Model Telegraph

Over the course of the past few hours Solidarity has attempted to flood the press in an attempt to boost their ratings in the polls, with poor effort posters and anti-intellectual spam. My good friend Greejatus wrote an article regarding flexible working contracts, otherwise known as ‘Zero Hour Contracts’ debunking the nonsense from Solidarity yesterday ,however, Solidarity responded with, shock horror, a poster saying ‘reject the spiel’ – ignoring the evidence presented in the article, and misleading the British public as they did so

First of all, it is worth bearing in mind RedWolf decided to write their article by using a singular source – the Trades Union Congress (TUC) which is of course naturally biased. The Solidarity cult no doubt thinks they are  so clever for googling this one source then typing up some data! I will actually Office of National Statistics (ONS) data to eliminate any bias of surveys and use a real life example from McDonalds to illustrate my point. 

According to the Office of National Statistics, ZHC are most common amongst young people with 10% of those aged 16-24 in employment in a Zero Hours contract, and 6.2% of those aged over 65 in employment on a ZHC. Furthermore 19% of people on ZHC are in full-time education. 

As the economy has strengthened the number of ZHC for those 25-64 has fallen. 

60.6% of people on Zero Hour contracts do not want more hours, in other words they don’t need your transformational change and don’t suit your narrative of poor workers being exploited by big evil corporations, Ah yes the NHS which uses ZHC. Only 20.1% of people on ZHC want extra hours or another job. 

The current proposals by Solidarity, which would see ZHCs banned, would push the vast majority of these workers out of employment altogether, forcing them onto negative income tax (which is capped at £10,000 per year), and therefore earning less than they would have earned before Solidarity made their job illegal. 

Now if workers were crying out for the desperate change Solidarity are pushing for, then you would think less than 80% of workers at McDonad’s would chose to stay on a ZHC when having the option of a fixed job. No this isn’t a survey, this is something that actually happened. It appears that having a choice was actually a good thing and individuals expressed their preference. We don’t need  people like RedWolf and moteblinds to tell working people what they actually prefer.

A study in 2013 by the CUPID revealed that those on ZHC were more likely to be happy with their work life balance compared to the overall UK workforce.

The data shows that ZHC are most prevalent for students who can not always commit to fixed hours and people who want to work a few hours a week on the side or in semi-retirement. But Solidarity wants to take that away, and restrict your freedoms and the choices of us as workers.. Whether it’s choosing your child’s school, the kind of employment contract you want or choosing how to manage your own finances, Solidarity wants to take that choice away because they believe they know better than you and can manage your life better. 

As Solidarity continues unveiling their ‘focuses’ in the press, only one thing is becoming clearer: Solidarity has no interest in serving the workers, and every interest in ensuring the workers serve them and their ideological goals.

ZHC are an important part of the labour market and has given job opportunities to people who can not commit regular hours, to our young people and to those in full-time education.

The Agency Worker Regulations Act in 2010 can explain some of the rise we have seen in ZHC, the Act means that workers need to be effectively treated as permanent employees after 12 weeks. This has meant employers can not minimise labour costs when demand is variable. The act can explain who employers such as the NHS have opted for Zero Hour contacts. This is something I am happy to take a look at and explore.

I do not doubt there are some people who struggle and feel exploited however banning these contracts outright would be a disproportionate response. We have Negative Income Tax (NIT) which tops up wages for a good reason. If it is ‘insecurity’ we are going after, why stop at ZHC, Solidarity could attack all forms of self-employment, remember they’re the saviours you didn’t need!

If Solidarity had their way, these people would not have jobs, a flexible labour market has helped the United Kingdom have a lower unemployment rate than our European counterparts who have had shocking levels of unemployment. Labour market flexibility is something that has been a positive. A ban on ZHC would mean that more people wouldn’t have jobs at all. It’s clear that this would have more harm than good.

This article was written by Sir /u/Friedmanite19 OM KCMG KBE CT LVO PC MP , Former Chancellor Of The Exchequer and Leader of the Libertarian Party United Kingdom

References:

Ons.gov.uk. 2021. EMP17: People In Employment On Zero Hours Contracts – Office For National Statistics. [online] Available at: <https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/datasets/emp17peopleinemploymentonzerohourscontracts&gt; [Accessed 12 January 2021].

