Philip Webster and Greg Hurst
The man, the films, those blondes. Free DVD collection starting this Sunday
Tony Blair and Gordon Brown suffered the largest non-Iraq related revolt of the Labour Government last night when nearly 100 MPs opposed an immediate decision to renew the Trident nuclear missile system.
Despite last-minute concessions and a massive effort by the whips to rally support, in which Mr Brown became heavily involved, 94 Labour MPs joined the Liberal Democrats and nationalist MPs in calling for a delay. Then 87 Labour MPs rebelled once more, voting directly against a motion to update Trident. The revolts came despite warnings from senior Labour figures that the party risked appearing to have reverted to “old Labour” ways.
Mr Brown was anxious to contain the rebellion to inject a new sense of discipline into the Labour ranks before his expected takeover as leader in the summer.
The scale of the revolt is a big embarrassment for both men, and confirms that Mr Blair’s authority has all but disappeared. A senior whip told The Times that the revolt would have been even bigger but for Mr Brown’s influence on his own close supporters.
Without Tory backing the Government would have easily been defeated, a factor that will be used heavily against Labour in the run-up to the next election. Despite the revolt – the biggest since 139 Labour MPs voted against the Iraq war in 2003 – Britain will now have a new fleet of Trident nuclear submarines.
During the day, two more parliamentary private secretaries – Stephen Pound and Chris Ruane, aide to the Welsh Secretary and the deputy leadership contender Peter Hain – resigned, bringing to four the number who left government posts over the issue.
But with Conservative support Mr Blair and Mr Brown secured comfortable Commons majorities for renewing the existing system by developing three or four new submarines to replace the Vanguard-class, which will start going out of service in 2022. It means the country will have a nuclear deterrent for at least another 40 years and that Mr Blair has helped Mr Brown to remove one of the most difficult issues that could face a Labour leader.
In the final day of persuasion, Mr Blair and other ministers told MPs that although they were voting for the principle of a nuclear deterrent, there would be further votes during future Parliaments. Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, and Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, moved to placate MPs such as the former minister John Denham, who had been calling for final decisions to be deferred.
In a letter, the ministers emphasised that the decision to replace Trident would not stop a future Parliament from looking again at the issue. “Further decisions will be required on the precise design of the submarines and whether we need four or three to maintain the deterrent,” they wrote.
“The White Paper also notes that we will need to decide whether to renew or replace the warhead, whether to participate in any US programme to develop a successor to the D5 missile and, subsequently, whether to acquire such a successor.”
The move appeared to have some impact, as did the unusual decision of the Government to allow some parliamentary aides unhappy about the decision to miss the vote. Mr Browne was called to order by the Speaker as he accused two of his Labour colleagues of “dishonesty” in their arguments.
He told MPs that they needed to take a decision now to start the process. The Government had deliberately chosen to bring the debate to Parliament at the start, rather than make decisions in secret and present them later as a foregone conclusion.
Read the training tips and advice that helped our London Triathletes
Times Online's new TV show helps you make the right decisions for your pet
Read our exclusive 100 Years of Fleming and Bond interactive timeline, packed with original Times articles and reviews
The latest travel news plus the best hotels and gadgets for business travellers
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles


A treasure trove of baubles, booty and stylish quests


Our Credit Clinic has free help and advice

Overseas contacts and local business information
2007
£47,700
2007
£41,899
2008
£41,445
Great car insurance deals online
£25,510 – 32,000
Transport for London
London
£50k
NHS
Nationwide
£
£90,000 + PRP
Essex County Council
Essex
100K
Confidential
London
5% below developer pre-launch price!
Luxury Appts, beautiful gardens w/ Thames views
Great Investment, River Views
By Funway – Thailand
from £589pp
Christmas Cruises
From only £995pp
APTs East Coast now from only
£2425pp.
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Globrix Property Search - find property for sale and rent in the UK. Visit our classified services and find jobs, used cars, property or holidays. Use our dating service, read our births, marriages and deaths announcements, or place your advertisement.
Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
In response to Mr Livesey, your example refers to the 1930s as does your logic.
The rise of a totalitarian dictator in a country of severe economic depression does not mirror any parallels to Mr Brown and his gargantuan spending on irrelevant and unpopular policies, with only a short-term focus of economic stability. The 87 Labour MPs were attempting to delay proceedings for a thorough debate not to stop them.
A noble gesture considering the £20 billion outlay (as per conservative estimates) that has been "debated" within the House of Commons but without being disseminated to the population as a whole. In a time of higher taxes, reduced public spending and the debacle and expense of Iraq I think this money could be more wisely spent.
Russell Drewe, London, UK
Most of us gave up CND politics when we left university many years ago. As is usual, however, the Labour Left seems welded to the past. Come next election perhaps they can be retired back to full time education where their conscience will be clear - the rest of us can get back to life in the real world.
I'm not interested in the moral high ground - I want my family kept safe and entrusting the security of this nation to the goodwill of some fanatics in the Mid East won't achieve that.
I was an active member of the Labour Party for 20 years and I remember an election under Kinnock when a Tory poster showed a soldier surrendering under the words 'Labour's defence policy' I was angry at that time as I thought it was a total misrepresentation - but listening to some of what was said yesterday I was reminded of that poster, but this time the poster seemed far more accurate.
Hugh, London,
Mr Jobson seems to forget that Hitler was working on atomic weapons too. In which case, he could easily have seen off Swindon. Time to overcome such disingenuousness.
Ralph Williams, Somers, Connecticut
I have mixed feelings on the Trident issue. Judging by the past 20 years we have no idea what the next 20-50 years will bring by way of threats for which a nuclear deterrent might prove useful. But I think that Trident is now a very expensive delivery system. The main reason for using submarines was as protection against a very sophisticated attacker who could pin point any form of surface launched missile system and take these out in a surprise attack. There are really only two nations against whom such a sophisticated system might be required Russia and China. No-one else will pose such a threat. Hopefully we can rely on the USA in the event that either of these two powers ever target the west. I agree we need a viable nuclear deterrent but I think the time has come to say we could use a simpler system based on land based launchers or delivery by aircraft. Surely these cannot be nearly as expensive as Trident?
Kevin, Kent,
If Tony Blair can have 90 in the Labour Party voting against him, and the whole of the Tory Party suppporting him on a critical vote, then it simply says that he is trying to lead the wrong Party.
Michael Blatchford, Bath, UK
We managed to see of Hitler all right and we didn't have nukes then . How can Blair justify spending £40 billion on this when he went to war with Iraq over WMDs(and none were found). Anyway, surely this plan is in breach of the NNP treaty or did we not sign that? Am I right in thinking that we had a get out clause of some sort allowing us to (along with the US)? This all smacks of blatant hypocrisy on Blair's part and the money involved is just obscene. £40 billion could be spent on hospitals, schools and even equipping our soldiers properly if they must remain in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm sure the U.S would jump to our defence at the first sign of any missile attacks etc and although the defence secretary has said we don't want to have to rely on other nations the majority of sensible people do not want Trident either.
Neil Jobson, Swindon, England
So I'm supposed to believe that the BNP or UKIP are a threat to my freedom, but when a hundred Labour MPs revert to the pacifism of the thirties that left this country almost helpless against German aggression, I'm supposed to admire their "principled" stand?
I don't buy that, and I don't think that the voters will buy it come the next General Election. All the people who have been claiming that Cameron has no distinctive policies to run against Labour should realise that he has just found two, defence and patriotism. I just hope he has the skill to use them.
jon livesey, Sunnyvale, CA/US