A. There is evidence that America plans to station nuclear weapons at the US Airforce base in Lakenheath, Suffolk, 70 miles from London.
B. There has been no consultation. The public was not asked about this, nor was parliament.
C. The plans are unpopular with voters. 17 years ago in 2008, sustained protests by CND and local groups led to nuclear bombs being removed from Lakenheath. Despite the secrecy, there is growing publicity.
D. There were near-misses last time US nuclear bombs were at Lakenheath. Yet investigations by CND’s legal team indicate that there are no emergency plans in place in the event of nuclear accidents involving these new US B61-12 bombs.
E. CND is launching a legal challenge against both Suffolk County Council and the Secretary of State for Defence over the serious safety risks of siting US nuclear weapons at Lakenheath, arguing that if these nuclear bombs are at Lakenheath, the Council and the Ministry of Defence could be in breach of their statutory obligations under emergency radiation regulations.
This Branch believes
1. The plans would make us a target in a nuclear war between the US and Russia, at a time when the risk of nuclear war is growing. These US B61-12 nuclear bombs are described as ‘battlefield’ nuclear weapons and are designed to be used in war.
2. The government, without any public consultation or parliamentary debate, is making us a target and putting us at risk from nuclear accidents without any emergency plans in place.
This Branch resolves
To support CND’s campaign to stop the deployment of these bombs.
Ask members to join the Saturday 26 April Big Blockade of Lakenheath.
Labour CND Vice Chair, Christine Shawcroft reminds us not all examples of increasing military spending are positive.
When I was on holiday last year, there was a book on great military blunders lying around the rental. It was a very weighty tome, as you can imagine, but I flicked through it and then found myself reading the chapter on the fall of Singapore, then part of the British Empire, in the Second World War.
Singapore was considered safe on the landward side, because of the impenetrable jungle behind it. All the British defence experts and the powers-that-be were sure that the danger came from the sea. So certain were they that they knew what was needed to defend the city, the authorities spent a fortune on huge gun emplacements all around the coast, pointing out to sea. It was an enormous expense, but there are no limits when it comes to safety and security.
Singapore’s white elephant
In February 1942, 35,000 Japanese troops slashed their way through the dense jungle and, using the element of surprise, defeated the 85,000 strong garrison. The massive guns couldn’t be used: they were in the wrong place and pointing the wrong way. On 15th February, Lt General Arthur Percival signed the surrender.
Churchill said it was the ‘worst disaster and largest capitulation in British history.’ Yet it wasn’t for lack of defence spending.
Fast forward to 2025. Donald Trump doesn’t want to pay so much towards the defence of Europe, but he has no doubt that it needs defending. And apparently it needs defending from the Russians, who are said to be poised to invade their former vassal states in eastern Europe and once there will be well placed to move on the west.
Happily picking up the poisoned chalice, Keir Starmer is prepared to cut overseas development and slash public services to the bone, all to hugely increase military spending. He is pledged to increase the number of ‘our’ nuclear weapons – because being able to nuke every country in the world, some of them more than once, just isn’t enough to keep us safe these days.
As the saying goes, when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Countering the wrong threat?
Starmer is repeating the mistakes of the rulers of Singapore, spending huge amounts of our money to counter the wrong threat. The Russian bear is NOT about to try and gobble up Europe. Meanwhile the Far Right are capitalizing on working class discontent with the cost of living, huge NHS waiting lists and the lack of affordable housing. Sneaking up behind us is catastrophic climate breakdown which will flood every coastal city in the world.
The money being wasted on countering the wrong enemy could be spent on safeguarding democracy, investing in an economy geared to socially useful goods and services, providing insulation and renewable energy.
Carrying on the way we are is leading to disaster. Like in Singapore, the guns are useless.
It comes as no surprise that Keir Starmer has announced an increase in Britain’s military spending two days before he meets Donald Trump to discuss the President Ukraine peace deal. First as Labour leader and now as Prime Minister, Starmer has taken every opportunity to declare his allegiance to the United States, the Nato nuclear alliance, and Britain’s willingness to follow them into war.
