The Centrist

A blog for all Centre ground political thought

Designed with WordPress

Category: foreign policy

  • The Wealth We Can’t Measure.

    by

    Devin Hindry

    We have, in recent decades, become masters of keeping score: ministers, central bankers and chief executives pore over charts that show activity rising and falling, and newspapers trumpet each new GDP figure as though it were the single vital metric of a nation’s soul. There is, I concede, great virtue in economic health, wealth buys medicine, funds schools and steadies lives  but it is a mistake to confuse the measure with the meaning; prosperity is a means, not the substance. What gives life its depth is the pleasures of friendship, the slow accumulation of skill, the quiet pride of a town square that feels as if it has been loved and still is loved . This cannot be summed up in a number. When we allow the obsession with growth to crowd out the moral imagination, we impoverish the very thing we claim to want to advance: a flourishing civilisation. This is not simply a matter of taste; it is a matter of survival for the civic soul.

    Walk through any historic British town and you will see,the argument for a different ordering of values. The great cathedrals: Canterbury, York and Salisbury among them were not the result of quarterly planning but of acts of communal patience, where generations laboured not for immediate return but because there was an understanding that the future deserved beauty. Cathedrals embody the belief that some projects exceed the narrow metric of cost-benefit analysis: they are physical monuments that tell us societies once thought it worth investing, across decades or even centuries, in things that would outlive them. Those same instincts shaped medieval guilds, associations of craftsmen who guarded standards, trained apprentices and maintained a code of excellence who acted not just as economic organisations but as custodians of expertise and civic responsibility. Guilds demanded sacrifice and patience; they demanded that we think beyond the next accounting period.

    Jump forward to the nineteenth century and the story repeats itself in a modern key: the Victorians left behind civic works that were investments in public life. Sir Joseph Bazalgette’s sewers, conceived and built at great expense and with an eye to durability and public health, rescued London from repeated cholera outbreaks and made modern life possible. Town halls, public libraries and schools sprang up across the country as tangible signs that the civic realm mattered. The Arts and Crafts movement, led by figures such as William Morris, issued an eloquent critique of the factory’s anonymous goods and pleaded that beauty, skill and the value of honest workmanship were not luxuries but essentials of a humane society.

    After the Second World War the same sense of civic purpose briefly reasserted itself: rubble was cleared, new homes were raised and the Festival of Britain in 1951 celebrated each small craft and design that knitted the nation back together. Post-war reconstruction, from the new towns to public housing schemes was not merely about building dwellings but, in intention at least, about rebuilding community and giving people spaces in which to belong. Some of those projects failed in practice and some succeeded, but the aim was not disposable profit so much as durable habitation.

    Compare those civic acts with the more recent rhythms of development and the contrast is stark. In the age of instant commerce and shareholder primacy, buildings are often conceived as widgets to be squeezed for yield: housing estates are planned to maximise units per acre rather than to foster conversation between neighbours, and shopping centres are designed as catchment funnels rather than as marketplaces that encourage lingering. The logic is rational within a narrow frame — minimise upfront cost, accelerate turnover, maximise return — but that frame discounts what our ancestors and many who followed them instinctively grasped, which is that human beings thrive in places that invite slowness, reward care and make room for public life. When we substitute a calculus of cost for a sensibility of stewardship, we do not simply save money; we sacrifice the conditions that make a place worth living in, and in so doing we outsource not only services but responsibility.

    Corporations are often painted as the villains of this story, and to a degree they are complicit; yet they are not rogue actors so much as rational respondents to incentives we have collectively set. If regulation, tax, planning and social expectations reward speed and scale above endurance and locality, firms will respond — centralising supply chains, standardising retail formats and pressing for the cheapest inputs. Standardisation brings convenience and, often, lower prices, but scale also erodes character. When the same brand dominates fifty towns, high streets become interchangeable; the particularities that build local attachment such as the baker who knows your order, the landlord who remembers your name, the florist whose display changes with the week’s weather are lost.

    The commercial reconfiguration of everyday life has consequences that do not show up on any ledger. We have replaced many of the small institutions that used to mediate social life with impersonal, efficient substitutes: the corner shop that once provided a daily encounter is now a delivery app, the pub that hosted the evening’s conversation is closing because it cannot compete with corporate leisure, and the club where parents volunteered to coach the under-11s either pays a manager’s wage or shuts. It is true that consumer choice has increased to provide more goods, more convenience and lower prices but convenience does not create companionship. The cost of efficiency is often invisible: loneliness, weaker informal safety nets and fewer opportunities for civic engagement and participation.

    Education, too, has been reshaped by an instrumental logic. There was a time when universities were places of general formation, where students were invited to fall in love with ideas for their own sake; the historic function of higher education was to cultivate judgement, teach the habits of critical thought and expose the young to a range of disciplines that widen the mind Have been eroded by a narrowing measure of success. League tables, research income and graduate starting salaries have become a proxy for institutional worth. The pressure to produce employable graduates is not, in itself, unwarranted as  society needs skilled graduates  yet when employability overtakes intellectual formation the university risks becoming a conveyor belt for future employees rather than a temple of curiosity.

    That shift has consequences for the civic imagination. We produce technocrats who are excellent at executing tasks but less practiced in asking the tougher questions that sustain civic life: what constitutes the good life? What obligations do I owe my community? How should we balance freedom with responsibility? Knowledge for its own sake has a public function; it breeds citizenship that can hold power to account and imagine alternatives. The loss of an appetite for inquiry diminishes a society’s moral imagination even as it boosts its productive capacity.

    Part of this is a cultural loss of patience. Ours is an era allergic to delay: financial markets demand quarterly performance, venture capital expects rapid scaling and consumers expect next-day delivery. That relentless rhythm does not suit projects that require time to mature. Craftsmanship, which often takes years to master, does not fit easily into an impatient economy, yet craft matters precisely because it embodies a different valuation of time. The hand-forged hinge, the stone-mason’s coursing, the teacher’s long regard for a student who learns slowly — these are practices that presuppose a future worth investing in.

    We are poorer for losing patience. Fast, cheap construction may answer an immediate housing shortfall, but it also produces homes that need replacing sooner, communities that lack the rooted architecture people cherish and an ethos that equates replacement with progress. Conversely, when a society is willing to spend more to build well  if  it accepts that an initial outlay buys decades of dignity, it reaps a different return: continuity, custodianship and a built environment that encourages respect rather than contempt. The moral economy of the long view ought to be part of any serious debate about public investment.

