How seriously should we now take threats to Britain’s national security? Liberals by temperament have never been hawkish on defence, though concerned increasingly with threats to society and economy like pandemic diseases and climate change. We’ve been happy with the progressive transfer of funds for defence into health and welfare since the end of the Cold War 35 years ago, including the selling-off of former barracks and training centres for what used to be the Territorial Army – though we’ve been very unhappy about recent cuts in development spending to find money for defence. But the international situation has now changed for the worse. Russian ships are prospecting for cables around our coasts, drones hover over neighbouring countries, there are cyber-attacks and occasional sabotage on British soil, and President Trump trusts Russia more than the UK and our European neighbours.
In July the government published a major Strategic Defence Review (SDR). The Prime Minister’s introduction declared that ‘when Russia is waging war on our continent and probing our defences at home, we must meet the danger head on.’ He did not add that we may well have to meet the danger – and the new forms of hybrid warfare that includes – without the full support of the USA. The SDR and associated documents – the ‘National Security Strategy’, covering also climate and health threats, and the ‘UK Government Resilience Action Plan’ – set out some radical ideas about what is needed to respond. The government has promised an increase of 1% of GDP on defence and security within the next 4-5 years, to double to 5% of GDP by 2035 – not a sign of immediate urgency. More immediately the SDR calls for a ‘national conversation’ to engage the public in the ‘whole society’ response that is required.
Since then there has been silence. No national conversation has been launched by our timid and distracted government. The budget has put off spending more on security and defence; the Ministry of Defence has reportedly been told to hold back on several spending programmes. General Sir Richard Barrons, one of the three lead-authors of the SDR (along with George Robertson and Fiona Hill) has just told a think-tank conference that the budget means that ‘for two years defence goes backwards’. Conservatives and Reform are so preoccupied with cutting taxes that they have made no criticisms of this, nor said anything about security and defence as priorities. So what should we be saying, against the weight of right-wing focus on lower taxes and the overall timidity of the Labour government?
The most radical concept, for me, in the SDR is the call for a ‘whole society’ approach to national security. After several decades in which government has engaged its citizens less and less in public life or forms of public service, this conjures up the idea of active citizenship, in local communities as well as contributing to national efforts, volunteering to respond to national emergencies and domestic and external threats. It emphasises local responses, expanding civilian rescue teams, emergency responders, police and military reserves, and a new Home Defence Force, ‘to improve national resilience.’ This would be a reversal of what we have seen in recent decades, with Labour governments seeing themselves as delivering services to a largely passive population, Conservatives denigrating public service, squeezing local government and selling off Territorial Army depots and drill halls.
An ideal Liberal society would have active local communities working together and contributing to the common good. Many Liberals might not want to start with national security as the focus for active citizenship, although accepting that responses to natural disasters and pandemics would benefit from stronger local capabilities and a larger reserve of trained volunteers. Salisbury’s response to the Russian poisonings was led by its public health officer, way ahead of national reaction. In contrast, management of the Covid pandemic was blunted by the government contracting out initial screening and vaccination to multinational companies, which unsurprisingly lacked the local knowledge needed.
The SDR team looked to Finland as Sweden as models of citizen engagement in national resilience and threats to security. Both countries have far stronger local democracy than the UK, and much higher levels of public trust in government. Ministers in France and Germany are proposing offering 18-year-olds a voluntary year in the armed forces, to increase recruitment and provide more trained reserves. Yet Labour is as timid in explaining what may be needed to the British public on security as on rebuilding links with European institutions.
We face some difficult choices on national security, as a party committed to international cooperation and peacebuilding. Is it now up to us to call for some emergency investment in home defence and military capabilities? If so, Liberals should grasp the ‘whole society’ concept, as the way in which a democratic society should respond to threats.
* William Wallace is LibDem peer, a former vice-chair of the Federal Policy Committee and convenor of the party's 1997 manifesto team.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Disneyfication of Haley Mills
Survation now put Andy Burnham 10 points ahead in Makerfield
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Ruth Bright
BigTallTim
Daniel Walker
Richard Good
Matt (Bristol)
10 Comments
Yes. This.