Ahead of the Chancellor’s spring budget, and ahead of the Strategic Defence Review’s report, on 25 February, Starmer announced he would allocate:
2.5% GDP on defence in 2027
extra funding for intelligence & security services, taking the increase to 2.6%, and
3% in next parliament when economic conditions were right.
Starmer told the Commons:
‘Starting today this government will begin the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. We will deliver our commitment to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence but we will bring it forward so that we reach that level in 2027 and we will maintain that for the rest of this parliament.
‘But let me spell it out my speaker. That means spending £13.4bn more on defence every year from 2027. But we also face enemies that are sophisticated in cyber attacks and even assassination so our intelligence and security services are an increasingly vital part of protecting both us and our allies. So on top of the funding of 2.5% that I’ve just announced going forward we will recognise the incredible contribution of our intelligence and security services to the defence of the nation which means taken together we will be spending 2.6% on our defence from 2027.
‘We must go further still. I have long argued that in the face of ongoing generational challenges all European allies must step up and do more for our own defence. So subject to economic and fiscal conditions and aligned our strategic and operational needs we will also set a clear ambition for defence spending to rise to 3% of GDP in the next parliament.’
Overseas aid budget raided
To pay for this, the Official Development Assistance (ODA) budget will be cut from the current 0.5% to 0.3% gross national income (GNI) in 2027. Disregarding Labour’s manifesto commitment to return to the UN target of 0.7% GNI, Starmer said the aid budget cut meant ‘fully funding the investment in defence’.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies was quick to point out that the figures don’t add up. An extra 0.2% of GDP provides around £6 billion. Yet the Prime Minister had ‘trumpeted a £13 billion increase in defence spending’. When this discrepancy was raised by Kemi Badenoch the following day in PM Questions, Starmer failed to provide a reasoned response.
International aid is intended to stimulate economic development and welfare in the poorest countries, many of which are ravaged by war. Starmer’s announcement means a cut of around 40%, on top of the cut introduced by the Johnson government in 2021.
Speaking at that time, Starmer said slicing aid to the world’s poorest was callous and not in Britain’s national interest. He accused Boris Johnson of ‘damaging Britain’s reputation around the world’. Those same accusations are coming back to haunt him this time round. This time Starmer not Johnson is in the dock.
Earlier this month, Foreign Secretary David Lammy had suggested Trump’s plans to cut the US aid budget could be a ‘big strategic mistake’. He referred to the UK’s experience of merging the Department for International Development into the Foreign Office as a blow to Britain’s ‘soft power’ internationally.
Aware the international aid budget was under threat, Sir Simon McDonald gave a similar warning of the damage to Britain’s global reputation that cutting international aid would do, a few days ahead of Starmer’s defence spending announcement. McDonald was Permanent Under Secretary at the Foreign Office 2015-20 and a former foreign policy advisor to the Blair government. NGOs have also pointed this out.
Labour in disarray
Starmer’s decision has also brought criticism from Labour MPs and former MPs, and resulted in the resignation of Analeise Dodds, Secretary of State for International Development.
Labour MP Sarah Champion, chair of the International Development Committee, described cutting the aid budget to fund defence spending as ‘a false economy that will only make the world less safe’ and called on the government to rethink. ‘The deep irony is that development money can prevent wars and is used to patch up the consequences of them, cutting this support is counterproductive,’ she said.
Former Secretary of State for International Development Clare Short went further. She described Starmer’s action as ‘disgraceful’, suggesting he ‘doesn’t understand that good development work is crucial to a sustainable future’. The increase in the military budget ‘splashes money on defence spending and Ukraine’, but it is ‘not focused on bringing peace to Ukraine’.
Short further warned the ‘traditional Labour Party’ faces destruction as core supporters abandon the party. ‘I am afraid that, in many respects, this is simply not a Labour government,’ she said.
Starmer’s attempt to get government ducks in a row ahead of his visit with Trump has left the government in disarray. It promises further problems in 2027, if – or should that be when? – other departmental budgets and projects get cut, as the IFS is suggesting is inevitable.
Criticism all round
Senior military figures and security specialists have also criticised cutting overseas aid, though not opposing military spending increases.
Former chief of the general staff, General Lord Richard Dannatt has described this as a ‘strategic mistake’ and warned that this ‘shortsighted’ move will ultimately add to burden on Britain’s armed forces. He says: ‘History shows targeted aid reduces the burden on the military. Labour is risking the very security we are trying to ensure.’