    There is also a moral grammar embedded in craftsmanship that markets do a poor job of pricing. Craftspeople transmit standards, pass on traditions and insist on quality not because it is immediately remunerative but because it is an obligation to the material, to the patron and to future users. Guilds once formalised that obligation and apprenticeship systems inculcated habits of work and community; modern practice has often atomised training into discrete, commodified units and the result is sometimes efficiency and sometimes a loss of depth. We cannot expect, overnight, to restore guilds, nor should we, but we can reinvest in practical training that honours the slow accumulation of skill and connects it with civic purpose.

    It is necessary, and politically neutral, to insist that money is not the arbiter of meaning. Affluence can buy comfort; it cannot by itself produce affection. A house filled with goods is not the same as a home filled with neighbours. A community with high GDP can still be socially fractured if wealth is concentrated and shared spaces vanish. What sustains social life are strings of ordinary reciprocity — the neighbour who collects a parcel, the parent who watches another’s child when an emergency arises, the volunteer who keeps a library open on a Saturday  They yield lower crime, better mental health and more resilient local networks; in short, they are public goods that markets habitually undervalue.

    if we allow the threads of social life to fray we will wake to a society that is affluent by measure yet diminished in spirit. We will have plenty of things and little to bind us to one another.

    If we wish to recalibrate our priorities, we must alter what we measure and what we reward. GDP will always matter but we can and should supplement it. Measures of social cohesion, civic engagement and cultural capital ought to inform policy. Planning rules can be reshaped to favour mixed-use developments that encourage interaction over isolated dormitory estates; public procurement can reward firms for local hiring, for commitment to maintenance rather than quick turnover, and for designs that favour durability; universities can be encouraged, through funding and accreditation criteria, to protect modules and spaces devoted to broad formation.

    Cultural work is required too. We must applaud not only commercial success but the patience of the craftsman, the curiosity of the teacher and the civic entrepreneur who invests in place rather than immediate scaling. Parents and teachers should praise delayed gratification and deep work as much as they praise early success. Public recognition through awards, curriculum emphasis and media coverage  can shift what young people see as honourable pursuits. If we refuse to esteem the slow and the local, we consign the next generation to a narrower notion of success..

    Practical steps are available: incentivise apprenticeships and long-form training, reform procurement to reward durability and local engagement, protect public libraries and community halls as investments in social capital, encourage universities to maintain courses that foster critical thinking and civic literacy (not as indulgences but as essential investments in citizenship), and reform planning codes so that developments are judged by their ability to generate social life as well as by their density targets. None of these measures is radically interventionist; each simply rebalances incentives toward what endures.

    If we get this right we will not become anti-business or anti-progress; we will, instead, achieve a healthier synthesis in which growth funds what is worth sustaining rather than hollowing it out. We will produce not merely workers but citizens, not merely houses but homes, and not merely shops but places where strangers become neighbours.

    This is both an alarm and an invitation, and it demands more than  reflection; it demands a public response. We can continue to measure ourselves by how much we can buy  to wake one morning to find that we have nothing left that truly matters  or we can recalibrate. We can make policy choices, cultural choices and personal choices that favour durability, curiosity and connection.

    Our civilisation is a fabric woven from countless small human acts such as teaching, repairing, listening, keeping watch, arguing civilly in public, handing on skill from one generation to the next, rhythms that make a nation. They do not flash on a dashboard; they accumulate quietly, and their rewards are durable. To rediscover them is to accept a modest, enduring truth: money alone does not make us who we are. It is our connections, our curiosity, our crafts and our common purpose that do. If we choose to measure and to value them again, we may find that the richest thing a country can be is not the wealthiest on paper but the most connected at heart.

  • Reclaiming Westminster: Refocus MPs on the National Interest

    by

    ,

    In the corridors of Westminster today, the day to day business of Parliament often competes with the relentless stream of constituent inquiries flooding MPs’ offices. Benefit appeals, housing disputes, immigration delays and mental health crises now occupy a significant portion of an MP’s working week, crowding out the time once devoted to debating legislation, scrutinising government and shaping national policy. At a time when the demands on our legislature could not be greater, whether it is adapting to climate change, managing the NHS backlog or overseeing post Brexit regulation, it makes sense to ask whether constituency casework might be better handled elsewhere, allowing MPs to focus on the broader interests of the nation.

    Over the past decade, constituency workloads have risen sharply. During the pandemic, offices reported handling quadruple the number of cases compared with pre Covid levels, and some saw their inboxes swell from a few hundred emails a month to nearly a thousand. A survey of MPs’ staff found offices buckling under the weight of more than four thousand separate issues in a six month period, six times the figure recorded five years earlier, and described staff as “tired, stressed and overworked.” These trends have continued even after emergency funding was withdrawn, leaving many MPs struggling to recruit and retain caseworkers while trying to maintain their presence both at Westminster and at home.

    This shift has not occurred in isolation. Cuts to legal aid and community advice centres have left citizens with nowhere else to turn. Local authorities, already stretched, struggle to resolve every council tax query or planning appeal. And with modern welfare and immigration systems growing ever more complex, navigating them effectively often requires specialist knowledge. The result is that MPs’ offices have become the default problem solving hub for almost every public service grievance.

    Yet the consequences of this change are clear: when close to half of an MP’s time is spent on individual casework, the core functions of Parliament, scrutinising legislation, holding ministers to account, conducting in depth inquiries, inevitably suffer. Public Bill Committees, where much of the detailed line by line examination of legislation takes place, frequently struggle to attract sufficient attendance. Select Committees lack the capacity to pursue lengthy investigations. And debates, once the forum for thorough argument, can become dominated by headline seeking interventions rather than substantive policy discussion.

    To address this imbalance, we should consider a model in which routine constituency casework is removed from MPs’ immediate responsibility. Instead, these tasks would be managed by two complementary structures: a national professional casework agency and strengthened local hubs under devolved authorities.

    A National Constituency Services Agency would operate at arm’s length from Parliament, funded by a ring fenced budget and overseen by a cross party parliamentary board. Constituents seeking assistance with welfare appeals, immigration queries, tax disputes or national health matters would contact the agency via a single helpline or online portal. Trained specialists, legal advisers, welfare rights officers, policy experts, would triage each case, liaise directly with government departments and pursue resolution. The agency would adhere to strict performance standards, publishing annual reports on caseload volumes, resolution rates and average handling times. By consolidating expertise in one place, it would ensure consistent, high quality service free from the postcode lotteries that currently arise from variations in MPs’ office capacity.

