Verdant Roundtable on National Security Summary, June 2026
Nina Sorrentino
On 30th June 2026, Clive Lewis MP (Labour Party) hosted a Verdant roundtable at the Palace of Westminster on: National security in a disordered world: how should progressives respond? The event coincided with the release of the Government’s Defence Investment Plan. The roundtable sought to ignite a discussion about the challenges in developing fresh approaches to the UK’s national security in a rapidly changing world. The shifting balance of global power, new technologies from drones to AI-assisted targeting, climate change and biodiversity loss are all potential and novel threats to our collective security.
The panel explored the scope for progressive policy which encompasses values of social and environmental justice. The roundtable was chaired by Labour Yasmin Qureshi MP (Labour Party) and heard from four panellists: Ellie Chowns MP (Green Party); Sacha Deshmukh (Mantri Advisory, former CEO Amnesty UK); Tom Woolmore (Kings College London Centre for Statecraft and National Security); and Sarah Allan (Verdant Associate, Participation Lead).
Gaps in the Defence Investment Plan
Ellie Chowns discussed the need to reassess the spending of the defence budget to ensure value for money, and the need for armed forces that are agile, flexible, and fit for purpose. She reflected on how in Westminster, and as a nation, we are preoccupied with the percentage of GDP invested in defence, instead of modernising the defence budget itself. This was particularly acute regarding our investment in a nuclear deterrent, which she described as a monetary black hole. On procurement, she highlighted the limited transparency and scrutiny, particularly on what is spent. She also stressed the importance of raising questions about human and environmental security, including wider, long-term strategic threats, rather than acting on short-term timescales. Ellie reminded us that Foreign Aid represents a mere ten percent of the defence budget, and that there was no consideration in our policy making of how Aid may help to avoid national security threats
Bringing the public into the policy debate
Ellie also highlighted the need to involve the public in the future of security, which linked to Sarah Allan’s points regarding public participation in the UK’s defence strategy. Sarah is leading Verdant’s participation work which is bringing ordinary citizens into the policy debate. Verdant believes this is important for delivering policy that works in terms of being able to reach its objectives; creating policy that's capable of achieving people's buy-in; and giving people the opportunity to shape the future of their communities and countries, providing a sense of agency that is key to a trusting and flourishing society. Verdant has been convening a Citizen’s Panel on National Security, but with only two sessions having taken place at the time of the roundtable, there were no conclusive insights to share. Sarah explained how the findings so far suggest that the public lean towards prioritising national security over individual threats.
Comprehensive Security Framework
Tom Woolmore emphasised the urgency for a preparedness model that encompasses all of society and described the Finnish Comprehensive Security Framework which ensures a robust whole-society approach. This model includes 56 strategic tasks, only two of which relate to defence, and Tom highlighted how the UK’s annual nuclear budget is more than that of the entire Finnish framework. Tom also discussed his involvement in the Green Party Policy Working Group, particularly regarding discussions on NATO membership. He iterated how regardless of differences in vision, policy positions, and moral standpoints, it is imperative to improve the current strategic argument. He closed by touching on the question of what a non-offensive form of defence could look like.
Shifting balance of global power
Sacha Deshmukh spoke about the global shift in power relations. He mentioned the importance of transparent, open conversations about defence, and reducing the politically charged nature of the defence debate. He suggested that issues of national security often require differentiated approaches.
Looking to the future, Sacha spoke about establishing a National Resilience Council tasked with identifying and mitigating non-military vulnerabilities across society, as well as the Finnish approach as a comparative framework. He recommended looking not at the labels, but at the pillars of these frameworks, such as how EU membership operates as an international pillar for Finland. In the case of the UK, Sacha suggested this could inform the way we work with like-minded nations and strengthen our international approach, including our relationship with the EU.
Sacha referred to the NATO Article 5 trigger incident on the Russia-Poland border and how as a country we can no longer rely on the United States. He pinpointed that Britain as a maritime nation needs to work with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and even China in some cases. Regarding current threats, Sacha mentioned Russia and its potential use of kinetic weapons. He compared the difference in UK government expenditure on nuclear enterprise, £11.8 billion annually, with just £790 million on homeland missile defence as announced this year by contrast. This was raised alongside the government’s release of the Defence Investment Plan (on the same day as the Verdant event), which Sacha argued involved a large amount of money for a small amount of capabilities. He ended by reiterating Tom’s point about government language and action requiring a whole-society approach.
Drivers of insecurity
The roundtable ended with a Q&A session. Audience members raised issues pertaining to the drivers of insecurity, such as nuclear proliferation and the erosion of the international rules-based order, issues of AI and cybersecurity, and the potential of ‘hot conflict’. Audience members also raised questions about the current blockages to a ‘mature’, national debate which captures the public’s more pluralist, nuanced opinion. Panellists responded to the question of a national conversation by agreeing the public is more ready than the media and political parties to participate in mature discussions. Sarah, for example, spoke about the lack of public participation and engagement with national security, and the need for better transparency and available data of citizens assemblies. Taking this point forward, Tom echoed the need to involve the public through a whole-society approach, particularly by improving the government’s communication strategy - see Tom’s followup blog: “Beyond ‘Increase Defence Spending’: A progressive case for Security. He argued the imperative to improve the government’s narrative regarding the expectations of the citizen.
An audience member raised the question of issues exempt from public scrutiny on national security grounds. Ellie responded by agreeing more light should be shed on the revolving door between state purchaser and private suppliers, and argued that scrutiny must be possible even in hypersensitive cases.
The issue of terrorism was also raised, and the panel agreed it should move away from the national security debate and towards criminal justice and the prevention of social isolation.
UK as a strong middle power in today's international order
On the question of the erosion of a rules-based order, Ellie argued the need for the UK to demonstrate leadership and our own commitment to international law, rather than the ‘quick-fix’ of more expenditure on weapons. Tom examined this issue by framing the UK as a middle power with outsized influence, and the need for the UK to reposition and become more self-reliant. Sacha reiterated this, and how Britain must recognise and embrace its consequences. He argued that the international rules-based order has never been universally respected; the biggest change recently is the USA’s open acknowledgment of this which has encouraged other nations to follow suit. In the next few years, he referenced our response to Ukraine as a key aspect of national security, given the NATO Article 5 prodding of the Western alliance, and the fact that Russia’s behaviour, ideologically motivated and irrational on economic grounds, is unlikely to change.
Closing
In summary, Yasmin restated the need to celebrate the UK as a middle power and brought her own experience as an MP to the conversation, discussing how MPs are reluctant to speak on National Security due to the emotional nature of the debate and the unpopularity of particular policy positions.