Labour CND says being part of an increasingly expensive Nato war machine, is not keeping Britain safe but making us a target. Will increasing defence spending prove to be the Labour government’s kingdom for a horse moment?
The 2023-24 annual report of a government watchdog has awarded its lowest rating to one of the projects at the heart of the Trident submarine replacement programme. The current Vanguard class submarines are due to be replaced before they become unreliable and too expensive to last beyond 2030.
For the third year in succession, the Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA) has awarded a red rating to the £4 billion Core Production Capability Programme (CPCP) which is designed to provide safe nuclear reactor cores for the Royal Navy’s new Dreadnought-class submarines which are due to take over patrolling the world’s oceans with Britain’s nuclear weapons on board from 2030.
The CPCP’s job is to deliver safe nuclear reactor cores for Vanguard submarines, providing the UK with a modern, safe, and independent manufacturing capability now and in the long term. The IPA defines its red rating as indicating ‘the project appears to be unachievable’. Major issues do not seem ‘manageable or resolvable’ and a project’s viability should be reassessed.
The London-based watchdog reports to the Cabinet Office and Treasury on all sorts of major projects – from railways, schools, and hospitals, to defence, and information technology. IPA experts are mandated to track and monitor major government projects, to ensure they’re deliverable on time and within budget. Some nuclear projects are, however, kept secret from the public on the grounds of military and commercial security.
The Nation newspaper reports that Rolls-Royce, which is manufacturing Dreadnought reactors for the Ministry of Defence, has acknowledged the project is ‘challenging’. Rolls-Royce is a major player in the defence aerospace engine sector. A spokesperson said the company was ‘confident’ it could deliver on time. The MoD claimed the programme was ‘on track’.
The IPA’s 2023-24 annual report, published in January, also highlighted ‘significant issues’ with eight other major UK nuclear projects, the combined cost of which is over £55 billion. The amber rating awarded them indicates ‘management attention’ is needed. These projects include building new facilities at Faslane naval base which is home to Trident’s submarine fleet, the dismantling of nuclear submarines at Rosyth dockyards, and the construction of all future nuclear-powered Astute, Dreadnought and Aukus submarines.
A new programme which repackages former projects for making and storing nuclear materials at Aldermaston in Berkshire has also been rated amber for the past two years.
Scottish CND chair, Lynn Jamieson continues to highlight Trident’s dependence on the US military infrastructure and technology. ‘The nuclear weapons based on the west coast of Scotland, are arguably more US technology than British. The submarines, whilst built in Barrow-in-Furness in England, are assembled according to US blueprints and with US components. The Trident missiles fired by the submarines are built, supplied and maintained in the US.’
Both the Scottish National Party and the Green Party of Scotland have criticised Trident replacement. Patrick Harvie, co-leader of the Scottish Greens and Glasgow MSP has called for the money Westminster is pouring into nuclear weapons to be used instead to reverse the government’s austerity measures.
Labour CND’s contempoary motion for Labour Party conference meets the criteria
Must be an issue that has arisen after the Friday 5 July 2024
On one subject
No more than 250 words in length
Not considered by the CAC as an organisational matter or constitutional amendment.
The deadline for submitting these motions for Annual Conference is 5pm Thursday 12 September.
This motion which calls on Labour to publish the likely cost of raising defence spending is set within the framework of Labour’s non-negotiable fiscal rules. It is suitable for debate as a CLP policy motion as well as a conference contemporary. We have produced an Explainer with references below also included below.
Military data is compiled and computed differently by different countries and institutions. Making international comparisons about military spending presents a number of widely documented difficulties to do with the comparability and granularity of international military data. For purposes of transparency and comparison, the MoD takes spending and other data for its statistical bulletin from internationally recognised and authoritative sources – in the case of the statistics presented in this motion, the IISS (International Institute for Strategic Studies) and SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) are the main sources. NATO and the MoD, also compute military data differently, as do the IMF and World Bank. Because the data for the MoD’s annual statistical bulletin does not originate from the UK Government Statistical Service they are not designated as ‘official statistics’. This does not mean they lack authority, on the contrary all government seek to present their data in the most favourable light and may sometimes avoid international comparison.