    Local Hubs under Metro Mayors and Councils would handle problems best resolved at the regional or local level. In areas with combined authority mayors, Greater Manchester, the West Midlands, Liverpool City Region, council run “Citizens’ Advice Hubs” could employ welfare caseworkers, housing advisers and legal aid volunteers. These hubs would provide in person support, coordinate with local health trusts and housing associations, and address issues like council tax, planning appeals or housing benefit errors. When a problem uncovered a systemic policy flaw, say a rule that disproportionately affected single parents, the hub would escalate it to the national agency and inform the constituency MP of the underlying trend.

    This two tier approach yields several important advantages. Citizens receive more personalised, expert assistance close to home, eliminating postcode lotteries in service quality. Local authorities, attuned to regional demographics and challenges, can pilot neighbourhood specific initiatives, mobile advice vans in underserved areas, proactive welfare checks for the elderly or disabled, or pop up legal clinics in community centres. The national agency, operating at scale, negotiates system wide enhancements, streamlined forms, integrated IT platforms, shared knowledge repositories, that individual MP offices could never achieve on their own. MPs, in turn, are liberated from the daily grind of casework and can recalibrate toward high impact activities, rigorous committee work, targeted private members’ bills and substantive contributions to debates.

    Of course, such an overhaul demands investment. The good news is that much of the necessary infrastructure already exists in departmental contact centres, local council advice teams and Citizens Advice bureaux and can be re organised rather than built from scratch. To fund the enhanced service, the Treasury could reallocate portions of existing administrative budgets, for instance merging the Department for Work and Pensions’ call centre contracts and the Home Office’s case management teams into the new agency. Local hubs would receive support through a modest uplift to the local government finance settlement, perhaps a one per cent precept on council tax earmarked for Citizens’ Advice Hubs, generating tens of millions annually for staffing, training and premises.

    Beyond re profiling existing funds, the government could levy three targeted measures. First, a small “efficiency dividend” across Whitehall could free up zero point five per cent of departmental running costs to seed the national agency, tapering as savings emerge from streamlined processes. Second, in year reallocations, such as unused training grants or dormant account balances, could provide one off capital for the digital platform and professional academy. Third, a fraction of revenue from progressive levies, the windfall tax on energy firms or proceeds from the digital services tax, could be ring fenced for constituency services, ensuring fair and transparent funding announced annually in the Budget.

    These measures would cover the estimated one hundred fifty to two hundred million pound annual cost of a fully staffed agency and network of hubs without resorting to deep cuts in frontline services. Over time, as casework becomes more efficient and appeals decline, savings from reduced legal appeals and error corrections could be reinvested, making the system self sustaining. Embedding the costs within departmental and local government settlements also protects the service from being easily reversed in future spending rounds.

    All of this aligns closely with the principle advanced by Edmund Burke in seventeen seventy four: “You choose a member indeed, but when you have chosen him, he is not a member of Bristol, but he is a member of Parliament.” Burke argued that MPs must serve “the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole” rather than act as advocates for isolated local interests. By removing the burden of day to day casework, we allow MPs to fulfil that trustee role more effectively.

    Ultimately, the health of our democracy depends not on how many individual problems an MP can solve, but on how effectively Parliament as a whole crafts laws, scrutinises government and responds to national challenges. As our society grows more complex, through technological change, public health demands and environmental pressures, MPs must be able to draw on their full capabilities as legislators. Transferring routine casework to professional agencies and devolved local bodies is not a retreat from representation; it is a logical evolution of the MP’s role in the twenty first century.

    By professionalising the front line of citizen assistance, we ensure that every constituent’s problem is handled by the right expert, that systemic issues are exposed through data and that MPs can devote themselves to “the general good” of the entire country. In doing so, we create a fairer, more efficient service for the public and revitalise Parliament’s core mission, holding power to account and shaping our collective future. This is the reform our times demand.

  • From Tariff Trap to Trade Triumph: The UK’s Blueprint for Free Trade Leadership

    by

    By Devin Hindry

    In today’s era of geopolitical turbulence and protectionist policies, the United Kingdom faces a pivotal moment,a chance to redefine its role in the global economy by embracing free trade rather than succumbing to retaliatory measures. The aggressive tariff strategy deployed by US President Donald Trump, intended to protect domestic industries through steep duties on imported goods, has not only disrupted global supply chains but has also laid bare the inherent weaknesses of a tit-for-tat trade policy. Rather than mirroring these punitive measures, the UK can harness its post-Brexit autonomy to lower its own trade barriers with countries mired in tariff wars, thereby fostering deeper, more strategic international partnerships and securing long-term prosperity.

    At its core, Britain’s economic identity has been forged by a proud tradition of free trade. Historically, British commerce, propelled by the visionary ideas of Cobden and Bright, helped set the framework for international markets, fuelling industrial revolutions and generating unprecedented wealth. Today, that legacy serves as both a source of national pride and a potent economic asset. In rejecting the cycle of retaliatory tariffs, the UK can once again reaffirm its commitment to open markets, a stance that is underpinned by robust economic theory. By keeping trade barriers low, nations benefit from increased competition, innovation, and ultimately, consumer welfare through lower prices and more diverse product offerings.

    Trump’s tariffs, aimed at shielding American industries, have inadvertently exposed the global economy to increased inefficiencies and higher costs. When tariffs are imposed, they not only reduce the competitiveness of imported goods but also set off a chain reaction among trading partners, leading many to impose their own duties to protect domestic markets. This tit-for-tat escalation typically results in a fragmented global trade environment where businesses face higher operational costs and consumers pay greatly inflated prices. The UK government should resist immediate retaliation, rather than engaging in a damaging tariff war, allowing it to remain competitive and to position itself as a reliable partner for countries burdened by external tariff shocks.

    Post-Brexit, the UK has regained the power to design trade policies that are responsive to modern economic challenges. Freed from EU regulatory constraints, Britain now has the unique opportunity to recalibrate its approach by negotiating forward-thinking trade agreements with key partners. Recent deals with Australia and New Zealand, along with active negotiations for accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), are emblematic of this new era. These agreements are not mere replicas of past treaties; they are crafted to minimize bureaucratic hurdles, reduce administrative costs, and incentivize investment and innovation. By lowering its own tariff and non-tariff barriers, the UK not only facilitates smoother trade flows but also creates an environment where businesses can more effectively integrate into global supply chains that have been disrupted by protectionist policies elsewhere.

    Delving deeper, this strategy of restraint can be understood as a sophisticated response to the economic dynamics set in motion by unilateral tariff impositions. When major economies adopt protectionist stances, the resulting uncertainty and market distortions present a clear opportunity for a nation that remains committed to open trade. For example, while Trump’s tariffs have driven up costs in the US and forced many countries into a defensive posture, the UK’s open market approach makes it an attractive gateway for international commerce and foreign investment. Companies seeking to avoid the unpredictability of tariff-induced cost increases will look to Britain as a stable, low-barrier destination, thereby enhancing our attractiveness as a global trade hub.

