As the Budget looms, a financial expert who just weeks ago was advising Burnham on the economy has publicly warned that the PM is about to make a huge mistake. Burnham’s plans to spend more and expand the state are ill-timed and plain wrong, he says. They risk reducing economic growth rather than increasing it, leaving us more vulnerable to financial chaos. Chancellor John Healey’s Budget is shaping up to be a disaster, at a time when Western governments can’t afford to put a foot wrong.

That’s the verdict of former Bank of England chief economist Andy Haldane, writing in the Financial Times today. Just weeks ago, Haldane warned the nation to brace itself for a “traditional tax-and-spend socialist government”. With debt rising, gilt yields soaring and France burning because the country won’t accept spending cuts, his warning couldn’t be more timely. In Haldane’s words: We’re living on borrowed time.

National debt has reached £3trillion, we’re borrowing another £135billion this year, and 30-year gilt yields are at their highest level this millennium. This is no time for a third Labour Budget tax raid, piling more pressure on consumers and businesses, as Rachel Reeves did, twice. But will Burnham listen? He won’t. His mind is already set.

Haldane says Labour and the Tories now have markedly different economic policies. “Andy Burnham’s conference speech was a homage to 1950s-style state socialism. Kemi Badenoch’s speech was a throwback to the smaller state and lower taxes of the 1980s.” He then examined which offered the likelier path to growth today. And his answer was clear.

With borrowing costs rocketing after years of near-zero interest rates, Haldane said we desperately need to balance the books and work down our debt. That would calm the bond markets and reduce our debt-servicing costs, saving billions. That’s what Badenoch plans to do.

The alternative is to do what Burnham and Healey are plotting: expand the state despite its manifest failings. Public sector productivity has barely improved this century, while private sector productivity has increased by more than 40%. Burnham is backing completely the wrong horse.

Haldane said that expanding our expensive, inefficient state risks crowding out the more the productive private sector, slowing growth and potentially triggering a Liz Truss-style gilt and sterling crisis.

Will the PM listen to his own adviser? Even if he wanted to, he can’t. The Labour Party didn’t elect Burnham to shrink the state. They want him to expand it at speed, regardless of the cost.

Predecessor Keir Starmer went on a tax-and-spend spree, but came unstuck when he tried to cut a measly £5billion from the welfare bill. Labour launched a massive revolt. Burnham has learned from that mistake. He’ll look at his restive backbenchers and the riots in France, and conclude this is no time to cut spending.

So next week, we’ll get exactly the Budget we don’t need. More money taken from the productive private sector, and chucked at the unproductive state. It’s the wrong medicine at the wrong time, and the wrong Prime Minister is about to make the wrong decision, meaning Britain will take yet another wrong turn next week. And become ever more like France, which has made so many wrong turns there’s no going back.

WW3 Conscription Could Target One UK Group as Brits Who Refuse Face Potential Fines

Fears about a possible future global conflict have reignited debate over whether Britain could ever return to compulsory military service. As concerns about European security and the threat from Russia continue to influence defence discussions, a historian has suggested that one particular group could be considered if the Government were forced to introduce conscription.

The group identified is unemployed graduates, according to historian David Swift, who discussed a hypothetical return to compulsory service in an interview reported by the Daily Express. Swift suggested that people working in essential industries, particularly those involved in rebuilding Britain’s defence and industrial capacity, might be exempted from military service or directed towards work supporting those industries instead. <Cite refs={[“turn719006search2″,”turn719006search5”]}/>

His comments have attracted attention because they raise questions about who might be required to serve, how the country would choose eligible people and what could happen to those who refused.

However, the distinction between speculation and government policy is crucial. Britain has not announced a return to conscription, and the Ministry of Defence has explicitly stated that it has no current plans to introduce compulsory military service. <Cite refs={[“turn719006search0″,”turn719006search1”]}/>

Why Have Conscription Fears Returned?

The debate reflects a changing European security environment, particularly the war in Ukraine and concerns about Russia’s military capabilities and intentions.

Britain maintains professional armed forces staffed by volunteers. Yet discussions about the size of the military, recruitment, reserve capacity and the country’s ability to respond to a prolonged conflict have led some commentators to question whether the current model would be sufficient in an extreme emergency.

In January 2024, former Chief of the General Staff General Sir Patrick Sanders called for Britain to prepare for a wider national mobilisation and suggested that the country should consider how a citizen army could be developed if necessary. His comments were interpreted by some as a call for conscription, although the Government subsequently made clear that it was not planning to reintroduce compulsory military service. <Cite refs={[“turn719006search12″,”turn719006search0”]}/>

The discussion has continued as European countries reconsider their own defence arrangements. Some have reintroduced forms of compulsory military service, while others have expanded voluntary programmes or considered new ways to train civilians.

Britain’s circumstances are different, however. A policy adopted by another European country would not automatically be appropriate for the UK, and any British conscription system would require its own legislation, eligibility criteria and administrative arrangements.

Why Might Unemployed Graduates Be Considered?

Swift’s suggestion centres on the argument that a future mobilisation would need to balance military manpower against the workforce required to keep the country operating.

In a major conflict, armed forces would need trained personnel, but the wider economy would also need workers to maintain infrastructure, manufacture equipment, provide healthcare, transport supplies and support essential services.

