The Sylvan National Service debate considered the following motion:
This house would reinstate National Service.
The debate took place on Monday 5th February. David Kerry proposed the motion and Michael Carton opposed it.
The proposition arguing that we should reinstate National Service
The proposer began with context on the state of the armed forces. Their strength has reduced year on year, and military chiefs say we lack preparation. We face significant threats in Gaza, Ukraine and the Red Sea and need to withstand future ones. National Service was in place from 1916-18 and 1939-60, including during the Cold War, representing conscription to supplement the armed forces. We have the lowest forces in 300 years, and while technology helps, it still relies on people. The government used conscription in the past to fill gaps in military numbers. However, professional soldiers don’t want conscripts, and the challenge of demobilisation into civilian life persists, driving high costs relative to reserves. Yet we don’t have enough volunteers – for every five recruited, eight leave.
The proposer continued
Across Europe 12 countries still have conscription. It brings people into the public sector, and reciprocates the benefits we get as citizens. A recent poll indicated that 28% would support an eight-month requirement, while 64% would support non-military service in community settings. We are grown ups, and we need to take a wider, longer-term view on our society. We need to commit to the wider good in a community-minded way, while not falling into nationalism.
The opposition against the National Service debate motion
The opposer pointed out gratefully that without National Service, we may not be sitting here tonight. It included both men and women with some exemptions, while the Turks had military slaves 1,000 years ago. Difficult to imagine that we could have found two million volunteers. The head of the British Army has said we need National Service, with only 74,000 soldiers in place. Would people join up? The military lags behind on diversity, at only 9% versus circa 20% in the population. Would we fine non-joiners or throw them in prison? The volunteers’ careers and education would stop for two years. A graduate with a job, mortgage and parental responsibilities would lose money, and the cost of salary replacement would be too high. Would it be fair? The rich could avoid it.
The opposer continued
Tech will win wars going forward, though we face a real threat from Putin. Ukraine had a tiny army, and yet Russia sit stuck in a field. How would Putin get here? ‘If you shut down the comms network, you shut down the commies.’ Do we need to instill discipline into our youth, should the State take responsibility for that? I believe parents have responsibility. Conscription would represent defence on the cheap, even though expensive. We should have proper professional soldiers, and if salaries were £50-60,000, we’d have a queue. No matter what, prominent children wouldn’t serve near the front line. The Army chief wanted this back on the political agenda and media to get funding.
Floor speeches from the audience of the National Service debate
Floor speakers added a wide range of perspectives. Students already to gap years. Israel has it, and can mobilise quickly. Yet technology will win it, such as Poland’s new K2 tanks. National Service would provide life skills for 18 year-olds lacking in direction at low cost to them. We don’t know what the future brings. Should we do it as preparation or to drive a sense of community? Yet it could lead to a self-fulfilling escalation.
Floor speeches continued
The government is inefficient, wasteful and exploitative and would waste the lives of children in wars not of our choosing. Industry benefits from wars, and we should send criminals into the meat grinder. Gen Z no longer believe in the military as a moral endeavour or a force for good. We need to define what the new National Service would comprise more clearly. People did not like conscription in 1916. As an island, we do not face a constant threat of invasion. The fact that government is inefficient does not mean we should not have it, it could be a mistake not to. The front-line reality of war still requires troops. Both Russia and Ukraine have had circa 100,000 deaths, and Russia continually rearms via conscription. Finland has conscription and even government organisations and businesses prepare for invasion.
More floor speeches
One speaker did National Service in 1956-58, and demonstrated it live, with an umbrella serving in place of a rifle! It was a positive experience. Yet we have megalomaniacs running 2-3 superpowers, and we are ill-equipped to deal with Russia if they go beyond Ukraine. However, we should spend more on the professional army first. Society relies too much on technology – the water supply can go down due to a computer fault. Russia and China know this. Some form of National Service could help us cope with war. It could help inculcate comradeship, resilience, and a sense of pride in the country, while supporting multiculturalism. But we shouldn’t be offering Gen Z a summer camp. We need highly-trained professionals, and people should have a choice whether to serve.
The opposer’s rebuttal
In rebuttal, the opposer pointed out that National Service has always meant military, not community, service. Russia presents a threat to the West as a whole, including the US. Whether 18 year-olds lack direction should be addressed by the education system. Conscription could indeed lead to a self-fulfilling prophesy. John F Kennedy asked Americans to serve, then sent them to fight in the jungles of Vietnam. Ultimately, if we want a professional army, we need to pay for it. We need professional soldiers, not cannon fodder. The direct threat from Russia remains limited, and we’d have allies. Would you join National Service?
The proposer’s closing speech
In closing, the proposer stated he was now convinced that we can learn the lessons from the past. Dictators want to build their empires and will abuse our populations. The best way to have a professional army requires paying. The problem centres on how we can support the armed forces. The population today don’t think in terms of service. No one has defined what National Service would mean today – and that can’t be 12-18 months long. We could expand the Army Reserve, which requires 27 days per year, includes compensation and employers must allow. It requires one month of training at the beginning. If we needed to mobilise, we could build on it, and most reservists would fill back-office roles who would support the professional army. They would not serve as cannon fodder. This would represent a focused, targeted, affordable National Service that people could accommodate in their daily lives. It would create a more resilient society, and a majority support community-based service.
Result: the National Service debate motion did not carry
In the final vote, the Sylvans concluded through the debate that we should not reinstate National Service.
See information on other Sylvan debates here.
