Gagging the military is a mistake

Spectator

28-07-2025

Some weeks ago at an army conference I listened to senior officers discussing the lethal, agile, 'integrated' British military of the future as set out in the government's recent Strategic Defence Review. Unfortunately I can't tell you what they said. The Chief of the General Staff Sir Roly Walker answered questions on what the SDR meant for the army. I can't tell you what he said either. Officers attending the conference were apparently told that, if they found themselves in accidental conversation with a journalist, they were to extricate themselves immediately. At a time of increased focus on national defence, it was a poor day for transparency.
This was not a one off. A new Downing Street diktat bans senior officers (and also civil servants, diplomats and other public officials) from speaking at events that include question and answer sessions, or where the media is expected to be in attendance. Only ministers can now represent the government position. Officials have even been told not to speak to journalists on background. This unprecedented gag weakens public understanding of defence, is self-defeating, and displays an astonishing lack of trust.
Relations between soldiers and governments have never been easy. Senior officers have often plunged into the political fray to gain institutional or budgetary advantage. Churchill's generals bemoaned his interference in military affairs; he in turn criticised their politicking and lack of strategic acumen. More recently, the concentration of financial and political power within the Ministry of Defence at the expense of the individual military services has curtailed open professional policy discussion. Post-Cold War spats over defence cuts, and the course of conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya also left a legacy of distrust. David Cameron famously told his generals in 2011 to do the fighting while he did the talking.
Although governments have always sought to control 'the narrative', recently a persistent pattern has emerged of the government trying to prevent those working in defence in the public sector from communicating with the outside world via experts, think tanks and the media. In January 2024, General Walker's predecessor was slapped down for his misinterpreted comments about Britain needing a 'whole of nation' approach to defence (a wise view now embedded in the SDR). In April this year, the Chief of Defence Staff Tony Radakin addressed the National Defence University in Beijing. The MoD did not tell the public about the visit or what he said; we all first heard about it via the Chinese Ministry of Defence.
Keir Starmer has promised 'transparency in everything we do', but defence reporters tell me that No. 10 is obsessed with a narrow defence message about jobs and domestic growth, not the risk of war with Russia or why investment is required. Backdrops, buzzwords and bland platitudes are prioritised over informed content. Media visits to defence establishments have been reduced and briefings curtailed; Labour ministers have decreed that every MoD press release should have a political message. The situation is not helped by a reactive, defensive MoD press operation focused on the news of the day rather than wider themes. Spin often gets in the way of substance.
This is all unwise. Firstly, the clamp down reduces public understanding. Hard pressed ministers do not have the time nor professional knowledge to be able to explain the breadth and complexity of activity across defence. Some are better communicators than others. Those checking speeches in No. 10 lack experience, often erring on the side of caution, further reducing clarity. This means the official view can be poorly reflected, or reflected in strange ways by blocking mid-ranking subject matter experts from engaging directly.
Secondly, the gag actively works against the government's own agenda. Defence is now the stated top priority of this government. The SDR recommended 'reconnecting defence with society'. This will be difficult. With the UK military so small, the public see less and less of it. Fewer have a direct family connection with it. Only half of the population believe spending on defence should increase. Less believe that increasing defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP, as promised the recent Nato summit, should come at the expense of health, welfare or benefits. Changing these perspectives requires more, not less, public discourse to build understanding and confidence.
Thirdly, although politicians – rightly – should be the primary voice for a 'national conversation led by the government' on defence, senior officers and officials can assist them by explaining, supporting, clarifying and emphasising policy. Political sensibility is a prerequisite for the highest ranks of the military and civil service; the government should use those officials to strengthen defence ties with society. They should not marginalise them. Abroad, diplomats should be free to explain UK policy to our allies, not be prevented from doing so.
Lastly, openness is a key principle for public life. No. 10's pettifogging tendency for ever greater centralisation and its evident distrust for its own officials goes against the empowered, unshackled and 'emboldened civil service' that Starmer says he wants. Control freakery diminishes the public realm.
The first anniversary of Labour's election has found Starmer at the lowest point of his premiership. A shake up is due. But not everything is political; a 'whole of society' approach on defence means just that. It's time that Walker and his colleagues are uncorked.