BBC News. 2021. Zero-Hours Contract Workers Happy, Survey Suggests. [online] Available at: <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25098984&gt; [Accessed 12 January 2021].

Jessop, J., 2021. Why Zero-Hours Contracts Are A Good Thing — Institute Of Economic Affairs. [online] Institute of Economic Affairs. Available at: <https://iea.org.uk/why-zero-hours-contracts-are-a-good-thing/&gt; [Accessed 12 January 2021].

Shackleton, L., 2021. Why Zero-Hours Contracts Should Not Be Banned — Institute Of Economic Affairs. [online] Institute of Economic Affairs. Available at: <https://iea.org.uk/blog/why-zero-hours-contracts-should-not-be-banned&gt; [Accessed 12 January 2021].

Written by Harry Johnson for the Telegraph

After the Conservative government has regained progressive support Scotland once again finds itself facing a large deficit. There is much debate of potential tax raises ,but perhaps cutting waste may be the better solution. To understand why it may be worth taking a look as to where Scottish taxpayers may not be getting value for their money and where savings can be made.

The sports subsidy for instance is a well-intentioned misfire.. A US federal reserve study found that for every 1 dollar of federal aid allocated to students the colleges would simply raise the prices by 60cents, netting the prospective student a meager 40 cents in relief. That is certainly far from a one to one comparison but shows us just how wasteful these government subsidies truly are.

The same problems arise when examining other expenditure proposals such as the pupil premium, which according to Ofsted has resulted in millions being wasted on chasing unrealistic targets and hiring overpaid teaching assistants. Neither of which have been shown to have a major impact on student attainment.

Comparatively speaking however these projects are relatively benign compared to arguably the biggest long-term drain on our coffers  – the Scottish pensions agency. Combined the public sector pensions represent over 6.4 billion or roughly 15% of the budget. This is in contrast to Westminster, where pension schemes overall represent less than 3% of the overall budget.

Infrastructure is another area where major savings can be made with examples of this are the Green Infrastructure Strategy in Scotland . In this case over 5 billion pounds are to be diverted from the Treasury coffers in exchange for the prospect of some long-term benefit. Yet as time goes on these benefits get smaller and smaller until we are making a net loss. To see  how  one only has to look south of the border.

Initially, the HS2 project was supposed to bring in 2.40 pounds for every pound spent. In 2013 that figure was revised to 1.80. Currently, experts like Lord Berkeley estimate the railway to bring 0.66 pounds for every pound spent. A net loss of 34 pounds for the privilege of literally railroading communities out of existence and the destruction of ancient woodlands.

Yet the same principle  holds true for virtually every single such government program. The supposedly infallible National Health Service keeps lagging in survivability and placing far behind its marketised  European counterparts in rankings despite unprecedented investment and cross-party support. In England, universal child care was a similar story with even the Conservative Party rightly recognizing its utter failure and replacing it with a much smaller, yet more effective help to pay model expected to cost only a sixth of the original bonanza.

There is undeniably room for government spending and intervention in a modern economy. A strong national defense and judiciary must exist to stop bad actors and uphold contracts just like some sort of a safety net must exist to protect the least fortunate from slipping through the cracks, but ultimately this is not the subject of this debate. What the taxpayers are being asked to do in Scotland is to foot the bill for a white elephant. 

That’s why you the taxpayer should not ask yourself how much is being spent, but rather what percentage of this funding will benefit you and the society at large because every time you will know how to spend that money better.

This op-ed was written by Seimer1234, Deputy Leader of the LPUK.

We have seen all too clearly in recent weeks where the politics of hate leads.

Recent events in Washington, where a mob of violent insurrectionists decided to storm the Capitol, show us what happens when politicians engage in the politics of extremism and divisiveness, what happens when politicians smear and dehumanise opponents.

As the world watched aghast at these events, there was a feeling of both pity and superiority among some here. American politics was to be looked down upon, a nation where politics was broken, not comparable to the UK or too more advanced and sophisticated democracies.

This is the wrong way to view these things.

Britain is not immune to the politics of hate and vitriol. It is a politics all of us engage in at some point or another. Identifying the other side as evil or dangerous is often too alluring and easy, offering politicians, including myself, a perfect way to dismiss the views of those we oppose.