    This strategic restraint serves a dual purpose. On one hand, it shields British consumers and businesses from the immediate adverse impacts of retaliatory tariffs, such as higher import costs and disrupted supply chains. On the other hand, it bolsters Britain’s bargaining position in future trade negotiations. By demonstrating a commitment to free trade and by building coalitions with other open-market economies, the UK can play a leading role in shaping global trade rules that promote competition and innovation. This is particularly significant at a time when many countries are reassessing the value of protectionism in the wake of recent economic shocks, be they from pandemics, supply chain disruptions, or geopolitical conflicts.

    Moreover, Britain’s deliberate choice to eschew aggressive countermeasures would align with a long-term vision of economic resilience. History shows that protectionist policies, although sometimes politically expedient in the short run, tend to generate long-lasting economic scars. Trade wars erode market efficiency, deter investment, and ultimately slow economic growth. In contrast, the UK’s strategy of maintaining open borders and reducing regulatory obstacles creates a virtuous cycle of growth. It encourages foreign investment, enhances domestic competitiveness, and preserves the integrity of global supply networks. This approach not only mitigates the immediate disruptions caused by external tariffs but also paves the way for sustained prosperity in an increasingly interconnected world.

    In a broader context, the UK’s choice of restraint and openness would stand as a powerful counter-narrative to the rising tide of global protectionism. While many nations may fall into the trap of retaliatory measures that escalate into full-blown trade wars, Britain’s commitment to free trade offers a stabilizing influence. By lowering its own trade barriers, the UK sends a clear message: prosperity is best achieved through cooperation, innovation, and a steadfast adherence to the principles of open markets. In doing so, we not only safeguard our economic interests but also contribute to the broader goal of maintaining a rules-based international trading system—one that benefits all participants and mitigates the risks of unilateral economic isolation.

    Ultimately, the tariffs imposed by Trump have created a paradoxical opportunity. They have highlighted the fragility of protectionist strategies and underscored the immense benefits of open trade. In this landscape of uncertainty, the United Kingdom is uniquely positioned to lead by example, demonstrating that true strength lies not in aggressive retaliation, but in measured restraint and strategic innovation. By lowering trade barriers with tariffed countries, fostering strong alliances, and investing in a forward-looking regulatory framework, Britain can once again become the global free trade champion that history tells us it can be. This is not merely a defensive posture; it is a proactive, visionary strategy that promises to secure the nation’s economic future while contributing to a more prosperous, interconnected world.

  • Russian Media in the Ukraine Conflict: Propaganda, Misinformation, and the Battle for Global Narratives

    by

    By Aedan Finlayson

    This article investigates the complex role of Russian media throughout the Ukraine conflict, focusing on its function as a mechanism for propaganda, misinformation, and psychological operations. It analyses the strategies utilized to influence both domestic and international narratives, the media’s alignment with governmental goals, and the repercussions for global information landscapes. The research emphasizes how Russian media has been employed to rationalize the invasion, undermine Ukraine’s credibility, and counter Western narratives, while also considering the challenges posed by rising digital resistance and fact-checking efforts. The Russian incursion into Ukraine in 2022 represented not only a military engagement but also a profound battle for information. State-controlled Russian media emerged as a pivotal tool in shaping public perception on both national and international fronts. This article assesses the strategic utilization of media by the Russian authorities, concentrating on its aims, methodologies, and effects. It further examines the reactions of the global community to Russian media narratives and the wider implications for information warfare in the contemporary digital landscape.

    Objectives of Russian Media in the Conflict

    A key objective of Russian media was to create a narrative that legitimized the invasion of Ukraine. State-run outlets characterized the conflict as a “special military operation” intended to “denazify” Ukraine and safeguard Russian-speaking communities. This narrative exploited historical grievances and nationalist sentiments to rally domestic support and mitigate external criticism. Russian media aimed to undermine the legitimacy of Ukraine’s government by depicting it as corrupt, ineffective, and a mere instrument of Western interests. Disinformation campaigns targeted President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, distorting his actions and undermining his authority. Russian media also sought to undermine the credibility of Western governments and institutions, characterizing them as hypocritical, aggressive, and destabilizing entities. By promoting narratives centered on Western imperialism and economic decline, these outlets aimed to diminish global support for Ukraine and redirect responsibility for the conflict towards NATO and the United States.

    Methods of Russian Media Propaganda

    State-controlled television networks, including RT and Channel One, served as vital instruments for spreading official narratives. These channels played a significant role in broadcasting government-sanctioned accounts of events, frequently omitting or distorting information to align with Kremlin interests. Traditional media also utilized fear tactics to garner domestic support, highlighting perceived threats to Russia’s sovereignty and security. Social media emerged as a crucial arena in the information conflict. Russian-affiliated accounts and bots inundated platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and Telegram with disinformation, fabricated news, and manipulated content. These initiatives aimed to generate confusion, amplify divisive narratives, and suppress pro-Ukrainian viewpoints. Disinformation strategies included the dissemination of false narratives, altered images, and deepfake videos designed to mislead audiences and foster distrust. For example, fabricated allegations regarding Ukrainian atrocities or staged videos portraying supposed Ukrainian aggression were circulated to rationalize Russian actions and undermine the credibility of Ukrainian forces. Russian media also focused on international audiences through platforms like RT and Sputnik, which were customized for various linguistic and cultural contexts. These outlets aimed to exploit divisions within Western societies by highlighting contentious issues such as migration, racial tensions, and economic challenges.

    Domestic Influence of Russian Media

    Russian media has been instrumental in preserving domestic backing for the war by establishing a regulated information landscape. Independent journalism has been stifled through stringent censorship laws, arrests, and the shutdown of opposing outlets. State-sponsored propaganda has prioritized patriotism and depicted dissenters as traitors, thereby ensuring a unified national narrative. Journalists and activists who challenge the Kremlin’s narrative have encountered severe repression. The enactment of laws criminalizing “false information” regarding the military has further suppressed independent journalism, relegating state-controlled media to the primary source of information for the majority of Russians.

    Challenges to Russian Media Narratives

    International media entities, fact-checkers, and non-governmental organizations have been vital in refuting Russian disinformation. Organizations such as Bellingcat and investigative journalists have unveiled fabricated claims, thereby diminishing Russia’s credibility on the international front. Social media platforms have taken action by restricting the reach of Russian state-affiliated accounts, labeling misinformation, and banning specific outlets in response to pressure from governments and civil society. Nonetheless, these actions have also faced criticism for potentially infringing on free speech and heightening geopolitical tensions. Ukrainian authorities and civil society organizations have actively countered Russian narratives through social media initiatives, utilizing platforms like Twitter and TikTok to disseminate real-time updates and humanize the conflict. These efforts have underscored civilian suffering, garnered international support, and challenged Russian propaganda.