The MoD’s budget is ‘protected’, meaning inflation-proofed, together with health, education, childcare, and overseas development budgets. All other government department budgets are unprotected. Transport, housing, local government, etc could all take a hit if military spending rises to 2.5%.
See IFS Figure 14: Estimated change in day-to-day departmental budgets (average annual real-terms growth) under existing spending plans, 2024–25 to 2028–29, in How have the size and shape of the UK state changed?, June 2024, available at https://ifs.org.uk/publications/how-have-size-and-shape-uk-state-changed
With media attention focused on GE 2024, you’d be forgiven for having overlooked news that the Labour Party has finally abandoned its longstanding legal action against five former members of Jeremy Corbyn’s office team during his leadership, including his Director of Communications Seumas Milne. The five were accused of ‘conspiring’ against Keir Starmer’s leadership by leaking a controversial report soon after he was elected leader in 2020. They ‘strenuously deny’ any involvement or complicity in the leak.
The 860-page leaked document which ostensibly examined the handling of antisemitism complaints during the Corbyn period, included unredacted emails and WhatsApp messages from critics of his leadership, which exposed factionalism and derogatory comments about Corbyn, his staff and MPs who supported him. The Forde report found, for example: ‘the criticisms of Diane Abbott are not simply a harsh response to perceived poor performance – they are expressions of visceral disgust.’
The legal suit is estimated to have cost the Labour Party millions of pounds. Documents presented in open court in late 2023 showed Labour had spent £1.5m on its action at that time, and estimated it would spend nearly £900,000 more. The figures do not reflect the full cost of the litigation. It remains unclear whether or not the party will meet the costs of the five.
A BBC report includes the view of one unnamed former shadow cabinet member that ‘this is a huge embarrassment for the party, which has wasted eye-watering sums which could have made the difference in key seats in this election’. Martin Forde KC, the lawyer who carried out the wide-ranging report into Labour Party culture told the BBC: ‘It is a great shame that money has been spent on legal fees that could have been spent on the general election.’
As Israel’s Rafah operation takes shape, and concern over Britain’s role in supplying arms to Israel grows, over 100 leading UK artists have added their names to a letter calling on Keir Starmer to take a stand against the atrocities and commit to stopping arms sales to Israel if he becomes prime minister on 4 July. The letter urges Starmer, as a former human rights lawyer, to lead the way in ‘ending UK complicity in war crimes in Gaza’.
Signatories include filmmakers, poets, musicians, actors, broadcasters, writers, and journalists. There are some familiar CND-supporting figures among them, including Juliet Stevenson, Kamila Shamsie, Maxine Peake, Michael Rosen, Peter Kennard, and Victoria Brittain. Visit Artists for Palestine for the full text and a list of a;l signatories.
Above: Khan Younis bombing during the early phase of Israel’s operation in Rafah provence
In a guest blog which appeared on CND’s website, CAROL TURNER explains why Britain is complicit in what’s happening to Palestinians across the Occupied Territories right now. Instead of promising to stop this, Labour is echoing the misdirection of David Cameron and Grant Shapps who argue UK arms exports to Israel are derisory.
If anything can convince the British government, out-going or in-coming, that the UK must halt arms exports to Israel, the Rafah offensive should. Day by day, hour by hour, the toll of Palestinian dead and injured slowly mounts. As far back as December President Netanyahu made clear that military operations would go on throughout 2024. In the midst of the Rafah carnage, and despite the international outcry, he recently reiterated this.
David Cameron has dismissed the idea of halting arms sales as gesture politics. Britain, he claims, supplies ‘less than 1% of Israel’s arms’.[i] Grant Shapps recently told parliament ‘defence exports to Israel are relatively small—just £42 million last year’.[ii] This deliberate misdirection is echoed by Labour.
The UK is among the world’s biggest arms exporters, the seventh largest in 2023.[iii] Arms manufacturers in Britain need a government license to export military goods, software and technology overseas.[iv] Applications are evaluated against criteria which include Britain’s obligations under international law and the risk that exported items might be used in the violation of human rights.
