Money should be spent on flood defences not Trident

Thank heavens the flood threat has lifted at least for a while.

We have soggy parks and gardens but the heroic rescuers from Newick and Uckfield reported in the Express are still fresh in our minds.

If you live on the flood plains you can’t relax yet.

Meanwhile we are treated to depressing squabbles about who is to blame. More intelligent is the growing understanding that the freak weather could have something to do with climate change.

We might have to do something about the way we live. Firmly embedded habits might have to be jettisoned.

One of these is about defence; or rather defence as understood by the Government. In the past few years it has spent £600 million a year on flood defences. Compare that to at least £2 billion per annum we have collectively forked out just to preserve Trident, Britain’s nuclear engine of criminal mass-destruction. Plans to replace it with a shiny new model are estimated at around a staggering £100 billion.

Only last week, the prestigious Nuclear Education Trust reported that Britain’s nuclear weapons are irrelevant to any foreseeable threat.

James Arbuthnot, veteran chairman of the Commons Defence Select Committee, and a former defence minister no less, echoes this. He doubts whether replacing the Trident nuclear fleet with a new generation of missile-launching submarines makes any sense.

While huge swathes of the country desperately need defending against floods, Trident defends us against nothing. Yet the floods get a few crumbs of our national financial cake, while Trident gets a very generous slice. How come?

George Farebrother