    Implications for Global Information Ecosystems

    The extensive deployment of propaganda and misinformation during the conflict has led to a significant decline in trust towards media outlets and institutions. As Russian strategies obscured the distinction between reality and fabrication, audiences grew increasingly doubtful of all information sources, thereby hindering the establishment of accurate narratives. The conflict highlighted the critical need for information resilience in contemporary warfare. It is essential for governments and organizations to prioritize investments in media literacy, digital security measures, and cooperative fact-checking initiatives to effectively counter disinformation and safeguard democratic dialogue.

    Conclusion

    The involvement of Russian media in the Ukraine conflict illustrates the formidable role of information as a tool in modern warfare. By manipulating narratives, magnifying misinformation, and stifling opposition, Russian media became integral to Moscow’s strategic approach. Nevertheless, the global resistance to these tactics revealed the strength of democratic societies and the capacity of digital platforms to challenge propaganda. The insights gained from this conflict will influence the future landscape of information warfare, underscoring the necessity for vigilance, innovation, and international collaboration.

  • Unveiling Russia’s Intelligence Missteps: Lessons from the Ukraine Invasion

    by


    By Aedan Finlayson

    Following Vladimir Putin’s unlawful invasion of Ukraine in 2022, numerous vulnerabilities within the Russian military and intelligence apparatus have been revealed. The errors committed by Russian intelligence in evaluating Ukraine’s resilience, coupled with the effective and unified support from Western nations for Ukraine, have highlighted deficiencies in what was previously regarded as a formidable intelligence service.

    This article examines the organisational, ideological, and political elements that have led to these shortcomings and provides an analysis of the consequences for President Putin’s geopolitical objectives and the broader landscape of global security.

    Strategic Miscalculations

    Underestimating Ukraine’s Resilience
    Russian intelligence misjudged both the capability and determination of Ukraine to oppose occupation. Initial evaluations suggested that Kyiv would capitulate within a matter of days, anticipating little resistance from either Ukrainian military forces or the civilian populace. However, this assessment failed to account for the substantial reforms implemented in Ukraine’s military and governance since 2014, as well as the cohesive impact of Russian aggression on the formation of Ukrainian national identity.

    Agencies such as the FSB relied on outdated or ideologically skewed information. Analysts did not adequately acknowledge the pervasive distrust of Russia among Ukrainians, especially in the eastern regions where Moscow had previously held sway. This misplaced confidence resulted in insufficient contingency planning for an extended resistance, ultimately exposing Russian forces to logistical challenges and elevated casualty figures.

    Misjudging Western Response
    A significant error was the belief that NATO and the European Union would react to the invasion with limited and disjointed responses. Russian strategists assumed that Western countries were too absorbed in their internal conflicts and economic ties to present a cohesive opposition.

    However, contrary to these assumptions, Western allies enacted unprecedented sanctions, provided advanced military support to Ukraine, and worked together diplomatically to isolate Russia internationally. This miscalculation was partly rooted in Russia’s enduring narrative of Western decline, which influenced intelligence evaluations and fostered overconfidence in Moscow’s capacity to take advantage of perceived vulnerabilities. Consequently, this strategic oversight left Russia ill-equipped to handle the economic and military consequences of its actions.

    Operational Inefficiencies

    Communication and Coordination Failures
    Russian forces exhibited considerable operational shortcomings on the battlefield, characterised by inadequate communication systems, ineffective logistical strategies, and an absence of a unified operational approach. Intercepted communications indicated a state of disarray among Russian commanders, and the presence of abandoned or seized equipment highlighted their unpreparedness for prolonged engagements.

    Moreover, the deficiency of precise and actionable intelligence significantly impeded Russian military efforts. For instance, initial endeavours to encircle Kyiv were disrupted by a blend of Ukrainian counteroffensives and logistical failures, exposing significant weaknesses in reconnaissance and operational strategy.

    Flawed Internal Reporting
    The prevailing culture of deference and apprehension within Russia’s intelligence agencies has intensified these challenges. Analysts are said to have offered excessively optimistic projections to conform to the expectations of the Kremlin, thereby stifling dissenting opinions and critical evaluations.

    This internal disarray not only skewed strategic planning but also compromised the reliability of intelligence in military and political decision-making arenas.

    Political and Organisational Factors

    Centralisation of Decision-Making
    The centralised decision-making structure in Russia, especially during President Putin’s tenure, has been a crucial factor contributing to intelligence shortcomings. Putin’s dependence on a select group of advisers shielded him from diverse viewpoints, and the emphasis on loyalty rather than expertise within intelligence organisations hindered thorough evaluation.

    This hierarchical method fostered a setting in which erroneous beliefs were sustained, and strategic adaptability was significantly constrained.

    Ideological Bias
    Russian intelligence evaluations were influenced by ideological narratives that highlighted Ukraine’s reliance on Russia and questioned the legitimacy of its government. These biases resulted in a significant underestimation of Ukraine’s capacity to rally both domestic and international backing, alongside a failure to foresee the strength of its democratic institutions.

    Broader Implications

    Lessons for Intelligence Reform
    The shortcomings observed in Ukraine highlight the necessity for intelligence agencies to emphasise objectivity and critical evaluation rather than ideological alignment. For Russia, rectifying these deficiencies would necessitate comprehensive reforms, which should include enhanced transparency, accountability, and the incorporation of varied viewpoints in intelligence evaluations.

    Geopolitical Ramifications
    The intelligence failures experienced by Russia have significantly impacted its international reputation. The ongoing conflict has revealed the constraints of Moscow’s military and strategic capabilities, invigorated NATO, and fortified alliances among democratic nations. These changes have altered the security environment, with enduring effects on global power relations.

    Domestic Repercussions
    In Russia, the failure to secure swift victories has diminished trust in the leadership of both the intelligence and military sectors. Rising public dissatisfaction, combined with economic pressures, presents challenges for the Kremlin in maintaining its strategic goals.

    Conclusion

    The Russian invasion of Ukraine serves as a case study in the perils of overconfidence, ideological bias, and centralised decision-making in intelligence operations. The failures of Russia’s intelligence apparatus not only undermined its military objectives but also highlighted the broader weaknesses in its strategic approach.

