How would the UK's approach to National Security change under a new government?

What are the main national security tasks for a government after the election?

Professor the Lord Peter Ricketts: “If the election produces a new Labour government with a substantial majority, Keir Starmer and his team would have an extraordinary opportunity to make their mark on international security policy within their first month. Four days after taking power, they would be in Washington for the 75th anniversary NATO summit. Starmer would arrive with the aura of a political leader fresh from an election victory with five years ahead of him, when Biden, Macron and Scholtz all face electoral uncertainty. By embracing the former government’s approach to NATO, Ukraine and Russia, Starmer could show himself a dependable NATO ally.

“Two weeks later, the European Political Community Summit will take place at Blenheim Palace, bringing together leaders from across Europe to coordinate responses to common issues and concerns. This will be a chance for the new Prime Minister to show the British parliamentary skill in summing up a disparate discussion to produce a consensus text supporting Ukraine.

“Some foreign policy issues could be contentious in party terms, particularly the recognition of a Palestinian state, but there are two areas where Labour could put a new stamp on international policy, although, both risk disappointing expectations. First, tackling illegal migration. Labour plans to scrap the Rwanda policy, but this raises the question – what would they do instead? Their answer so far has been a Border Security Command pulling Whitehall together and more cooperation with neighbours to crack down on trafficking gangs. But if arrivals remain high, would that be enough?

“The second area is reconnecting with the European Union. The Security Pact should get a good reception in Brussels, but tangible progress on defence industry cooperation and improvements in trade access would be slow and transactional.

“Ministers new to government will need to learn how to use the tools that the military and intelligence community provide. A reinvigorated National Security Council is the best forum for this. It enables ministers to debate directly with military chiefs and intelligence heads about what they can, and importantly cannot, provide. Regular weekly meetings under the Prime Minister’s chairmanship are the best way of developing a well-coordinated national security strategy setting clear priorities.”

Professor the Lord Peter Ricketts, is a visiting professor in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London. He was the UK’s first National Security Adviser (2010-12) and a distinguished career diplomat, serving as Permanent Under Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and head of the Diplomatic Service (2006-10), and as UK Ambassador to Paris (2012-16). He is the author of  Hard Choices: What Britain Does Next.

Can the UK learn from the ways in which other countries deal with national security issues?

Dr Hillary Briffa: “At the same time as strengthening the UK’s national security architecture and improving oversight and accountability measures, the UK can also learn from international partners to shore up capability in confronting a range of national security dilemmas.

“For instance, in an election year, disinformation and misinformation are prescient concerns. Lessons can be learned from Finland, which hosts the European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats. Finnish strategies of countering disinformation through education, public awareness campaigns, and cooperation with media organisations can be instructive in this regard.

“To tackle transnational organised crime, the UK can continue to learn from its ongoing partnership with EUROPOL and should continue strengthening ties with European security agencies, post-Brexit.

“Although COVID-19 is in the rear-view mirror for many, New Zealand’s clear communication, strict quarantine measures based on scientifically informed public health guidance, and decisive early actions during the pandemic demonstrated how effective leadership and public compliance can be secured in times of health crises. Therefore, drawing on New Zealand’s successes can improve UK preparedness for future health emergencies.

“Whilst much of the security agenda is presently focusing on state-based threats, counterterrorism retains high importance. Domestically, it is hoped that a new government will finally pass Martyn’s Law, a bill that will impose requirements in relation to certain premises and events to enhance security measures to protect the public from terrorist attacks. At the same time, the UK’s Prevent Strategy might benefit from incorporating more community-based interventions, as seen in France.

Finally, where the current government has recently backtracked on a range of climate change commitments, a new government can afford to learn from the approach of many small island developing states which recognise the existential importance of a healthy and sustainable planet and the need to keep this at the heart of our national security now and into the future.”

Dr Hillary Briffa is a Lecturer in National Security Studies in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London. She is Assistant Director of the Centre for Defence Studies at King’s. She is a founding member of the Centre for Grand Strategy at King’s, and its research lead for climate change and international order.

How much would the UK’s approach to national security change under a Labour government?

Professor Sir Mark Lyall Grant: “The short answer is very little – particularly when it comes to hard security. In the case of a Labour win, the government would produce a new Security and Defence Review (the third in less than 4 years), but the core elements will be familiar from those previous documents: a strong commitment to NATO, the Australia, UK and US (AUKUS) agreement, and upgrading the UK’s nuclear deterrence; support for a domestic defence industry, the US special relationship, and Ukraine. But Labour’s commitment to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence when fiscal circumstances allow, rather than in a specific timescale, means that this target is unlikely to be achieved in the course of the next Parliament. In Whitehall, the decision-making structures introduced in 2010 (based around a National Security Council) will probably be maintained.

“At the softer end of the security scale, change will be more noticeable. A Labour government will seek closer security links with the European Union, including perhaps opting in to some EU criminal justice systems, and there will be a greater focus – both at the rhetorical and practical level - on multilateralism and the international rule of law. This is highlighted by their proposal of scrapping the Rwanda immigration scheme, supporting a special tribunal on the crime of aggression and remaining in the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). The aid budget will be increased, though – given other spending priorities – is unlikely to return to 0.7% Gross National Income for some years.

“But more broadly, just as with most of its predecessors, the next government’s policy approach to Foreign, Security and Defence issues is likely to be driven as much by external events as by ideology or manifesto commitments.

“Of such events, one of the most important is the US Presidential election in November. Sir Keir Starmer and Donald Trump are not obvious soulmates, so if the latter becomes President, managing the bilateral relationship in a way which enhances, rather than weakens, UK national security will be one of the new government’s top priorities.”

Professor Sir Mark Lyall Grant, is a visiting professor in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London. He was the UK’s National Security Adviser (2015-17) and is a distinguished former career diplomat, serving as UK Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York (2009-15) and UK High Commissioner in Pakistan (2003-06).