If I were Prime Minister: The UK would refuse to profit from death

Our series in the run-up to the General Election – 100 days, 100 contributors, but no politicians – continues with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament's General Secretary

Kate Hudson
Monday 23 February 2015 14:25 EST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

My first act as Prime Minister would be to announce Britain’s exit from the nuclear club. Trident would be heading for the scrap heap without delay and plans for its replacement would be cancelled immediately. But my nuclear clear out wouldn’t stop with weapons: nuclear power stations would go the same way. Result? Britain would join the overwhelming majority of states without nuclear weapons or power, thereby reducing the risk of nuclear annihilation or radioactive disaster.

Sweeping aside the twentieth century’s most deadly legacy will open up big opportunities for my government in terms of investment and sustainable industrial development. This year’s planned £3bn spend on nuclear weapons would go straight into filling the NHS’s £2bn funding gap. My Chancellor’s next task would be to work out the best use of the £100bn saved by cancelling Trident replacement. Would she choose to build new hospitals? Quadruple annual investment in renewable energy? Build hundreds of thousands of new homes? Or maybe end tuition fees? Whatever the option, I would make sure this money was used to create real security and sustainability for the British people.

Of course, I would be aware that ending nuclear production would mean a change to some people’s employment. But it would be precisely that: a change in employment not an end to employment. My Minister for Industrial Realignment would immediately draw up a diversification strategy to ensure that all those previously employed in the nuclear sector would either continue employment in nuclear decommissioning or be newly employed in the burgeoning sustainable energy sector funded by the billions previously wasted on weapons of mass destruction.

Kicking nuclear wouldn’t just be an economic and industrial choice though. It would also be part of an ethical foreign policy turn – and the arms industry would go the same way as nuclear. My government would no longer allow the production and trade in machines of death; our factories and workforce would be retooled to produce goods to sustain and enhance lives rather than summarily end them.

I would personally oversee a truth and reconciliation commission to investigate Britain’s role in the world over the past centuries and establish the extent to which Britain has robbed other countries of their sovereignty and assets and intervened in their politics. Where wrongdoing is proven, appropriate legal and financial steps will be taken to provide redress. All those robbed of their homes and livelihoods as a result of British military intervention in their countries will be welcomed to stay in Britain while we assist in the rebuilding process – with no profitable or strategic strings attached.

And finally my government would launch a proper debate about Britain’s role in the world: not one where we "punch above our weight" or "pay the blood price" or feel that we are uniquely destined to know what’s best for people in other countries. But one where we value and respect our common humanity and seek to save and build lives on the basis of justice and equality.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in