Wednesday's Commons vote on the renewal of the Trident nuclear missiles and submarines programme looks set for a backbench rebellion by over 60 Labour MPs. But, as has been so often the case in the past, particularly when passing anti-working class legislation, Blair will get his way thanks to the Tories' support, anyway.

As if it was not obvious that the £20bn price tag of this programme (excluding maintenance costs) will deprive public services of resources which they need desperately! Or that this stockpiling of nuclear weapons constitutes a permanent threat for all of us!

But if it were not for its potentially disastrous consequences, the whole affair would be little short of a farce. What, with Blair telling us how important it is that Britain should retain its "nuclear deterrent" - but a deterrent for whom? Isn't this claim ironical coming from a government that keeps warning us against the "threat of terrorism"? As far as we know, the American nuclear stockpiles did not prevent 9/11, or did we miss something? As to Iran or North Korea justifying this so-called deterrent, as Defence secretary Des Browne does, why on earth would these countries attack Britain? And how would they, when they lack anything like long-range missiles, let alone an inter-continental ones?

None of this has anything to do with the real reasons behind this programme, of course. The truth is, that for the past 50 years or so, the "nuclear deterrent" has been a golden goose for several generations of big shareholders. It has provided them with billions of pounds of military contracts, year in and year out.

First in the queue of potential beneficiaries of the Trident programme is BAE, Blair's very own protégé - the very same company that his government chose to protect against its own anti-corruption legislation, for fear that its shareholders might lose the fat dividends they get out of BAE's share of Saudi arms contracts.

In the Labour leadership's book, no effort should ever be spared to satisfy the profiteers' greed. This was the only reason for their involvement in the bloody invasion of Iraq - so that the City giants would be able to cut out their slice of the Iraqi cake once the dust of the war had settled. And it is the only reason for their obsessive determination that Britain should remain part of the "nuclear gang". If nothing else, this is a good enough reason for us, workers, to be against this programme.

The proposed merger between Amicus and the T&G was endorsed last week. A "majority" of those who voted in the ballot said "yes". But the turnout was only 27% - which shows just how removed most members feel from what goes on at the top of their unions - and for good reason, too.

Just last week, Amicus deputy general secretary Ed Sweeney co-signed a government paper calling for a cut in the present statutory protection against inflation for occupational pensions, as well as more flexible rules allowing bosses to make "small adjustments" (meaning cuts) to pension benefits! As if the job of a union leader was to help the bosses boost their profits on workers' backs!

And Amicus is not the only union whose leaders seem to think that their job is to cuddle up to the bosses. Wasn't Jeannie Drake, then deputy general secretary of the CWU, sitting on the Turner commission, which proposed postponing retirement age to 67? As to T&G leaders, they have a long record of signing up to job cuts and selling them as "victories" - the most blatant case being the case of the closure of the Rover plant at Longbridge.

Of course, having large unions - in fact a single one organising workers across all industries and skills - could be significant progress for workers. In fact, the TUC itself could have played this role long ago. But when was the last time it used its position to try to unite the ranks of the working class in a fight for their interests? More than 35 years ago and, even then, it was only for a day!

Union leaders make no secret of the fact that their merger policy aims at making up for the loss of cash caused by the drop in membership. Their aim is not to reinforce the working class by uniting its ranks. Nor do they have any qualms about displaying their spinelessness in front of the bosses - even though this is what keeps members out.

Whether merged or not, the working class will have to reclaim control of its unions, if they are to be of any use in defending our collective interests.