Rishi Sunak has announced that a future Conservative government would bring back mandatory national service, as he attempted to reignite his election campaign after an error-strewn start.
Under the plan, which appeared to be his latest attempt to reduce Tory losses by winning over voters drifting to Reform UK, the prime minister late Saturday said that every 18-year-old would have to spend time in a competitive, full-time military commission or spend one weekend a month volunteering in “civil resilience”.
The UK home secretary said young people would face no criminal sanctions if they refused to join the military or do volunteer work under the Tories’ plan.
This suggests to me that the plan has not been thought through, they don't intend doing it, and the whole exercise is merely a cynical attempt to pick up a few votes that would otherwise go to Reform UK.
On a wider note, the question "how do we run the country well?" is not one that it occurs Sunak or his government to ask themselves; instead they ask "what bullshit can we tell the voters to win elections?" and "how can we funnel more money to our rich friends?"
The world is getting more dangerous
But let's take the question seriously: should Britain introduce conscription?
we've seen the rise of Islamist ideology and states such as Russia and China, all of which are ideologically and violently opposed to the West and liberal democracy. And we've also seen democratic backsliding, where states have become less democratic over time.
Over the period 2010-2020, the red states on the map have become less democratic, while the blue states have become more democratic:
Now, with the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, the world looks even more dangerous than it did in 2021. Russia is a serious threat, and China is an even more serious long-term threat. It is not obvious to me that the West is going to win this time.
Finland can do this because they have a small army in peacetime which mostly trains conscripts, who can then be mobilised in wartime. Thus Finland gets better value for money than Britain. If Britain introduced conscription, we could have a much larger army for the same price -- sure not all the troops would be as well trained (but still trained well enough), and some of the equipment would be older (but still good enough), but was has proved in the first and second world wars and the Russia-Ukraine war, quantity has a quality all of its own.
So, should the UK reinstitute conscription? In a previous post about a hypothetical Scottish army after Scottish independence I wrote:
Should Scotland have conscription?
Arguments for: Conscription allows the armed forces to be more effective at a cheaper cost. If the people aren't paying for this effectiveness via conscription, and they wanted the same level of military capability, they would instead have to pay for it by significantly higher taxes. Conscription would also form a shared experience for a large number of Scots, which would build social cohesion.
Arguments against: Conscription represents a loss of personal liberty. Also there is the opportunity cost of whatever else people would be doing with that time.
Conclusion
So should the UK introduce conscription? In 2021 when I wrote the two articles linked above, I would've said yes. But today in 2024 the most pressing defence need is to help Ukraine with:
ammunition, particularly 155mm artillery rounds
air-defence missiles, for example the Starstreak, CAMM and Aster missiles used by the UK armed forces
air-defence guns, similar to the German Gepard or Polish Pilica
short range battlefield drones
long range drones and cruise missiles, able to wage a strategic bombing campaign against Russia
Building up manufacturing capacity for all these, using both British and Ukrainian designs, is a higher immediate priority than expanding the size of the British army, whether by conscription of otherwise.
China and Russia are less dangerous than the west.