In yet another sign that Gordon Brown is champing at the bit to move into No 10, the chancellor yesterday made the surprise announcement that he's prepared to replace Britain's independent nuclear deterrent, aka Trident.
It is open to debate whether Brown's speech reflects his growing confidence that his succession is now assured, or if it was a threat that he's prepared to get nuclear on Tony's arse if he doesn't hurry up and name a date to relinquish the reigns of power. (The New Statesman says Trident is one of those few policy matters in which the two are in complete agreement.) But Blair was today moved to promise MPs there would be a "proper debate" on replacing Trident, after sidestepping the issue at prime minister's questions only yesterday. An article on Guardian Unlimited today looks at the options for updating the deterrent if the decision is made to go ahead with it. There aren't that many.
Unsurprisingly, Kate Hudson of CND, is appalled with Brown's pre-emptive decision on the matter, arguing that replacing Trident would encourage further nuclear proliferation. While the Guardian's Martin Kettle wishes the chancellor would use less spin to set out his plans.
But the BBC's political editor, Nick Robinson, says the real debate should focus on whether Britain's nuclear deterrent is "unacceptably expensive, economically wasteful and militarily unsound" - as Gordon himself claimed back in 1984.