From that perspective, a government considering compulsory service might assess people’s skills, qualifications, employment circumstances and suitability for different roles. Swift suggested that unemployed graduates could be considered for military service, while workers in vital defence and industrial occupations might be needed in civilian roles. <Cite refs={[“turn719006search2”]}/>

This is an expert’s hypothetical assessment, not an established government proposal. There is no published British policy identifying unemployed graduates as a group that would be called up first.

The practical difficulties would also be substantial. A university qualification does not automatically make someone suitable for military service, and unemployment alone says little about a person’s physical fitness, technical skills or capacity to undertake a particular role.

A future government would have to consider medical suitability, training requirements, the needs of the armed forces and the availability of workers in essential industries. It would also need to decide whether any compulsory scheme should apply only to particular age groups or occupations, or whether a wider system would be necessary.

What Could Happen to People Who Refuse?

The question of penalties has attracted particular attention because Britain has not operated conscription for decades.

Swift suggested that financial penalties could be more likely than imprisonment if compulsory service were ever reintroduced. He pointed to the practical difficulties of enforcing a large-scale system through the courts and prisons, as well as the possibility that a future scheme might include financial incentives. <Cite refs={[“turn719006search2″,”turn719006search5”]}/>

That suggestion should not be interpreted as a description of current British law. Because there is no active conscription requirement, there is no present-day conscription penalty for a person to incur by refusing a call-up that has not been issued.

If Parliament introduced compulsory service in the future, the legislation would need to establish the obligations placed on eligible people and the consequences of failing to comply. Those consequences would depend on the actual law passed at the time.

A fine is therefore one possible scenario discussed by an expert, not a punishment that the British Government has announced. Claims that people would automatically face prison, lose their jobs or receive a particular financial penalty are not supported by a current UK conscription policy.

What Does Britain’s History Tell Us?

Britain has introduced conscription during two major periods: the First World War and the Second World War, followed by peacetime National Service. The First World War system began in 1916, while compulsory service was reintroduced in 1939 as the prospect of war with Nazi Germany became increasingly immediate.

National Service continued after the Second World War. The call-up ended in 1960, although the final servicemen completing their compulsory service left the armed forces in May 1963. Since then, the UK has relied on a professional volunteer military. <Cite refs={[“turn719006search0″,”turn719006search4”]}/>

Historical experience also demonstrates that a conscription system would need to address conscientious objection.

During the world wars, people who objected to military service on genuine moral or religious grounds could apply for recognition as conscientious objectors. They were assessed through formal procedures, and some were permitted to undertake non-combatant service or other forms of work.

The treatment of objectors varied over time. During the First World War, some faced imprisonment and harsh treatment, while arrangements during the Second World War were generally more accommodating. <Cite refs={[“turn719006search4″,”turn719006search3”]}/>

Any modern system would therefore raise important questions about individual rights, religious beliefs, ethical objections and alternative forms of national service. These issues would have to be addressed through legislation rather than left to informal decisions.

Would Women Also Be Called Up?

Another question in the debate is whether any future conscription system would apply to women as well as men.

Historically, British compulsory military service was primarily directed at men, although legislation during the Second World War extended certain service obligations to unmarried women and childless widows within specified age limits. The requirements included service connected with the war effort, not simply a universal requirement for all women to join the armed forces. <Cite refs={[“turn719006search4”]}/>

A modern system would face different social, legal and workforce considerations. Policymakers would need to decide whether compulsory service should be restricted by sex, whether civilian service should be available and how to account for caring responsibilities and essential employment.

There is no current government proposal to introduce a new British conscription scheme for either men or women. Any claims about the age range or groups that would be targeted remain hypothetical unless supported by an announced policy or legislation.

The Government’s Position Remains Unchanged

The Ministry of Defence has repeatedly stated that it has no current plans to reintroduce conscription. Its stated position is that national defence is best provided by professional armed forces staffed by volunteers. <Cite refs={[“turn719006search1″,”turn719006search8”]}/>

This approach reflects the demands of modern military operations, which increasingly require specialist training, technical expertise and sustained professional development. Simply increasing the number of people available would not necessarily produce a more effective fighting force without the equipment, leadership and training needed to use that manpower.

Britain can also strengthen its defence capacity through recruitment, retention, reserves, industrial investment and voluntary training initiatives without immediately resorting to compulsory service.

The debate about conscription is therefore part of a wider discussion about how Britain should prepare for future security threats. It does not mean that a world war is inevitable or that young people are about to receive orders to join the military.

What Happens Next?

For now, the prospect of unemployed graduates being targeted for compulsory service remains a hypothetical scenario proposed by a historian, rather than a policy announced by ministers.

The discussion nevertheless highlights difficult questions about how Britain would mobilise its people in a prolonged national emergency. Any future decision would have to consider military requirements, industrial capacity, the protection of essential services, exemptions, conscientious objection and the legal consequences of refusing service.

The Government’s stated position is clear: compulsory military service is not currently planned. If that position were ever to change, the public would need to examine the actual legislation and eligibility rules rather than rely on speculative headlines.

For British households, the most useful distinction is between preparing for security risks and assuming that conscription is imminent. Defence planning can evolve as international circumstances change, but a proposal discussed by an expert is not the same as an official decision to bring back National Service.