‘Security’ is a leitmotif of the 2024 general election campaign, reflecting a widely held feeling that the UK and its people are beset by multiple crises. Richard Reeve analyses the political party manifestos to assess why this is a security election and what options the parties propose to improve the UK’s international security.
The current general election campaign has a lot to say about security in a way that both sets it apart from other recent campaigns and reflects the multiple human security and international security crises that have beset the UK, Europe and the wider world since 2019. But what do the various parties mean when they talk about ‘security’ and what are the specific policies that they are proposing to make us safer?
This article begins by analysing the manifestos of the five parties that appear to enjoy the largest support from potential voters across the UK – the incumbent Conservatives, Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party, and Reform UK – and how they use the word ‘security’ alongside other issues.[1] This determines how the narrative of security is set within the campaign.
The rest of the article looks at what the five manifestos say on defence policy, international alliances, and other approaches to managing international peace and conflict. Despite their relevance for security, it does not attempt to analyse what they say on climate and nature or migrants and asylum-seekers, which have been partially assessed by other organisations.
The intent is to share the main content of what the five main parties are offering on international security policy, and how this fits with their overall campaign narratives on security. It is not to offer any recommendations on who to vote for, nor to assess past performance in government, nor the feasibility of plans for any future government.
What we talk about when we talk about ‘security’
As might have been predicted from Labour’s coining and repetition of the term ‘securonomics’ last year and the Conservative’s refrain that Labour can’t be trusted with UK security, ’security’ is a defining theme in the 2024 manifestos.
The two largest parties’ manifestos use the word often, albeit with a variety of pairings and meanings, including food, energy, social, environmental, border, national and international security. But this is not the case for the smaller parties. The Lib Dems, Greens and Reform UK all use the word 2-3 times less frequently than their larger peers. Compared to their rivals, Reform UK and the Conservatives also use the term ‘defence’ far more (with the Greens notably far behind).
Fig. 1 – Uses of ‘security’ and ‘defence’ in manifestos, GE2024
Surprisingly, the heavy emphasis on ‘security’ marks a bigger shift for the Conservatives than for Labour. Labour actually used ‘security’ and ‘defence’ slightly more times in its 2019 manifesto (63 and 13 times, respectively) than in its 2024 manifesto (60 and 12). In contrast, the Conservatives have increased from 21 mentions of ‘security’ in 2019 to 51 now, and from just 4 mentions of ‘defence’ in 2019 to 29 now. The Lib Dems have also doubled their references to ‘security’ since 2019. In Reform UK’s 2024 ‘Contract’, it uses the term more than twice as much as its forebear, the Brexit Party, did in its 2019 pamphlet; yet its use of ‘defence’ has fallen by more than half. The Greens mention ‘security’ only slightly more this time around.
Fig. 2 – Uses of ‘security’ and ‘defence’ in manifestos, GE2024
When the parties discuss or avoid particular security issues, this presumably reflects their assumptions about the concerns of voters they are targeting. As Fig. 3 shows, the Conservatives and Reform UK discuss immigration more than the other parties. Although all parties discuss crime and personal security to some degree, Reform raises it more than twice as often as any other party.
Fig. 3 – Uses of key words in manifestos, GE2024
Climate and nature, on the other hand, particularly concern the Green Party and Lib Dems, have some traction with Labour and Conservatives, but are only of concern to Reform UK as far as it opposes Net Zero schemes. Healthcare and various definitions of economic security are raised frequently by all the parties, but especially those of the centre/left.
Mapping these issues against the top issues identified in our own national polling on security throws up some interesting questions. According to nationally representative survey data collected in Q1 2023, the top five issues people saw as threatening UK national security were: corruption, UK government actions, pandemics, climate change, and the state of the UK economy. While health, climate change and economic volatility and precarity are clearly big issues for the parties, the number one threat identified (corruption) is barely mentioned in any of the manifestos, except Reform UK’s. Whatever one thinks of that party’s credentials, it is possible that its focus on this critical but otherwise overlooked issue accounts for at least some of its popularity.
While each political party has picked particular security issues that it thinks will appeal to its base, it is clear from the data that ‘security’ and ‘defence’ are salient in the parties’ narratives in the run-up to this election. Nonetheless, the high level of concern over the implications of government actions for national security suggests public appetite for more critical security perspectives than is generally on offer from the mainstream parties.
Defence policy
But what do the parties specifically have to say about military defence, international alliances, and other approaches to international peace and conflict? One of many major contextual changes since the 2019 general election is the Russian invasion of Ukraine and collapse in relations between NATO and Moscow. In its wake, most of the manifestos commit to increasing UK military expenditure and personnel and strengthening the UK’s military alliances.
The Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems and Reform UK all back increasing military expenditure from its current 2.3%+ of GDP (gross domestic product, a measure of national economic output). All articulate at least an “ambition” to steadily increase defence spending towards 2.5% of GDP, with the Conservatives (2030) and Reform (2027) giving target dates. Reform further aims to reach 3% of GDP by 2030. The Greens make no additional military spending commitments.
There is far less consensus on the future size of the British Army and how to reverse its steady shrinkage – often bemoaned by the defence establishment and in the media. Both the Lib Dems (long-term) and Reform UK (more immediately) aspire to recruit an additional 30,000 or so Army personnel. Most radically, the Conservatives have pledged to reintroduce National Service for 18-year-olds (with option of part-time civic service), although the number of military conscripts they would aim for and many other matters remain unclear. Neither Labour nor Greens include aspirations to increase armed forces headcount.
In its support for unilateral disarmament and opposition to American nuclear weapons being based in the UK, the Green Party is also an outlier on nuclear weapons. However, this is tempered by the party’s new, qualified support for nuclear-armed NATO. The Lib Dems also revised their nuclear weapons policy last year, aligning with the two larger parties’ policy of ‘continuous at sea deterrence’ (CASD) but joining the Greens in pushing NATO to commit to ‘no first use’. Unlike the Lib Dems, Labour has dropped any manifesto commitment to pursuing multilateral nuclear disarmament, but otherwise its pro-Trident/CASD policy is unchanged since 2019. Reform UK does not mention nuclear weapons in its ‘Contract’. It is worth saying that all the nationalist parties in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland back unilateral UK nuclear disarmament.
In other aspects of defence policy, the parties are broadly aligned, pledging to reform the procurement system, buy British, and improve conditions for serving personnel and veterans. There is also some uniformity by omission: unlike in recent general elections, not one manifesto offers any support for UN peacekeeping.
More significant differences exist between Reform UK and the Lib Dems on accountability and transparency. Reform promises an Armed Forces Justice Bill to protect British forces against prosecution at home or abroad for abuses committed. Lib Dems pledge to strengthen the Intelligence and Security Committee in parliament and to make all foreign military operations subject to parliamentary approval, albeit with some significant carve-outs.
International alliances and arms exports
On arms exports, the parties present a range of visions. The Conservatives want the UK to “become the largest defence exporter in Europe by 2030”. Labour says it will “support industry to benefit from export opportunities, in line with a robust arms export regime committed to upholding international law.” It seems to have dropped the “root and branch reforms” of the export regimes that it pledged in 2019. The Lib Dems do retain commitments to control arms exports to countries with poor human rights records, including a “presumption of denial” and support for new treaties to limit the development and use of new weapons technologies. The Greens specifically mention ending arms exports to Israel, which make the UK complicit in its war crimes against Palestinians. Reform UK mentions unspecified incentives and tax breaks for military industries, including to boost their exports.
On security alliances, all five parties support the UK’s role in NATO, albeit distinctly qualified in the case of the Green Party. Labour and the Conservatives are also explicit about the enduring ‘special relationship’ on security with the United States, which Labour says, “transcends whatever political parties and individuals are in office”. The traditionally Atlanticist Lib Dems seem more circumspect, explicitly referencing the “spectre of Donald Trump returning to power”.
Within Europe, the Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems all pledge to increase defence and security cooperation with regional partners, including France and the Joint Expeditionary Force (a UK-led group of northern European militaries). Labour and the Lib Dems want a new security cooperation pact with the EU. Labour and the Conservatives want new pacts with Germany plus (in the latter’s case) Poland. The Green Party (which favours rejoining the EU) makes a broader commitment to “Work towards reform of the European security architecture and disarmament”, this presumably extending beyond NATO and the EU to include Russia and other eastern states of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
Beyond Europe, three parties make a number of commitments to military alliances or cooperation with other states, all in Asia or Oceania. The AUKUS pact with Australia and the United States is affirmed by Labour and the Conservatives, with the latter also proposing expanded “security ties” with Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, Vietnam, Singapore, India and unspecified “partners in the Gulf and Middle East”. Labour proposes to deepen strategic cooperation with India and “partners across the Gulf”. The Lib Dems offer to build “new diplomatic, economic and security partnerships with democratic countries threatened by China, including Taiwan.” Neither the Greens nor Reform mention military commitments beyond Europe/NATO.
