Criticism of the proposed scheme delivers another setback to the party’s struggling election campaign.
Britain’s armed forces require more funding, not untrained teenage volunteers, according to former military leaders and Tory figures. This statement adds to the challenges faced by the Conservatives’ faltering election efforts.
Just hours after its announcement, Rishi Sunak’s election pledge to reintroduce military service for 18-year-olds was dismissed by army chiefs and a former Conservative defence secretary.
Rishi Sunak pledged to introduce mandatory national service, which would require young people to spend a year in the military or engage in volunteer work on weekends.
The prime minister reinforced the proposal on Sunday night, stating that national service schemes in other countries “show just how fulfilling it is for young people.”
But Adm Alan West, a former chief of the naval staff, criticized the plan as “bonkers” and warned it would deplete the defense budget.
“I’m delighted if more young people become aware of defense and are involved … but this idea is basically bonkers,” Lord West said. “We need to spend more on defense, and – by doing what he’s suggesting – money will be sucked out of defense.”
He added that Rishi Sunak should have committed more funds to the defense budget before the election.
Richard Dannatt, a former chief of the general staff, also criticized the proposal, calling it “electoral opportunism.” “The costs of this would be considerable in terms of trainers and infrastructure. This task cannot just be imposed on the armed forces as an extra thing to do,” he added.
Michael Portillo, a former defence secretary, warned that the announcement could further damage the Tories’ reputation for fiscal responsibility.
He told GB News on Sunday, “The way in which this policy has been produced worries me very much indeed. That is to say, I very much doubt whether it’s been thought through, and I doubt whether the armed services and all the charities that need to be involved have been consulted and are on board.”
“It represents an increase in public expenditure, and that’s very important, because it puts the Conservatives on the back foot. On the whole, the Conservatives have been saying we’ve got clear plans, we’re the government. Now ask Labour how they’re going to find the extra money. But now this reverses all that, because Labour can say the Conservatives are making promises which aren’t funded.”
The pledge was launched just two days after Defence Minister Andrew Murrison stated that the government had no plans for national service in “any form” because it would do more harm than good.
In response to a written parliamentary question, Murrison said placing “potentially unwilling” recruits with professional soldiers “could damage morale, recruitment and retention and would consume professional military and naval resources.”
He added that if, on the other hand, temporary recruits were kept separate, “it would be difficult to find a proper and meaningful role for them, potentially harming motivation and discipline.”
John Healey, the shadow defence secretary, said the Conservatives’ national service proposal was “an undeliverable plan and a distraction from their failures in defence over the last 14 years. Even Rishi Sunak’s own defence minister dismissed the idea days ago.”
Since 2010, Tory ministers have missed recruitment targets every year, hollowed out and underfunded our armed forces, and cut the British army to its smallest size since Napoleon. It’s time for change. Britain will be better defended with Labour,” Healey added.
Kevan Jones, a former Labour defence minister, criticized the plan as an “ill-thought-out and expensive election gimmick which will do nothing to add to the nation’s security.”
Some Tory MPs welcomed the policy but privately admitted they thought it had been poorly communicated. “We’ve made something bold but actually incremental sound insane,” one said.
Facing questions about the proposal on Sunday, Home Secretary James Cleverly assured that no teenagers would be sent to prison for avoiding “mandatory” national service.
Tory estimates suggested the policy would cost £2.5 billion a year by the end of the decade. They indicated that £1 billion would come from cracking down on tax avoidance and £1.5 billion from extending the UK Shared Prosperity Fund, which was designed to regenerate underfunded towns around the UK.
On Sunday night, the Conservatives announced they would ask a royal commission to examine international examples of how full-time armed forces placements can offer young people better opportunities later in their careers.
The commission would be asked to look at case studies from Norway and Israel and design incentives for young people to complete a year in the military, such as fast-track interviews in the civil service or with major employers.
Liberal Democrat defence spokesperson Richard Foord commented on the plans for a royal commission, saying, “As Suella Braverman once said, when you’re in a hole, keep digging.”
Nigel Farage, the honorary president of Reform UK, told the BBC that the proposal was designed to appeal to his voters but ultimately a “joke” and “totally impractical.”