However, while all of us engage with it, this poisonous rhetoric is not shared equally.

Solidarity, the new surging force on the British left, has clearly tapped into something. Its self-righteousness, its distance from the political establishment offers the voters a new choice, a vision of something radically different to the status quo.

There is much to admire about Solidarity as a political force. It’s a group of determined politicians, lead by a clearly competent leader. It’s organised itself very well, differing from the more traditional parties of the left whose internal organisation are often either labyrinthian or totally non-existent.

However, we have seen a dark, dark side to this party.

I contended with myself about whether I should write this article or not, about whether it was fair to write an article about the comments of a relatively new member. However, seeing the comment, and indeed lack of comment, emanating from the Solidarity higher ups I felt I had no choice.

In the recent barrage of press emerging from Solidarity HQ, a poster came from BobbyCrow. It said “Don’t Let the wolf in By the back door”, referring to the recent budget agreement. The poster itself was fine, a well designed piece that offered an interesting, if in my view dishonest, take on the agreement.

The problem emerged in the discussion relating to the poster.

In what had been intended as a debate about MMT, a number of comments were made by the poster author that were simply beyond the pale.

They began by accusing the LPUK of having the RP accent as a requirement. This bizarre personal attack was strange enough, however the response to Cody when he asked what the RP accent had to do with anything was even stranger. Bobby decided to insinuate Cody was an illegal immigrant, saying he’d consider going to the Home Office to have Codys papers checked. From a party that claims to be about social justice and equality, using “illegal immigrant” as a political insult against opponents, who are members of the only party lead by a BAME immigrant, was quite disturbing.

By far the most heinous comment was one making an insinuation regarding paedophilia. The comment said that it was not like Libertarians to lose interest in something once it stopped being a minor. Insinuating opponents are paedophiles, days after we seen a group of conspiracists ,who believe the US Democrats are a party of paedophiles, bring a noose outside the Capitol is an incredibly dangerous act.

The response from Solidarity higher ups was much less than ideal. Solidarity Health Spokesman wiredcookie1 reacted to the paedophile comment with laughter, while the only comment made by motelblinds, the party leader, was to tell the LPUK leader to “stop crying” in a separate discussion.

It is important we grapple with this now. As politics arounds the world enters dangerous places, it is imperative politicians take responsibility for the language they use. I do not expect Solidarity will apologise. I am sure they’ll revert to type, move into a bunker mentality while telling me to “stop crying” or something along those lines.

However, with an election on the way, perhaps it is wise for politicians, of other parties to make clear that in a system which requires coalitions, there will be no political reward in the form of a space in government for parties that can not regulate their behaviour. 

Perhaps then we’ll see a change in tune from Solidarity.

Written by Harry Johnson for the Telegraph

The Chief Secretary of Treasury was dismissed from his cabinet position as Housing and Communities Secretary on Sunday due to inactivity. Much of the outrage surrounding the sacking appears to stem from the fashion in , which the Minister was removed by the Deputy Prime Minister with the latter claiming that:

“/u/MTFD dismissed from his cabinet position due to not fulfilling cabinet member responsibilities.”

The Deputy Prime Minister has also taken up the position of HCLG Secretary until a suitable replacement can be found.

Interestingly the Liberal Democrat stalwart retained his rank in cabinet as the senior-most LibDem member of the Treasury, a move which has prompted much backlash with senior LPUK politicians slamming the government for this strange course of action. They were joined by other high-ranking politicians from across the political spectrum who also decried the sacking with former Liberal Democrat and Coalition! Deputy Leader saying 

“Why are you publicly declaring this? Surely a simple cabinet shuffle announcement (when we reconvene) would have been sufficient..?? Maybe there’s more to the story here, but I can’t believe this is how you’re treating a long standing party member.”

It is unclear why the government brutally fired and embarrassed a current cabinet member from a role when they could have reshuffled him out quietly. Not one of the government’s finest moments! 

