The UK is not considering introducing conscription to ready the country for a potential war – but decisions may be needed in the future to respond to the “new reality” we are now living in, a minister has told Sky News.
In an interview with Trevor Phillips, Latvian President Edgars Rinkeviks has urged European countries to follow his country’s lead and “absolutely” introduce conscription, conceding the continent is “quite weak” militarily.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:59
‘Debate’ in Latvia about introducing conscription for women
Asked if the UK government is considering introducing the measure to boost the armed forces, Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden said it is important the UK does not find itself operating under “old assumptions” – and that it may be “decisions are needed in the future that respond to a new reality”.
He told Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips: “We are not considering conscription, but of course we have announced a major increase in defence expenditure.
“We do have to recognise that the world has changed. The phrase ‘step up’ is used a lot. Europe does have to step up in terms of its own defence.
“President Trump isn’t actually the first president to say that, but he said it more loudly and with more force than his predecessors – so, I think we have got to recognise that moment.”
X
This content is provided by X, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable X cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to X cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow X cookies for this session only.
He added: “When the world is changing as fast as it is, it’s important that we don’t cling on to old assumptions.
“I think the prime minister has played a tremendous role in recent weeks in responding to that situation and explaining it to the public.
“That is why the decision on increasing defence expenditure was needed.
“It may be why other decisions are needed in the future that respond to a new reality, and that we don’t find ourselves caught operating under the same assumption as we used to in the past when the situation has changed.”
‘Battlefield is changing’
Sir Keir Starmer has promised to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP but has not set out when this will be achieved. Ministers say a defence review to be published this spring will set out a “roadmap” to it.
The number is much lower than the US president has demanded NATO members spend on defence, with Mr Trump saying they should all be spending 5% – an amount last seen during the Cold War.
Asked if the “new reality” involved a bigger army, Mr McFadden said ministers were waiting for the conclusion of the review.
But he added: “One thing is for sure, you would not spend money today on the same things as you would 10 years ago.
“The experience of the three years of the war in Ukraine has shown just how fast the battlefield is changing in terms of cyber, drones, the use of intelligence.”
History of conscription in UK
In the UK, military conscription has existed for two periods in modern times.
The first was from 1916 to 1920 following the outbreak of the First World War in 1914, due to the dwindling number of volunteers for military service.
Lord Kitchener’s campaign – promoted by his famous “Your Country Needs You” poster – had encouraged more than one million men to enlist by January 1915. But this was not enough.
In January 1916, after much debate, the Military Service Act was passed. This imposed conscription on all single men aged between 18 and 41, but exempted the medically unfit, clergymen, teachers and certain classes of industrial worker.
Conscientious objectors – men who objected to fighting on moral grounds – were also exempt, and were given civilian jobs or non-fighting roles at the front.
Conscription was not applied to Ireland because of the 1916 Easter Rising, although many Irishmen volunteered to fight.
A second Act passed in May 1916 extended conscription to married men, and in 1918, during the last months of the war, the age limit was raised to 51.
Conscription was extended until 1920 to allow the army to deal with continuing trouble spots in the Empire and parts of Europe.
In the run-up to the Second World War, plans for limited conscription applying to single men aged between 20 and 22 were given parliamentary approval in the Military Training Act in May 1939. This required men to undertake six months’ military training.
When Britain declared war against Germany on 3 September 1939, the National Service (Armed Forces) Act imposed conscription on all males aged between 18 and 41.
Those medically unfit were exempt, as were others in key industries and jobs such as baking, farming, medicine, and engineering, while conscientious objectors had to appear before a tribunal to argue their reasons for refusing to join up.
In December 1941, a second National Service Act was approved, making all unmarried women and all childless widows between the ages of 20 and 30 liable to call-up.
The last conscription term ended in 1960, although many soldiers chose to continue in the service beyond 1963.
The Conservatives’ first policy announcement of last year’s general election campaign was that the party would introduce a new form of mandatory National Service for 18-year-olds.
Asked if the Tories still stood by the plan which was in their manifesto, shadow home secretary Chris Philp told Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips: “We are obviously not going to write our manifesto now, so I am not going to recommit to things in the previous manifesto.
“We’ll need to do the thinking properly. I am not going to speculate four years ahead of the election.
“I don’t think it was really exactly conscription that was being proposed, it was a National Citizen Service which is a bit different.
“The idea of getting younger people to do voluntary work and perform useful tasks is not a bad idea.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
General Sir Richard Sherriff, ex-deputy supreme allied commander of the military organisation, said: “I think we need to get over many of the cultural hang-ups and assumptions, and frankly think the unthinkable.
“I think we need to go further and look carefully at conscription.”
The cobbled streets of Newport in Middlesbrough survive from the Victorian era.
The staggering levels of child poverty here also feel like they belong in a different time.
Six out of every seven children in Newport are classified as living in poverty.
Image: Six out of every seven children in Newport are classified as living in poverty
The measure is defined by the Child Poverty Action Group as a household with an income less than 60% of the national average.
More than half of children across the whole of the constituency of Middlesbrough and Thornaby East are growing up in poverty.
