Bringing Resilience Home: Lessons from BFPG’s Annual Survey

In government and beyond, there’s an increasing sense of urgency about the need to improve national resilience to address a wide varietyof threats from hostile state activity to cybercrime, the effects of extreme climate events and supply chain disruptions.  But resilience is like insurance: it’s easy to put off spending against an eventuality that might not happen and there are always more attractive short-term priorities.   To politicians as well as the rest of us, the equivalent of saving for a rainy day can seem counterintuitive when there are so many immediate calls on our money and attention.

Defence, crucial as a deterrent against hostile actors, is a key element of national resilience.  It may save money (and lives) later, but can seem too costly now.   The UK’s so far slow response on defence suggests government views it as a necessary expenditure we’d rather not prioritise. Others who perceive a much more immediate threat have shown more willingness to step up across the board from defence spending to engagement from business and civil society, prompting the question here: “how can we be more like Finland or Estonia?”.  

National resilience will require public buy-in

In those countries which have taken a clear decision to ramp up their national defences, a strong majority of voters are in support.  This suggests that public engagement is key to sustainable resilience, which involves not only sacrifices elsewhere in the economy but also the active involvement of business and citizens in activities which otherwise look like distractions from the day job. Governments will onlybe able to prioritise resilience with public support. It seems clear that the necessary critical mass of support for a step change in resilience isn’t yet there. As BFPG’s latest opinion survey shows, the picture is complex: for those who want to influence the debate, understanding where pubic opinion is at is a crucial first step.

Britons' support for defence is limited

BFPG’s research shows that people feel increasingly insecure: in our polling, 26% said they felt unsafe, up from 19% last year.   National security was in the top three foreign policy priorities of more people (47%) than any other concern.   But this carries through only in a limited way to support for increased defence spending.   Support for increasing spending to 3% of GDP has actually fallen to 60% this year from 71% last year, perhapsreflecting a sense of increasing economic pressure at home. The reality is less convincing still when trade-offs are taken into account: a majority oppose increasing defence spending at the expense of the NHS and a plurality oppose sacrificing education or welfare spending or tax increases. This does notreflect a Finnish-style perception of impending threat, whatever defence and resilience advocates argue.  The consequences of this (at best) half-hearted support for defence comes throughin some interesting findings on people’s willingness to help the country in theevent of a crisis.   There are strongmajorities willing to help in civilian activities, but much less support particularly from the young for service on the frontline.   But Brits report serious doubts that they would be able to help, perhaps reflecting concern at the weakness of the resilience infrastructure – which they don’t seem ready to pay for.

Behind these findings are others which suggest a lack of national agreement and focus on the threats which face us. We always ask how engaged people are in the UK’s foreign policy and how well informed they feel.  Both indicators have fallen this year from 83% to 71% and 67% to 50%, with some striking demographic distinctions too (more detail in the report).  This is perhaps of little surprise given increasing geopolitical uncertainty and the accompanying sense that we can no longer rely on traditional alliances and relationships.  

Moreover, though national security trumps other concerns,there is considerable fragmentation when it comes to identifying the biggest threats.  Young people (under 26) now distrust the United States more than they distrust China; older generations are much more concerned about Russia than their juniors, while younger people tend to believe that the UK is insufficiently focused on the humanitarian crises inthe Middle East and Sudan. These differences in part reflect a fragmenting media landscape, with 42% of under 26s saying that TikTok is their primary source of foreign policy news: a public debate on resilience concentrated on the BBC and print media is likely to pass them by. And it is perhaps unsurprising that Brits as a whole are increasingly mistrustful that their Government is handling foreign policy well: when people of different ages political allegiances and demographics have such different priorities, it’sincreasingly difficult for government to lead a coherent national policy.

Strong communication from government will be needed to get the public on board

How might government and others seek to rally public support behind the need for greater resilience?

This discussion normally starts with the need for more“education”.   But we need to be careful. A de haut en bas approach of “telling the public what they need to know”is likely to fall on deaf ears. It may help to broaden the debate beyond defence and focus more on the need to protect critical national infrastructure, from healthcare to supply chains. There’s often a reluctance in government to“create panic”: the way to avoid this is to identify solutions at the same time as highlighting the problems. These solutions should not all be in the area of hard defence and there needs to be a greater effort to separate out a discussion of what needs to be done from spending decisions, to avoid the risk that the argument is simply perceived as special pleading by sectoral interests looking for more money.

From time to time, Ministers will say that defence is their principal responsibility and top priority. If so, they need to keep saying it – and behave as though it’s true. Political experts will say that leaders do best when they talk positive and look relaxed. Maybe, but experts also say that messages only land when they’ve been said so often that you feel tired of delivering them. Governments and political parties that are concerned about defence and resilience should say so more often and look as though it matters to them.

Finally, along with the right messages comes the need for the right spokespeople.   It’s been argued that (former) generals are among the best advocates for international development because they have seen the impact it can have on preventing or mitigating conflicts.   Who are the best advocates for defence and resilience? In a cynical age like ours, they are probably those least expected to be supporters and with strong personal stories of why it pays to take out insurance before it’s too late.

‍