Questions also remain as to whether the government will choose to retain the Northern Irish Secretary seeing as they also missed their question session. All eyes are on Youmaton’s reshuffle

The Telegraph reached out to the LPUK and government for a comment

When prompted for a statement LPUK Chairman and former Housing Secretary /u/Cody5200 replied 

“The government could have handled this situation a lot better. It’s probably not a wise idea to publicly fire someone from a government role when they are still in the government. Over the last few weeks we have seen a lack of accountability however I hope that in the new year the government will up its game. I think it’s worth watching if the NI Secretary gets the same treatment as MTFD. Hopefully, the government learn from this error and move forward”

The government gave the following statement: “We refer you to our previous statement on the matter.”

The struggling Phoenix government has been dealt a fresh blow just before the Christmas break, as it has emerged two Cabinet Secretaries missed their MQs session.

The first was the Liberal Democrat Housing Secretary MTFD, who failed to answer any of the 32 questions put to them. The session, which ended on the 18th of December, saw questions ranging from HMO licensing reform to the implementation of the Local Government report asked.

The second Cabinet Secretary was the Northern Irish Secretary SammySnail, who is also a member of cabinet leadership, answered just 1 of the questions asked of them. The cut off for answering was Tuesday at 10pm.

This comes after the controversy over the Stalin1953 MQs session, where 53% of initial questions were left unanswered. Questions will undoubtedly be asked over the government’s commitment to parliamentary scrutiny given this.

With parliament heading for the Christmas break, this is a demoralizing hit to a government already flagging in the polls. While they will hope to be able to regroup come January, it may be the case the cabinet is 2 members down by that stage, depending on how the opposition decide to move forward.

The LPUK gave the following comment: “The government early on in their tenure talked a big game about being accountable to parliament, anyone can now see this was lie as ministers fail to do the bare minimum expected of them and answer questions”

The Conservatives have yet to comment.

The government have yet to comment.

For a quite long time now there had been somewhat of a consensus amongst British politicians that free trade is beneficial. This was reflected with bills like the cross-border taxation Act passing 86 to 7 and the Freeport motion receiving wide support from both the Left and the Right. 

At a recent questions session the Work , Skills and Labour Secretary /u/Stalin1963 seems to have taken a stand this consensus by stating that 

>”The ‘fruits of globalisation’ are being offset by rapid urbanisation, increasing economic inequality, increased poverty and homelessness, and increased deprivation. The rapidly increasing transnational movement of money and jobs to cities and countries where costs are cheapest is contributing to the urbanisation of poverty. Unfortunately, the good… is being masked by the vast discrepancies and inequalities that are of a much larger scale.”

 This is starkly contrasted by Labour’s manifesto commitment to free trade. Yet the Work Secretary was not the only recent cabinet Minister to support protectionism with u/KalvinLokan arguing for protectionism in defence procurement while a member of government . On the far-left Solidarity members have argued for protectionist measures to be implemented with the party choosing to back an almost complete reversal of the Cross-border Taxation Act.

As of today anywhere in between 55 and 80 percent of all food products we consume are imported ,while exports and imports combined equate to around 2/3s of our GDP . It would be utterly foolish for a British government regardless of its political allegiance to gamble that away by pursuing mercantilist policies and running the risk of a trade war in the name of attempting to bring back “‘old’’ industries or to gain some negligible amount of perceived leverage.

In fact we don’t even need to dabble in hypotheticals because the negative impact of protectionist policies are well documented. In the 18th and 19th centuries a series of protectionist measures known as the Corn laws caused drastic rises in the prices of grain and ultimately were a contributing factor to the famine in Ireland that set the island back decades.

In the US the pursuit of protectionist tariffs decimated economic growth , forced many farmers out of business all the while sensitive industries like freight hit unprecedented lows  Moreover tensions with Canada and the European Union lead to the souring of relations between longtime allies and disruptions to supply-chains that put many working-class people out of business , those who the left claim to support.

According to one report the conflict is claimed to have cost the United States 300 thousand jobs, moreover, the wealthiest households were found to spend 0.3% of their after-tax income on tariffs , while those in the bottom 10% spent 5 times that. In the United Kingdom the impact of such policies would likely be far greater as the percentage of imports to GDP is roughly twice that to the US here in the UK.