No arms export license should be granted if there’s a clear risk the items:[v]
might be used to ‘commit or facilitate’ internal repression or a serious violation of international humanitarian law; or
would undermine internal, regional, or international peace and security.
Existing licences can be revoked if they don’t match the criteria. But the government has resisted the introduction of post-shipment verification or end-use monitoring of military exports from the UK.[vi]
BAE Systems is a British company and leading supplier of parts for American F35 fighter bombers that the US supplies to Israel, They are being used against Gaza. Campaign Against Arms and others point out that 15% of every US F35 supplied to Israel is built in the UK.[vii]
This means Britain is complicit in what’s happening to Palestinians across the Occupied Territories right now.
Individual MPs have spoken up. Leyla Moran, a British Palestinian and a LibDem MP broke the parliamentary consensus by speaking on national media about what was happening to her family there. Labour MPs Richard Burgon and Imran Hussain recently delivered a dossier of evidence on Israeli war crimes in Gaza to the International Criminal Court, evidence compiled from a series of panels they organised in parliament.
In April this year, UK opinion polls[viii] showed a majority in favour of banning arms sales after aid workers were killed, including three UK citizens. Plaid Cymru wanted parliament reconvened. Green Party spokespeople have called for the cancelling of all arms export licences, and the LibDems and SNP want suspension.
Last October, Labour MP Zarah Sultana introduced a Private Members Bill calling for a halt to exports to countries ‘where it cannot be demonstrated that arms sold will not be used in violation of international law’ and led a Westminster Hall debate in December. At the end of March, recognising Israel would disregard the UN ceasefire resolution, she coordinated an open letter to Cameron, condemning the government’s failure to act, and calling again for a suspension of arms sales. It was signed by 134 parliamentarians from across the parties, including a Tory peer.
Under pressure from the solidarity movement which, week after week, has taken to the streets in cities and towns across the country, both Conservative and Labour have slowly been forced to increase criticism of Israel. To date, actions have not followed words. Not a single step towards halting British arms exports has been taken by the government, nor has any demand they do so come from the official opposition.
CND takes this issue very seriously indeed. Israel is one of only nine nuclear armed states in the world, and the only one that doesn’t admit to having them. Israel has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty designed to limit their spread and secure nuclear disarmament.
The nuclear risks involved in the war on Gaza may not be as remote as they seem. Since the October attack by Hamas, a few Israeli politicians have floated the prospect of using nuclear weapons against Iran or Lebanon. Most of the drones and missiles Iran launched against Israel in April were taken out before they reached their targets. One missile was not. It successfully reached its target, Nevatim in southern Israel, near the Dimona nuclear facility.
Far from being gesture politics, the unwillingness of the US, UK, and other governments to halt arms sales has emboldened Israel which is pressing ahead with its attack on the Palestinian people in defiance of international law and international outrage.
The next 5 weeks of general election campaigning is an opportunity to make our voice heard by every candidate in every constituency across the country. CND members should act, and act now.
Within days of the general election being announced, Keir Starmer committed Labour to a ‘triple lock’ on Trident, an attempt to demonstrate nuclear weapons are safe in Labour’s hands. He also reaffirmed Labour’s commitment to match Sunak’s 2.5% increase in military spending which NATO is demanding.
Labour will build four new Dreadnought class submarines to deliver Britain’s nuclear warheads, he said, with at least one submarine at sea 24/7. Starmer also reaffirmed Labour’s decision to match the Tory government pledge to raise military spending by 2.5% of gross domestic product as soon as possible.
This is a dangerous waste, which mirrors the approach of the Tory government. It signals more war, more military spending, and more nuclear weapons, as CND General Secretary Kate Hudson has pointed out. CND has estimated the cost of upgrading and maintaining Trident at £205 billion. The Conservative commitment to raise military spending to 2.5% by 2030, part of the Spring budget, will amount to an additional £87 billion a year.
CND Chair Tom Unterrainer commented that Starmer had offered no justification of how nuclear weapons might protect Britain’s security. ‘For a man who claims to care about international law,’ said Unterrainer, ‘there is no mention of how expanding and modernising Britain’s nuclear arsenal goes against these norms. We need a bold vision for what real security means: one that puts climate, food security, and people at its heart, not more militarism and conflict.’
