is popular, public opinion polls show it is not. Nor do Labour MPs want it. A recent poll published in the Observer shows that 80% of them say our arms spending should be cut. Amongst the new Labour MPs this view is even more strongly held - by more than 90%. The public and their MPs would leap with joy if spending went on better things.
The arms barons' one excuse is that, if the Eurofighter contract goes ahead, it will save thousands of jobs. You can almost see the tears in the eyes of the directors of GEC, Rolls Royce, Aerospace, Vickers and the rest. They are weeping all the way to the bank.
It's the peace, trade union and labour movement which understands the need to protect employment. The resolution carried overwhelmingly for six consecutive years by Labour Conference (until last year) called for the reduction of British defence spending to the average of the other Western European NATO countries, as a proportion of GDP, and for the redirection of the savings to economic and social priorities and job creation. It reaffirms that the setting up of a Defence Diversification Agency is essential and urgent. The unions are naturally and especially emphatic about this. It would release a peace dividend of no less than £6 billion a year. This is the forgotten factor. Not a single front bench speaker has mentioned it since the election. Speaking from experience I know that most engineers would prefer to be turning out parts for tractors rather than parts for tanks.
Last year the resolution was not even discussed. Why? Because the leadership knew it would again be carried. It is vital there should be at least a dozen resolutions or amendments from CLPs and unions on the agenda this year. This is not an impossible demand. Indeed the Government can be made to respond to public opinion and pressure. Remember the Dunblane shooting tragedy and how mass feeling and agitation led to the ban on handguns. Also how the outcry against landmines led to government legislation.
"Above all is the need to review nuclear weapons". Robertson says Britain will retain its nuclear deterrent. He recognises that "the world has changed dramatically in the last 10 years. Since the end of the cold war the security risks to the UK and our Allies have changed fundamentally". Absolutely. Then why is Trident to be ignored in the review?
I conclude by drawing attention to the difference between the teams dealing with Foreign Affairs and Defence. It is clear that the Cabinet Ministers concerned were given some choice of their lieutenants. First you have Robin Cook, one of the best brains in the Cabinet, selecting as his team Derek Fatchett, Tony Lloyd, Douglas Henderson and Baroness Symons, who have all expressed some sympathy for the peace dividend in the past. Whereas in the Defence Ministry the ministers are led by George Robertson and his supporters are Lord John Gilbert, Dr. John Reid and John Spellar, all hard-line right-wingers.