    Understanding these missteps is essential for both Russia and the international community as they navigate an increasingly complex and contested global landscape

  • Bridging Brexit: Embracing a Swiss-Style Deal to Revitalize the UK’s Economy

    by

    By Devin Hindry

    The economic repercussions of Brexit have become increasingly evident, with the United Kingdom (UK) grappling with challenges in trade, investment, and labour mobility. The Office for Budget Responsibility has projected a long-term reduction of 4% in the UK’s potential gross domestic product  due to Brexit, equating to approximately £100 billion annually, or around £1,500 per person. This downturn is attributed to decreased trade volumes, reduced foreign direct investment, and diminished labour mobility. In 2023, the UK’s economy was nearly £140 billion smaller than it would have been had the country remained within the Customs Union and Single Market, translating to an average loss of nearly £2,000 per Briton and nearly £3,400 per Londoner.

    Considering these challenges, it is imperative to explore strategies that can mitigate the economic impact of Brexit while respecting the referendum’s mandate for greater autonomy. One viable approach is to pursue a relationship with the European Union similar to that of Switzerland. Switzerland, while not an EU member, has established a series of bilateral agreements that grant it access to significant portions of the EU’s internal market. This model allows Switzerland to participate in the free movement of goods, services, people, and capital—the core freedoms of the EU—without full EU membership. The Swiss-EU relationship is governed by over 100 bilateral agreements, managed by more than 20 joint committees, covering areas such as technical trade barriers, public procurement, agriculture, air and land transport, and research.

    Adopting a Switzerland-style arrangement could offer the UK several advantages. Firstly, it would facilitate smoother trade flows by reducing tariffs and non-tariff barriers, thereby enhancing the competitiveness of UK businesses in European markets. The EU is the UK’s largest trading partner, accounting for 42% of UK exports and 50% of imports in 2020. By aligning more closely with EU regulations, UK exporters would face fewer obstacles, potentially reversing the decline in the variety of goods exported to the EU, which saw 1,645 fewer types of British products exported to every EU country post-Brexit.

    Secondly, a bilateral agreement would provide a framework for regulatory cooperation, ensuring that UK products and services meet EU standards, thus preventing technical barriers to trade. This is particularly important for industries such as pharmaceuticals and chemicals, where regulatory divergence can lead to significant trade disruptions. Switzerland’s mutual recognition agreement with the EU in relation to conformity assessment allows Swiss products to be assessed for compliance with EU requirements within Switzerland, facilitating smoother access to the EU market.

    Thirdly, such an arrangement would allow for the mobility of skilled labour, addressing shortages in key sectors such as healthcare, engineering, and information technology. The UK’s departure from the EU has led to a significant decrease in EU nationals working in the UK, exacerbating labour shortages. Switzerland’s agreement on the free movement of persons with the EU allows for Swiss and EU citizens to live and work in each other’s territories, providing Swiss businesses with access to a broad talent pool.

    Critics may argue that such an arrangement could compromise the UK’s sovereignty, a core issue in the Brexit debate. However, it’s important to note that Switzerland retains significant autonomy and is not subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. While Switzerland aligns with certain EU regulations to facilitate market access, it maintains the right to negotiate its own trade agreements and set policies in areas not covered by the bilateral agreements. This balance between integration and sovereignty could serve as a model for the UK, allowing it to reap the economic benefits of close ties with the EU while honouring the referendum’s mandate for greater autonomy.

    Recent developments indicate a potential pathway for the UK to enhance its trade relationship with the EU. The EU’s trade commissioner, Maroš Šefčovič, has suggested that the UK could consider joining the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean (PEM) convention. Established in 2012, the PEM convention facilitates trade among its 25 member countries, including the EU, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, and several North African and Balkan states. It does so by expanding the definition of “domestic” products to include materials sourced from member countries, thereby simplifying rules of origin and promoting regional supply chains.

    Membership in the PEM convention could be particularly beneficial for UK businesses with complex supply chains, such as those in the automotive and aerospace industries. By simplifying the rules of origin, it would allow these businesses to source components from a wider range of countries without losing preferential access to European markets. This would enhance the competitiveness of UK products and could stimulate investment in high-value manufacturing sectors.

    Joining the PEM convention would not entail entering a customs union or the single market, thus respecting the UK’s red lines post-Brexit. The UK government has expressed openness to considering the benefits of PEM membership, recognising its potential to support economic growth and improve EU-UK relations.

    Switzerland’s experience demonstrates that it is possible to maintain a high degree of economic integration with the EU while preserving political sovereignty. Switzerland contributes financially to economic and social cohesion in the EU Member States that joined after 2004, reflecting its partial integration into the EU’s single market. However, it retains control over key policy areas and is not bound by the EU’s political structures. This model of selective engagement allows Switzerland to benefit from access to the EU

    Pursuing a Switzerland-style arrangement with the EU offers a pragmatic pathway for the UK to heal the economic wounds inflicted by Brexit. Such an approach would enable the UK to enhance trade relations, stimulate economic growth, and maintain regulatory autonomy, thereby honouring the principles of sovereignty and self-determination that underpinned the Brexit decision.

  • Redefining the Role of MPs: Focusing on National Issues through Devolution

    by

    The role of Members of Parliament (MPs) in the United Kingdom has traditionally encompassed a broad range of responsibilities, from national legislative duties to addressing local constituency issues. However, as the national and international political landscape becomes increasingly complex, the effectiveness of MPs in scrutinizing national policies is often hampered by the significant amount of time they must dedicate to local matters. This essay explores how devolving local issues to regional and local authorities can allow MPs to focus more effectively on national issues. It further examines how a Conservative government might implement these changes to enhance governance and ensure a more efficient use of parliamentary time.

    The Current Role of MPs and the Challenges Faced

    MPs in the UK have a dual role: they are national legislators and representatives of their local constituencies. This dual role, while fundamental to the British political system, often leads to a significant portion of an MP’s time being consumed by local issues, which can detract from their ability to engage with and scrutinize national policy effectively. The demands of constituency work—ranging from handling local grievances, addressing social service concerns, and engaging in local events—leave MPs with limited time to delve deeply into national legislative and policy issues.

    The increasing complexity of national and international politics necessitates a greater focus on detailed policy analysis, legislative scrutiny, and strategic decision-making. Issues such as Brexit, climate change, global economic fluctuations, and national security require MPs to be more informed and engaged than ever before. However, the current system’s structure, which burdens MPs with local responsibilities, limits their capacity to meet these demands.

