Sunak’s Modern National Service Conscription it is not

On closer examination, the National Service proposal would grace the “back of a fag packet”.

I thought Rishi Sunak’s “National Service” would have disappeared as an issue as Tory poll numbers tumbled, but there it was again in the tv debates on 20^th June.  So, let’s have a look at the Tory “Model of Modern National Service,” as distinct from what my generation knew it as.

If reading on, you think I am being destructively nit-picking on Rishi Sunak’s idea, that is not so. Providing young people with a purpose beyond their immediate family, friends and self, especially one that emphasises public service, is a good idea.  It is, I believe, central to the Duke of Edinburgh Award scheme, and a number of other organisations in which the young enrol voluntarily.    Whether the Prime Minister’s proposal is a good one, that is will it work, is the question, and given it is an election promise it needs examination.  

Rishi Sunak’s “National Service” is not conscription as practised by, say, Lithuania or Switzerland where for the young it is into the armed forces, and continued compulsory reserve training.   It is a mish-mash of ideas not thought through. The truth of that can be seen by this quote from the manifesto: “We will establish a Royal Commission, the first in a quarter of a century, to design our modernised National Service.” In short, Sunak needs a Royal Commission to tell him what he means. It is little wonder that Tory ministers take to verbal wandering when an interviewer seeks details.

All he has presented are suggestions posed as two mandatory options, “choices” to quote the manifesto for all 18-year-olds. During the tv debate on 20^th June he hinted about sanctions on those who refuse to enter his scheme.  I find it hard to believe that today’s 18-year-olds would meekly submit to having their driving licences or credit cards taken away.  It wouldn’t take long before the Supreme Court was asked to reject such punishment as incompatible with the EHCR.

Mandatory Volunteering – An Oxymoron

To volunteer for something means a person choosing an action of his/her free will. Being told you will be a volunteer takes away free will. But right at the centre of Sunak’s proposal is the idea that you can be told what to do, but still remain a volunteer. Here are the only choices the young must volunteer for.

Option 1 Civic service.   One weekend per month (25 days) volunteering for roles within the community which “could include special constable, NHS responder or RNLI.”    This is a shorter indicative list than the original press release that mentioned the Fire and NHS responder Services along with caring for the elderly or people who are isolated.

Option 2 Military service.  Either 12 months as a member of the armed forces, or in cyber defence. “This placement will be competitive and paid, so our armed forces recruit and train the brightest and the best.” The words “Competitive” and “recruit and train the brightest and the best.” are important. They make clear that the 18-year-old will not be free to choose the navy, air force, army or cyber defence, but will go where told.  And on what basis will someone be singled out as the brightest and best? Here again “competitive” comes into play: it really means “selective,” and If an 18 year old is not one of the select will he/she be rejected for Option 2? And if not selected for Option 2, will having volunteered for it meet their mandatory obligation to volunteer, and so not require them to transfer to Option 1?

This National Service is not that National Service

By using “Modern” in the manifesto introduction to his National Service, Sunak seeks to promote the idea that Option 2 will be different from the old National Service that lasted until the early 1960s. That will disappoint those who want the old National Service back as a means of instilling social discipline in today’s unruly youth. Not my view of the young, but of those who have been writing to the papers from the misguided believe that the old drill instructor will have them back on parade.    

I am of the generation for whom mandatory National Service meant two years in the armed forces. My brother did his in the RAF, his mates in the Army.  I was a regular in the Royal Navy, but spent over 2 years in combined operations with a unit of the Army. Most of the unit, including one junior officer, were civilians doing National Service.   Conscription wasn’t introduced during our young years, but was a continuation from the 1939-45 war and was not abolished until the 1960’s. It was a well-established system that we took  as a normal unavoidable period in our lives. .  

It is from my experience of military National Service as it affected my brother, and the young men with whom I served in the Army unit, that I approach Option 2.

The NS my brother served is popular with the 50-70 age group today who never experienced it themselves so it is difficult to know where they get the idea of it being a positive influence on my generation, that should now be applied to today’s youngsters.  