As a long-awaited new strategy on child poverty is expected from the government, much of the focus on tackling the problem has been placed on lifting the two-child cap on benefits for families.
Researchers say there is direct link between areas with the highest rates of child poverty and those with the highest proportion of children affected by that two-child cap.
More on Food
Related Topics:
Image: The two-child benefit cap means Gemma Grafton and Lee Stevenson receive no additional universal credit for three-month-old Ivie
Mother-of-three Gemma Grafton said: “Maybe if families do have more than two children, give them that little bit of extra help because it would make a difference.”
Three months ago, she and partner Lee welcomed baby Ivie into the world. With two daughters already, the cap means they receive no additional universal credit.
“You don’t seem to have enough money some months to cover the basics,” said Lee.
“Having to tell the kids to take it easy, that’s not nice, when they’re just wanting to help themselves to get what they want and we’ve got to say ‘Try and calm down on what you’re eating’ because we haven’t got the money to go and get shopping in,” added Gemma.
Image: Katrina Morley, of Dormanstown Primary Academy, says lack of sleep affects concentration
Image: Tracey Godfrey-Harrison says parents ‘are crying that they’re failing’
The couple had to resort to paying half of the rent one month, something they say is stressful and puts their home at risk.
Those who work in the area of child poverty say they are engaged in a battle with child exploitation gangs who will happily step in and offer children a lucrative life of crime.
“Parents are crying that they’re failing because they can’t provide for their children,” said Tracey Godfrey-Harrison, project manager at the Middlesbrough Food Bank.
“In today’s society, it’s disgraceful that anyone should have to cry because they don’t have enough.”
In the shadow of a former steelworks, Dormanstown Primary Academy serves pupils in a community hit hard by the economic collapse that followed.
The school works with charities and businesses to increase opportunities for pupils now and in the future.
Katrina Morley, the academy’s chief executive, said: “A child who hasn’t been able to sleep properly can’t concentrate. They’re tired. We know that the brain doesn’t work in the same way. A child who is hungry can’t access the whole of life.
“When you face hardship, it affects not just your physiology but your emotional sense, your brain development, your sense of worth. They don’t get today back and their tomorrow is our tomorrow.”
Image: Dormanstown Primary Academy serves pupils in a community hit hard by the closure of a steel plant
Image: Barney’s Baby Bank founder Debbie Smith says local people ‘are struggling with food’
The school’s year six pupils see the value of things like the on-site farm shop for families in need.
They are open about their own worries, too.
Bonnie, 10, said: “I think that’s very important because it ensures all the people in our community have options if they’re struggling.
“It can be life-changing for families in poverty or who have a disadvantage in life because they don’t have enough money and they’re really struggling to get their necessities.”
Mark, also 10, said: “I worry about if we have nowhere to live and if we haven’t got enough money to pay for our home. But at least we have our family.”
They also see the homelessness in the area as the impact of poverty. “I think it actually happens more often than most people think,” said Leo, “because near the town, there’s people on the streets and they have nowhere to go.”
The school is one of many calling for the lifting of the two-child cap.
The need for life’s essentials has prompted more than 50 families to register for help at Barney’s Baby Bank in the last 11 months. Nappies, wipes, clothing, shoes, toys, are a lifeline for those who call in.
Founder Debbie Smith said local people “are struggling with food. They’re obviously struggling to clothe their babies as well. It’s low wages, high unemployment, job insecurity and that two-child benefit cap”.
“Middlesbrough does feel ignored,” she added.
A government spokesperson said: “Every child, no matter their background, deserves the best start in life. That’s why our Child Poverty Taskforce will publish an ambitious strategy to tackle the structural and root causes of child poverty.
“We are investing £500m in children’s development through the rollout of Best Start Family Hubs, extending free school meals and ensuring the poorest don’t go hungry in the holidays through a new £1bn crisis support package.”
But what is the message to those making the decisions from the North East?
“Come and do my job for a week and see the need and the desperation the people are in,” said Ms Godfrey-Harrison. “There needs to be more done for people in Middlesbrough.”
Many Labour MPs have been left shellshocked after the chaotic political self-sabotage of the past week.
Bafflement, anger, disappointment, and sheer frustration are all on relatively open display at the circular firing squad which seems to have surrounded the prime minister.
The botched effort to flush out backroom plotters and force Wes Streeting to declare his loyalty ahead of the budget has instead led even previously loyal Starmerites to predict the PM could be forced out of office before the local elections in May.
“We have so many councillors coming up for election across the country,” one says, “and at the moment it looks like they’re going to be wiped out. That’s our base – we just can’t afford to lose them. I like Keir [Starmer] but there’s only a limited window left to turn things around. There’s a real question of urgency.”
Another criticised a “boys club” at No 10 who they claimed have “undermined” the prime minister and “forgotten they’re meant to be serving the British people.”
There’s clearly widespread muttering about what to do next – and even a degree of enviousness at the lack of a regicidal 1922 committee mechanism, as enjoyed by the Tories.
“Leadership speculation is destabilising,” one said. “But there’s really no obvious strategy. Andy Burnham isn’t even an MP. You’d need a stalking horse candidate and we don’t have one. There’s no 1922. It’s very messy.”