    The Case for Devolution

    Devolution involves transferring powers from a central government to regional or local administrations. By devolving local issues to these authorities, MPs can be freed to concentrate on national matters, leading to more effective governance at both levels. The benefits of such a system are manifold:

    Enhanced Local Governance: Local authorities are better positioned to understand and address the specific needs and challenges of their communities. Devolving power to these bodies can lead to more responsive and tailored public services, as local officials are directly accountable to their communities. Historical examples, such as the establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, illustrate how devolution can empower local governments to address regional issues more effectively. The Scottish Parliament has control over areas such as education, health, and transportation, allowing it to tailor policies to the specific needs of Scotland.

    Increased Efficiency: Devolution can lead to more efficient governance by reducing the bureaucratic layers between decision-makers and citizens. Local governments can implement policies more swiftly and with greater flexibility, adapting to local circumstances without the delays often associated with central government intervention. The Greater London Authority, established in 2000, exemplifies this efficiency. With powers over transport, policing, and economic development, the Authority has been able to implement policies such as the Congestion Charge and the development of Crossrail more effectively than a centralized approach might have allowed.

    Improved National Focus: By relieving MPs of the burden of local constituency issues, they can dedicate their time and expertise to scrutinizing national policy, developing legislation, and addressing broader strategic concerns. This shift can enhance the quality of national governance and legislative output. For example, during the 1980s, the focus of the UK Parliament on national economic reforms under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher allowed for comprehensive policy changes that reshaped the British economy. Such focus was possible due to a relatively clear delineation between local and national responsibilities at the time.

    Strengthened Democratic Accountability: Devolution can enhance democratic accountability by bringing decision-making closer to the people. Local officials, being directly elected by their communities, are more likely to be attuned to local needs and priorities, fostering greater civic engagement and trust in the political process. The creation of the Welsh Assembly in 1999, later renamed the Senedd, has allowed for more localized decision-making and has increased public engagement and trust in the political process within Wales.

    Implementation by a Conservative Government

    A Conservative government, committed to principles of localism, personal responsibility, and efficient governance, is well-positioned to champion further devolution. The following steps outline how such a government might implement these changes:

    Empowering Regional Governments: The Conservative government could build on existing frameworks to grant regional governments in England powers similar to those of the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. This could involve legislative authority over areas such as education, transportation, health, and economic development. Historically, the Conservative government under David Cameron championed the Northern Powerhouse initiative, which aimed to boost economic growth in the North of England by devolving more powers to cities and regions.

    Fiscal Autonomy: Ensuring that regional and local authorities have control over significant revenue streams is crucial for genuine autonomy. This could include devolving powers over certain taxes, such as property taxes, business rates, and potentially a portion of income tax. Greater fiscal autonomy would enable regions to tailor their policies to local needs and priorities, fostering innovation and accountability. The City Deals program, initiated under the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, has already provided a model for this, granting cities like Manchester greater control over their budgets and economic policies.

    Decentralization of Public Services: The Conservative government could further decentralize public services, such as health, education, and social care. Local authorities, with a deeper understanding of their communities, would be better positioned to address specific local challenges and innovate in service delivery. The decentralization of health services in Greater Manchester in 2015, which gave local authorities control over health and social care budgets, is an example of this approach.

    Creation of New Regional Assemblies: Establishing new regional assemblies in England, akin to the Greater London Assembly, could provide a more coherent structure for regional governance. These assemblies would have legislative powers over regional matters, fostering a more balanced distribution of power across the country. The concept of elected mayors, as seen with the establishment of the Mayor of London and later in cities like Manchester and Liverpool, demonstrates how regional assemblies can enhance local governance.

    Strengthening Local Accountability: Enhancing local accountability mechanisms, such as directly elected mayors and local referendums, could ensure that devolved authorities remain responsive and accountable to their communities. This would also encourage greater public engagement in local governance. The introduction of Police and Crime Commissioners in 2012 aimed to increase local accountability in policing, demonstrating the Conservative commitment to this principle.

    Enhancing the Effectiveness of MPs

    With the transfer of substantial powers to regional and local governments, MPs can focus more effectively on their role as national legislators and scrutinizers of government policy. This redefined role could involve several key components:

    Enhanced Parliamentary Committees: Strengthening parliamentary committees to enable more rigorous scrutiny of national policy and legislation. Committees could be granted greater investigatory powers, including the ability to compel witnesses and documents, ensuring thorough examination of government actions. The Public Accounts Committee, known for its scrutiny of government expenditures, exemplifies how powerful committees can hold the government to account.

    Focus on National Legislation: MPs would concentrate on crafting and scrutinizing national legislation, such as foreign policy, defense, and macroeconomic policy, areas where a unified national approach is essential. This would enhance the quality of national governance by allowing MPs to develop deeper expertise in these critical areas. The legislative efforts during World War II, where Parliament focused on national defense and post-war reconstruction plans, highlight the effectiveness of MPs concentrating on national issues.

    Improved Legislative Process: Reforming the legislative process to make it more efficient and transparent. This could involve streamlining procedures, enhancing pre-legislative scrutiny, and incorporating more public and expert consultations. The use of pre-legislative scrutiny committees, which review draft bills before they are formally introduced, has been a step in this direction.

    Greater Accountability and Transparency: MPs could play a pivotal role in holding the government accountable through more robust mechanisms for questioning ministers, debating national issues, and ensuring transparency in government operations. The introduction of Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs), where the Prime Minister answers questions from MPs weekly, is a tradition that enhances governmental accountability.

    Addressing Challenges

    While the benefits of further devolution and the redefinition of MPs’ roles are significant, several challenges must be addressed:

    Balancing Autonomy and Unity: Ensuring that greater regional autonomy does not undermine the cohesion and unity of the United Kingdom. A clear framework delineating the powers of regional and national governments would be essential. The experience of the United States, where states have significant autonomy but operate within a federal framework, offers lessons in balancing regional and national interests.

    Equitable Resource Distribution: Addressing disparities in resource distribution to ensure that all regions have the financial capacity to exercise their devolved powers effectively. This might involve a revised system of fiscal transfers and equalization payments. The Barnett formula, which allocates public spending to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland based on population, provides a model for equitable resource distribution.

    Capacity Building: Investing in the capacity of regional and local governments to manage their new responsibilities effectively. This could include training programs, institutional support, and knowledge sharing. The establishment of the Institute for Government, which provides training and support for public servants, highlights the importance of capacity building.

    Public Support and Engagement: Securing public support for the devolution agenda through extensive consultation and engagement. Ensuring that the public understands the benefits of devolution and feels invested in the process is crucial for its success. The referendums held in Scotland and Wales in the late 1990s to approve devolution plans underscore the importance of public engagement.

