24 Jun The Election Debate on…Defence
In a period of major geopolitical contestation, it is unsurprising that defence and security are high in the public consciousness, nor that national security has become such a big theme in this general election.
Heading into the election, the rationale for the Conservatives for focusing on national security was clear. Long viewed as the ‘party of defence’, the Conservatives’ track record on national security was perceived to be one of its strongest policy areas. Even as the MOD struggles with significant resourcing gaps, the Conservatives’ legacy on defence and their track record on support for Ukraine (particularly under Prime Minister Boris Johnson) was expected to serve them well in winning support from an electorate eager to strengthen the UK’s national security.
When announcing the general election, Prime Minister Sunak therefore sought to position the election around which party would deliver a “secure future” for the UK. Campaign posts, shared widely by Conservative candidates and supporters alike, framed Shadow Cabinet members as a threat to national security. And flagship commitments, not least around a national service for 18-year-olds, centered around national security. Other major defence pledges from the Conservatives have included plans for a new procurement model for defence, acceleration of the modernisation of the Armed Forces and a range of measures to support veterans.
Meanwhile, Labour sought to get ahead of potential Conservative attack lines on defence, trailing its plans for national security even before the campaign began. A key cornerstone of its vision for national security has long been its plans for a UK-EU security pact, as well as for a Strategic Defence review within its first year in government. During the campaign, Labour has sought to further bolster its defence commitments, with a pledge to deliver a nuclear triple lock, clearly designed to put distance between Starmer and his predecessor Jeremy Corbyn who famously voted against the renewal of Trident, while he was Leader of the opposition in 2017.
The Conservatives have fought hard though to prevent Labour from strengthening its credentials on national security. Indeed, when, prior to the election, Labour announced plans to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP ‘as soon as resources allow’, the Conservatives outflanked them by pledging to meet the same commitment by 2030.
However, the tables quickly turned when Prime Minister Rishi Sunak opted to leave the D-Day Anniversary celebrations in Normandy early in order to attend a TV interview. Not only did that gift Keir Starmer a photo opportunity with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, but Sunak’s decision was met with widespread public disdain, and dealt a severe blow to his efforts to campaign on a platform of protecting national security. While defence is now slowly creeping back into the Conservative party campaign schedule, the Conservatives’ focus on national security has tailed off dramatically in the wake of the scandal.
Underlying this rather heated debate about national security though lies a remarkable amount of consensus between the Conservatives and Labour on national security. For both, support for Ukraine and NATO is the top priority and both parties recognise that defence spending needs to increase and that the UK’s defence systems must be modernised to meet changing global challenges.
This consensus on defence is not held by all the main parties in the election though. Nuclear deterrence in particular sharply divides the parties, with the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Greens calling for Trident to be scrapped, while the Liberal Democrats have committed to maintaining the nuclear deterrent while pushing for multilateral global disarmament. For all these parties this positions them in a markedly different place to both the Conservatives and Labour, particularly given the latter has made its ‘nuclear triple lock’ a key part of its defence commitments.
Where there is strong consensus though is around Ukraine. With the exception of Reform UK, every other party mentions maintaining support for Ukraine in their manifesto, a consensus that will be welcomed by many of our European partners. On Ukraine, Reform UK is the exception to the rule, with Farage drawing fierce criticism in recent days for appearing to blame the West for provoking Russia and helping cause Putin’s invasion. Given the overwhelming strength of public support for Ukraine, it is unsurprising that the majority of parties have opted to stand firmly behind Ukraine. Indeed Farage’s stance on Putin may well prove to be a strategic mistake for him, not least given many of the voters he is looking to appeal to are passionate about the UK’s defence. He only needs to look at how unequivocal many of them were in their condemnation of Sunak for leaving the D-Day anniversary celebrations early to realise it’s a risky approach. National security is something the British public takes very seriously. No party can afford to be seen to be weak on it.
