National Service will be brought back if the Conservative Party wins the general election, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced on 26 May. The announcement has proved to be controversial; as a potential target group, what do young people think of it?
National Service: the need for post-war presence
In 1947, all capable men between the ages of 18 and 30 were required to serve in the army for 18 months. In the following years, this policy was modified to involve only 17 to 21-year–olds and the length of service was increased to two years. There were several exceptions to this policy, namely those we now call ‘essential workers’, people of colour and Northern Irishmen due to the racism and xenophobia of the time.
National Service was introduced to try and boost military manpower because of ongoing engagements in Germany, Japan and the Middle East. Another significant development that year was India gaining independence, which meant that the UK lost access to a great source of troops. Those called up to serve were sent to many countries including Kenya, Cyprus and modern-day Malaysia.
But there was growing discontent and opposition to the policy from government officials, the general public, and military and industry leaders. Young people grew increasingly agitated over the personal impact that the scheme was having on their lives, which resulted in the end of the policy in 1963.
A comparative lens
The most similar example to the Conservative’s proposition is to be found in France. According to France 24, President Emmanuel Macron officially reintroduced Service National Universel (SNU) for a select group of 2,000 15 and 16-year-olds in 2019. They were sent for first aid and other practical skill training for two weeks before doing an additional fortnight of volunteering. Macron has since confirmed that his aim is to change the SNU programme from voluntary to compulsory.
The main similarity between the two schemes lies in the rationale behind them. In a press conference, Macron justified the policy by saying that it would develop patriotism and national spirit. These arguments are nearly identical to those Sunak made in the initial announcement.
While the reintroduction of National Service today does not appear to be the same as traditional conscription, there are 66 countries around the world that still have compulsory military service according to the World Population Review. In an interview on Sky News, Home Secretary James Cleverly cited examples in the Baltics and Scandinavia as inspiration for the new proposal. The same article noted that Sweden and Norway have conscription programmes for both fit men and women, with the former having varying requirements depending on the political climate and the latter requiring 19 months of service in the military.
The perceived benefits
The days following the proposal saw a flurry of headlines and opinion pieces in publications across the country. Simon Jenkins for The Guardian suggested that despite agreeing with Labour’s assessment that the motivation behind the announcement seems to be very electorally based, the idea itself could be of great benefit to young people.
Hamish De Bretton-Gordon for The Telegraph went further, saying that this is a policy that young people should embrace with open arms. He implied that those who benefitted from the furlough scheme should feel grateful. He was widely criticised online, as those 18-year-olds, the current target for National Service, were 14 at the time.
The point raised the most often is that National Service would allow young people to acquire new skills.
Anna Lamche from the BBC spoke to Oscar Brooker, a 15-year-old member of the Young Conservatives and an army cadet. Brooker is quoted as saying that he believes that “it will give young people life skills”. Other youngsters in the article said the same.
Freddie Webb from The News Portsmouth spoke to Daniel Simojoki, a 20-year-old Finnish-Briton who served in the Finnish Defence Forces for a year when he was 18. He echoed Brooker’s views that valuable life skills could be acquired, adding that the plan could “instil a level of discipline” into today’s young people.
The vocal opposition
On RAW 1251 AM’s news show Insight, student panellist Matthew Titterington voiced his concerns over the source of funding for the reintroduction of National Service. BBC Wales’s David Deans suggests that much of the money would come out of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF), which was introduced as a substitution for previous European Union economic assistance. In its current form, much of the funding from the SPF goes to Wales, the North East of England, and Cornwall.
Speaking specifically on the funding for the North East, Titterington opposed the proposal as he believed that the money currently being used is now of greater importance to the region in the aftermath of the cancellation of the northern part of HS2.
There are also doubts about the necessity of the scheme from a national security perspective. Simojoki explained that since Russia borders Finland, young Finns saw the immediate necessity in serving their country. However, he thought that young Britons did not feel that same sense of threat. Furthermore, he added that there is a significant personal toll that serving takes, which could be an additional source of contention.
The policy announcement has exacerbated the sense that the government has abandoned young people. In The Spectator, Sam Bidwell argues that the main reason why young people feel less inclined to take on more responsibility is that they feel like the current state of affairs does not allow them to truly prosper. Bidwell also expresses frustration over the lack of attention given to the sacrifices young people made during COVID, specifically regarding education and life experience.
Potential electoral impact
In the direct aftermath of the announcement, YouGov’s Matthew Smith found that 65% of 18 to 24-year-olds oppose the proposal, compared to 27% who support it. In contrast, 63% of citizens over the age of 65 support the idea compared to 31% who do not. Combined with the 71% support from Conservative voters that the proposal enjoys indicates a generational and ideological divide on this issue.
However, the extent to how this will galvanise people to vote remains a question unanswered.
CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO OUR CROWDFUNDER
HELP US BECOME STRONGER SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO DELIVER POWERFUL CITIZEN JOURNALISM!