    The Conservative Vision in Practice

    A Conservative government committed to devolution would need to carefully design and implement policies to ensure a smooth transition and successful outcome. The following strategies could be employed:

    Pilot Programs and Phased Implementation: Introducing pilot programs in selected regions to test the effectiveness of devolution initiatives before rolling them out nationwide. A phased implementation approach would

  • Seizing the Baton: The future of the UK’s role on the foreign stage.

    by

    In an era defined by rapid geopolitical shifts and emerging global threats, Britain stands at a critical juncture. The need for an outward-facing foreign policy has never been more pressing. By committing to 3% of GDP on both defense and foreign aid spending, Britain can ensure its ability to influence global stability, support allies, and uphold international norms. The prospect of American isolationism under Donald Trump during a potential second term further amplifies the necessity for Britain to assume a more proactive role, particularly in countering threats from Russia and China.

    Defence spending is a cornerstone of national security and international influence. A commitment to 3% of GDP on defense is essential for Britain to maintain and enhance its military capabilities. During the Cold War, Britain’s defence spending peaked at around 5-6% of GDP, which was instrumental in deterring Soviet expansionism. This level of commitment was vital in maintaining a balance of power in Europe and ensuring the security of Western allies. For example, during the Berlin Crisis of 1961, Britain’s substantial military presence and its commitment to NATO helped prevent further Soviet advances in Europe. Today, a similar, if not greater, commitment is necessary to address contemporary threats, particularly from Russia and China.

    The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a sobering reminder of the threats posed by aggressive authoritarian powers. Britain’s strategic position within NATO, coupled with its advanced military capabilities, positions it uniquely to lead the European response. By increasing defense spending, Britain can ensure it has the resources to provide substantial support to Ukraine, including advanced weaponry, intelligence, and training for Ukrainian forces. This commitment not only aids Ukraine but also reinforces the security architecture of Europe and the broader international community. For instance, the UK’s provision of anti-tank missiles and other military aid to Ukraine has been crucial in helping Ukrainian forces resist Russian advances, demonstrating the tangible benefits of robust defense spending.

    Foreign aid is also an indispensable tool of soft power, fostering global stability and development. Allocating 0.9% of GDP to foreign aid would significantly enhance Britain’s influence and moral standing on the world stage. Historical examples such as the Marshall Plan illustrate the profound impact of foreign aid in promoting peace and prosperity. The Marshall Plan, which facilitated Europe’s recovery post-World War II, not only helped rebuild economies but also established lasting political and economic alliances. Similarly, Britain’s recent contributions to global health initiatives, such as its substantial funding for GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance, have saved millions of lives and enhanced its reputation as a global leader in health.

    Today, British foreign aid can play a pivotal role in addressing global challenges such as poverty, health crises, and climate change. By supporting development in fragile states, Britain can help mitigate the conditions that lead to conflict and extremism. Furthermore, foreign aid bolsters Britain’s global influence, fostering goodwill and partnerships crucial for addressing future global challenges. In an increasingly interconnected world, stability in one region can significantly impact global security and prosperity.Britain’s aid to Syrian refugees has not only provided humanitarian relief but also helped stabilize neighboring countries, reducing the risk of regional conflict spilling over.

    Under Donald Trump’s leadership, the United States exhibited tendencies towards isolationism, raising questions about its long-standing alliances and commitments. Should this trend continue, Britain must be prepared to fill the leadership vacuum in international affairs. The post-World War II order, largely maintained by U.S. leadership, requires steadfast guardianship to uphold the principles of democracy, free trade, and international cooperation. Britain’s historical role in shaping global affairs, from the British Empire to its pivotal role in founding the United Nations and ECHR positions it well to assume greater responsibility.

    By increasing defence and foreign aid spending, Britain can project power and influence, ensuring that the values of democracy and international cooperation are upheld, even in the absence of American leadership. This proactive stance is essential for maintaining the balance of power and preventing the rise of authoritarian regimes. For instance, Britain’s leadership in the imposition of sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program has demonstrated its ability to influence international policy and uphold global norms independently of the U.S.

    Russia’s aggressive actions in Ukraine pose a direct challenge to the international order and the security of not just the west, but man-kind as nuclear war poses an ever greater threat. The successful containment of the Soviet Union during the Cold War was due in large part to the solidarity and strength of the Western alliance, with Britain playing a key role. The Berlin Airlift of 1948-49, is a prime example of how decisive action can uphold democratic values and deter aggression. Today, a similar approach is required.

    Britain’s leadership in imposing sanctions on Russia can help cripple the Russian economy, limiting its ability to wage war within Europe. A firm stance against Russia not only supports Ukraine’s sovereignty but also reinforces international norms against aggression and territorial expansion. The UK’s role in the Joint Expeditionary Force, a coalition of northern European countries formed to respond to security threats, further exemplifies its capability to lead collective defence efforts.

    China’s rise as a global superpower presents another significant challenge. Its aggressive policies in the South China Sea, human rights abuses in Xinjiang, and economic coercion require a firm response. Britain must take a leading role in forming a coalition of democratic nations to counter Chinese aggression and uphold international law. The AUKUS pact, a security alliance between Australia, the UK, and the US, represents a strategic effort to balance China’s influence in the Indo-Pacific region and must be expanded and nurtured if we are to defend against the threat of Chinese aggression.

    Increasing Britain’s role in foreign policy involves not only strengthening military alliances in the Indo-Pacific region but also enhancing economic ties and supporting human rights initiatives.Britain’s role in ending the slave trade and promoting decolonization, demonstrate its ability to lead on moral issues. By standing up to China, Britain can uphold the principles of sovereignty and human rights that are fundamental to the international order.Our stance on Hong Kong’s autonomy and its offer of residency to Hong Kong citizens underscores our commitment to democratic values and human rights.

    Britain’s history offers valuable lessons on the importance of maintaining a strong and outward-facing foreign policy. The failure to confront aggressive powers in the 1930s led to the devastation of World War II. Conversely, the proactive approach taken during the Cold War ensured decades of relative peace and stability.

    Today, Britain faces a monumental crossroads. The threats from Russia and China, coupled with the potential for American isolationism, necessitate a robust and proactive foreign policy. By committing to 2.5% of GDP on defense and  0.9% on foreign aid, Britain can ensure it has the hard and soft power needed to lead on the global stage and return us from the brink of another global conflict.

    Britain’s future security and prosperity depend on its ability to adapt to changing global dynamics. A more outward-facing foreign policy, backed by increased defense and foreign aid spending, is essential. This approach addresses immediate threats while building a foundation for long-term global stability. As history has shown, the price of inaction is far greater than the cost of leadership. Britain must rise to the occasion, embracing its role as a global leader committed to peace, security, and prosperity for all.

    Devin Hindry