Contrast that with the benefits of free trade and globalisation. Free trade allows Britain to specialise and to produce specialised goods and services  that it can later exchange with the rest of the world.At the end of the day the benefits of  comparative advantage allow us to generate more value than we would have otherwise. To claim that we can somehow create a stronger economy by repatriating the industrial base is like to say that one would prefer the poor to be poorer if it meant the rich were less rich….

*This article was written by David Seimarsson, Editor in Chief of the Telegraph*

According to calculations done by the Telegraph, Labour Secretary Stalin1953 failed to answer 53% of initial questions put to him at Ministers Questions, a figure that will be a fresh headache for Government leadership.

The Secretary answered just 20 of the 43 initial questions put to him. When followup questions and answers are included this figure becomes 23 out of 46. 

Several former Cabinet Secretaries have fallen foul of failing to answer a majority of their MQs, with several resigning or being sacked as a result.

During Blurple 2 sophisticatedmurder, the International Development Secretary was dismissed as a result of failure to answer MQs, with Labour and the Lib Dems among those to push for their dismissal. During the first Blurple government InfernoPlato would resign as Energy Secretary following an MQs session where he missed over half the questions, while during Sunrise JellyCow99 infamously refused to step down as Home Secretary after missing over half of the questions put to them.

Even without the missed MQs, this session was still garnering significant political attention due to a number of controversial comments from the Labour Secretary.

The Labour Secretary came out in favour of closed shop practises, a union arrangement where employees are required to be a member of a specific union and makes their continued employment conditioned on said membership. This broke from the government line, as when the government Press Officer was asked if the government supports closed shop practises the answer provided was “no”.

Globalisation was the target of criticism from the Labour Secretary, who blamed globalisation for “rapid urbanisation, increasing economic inequality, increased poverty and homelessness, and increased deprivation”. This comes as the government is in the midst of talks with the EU regarding a free trade agreement, and after the Labour manifesto included a promise of unilateral tariff abolition.

They also criticised corporation tax cuts, which have been planned and announced by the Chancellor already, offering another example of a CCR breach.

This MQs session will be a new political problem for a government that doesn’t need one right now, and will provide a challenge to justify for the Prime Minister and the rest of the government leadership.

The government has yet to provide comment.

The Shadow Work, Labour and Skills Secretary Tommy2Boys made the following comment

“Labour need to first of all show up to parliament and do the minimum required of them. And then once they’ve got a grasp on that they should start pushing policies which won’t force people out of employment as they currently advocate for with closed shops, but policies which will encourage job creation such as cutting corporation tax.”

The following comment was provided by Libertarian Leader Friedmanite19:

“It was interesting to see the Secretary come out against the Chancellor’s proposal of reducing corporation tax telling the House there are more economic solutions to achieve the above apart from corporation tax changes. Clearly during the session CCR went out the window on corporation tax and closed shop unions. It was disappointing to see the government dodge scrutiny from the House as they left many questions unanswered.”

This op-ed was written by Seimer1234, former Foreign Secretary, Defence Secretary and International Trade Secretary.

We need to talk about Turkey.

It’s a conversation that has long been an uncomfortable one for the West, particularly since the ascension of Recyp Erdogan to the Presidency. Erdogan has shown himself to be fundamentally anti-democratic, a problem for NATO and keen on flexing power over weaker neighbours, however vital security and economic interests have been put first and foremost. 

While previous efforts and statements of condemnation have happened, such as the motion I proposed a year ago condemning the arrest of Canan Kaftiancoglu which received cross party support, little real action has been taken on the matter.

This all has emboldened Turkey, and it has come to a head this year. 

Erdogan inserted Turkey into the conflict in the Caucasus, prolonging the conflict, increasing the loss of life and setting the peace process in the region back decades. 

In the Mediterranean, Turkey has pursued an expansionist policy, sending naval vessels into Greek and Cypriot water and is now planning further military exercises close to Greek islands to send a message to a growingly exasperated EU considering sanctions.

In Libya Turkey has failed to meet its Berlin Conference promises to stop arming Libyan military groups, pushing its influence in the country to stretch further control over the Mediterranean.

Turkey’s previous defence of the Uighur minority has given way to subservience to the Chinese government, sending thousands of Uighur refugees back to China, assisting in the Chinese government’s ethnic cleansing campaign. 