Indeed, Reform UK stands alone among these parties in making no reference or commitment to Ukraine in its struggle against Russia. It has also cut all references to China since its draft ‘contract’. Lib Dems and Conservatives take the most confrontational stance towards China, with the former the only party to explicitly reference support for Taiwan. On the war in Palestine, there is a primary dividing line between the Conservatives and Reform UK, which either occlude it or support Israel’s “right to defend itself”, and the other three parties, which now call for an immediate ceasefire and (to varying timescales) the recognition of a Palestinian state. A secondary dividing line distinguishes the Green Party’s calls for immediate legal and practical action against Israel for war crimes and probable genocide in Gaza from the more cautious, unspecific language of Labour’s manifesto.
Fig. 4 – Mentions of key states and conflicts in GE2024 manifestos
International development and peacebuilding
If 2024 is a security- and defence-obsessed election, then it is possible that this obsession comes at the expense of a different kind of security: the structures and foundations of peace built painstakingly in fragile, poor and conflict-affected countries through sustainable development. As recently as 2019, there was consensus among the main parties on spending at least 0.7% of UK national income (GNI) on international development. That now seems an increasingly rhetorical commitment.
The commitment to resume spending on international development at 0.7% of GNI “when fiscal circumstances allow” is shared by Labour and the Conservatives. The government is currently spending less than 0.5%. The Lib Dems and the Greens include pledges to resume the 0.7% commitment much sooner, with the Greens aiming for 1.0% by 2033. Reform UK would cut existing spending in half (to about 0.25% GNI).
Leading on tackling climate change internationally is referenced by all of the manifestos except Reform UK and is the central principle of the Green Party approach to what it rather anachronistically calls ‘overseas aid’. Along with the Lib Dems, it commits to contribute to global loss and damage funds. Labour would set up a Clean Power Alliance of climate leader-states. From the limited detail provided, this seems to be a coalition of countries sharing technologies and supply chains for carbon-free energy production. The Conservatives mention supporting adaptation in Commonwealth and small island developing states but make no new commitments.
Explicit statements of support for peacebuilding or conflict prevention are few and far between, and none gives any detail. Labour references “supporting conflict prevention”. The Conservatives pledge to “push for reconciliation and stability in parts of the world where there is conflict or unresolved territorial disputes”, specifically citing Israel/Palestine, Cyprus, Sri Lanka, Sudan and Myanmar. The Lib Dems support building “long-term peace” in Sudan, as well as Israel/Palestine. The only direct reference to peacebuilding is in the Green manifesto, oddly urging NATO to “encourage dialogue to support global peace-building”.
Fig. 5 – Mentions of ‘human rights’ and development in manifestos, GE2024.
NB – Reform UK mentions are wholly negative on both terms.
The parties see the aims of the UK’s international development efforts very differently. For the Conservatives, aid supports “our strategic objectives” (not defined) and should pass a “strict national interest test”. For the Lib Dems, the primary focus is poverty reduction and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Their manifesto also says a great deal about promoting and defending human rights, something barely referenced in the Conservative, Labour and Reform UK documents. For the Greens, the focus seems to be climate justice and sustainable development. Labour says, “Our mission statement will be ‘to create a world free from poverty on a liveable planet’ as a signal of our commitment to greater multilateral action, and our intention to lead on this agenda.”
Conclusion
The language of security and defence continues to evolve in this electoral cycle and has been embraced by the two largest parties as central to their campaigns. Overall, the manifestos evince a turn towards military spending, higher troop numbers and the NATO alliance as ways to demonstrate responsibility on security matters. However, they devote less concerted support to developmental efforts to tackle some of the biggest global challenges underpinning contemporary security than one might expect.
Likewise, there is an interesting contrast between the security priorities that came through most strongly in our national polling on the public’s security concerns and those on which the parties have decided to base their security offer to the public.
But manifestos are barely the start and not the end, let alone the detail, of the policies that political parties pursue in government. Labour’s manifesto in particular is light on specifics on international security but promises a strategic review to decide more than just the fine details. Whoever forms the next government, the imperative will remain for them to engage widely with society, not least its most insecure groups, to prioritise what really makes people feel safer.
[1] The textual analysis of the five manifestos utilises a search of their text for key words, noting the frequency of their use. A multiplier is used to equalise the manifestos of smaller parties to the longer texts of Labour and Conservatives (both about 27,000 words): Lib Dems x1.2; Greens x1.4; Reform UK x4. The Reform UK document is called a ‘Contract’ rather than a manifesto and is notably short on details, being only about 6,600 words.
The views and opinions expressed in posts on the Rethinking Security blog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the network and its broader membership.
Image Credit: PLMR. Covers of the five election manifestos analysed in this article.