More on Labour
Related Topics:
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:54
Starmer’s faithfuls are ‘losing faith’
Others are gunning for the chancellor after months of careful pitch-rolling for manifesto-breaching tax rises in the budget were ripped up overnight.
“Her career is toast,” one told me. “Rachel has just lost all credibility. She screwed up on the manifesto. She screwed up on the last two fiscal events, costing the party huge amounts of support and leaving the economy stagnating.
“Having now walked everyone up the mountain of tax rises and made us vote to support them on the opposition day debate two days ago, she’s now worried her job is at risk and has bottled it.
“Talk to any major business or investor and they are holding off investing in the UK until it is clear what the UK’s tax policy is going to be, putting us in a situation where the chancellor is going to have to go through this all over again in six months – which just means no real economic growth for another six months.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
After less than 18 months in office, the government is stuck in a political morass largely of its own making.
Treasury sources have belatedly argued that the chancellor’s pre-budget change of heart on income tax is down to better-than-expected economic forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility.
That should be a cause of celebration. The question is whether she and the PM are now too damaged to make that case to the country – and rescue their benighted prospects.
We’re told that Shabana Mahmood, the still new home secretary, is “a woman in a hurry”.
She’s been in the job for 73 days – and is now announcing “the most sweeping reforms to tackle illegal migration in modern times” – effectively since the Second World War.
Her language is not just tough – it’s radical. Not what you’d have expected to hear from a Labour home secretary even just a few months ago.
“Illegal migration”, she believes, “is tearing our country apart. The crisis at our borders is out of control”.
Her team argues that those never-ending images of people crossing the Channel in small boats have led to a complete loss of faith in the government’s ability to take any action at all – let alone deliver on its promises.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:29
‘Illegal migration is creating division across our country’.
The political reality is that successive failures of Tory and Labour ministers have fuelled the inexorable rise of Reform.
More on Migrant Crisis
Related Topics:
But speaking to Sir Trevor Phillips on Sky News, Ms Mahmood firmly hit back at suggestions today’s announcements are pandering to a racist narrative from the far right.
“It’s not right-wing talking points or fake news or misinformation that is suggesting that we’ve got a problem,” she said.
“I know, because I have now seen this system inside out. It is a broken system. We have a genuine problem to fix. People are angry about something that is real.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:09
Trevor’s takeaway
“It is my job, therefore, to think of a proper solution to this very real problem, to do so in line with my values as a Labour politician, but also as a British citizen, and to have solutions that work so that I can unite a divided country.”
There are many striking elements to this.
While she’s not been in the job for all that long, her government has been in power for 16 months. Her own press release highlights that over the past full calendar year asylum claims here have gone up by 18% – compared with a drop of 13% elsewhere in the EU.
The UK, she argues, has become a “golden ticket” for asylum seekers due to “far more generous terms” than other countries in Europe.
While she politely insists that her predecessor’s policies – the one in one out deal with France, closer partnership with law enforcement across Europe – are beginning to take effect, the message is clear. No one in office before Shabana has had the stomach to grasp the nettle.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:42
Inside Europe’s people smuggling industry
The Home Office is determined to present their boss as the new hard woman of British politics.
In a bleak warning to those in her party who will be deeply uncomfortable with this unflinching approach, we’re told she believes this is “the last chance for decent, moderate politics”.
“If these moderate forces fail, something darker will follow…. if you don’t like this, you won’t like what follows me.”
That’s a clear reference to the anti-asylum policies of Reform and the Conservatives, who are pledging to leave the European Convention on Human Rights and deport all illegal arrivals.
Both parties have responded by effectively claiming they don’t trust Labour to deliver on this, given they believe the government has lost control of our borders and overseen a surge in asylum claims.
That much Ms Mahmood herself has already acknowledged.
It’s unusual to hear a Conservative shadow minister like Chris Philp responding to a government announcement by claiming they will support the “sensible steps” the Home Office is making.
Unsurprisingly, he went on to belittle her ideas as “very small steps” combined with “gimmicks” – but the main thrust of his critique was that Labour lacks the authority to push these kinds of measures through parliament, given the likely opposition from their own left wingers.
It’s a fair point – but the lack of fundamental disagreement highlights the threat these plans pose to her opponents.
If the government looks like it might actually succeed in bringing down the numbers – and of course that’s a colossal if – Ms Mahmood will effectively have outflanked and neutralised much of the threat from both the Tories and Reform.
That’s why she’s so keen to mention her Danish inspiration – a centre-left government which managed to see off the threat from right-wing parties through its tough approach to migration, without having to leave the ECHR.
The Home Office is planning further announcements on new safe and legal routes.
But refugee charities have described the new measures as harsh, claiming they will scapegoat genuine refugees, fail to integrate them into society, and fail to function as a deterrent either.
There will surely be an almighty internal row among Labour MPs about the principle of ripping up the post-war settlement for refugees.
For a government floundering after the political chaos of the last few weeks and months, Ms Mahmood is a voice of certainty and confidence.
At a moment of such intense backroom debate over the party’s future direction, it’s hard to avoid seeing her performance this weekend as a starting pitch for the leadership.