The question will be put this evening as to whether MPs want to replace Trident - or more specifically - the submarines that carry the Trident.

Much of the comment in the papers today is rather predictable.  The Telegraph's leader backs the Prime Minister (Defending ourselves in an unpredictable world); The Guardian a couple of days ago urged holding back from making a decision now (Labour's looming rebellion).

However, the leader in the FT today reads like it was written by Nick Harvey - endorsing pretty much fully the line espoused by Ming Campbell and Nick Harvey in the Lib Dem's Trident debate in Harrogate a couple of weeks ago.

"Extending the lives of the current submarines would save money. Even if that proves impossible, delaying a decision on replacement until 2010 would allow it to be taken after the next review conference on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. After that, the government may need to back a replacement nuclear deterrent. But it has failed to convince that the decision is needed now." The Financial Times - Leader

It will be interesting to see how much credit Ming and his team will be able to get for the moral victory of a close vote in tomorrow's papers.  It won't be easy.  No matter what Labour MPs think about the issue - the idea that they they might be giving Ming's team a boost will no doubt keep many with the Labour whip.

Also in today's news

• The Telegraph are watching YouTube to see how the US primary elections are playing out.

No, not West Ham against Tottenham, but yesterday's other unlikely finale. 

Following Ming's decisive intervention in the Trident debate on Saturday, it seemed his fortunes and reputation were, finally, on the up.

What a difference a day makes.

A quick perusal of the broadsheets this morning does not augur well. According to the Indy, "the party was in a state of confusion over its commitment to proportional representation" (Campbell drops Lib Dems' insistence on electoral reform), the Grauniad follows suit with "PR precondition in reversed then reinstated" (Campbell sets Brown tests for Lib-Lab coalition)and the ever impartial Telegraph announces that "the party was plunged into disarray" (Campbell is ready to make a deal with Labour). Probably not the media reaction the leadership was hoping for. 

The source of this confusion? The eternally anonymous "senior official".

This does all seem a bit bizarre. Did anybody actually come out of Ming's speech in the certain knowledge that he was preparing for coalition talks, the price of which was dropping electoral reform?

It now seems likely that, barring another remarkable turnaround, the Harrogate conference will be remembered for all the wrong reasons.

The Trident White paper will be available shortly after this blog is published.  Widely trailed in all the papers today (and many of yesterday's) none of us will be shocked when we hear Tony Blair announce the start of a process to replace trident.

CentreForum are hosting a timely debate in the House of Commons on this subject this evening (details available from the CentreForum website).  The two speakers, Dr Dan Plesch and Dr Jeremy Stocker will present alternative sides of the replacement debate. Though they differ on the need of replacement, it will be interesting to see if consensus on timing issues can be reached:

The white paper will also reject arguments urging a delay on a decision to commission new submarines by at least five years, as the Lib Dem leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, and many independent analysts have proposed.

Given the long lead times before operational availability - 14 years between the Trident decision and the day it replaced Polaris - it would be too risky. Delay would also not be cost effective, mainly because the nuclear reactors that propel the present boats need replacing soon.

The Guardian 4th December 2005

The costs of Trident are huge - but delaying the decision for short term political respite would almost certainly end up being even more costly.

Also in today's news

• William Rees-Mogg in The Times appears to agree with our blog entry last week about the ongoing threat David Cameron presents to the Liberal Democrat vote.  For this we apologise.
• Marcel Berlins warns of the threats to justice of Impact Statements read out before sentencing - such as that last week by Adele Eastman.  Someone commenting on the article sums it up even more succinctly than the esteemed professor:

"A drunken homeless man who is, as in recent cases, severely beaten up or set on fire, needs the same protection under the law as the devoted daughter or caring teacher. Without this, the law institutionalises an underclass (or untermensch) and violence against the vulnerable and despised will rise still further."

Kazbe commenting on Marcel Berlins "Why Victim Impact Statements should be axed" in The Guardian.

The Times reports today, “The Defence Select Committee, which has a majority of Labour MPs, is to begin a second inquiry on the case for replacing Trident, having accused the Ministry of Defence of failing to participate in its first such exercise this year.” MPs from both sides of the debate are concerned that the Government is determined to allow discussion only once a decision has been made. “Opponents of replacing Trident, say Mr Blair’s plan for a Cabinet decision first, followed by a White Paper setting out the Government’s recommendation to Parliament, would pre-empt the promised debate.”

            Messrs Blair and Brown have made it clear they support the replacement of Trident but the Prime Minister also pledged a full public debate on the issue, which is the very least that such a divisive and expensive project demands. However, MPs are right to be concerned that the discussion looks set to be conducted in the media rather than in Parliament.  Regardless of the specific arguments  surrounding Trident, which have been further complicated by North Korea’s recent nuclear tests (and which will be discussed in a forthcoming CentreForum pamphlet),  failure by the government to co-operate with the Defence Select Committee would represent a unacceptable stifling of debate amongst our elected officials.

 Pressure mounts for decision on nuclear deterrent By Greg Hurst – The Times

Also in today’s news:

• MPs Warn on School Failings

Nearly one million children in England attend schools that provide a "poor standard of education", the chairman of the Commons public accounts committee has warned.

• ‘Even Muslims Look at Me’

The Guardian’s Zaiba Malik provides insight of a day spent behind the veil.