There are some who did National Service who claim it as a welcome experience (I personally never met any), but for most that two-year National Service Conscription was an unwelcome major disruption to life and career development, and that will be the case too in Option 2.   Back in the 1950s and 1960s an employer was supposed to keep the job open for the young men’s return from military duty, but what happened was that the employer sacked you just before your 18^th. Birthday so that they dodged that obligation.  That didn’t happen in every case, the very large companies could afford to be accommodating, but not so the smaller companies.  For my brother and his mates, all just finishing their apprenticeships, it was the sack and no future employer obligation.

There is a big difference in the UK economic structure today than existed in the 1950s and 1960s. We have fewer big manufacturing firms, we are in a technological revolution where companies are created only to disappear, with AI taking over in some areas.  There is no stable structure today. Companies grow, decline, are taken over, in a way that never happened in my time. Does Sunak intend employers to keep your job open for a year?  Would a guarantee of your job back really be something a young person could rely on? Why, given all the uncertainty, would anyone in their right mind take Option 2 and leave their job, especially when there is a lower- risk Option 1 available?

With those doubts and issues facing Option 2, it would seem eminently sensible for a young person to choose Option 1.   It means no disruption to their normal job, only disruption to their social life every weekend for a year, except when calling in sick on a Saturday morning and managing to recover by Saturday night (not likely to be an unusual occurrence).  But Option 1 isn’t so much a problem for the mandatory volunteer as for the Fire, Police and NHS whose doors they would knock on every Saturday morning.

Fire Service?  It takes continuous training before anyone is fit to become a member of a fire crew.  The job cannot be learned on a weekend basis. So, what exactly has Sunak in mind for the volunteer to do at each fire station?  Police?  That is another job where rigorous training at the Police College is essential before a constable can go on the beat.  I suspect that fire and police stations inundated with “volunteers” at weekends is something those who run them will not welcome.

NHS? Sunak can only mean his scheme will apply to hospitals and not GP surgeries (which are closed at weekends) or Pharmacists. There are a number of non-medical things “volunteers” can do in hospitals Monday to Friday when they are their busiest, when additional portering might be helpful. But Saturday and Sunday are the quietist days of the week – except in A &E dealing with the fallout from Friday and Saturday night revelry.  There could be volunteer work there calming the rowdies but the hospital managers might be leery about that owing to the legal requirement of duty of care, and possible problems with insurance.

Charities, the elderly and the isolated?  There would be scope for engagement here, as there is at present by genuine volunteers.  But there would be a difference.  Volunteering for a charity now,  or on making regular visits to the elderly is because people  want to do it . That is not the same as being visited by someone because he/she is compelled  to do something under Sunak’s scheme.  As they used to say in the Navy, a volunteer is worth ten pressed men.

Sunak’s compulsory National Service that is not conscription into the armed forces is a strange one coming from a conservative, a member of a party that traditionally believes the State should stay out of people’s lives.  That belief is set aside by all parties if the country faces a real threat to its existence from an armed enemy, with a general call-up to unforms and weapons. But for all the talk of world instability, Sunak is not pitching his idea in Option 2 as one of meeting external threats.

The more one examines the National Service material that has been put out for us to read, the more obvious it is that “back of a fag packet” sums it up. 

Sweden Comparison

In the tv debate spin room on 20^th June David Davis, senior Tory,  sought to compare the Sunak National Service with the Swedish model, and suggested they were the same. There is a significant difference. Sweden is unambiguous. Their system is conscription to the armed forces for the purpose of creating and sustaining a formidable defence force.

100,000 young people are eligible for conscription each year. Only 4,000 are called up.  Once conscripted and trained, updated training is also required and that defence obligation can stretch to ten years. For those who cannot use “lethal force” against another human being (always a small minority)  can claim to be a conscientious objector, but must  do alternative public service.

Sweden’s assessment of its national security, like that of Norway,  the Baltic states and Finland (which  have borders with Russia),  is based on the possibility of invasion by a large adversary, with the only country to fit that description being Russia.

Unlike a number of European states Gt. Britain being an island has no borders, and is some considerable distance from Russia, the only possible adversary in Europe, and even further away from China, so is most unlikely to face invasion by a foreign army.  The David Davis comparison with Sweden is, therefore, false on every count.