Erdogan has also ratcheted up tensions with France, a NATO ally, making derogatory comments about President Macron’s mental capacity and attempting to organise boycotts of French goods.

The West’s continued self imposed blindness to Erdogan’s neo-ottoman foreign policy is simply untenable. While Turkey has previously been a vital ally in the fight against terrorism, accusations from France and others that Turkey has sent Syrian jihadists to Nagorno-Karabakh to fight on their behalf clearly shows Turkey’s previous utility as a regional fighter against terrorism is decreasing.

Turkey’s behaviour is a serious threat to NATO, and leaves the dark possibility that, if Turkey continues unchecked, the nuclear option of NATO expulsion under the Vienna Convention may be left as the only possible remedy.

This option is far from ideal, and is not inevitable. Action can, and in my view must, be taken immediately to push Turkey to de-escalate, particularly in the Mediterranean.

So, what can the government do?

There are a few key steps the government should take to try and moderate Tukey’s extreme behaviour. The EU Council is meeting this week to discuss sanctions on Turkey. The UK should do the same and review the implementation of sanctions and new blocks on arms sales to Turkey. We must also step up dialogue with regional partners, particularly Italy, Greece, France, Cyprus and other members of the “Med7”. Diplomatic pressure campaigns should be applied, with the publication of joint statements similar to the one published during my time as Foreign Secretary being a potential option. The PM and Foreign Secretary should also raise the issue at the D12 with relevant allies such as the EU, Italy, France, Germany and the United States.

The government must take action. A continued reluctance to properly put a check on Turkey’s behaviour will result in serious problems for the strength and stability of NATO.

The planned inaugural D12 summit of 12 allied nations, scheduled to take place from the 27th to the 29th of November in Enniskillen, Northern Ireland appears to have fallen through, with the government making no public statements or confirmation of it’s hosting.

The D12 summit had been organised under the previous government, with heads of government, Foreign Ministers and Defence Ministers from the UK, USA, France, Germany, Italy, Israel, India, South Korea, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the European Union agreeing to attend. Key goals from the meetings for the UK had reportedly included expanding the Winter Olympics boycott from the USA, UK and New Zealand to a wider cohort, pushing other Five Eyes members to agree to terms regarding Japanese accession into the alliance as well as broader goals surrounding progress on the genocide in Xianjiang and defence co-operation.

There had been no previous indication that the new government would take a different approach to the D12 than the previous administration, with no statement announcing cancellation from the Foreign Secretary since their taking office. Indeed, Labour have voted twice in recent months  in favour of motions calling for the usage of the D12 alliance, those motions being the Asia Defence Motion and 2022 Winter Olympics Boycott Motion.

In a comment provided to the Telegraph, former Foreign Secretary and LPUK Foreign Affairs Spokesman Seimer1234 lambasted the government’s failure, saying “it appears an absentee Shadow Foreign Secretary has now become an absentee Foreign Secretary. The D12 offered an unparalleled opportunity to assert UK leadership on international issues related to China, intelligence sharing and defence co-operation. This apparent failure to host is an immense hit to our national credibility, and I am calling on the government to immediately reschedule.”

This is an opinion piece by unitedlover14, former MoS for Security.

On the 5th of February 2021, the nuclear arms reduction treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation, popularly known as New START, expires after a decade in force. The treaty limits the amount of deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and heavy bombers assigned to nuclear missions to 700 per country, deployed and non deployed ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers and bombers to 800 per country and deployed strategic nuclear warheads and bombs to 1550 per country. Although this may seem like a large amount, and it is still more than enough to cause a nuclear apocalypse if war were to break out between these great powers, it is still a significant decrease on previous nuclear arms reduction treaties and a step in the right direction. The number of nuclear warheads allowed is down by 30% from the 2,200 limit set by 2002’s SORT (also known as the treaty of Moscow) and down a major 74% from the original 1994 START limit of 6000. 

The treaty is undeniably working. Despite allegations from Washington and NATO that Moscow has been violating other arms control agreements, the INF being the primary source of conflict, the Trump administration has admitted that the Russian Federation is keeping to the terms agreed under New START. A report from the State Department’s Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance published on the first of October 2020 (current as of the first of September 2020) states that the Russian Federation has 510 deployed ICBMs, SLBMs and heavy bombers, 1447 deployed nuclear warheads and 764 deployed and non deployed nuclear launchers and heavy bombers. These numbers are well within the range allowed for under New START limitations. The US has shared similar numbers (verified by Moscow) that show they too are abiding by the restrictions. 