I like the notion of citizen service for National Resilience, not just Defence.
We should remember how the floods inconvenienced that nice Mr Cameron
as he toured flooded areas doing emergency PR. Who knew that Eric Pickles
de-founding County Councils emergency response would combine with
under-flooding flood defences by 97% ? Apart from experts.
“Is it now up to us to call for some emergency investment in home defence and military capabilities?”
Undoubtedly, but not at the expense of commitments to Europe.
“Liberals by temperament have never been hawkish on defence”
“Never” is a long time. It’s worth remembering that the party has an excellent record on opposing appeasement – Archie Sinclair did his bit here – and Lloyd George did as much as any one to win WW1. I am glad to see the current parliamentary party following in those footsteps.
Politically a hawkish line on defence must be helpful in exposing Farage and his Conservative fellow travellers – as well as being the right thing to do.
“Lloyd George did as much as any one to win WW1”.
That was certainly Lloyd George’s opinion. My view is that it was the long suffering survivors of the P.B.I., with the French and a last minute dose of Americans.
The UK has been asleep at the wheel on defence. The USA under Trump can no longer be trusted. Russia sees Trump as a soft touch wannabe Dictator it can bend to its will .
The SDR is too little far, fat too slow.
China is/will be the top world super power.
‘Nothing to see here’.
Well said, William,
We certainly need a massive re-think on all aspects of the British economy – all that we need to do on defense (and do URGENTLY!) should not be at the expense of the most vulnerable members of our society, but the essential economics of defense and security have been overlooked for far too long, by both Conservative and Labour governments seeking to ‘cash in’ on a perceived “peace dividend” following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Russian government sees itself (and tells its citizens all the time) as being already at war with the West, just not a shooting war at present (except in Ukraine!). In Putin’s mind, this absolutely justifies whatever action Russia can take, covertly or overtly, including consistent lying and making promised he has no intention of keeping while he devotes massive amounts of Russia’s GDP to armaments and preparing for the shooting stage of the war against western Europe (including against the UK). And remember that Russia’s GDP is actually LESS than that of the UK! So we need to step up our defenses now, and should note that military planners are already thinking of a Russian offensive against Western Europe as early as 2028 (which is why the present government plans to increase defense expenditure with a target date of 2035 are failing to meet the threat.
So what do we need to increase in defense terms? The first thing is to get better value for money – our defense equipment costs so much more to develop and bring into service than that of Russia (proportionally). As a naval specialist (see my published books) I know that Britain – a country which can never feed its entire population and relies absolutely on food imports for the population to eat – lacks the means to defend the seaways around Britain. The other armed services are also deficient to preserve ourselves, even in conjunction with our European allies (the US is no longer to be relied upon to help, as is evidenced in their recent Strategic Defense Review). But the UK needs urgently more appropriate warships (it’s numbers of hulls we need, as quality is fine), including designing and building the specialist drone carriers (of which we have none in service or even planned), as well as the drones they will need to carry. Simon McGrath recently made a plea in these pages for a rethink on naval defense, which I commend. But it’s the urgency which we now need to recognise.
David Garlick: the SDR Is pretty good in its analysis and recommendations. The problem is that neither Labour nor the Conservatives in opposition have taken it seriously. Labour are talking of investing more in defence in 2-5 years’ time; the Conservatives talk about nothing but tax cuts.
Peter Chambers in his comment above says: “Yes. This” , with which I wholly agree! Thank you William as ever for your thoughtful and interesting blogs, on subjects usually only dealt with superficially by others – thanks also to Rif Winfield for his further insights on this subject.
> the UK needs urgently more appropriate warships (it’s numbers of hulls we need, as quality is fine)
This is true. However it is even more important to generate ship’s companies and raise the availability of hulls that the RN already has. Hulls lie alongside now for lack of crews. Some say that enlistments and commissions are too short today. Recruitment and retention need more focus. Possibly being brought back in house. Certainly political direction to the forces to achieve a certain level of capability and the provision of what is needful. Recent governments have simply trimmed and trimmed.
Maybe you want to take a look at Franz Jedlicka’s “Peace Mainstreaming” concept, which includes psychological factors for peace and security.
Howard