The Case for a National Resilience Service in Britain

Jan de Vries · 2026-08-11

Phil Cleary makes a compelling argument that Britain needs a National Resilience Service—a civilian-led force designed to step in when public services are stretched thin and the military is called to action during national emergencies. It's a bold idea, and one that deserves a closer look, especially as we see more frequent crises unfolding across the globe. ### What Exactly Is a National Resilience Service? Think of it as a dedicated, trained pool of volunteers and professionals who can be mobilized quickly. They wouldn't replace the military or the NHS, but they'd act as a bridge—handling logistics, community support, and recovery efforts so that frontline workers can focus on what they do best. Imagine a massive flood, a cyberattack, or a pandemic. In those moments, every hour counts, and having a ready-made response team could save lives. Cleary's vision is rooted in the idea of preparedness. Instead of scrambling to assemble resources after disaster strikes, a National Resilience Service would exist permanently, with clear protocols and ongoing training. It's not about militarizing civilian life; it's about building a safety net that's woven into the fabric of the nation. ### Why Now? The Growing Pressure on Public Services Public services in Britain—and frankly, across the Western world—are under immense strain. The NHS is dealing with record backlogs, local councils are struggling with budget cuts, and the police are stretched thinner than ever. When an emergency hits, these systems can buckle. The military often gets called in as a last resort, but that's not a sustainable solution. Soldiers aren't trained for social work or medical triage, and pulling them from their primary duties creates other vulnerabilities. A National Resilience Service could ease that burden. It would consist of people with diverse skills—engineers, nurses, logistics experts, even retired professionals—who undergo regular drills and can be activated within hours. This isn't a fantasy; other countries have similar models. In the United States, FEMA coordinates disaster response, and while it's not perfect, it shows the value of having a dedicated agency focused on resilience. ### The Economic and Social Case Some might argue that creating a new service is too expensive. But consider the cost of inaction. A single major flood can cause billions of dollars in damage, disrupt supply chains, and displace thousands of families. The economic ripple effects last for years. Investing in preparedness is like buying insurance—you hope you never need it, but if you do, it pays for itself many times over. There's also a social benefit. A National Resilience Service would foster a sense of community and civic duty. It would give people a tangible way to contribute to their country's safety, beyond just paying taxes. In an era where social cohesion is fraying, this could be a unifying force. Imagine neighbors who train together, who know each other's strengths, and who are ready to help when the worst happens. That's the kind of resilience money can't buy. ### What About the Military? One of Cleary's key points is that this service would support the military, not replace it. During emergencies, the military is often stretched thin, juggling domestic duties with international commitments. A civilian resilience force could handle the less dangerous but equally critical tasks—managing shelters, distributing supplies, coordinating volunteers—freeing up military personnel for more urgent operations. It's a smart division of labor that maximizes everyone's effectiveness. ### The Road Ahead Of course, there are questions to answer. How would this service be funded? Who would lead it? How would it interact with existing agencies? These are logistical hurdles, not philosophical ones. The core idea is sound: Britain needs a dedicated, permanent mechanism for national emergencies. The current approach—reacting after the fact—is no longer good enough. Cleary's proposal is a conversation starter, but it should be more than that. It's a call to action for policymakers, community leaders, and citizens to think differently about preparedness. We can't predict every crisis, but we can decide how we'll respond. A National Resilience Service isn't just about surviving the next disaster; it's about building a nation that's stronger, more connected, and ready for whatever comes its way. That's a vision worth fighting for.