It would be fair to say that the success of this treaty is down to the rigorous inspection procedures allowed for both signatories. New START is protected by national technical means and 18 annual short notice on site inspections. National technical means, or NTMs for short, are the primary methods for ensuring compliance with international treaties and counterproliferation work. Satellite imagery, telemetry intelligence, geophysical intelligence and classic human intelligence all work together to provide international watchdogs with accurate information to ensure that states are complying with agreements they’ve signed or other restrictions on their nuclear arms programmes. In the case of New START, both signatories contribute to an extensive database on the numbers, types and locations of treaty limited nuclear devices to be confirmed with intelligence and inspections. For example, the Russians must notify the United States whenever a new ICBM or SLBM leaves the Votkinsk production plant and when it reaches its destination, which is monitored by satellite imagery. Verification of the restrictions is carried out by 18 annual on site inspections which can begin with as little notice as 32 hours beforehand. 10 inspections are allowed at Type One facilities that house deployed warheads and delivery systems whilst 8 are allowed at Type Two facilities that house non deployed delivery systems. These short notice inspections allow both signatories to check that they are abiding by the limits in place and cannot dispose of evidence of non compliance before the inspection. 

If New START is working so well, why is it at risk for expiration and why does it matter? Like most things in life, politics is getting in the way. From a national, and even world security perspective, the extension of New START is a no brainer for both the United States and Russia. This is something that’s recognised by the Russian Federation, who raised its extension as early as the first year of President Trump’s time in office. The US deferred the issue, wanting to ensure that the Russians were fully compliant before negotiating a renewal. They now know this to be true and yet we are still hurtling towards a dangerous nuclear arms race. Make no mistake, the expiration of this treaty is a very dangerous and scarily realistic outcome. New START’s expiration would be the first time in decades that restrictions on the aforementioned types of nuclear weapons were relaxed and would almost certainly lead to a nuclear arms race at a time where both countries are already undergoing significant nuclear modernisation programmes. We would also lose the vital information on the Russian Federation’s nuclear program that the treaty provides, raising the stakes of the arms race significantly. More intelligence resources would have to be redeployed to fill that gap of information, taking money and people away from vital missions in the Middle East and East Asia. It’s unclear as to the real reasons behind the Trump administration posturing over New START, although they’ve made some vague statements about China and unhappiness with the verification methods. What we do know is that the major players in the Trump administration do not seem to be fond of this treaty and that we may very well be reliant on immediate action from the incoming Biden administration. 

The United Kingdom has a responsibility to avoid a nuclear arms race between two great powers and we have options available to us. As former Minister of State for Security, I attempted to make this a key defence policy for our government. Unfortunately, negotiations between myself and senior Conservative leadership did not complete before the governmental collapse, but I will lay out my arguments in the hope that the Defence Secretary is spurred into action by this article. First and foremost, we could offer to join the treaty as a nuclear power allied with the United States. When the United States brought up the issue of China during negotiations, the Russians indicated that they would like to see the United Kingdom and France sign the treaty too. This would go a long way into showing our good faith and desire to keep the treaty in place whilst not restricting our aims to modernise and renew Trident. We could also set up a diplomatic back channel between Moscow and Washington, allowing a country with a long history of high class diplomacy to act as a third party arbitrator whose sole aim is to see the renewal of the deal. Finally, we can encourage the Biden administration to make the extension an immediate priority, ensuring that New START does not expire before they are able to negotiate a new deal. 

It is clear that New START has been a resounding success, and is one step in the long path of global denuclearisation. It is also clear that the extension of this deal, whilst attempts are made to negotiate a lower number of allowed warheads, should be a policy aim for any government intending to prevent a nuclear arms race between two great powers. It is my hope that this article will encourage our government to make this an immediate defence policy and begin talks with the Trump administration, the Biden transition team and the Kremlin in order to facilitate the renewal of the treaty. Without it, the world would be a less safe place for the United Kingdom and its people.