The French have always been proud of their beloved revolution. I wonder if they’re so keen today, now they’re living it in real time.
French riots could happen here if we’re not careful (Image: Getty)
It’s risky, making a fetish of mob rule, political terror and the guillotine. To the French, violence and anarchy are presented as a valid response to any government you don’t like. Yet the French Revolution didn’t even succeed on its own terms. Instead of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, it gave us Napoleon, who plunged the rest of Europe into chaos too. Until the Duke of Wellington sorted him out.
We shouldn’t be too smug. Britain has had its fair share of riots, including the poll tax protests of 1990, the London riots of 2011 and 2024’s anti-immigration riots. So there’s a real danger today’s anarchy will spread over here. Yet we don’t celebrate revolutionary violence in the same way. With the world heading towards the abyss, that could change. Which is why Andy Burnham needs to tread carefully.
The French Revolution of 1789 was triggered by famine, soaring bread prices, an unfair tax system and resentment of absolute monarchy. Today’s unrest is driven by the cost of living, fuel prices, deteriorating school buildings and Emmanuel Macron’s irritating smugness. The underlying anger is familiar. People feel the system isn’t working for them. They want more, especially more public spending.
Get personal finance news, money saving tips and advice plus selcted offers and competitions
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Here’s the extraordinary thing. French government spending reached 57.2% of GDP last year, among the highest in the Western world. Britain’s is historically high too, but at 44.5%, it’s still way behind. Yet French students are protesting about crumbling classrooms and teacher shortages despite years of increased education spending. It’s what the French do. Throw stuff until the president caves and spends even more.
But France already takes an enormous slice of national income to fund public services and a generous welfare state, including pensions from age 62 for many. The result? It’s buried even deeper in debt than we are. When people don’t get the cosseting they expect, they’ll riot like it’s 1789.
That’s the danger of expecting the government to solve every problem. People lose their minds when it can’t. Here’s what the French are really rioting for – the right to continue living beyond their means.
Historically, Britain learned valuable lessons from the French Revolution. Governments must address legitimate grievances before they boil over. Food and energy supplies must be secure. Patriotism and religion give people a sense of belonging. Peaceful protest must be protected, but political violence and extremism must be dealt with firmly. Today, it feels like we’re forgetting those lessons.
Our history also shows that a country of independent, invested citizens is a healthier prospect than one in which everybody looks to the state for salvation, and kicks off when it can’t deliver. Which brings us to Burnham.
His genial, man-of-the-people manner might calm tempers. Promising more spending on public services and throwing the odd bone to Palestinian protesters might buy him breathing space. But he risks taking us in precisely the wrong direction. More state provision, more promises and more public spending, without giving people the tools to build secure lives for themselves. He wants us to become more French, basically.
And more European, of course. He’s drawing us ever closer to the EU even as Europe struggles with economic stagnation, political upheaval and the rise of the populist Right that Labour loathes. Which is complete madness. If we try to be more like France, London will end up copying Paris. And right now, that’s not a good look.
Conscription age limit for men as UK told ‘prepare for war’
If World War 3 breaks out, men of these ages could be forced to join the UK’s army and fight in Europe.
Pat McFadden discusses prospect of conscription in 2025
Preparation for WW3 worst-case scenarios could be stepped up after the head of the army called on the UK’s political leaders to start a ‘frank conversation’ with the public about preparing for war.
General Sir Roly Walker told Sky News that ‘every’ citizen will be ‘asked to make sacrifices’ and play their part in the defence of the country.
It comes in the wake of escalation between Russia and Ukraine as the US, unthinkably, appears to be siding with Russia. US President Trump has in the past week urged Ukraine to ‘get a new leader’ after signing a deal with Russia for diesel supplies, and has increasingly blamed the global price of diesel on Ukraine’s refusal to surrender to Putin, rather than the US’ war with Iran.
It’s not something anyone wants to think about, but as tensions escalate around the world, there is a possibility that World War 3 could erupt. Just this past summer, the UK government last year told people to prepare for war on British soil, and is urging better preparedness for conflict across society.
British people could be forced to join the army if WW3 breaks out (Image: Getty)
Assuming tensions continue to ramp up and a new global conflict were to erupt, there are some indicators about what would happen if the UK went to war and needed to introduce conscription, or mandatory military service, whether in a WW3 situation or not.
In WW2, conscription began for men aged between 20 and 22 in 1939, up to six months before the war actually broke out.
The UK Parliament website says: “During the spring of 1939, the deteriorating international situation forced the British government under Neville Chamberlain to consider preparations for a possible war against Nazi Germany. Plans for limited conscription applying to single men aged between 20 and 22 were given parliamentary approval in the Military Training Act in May 1939. This required men to undertake six months’ military training, and some 240,000 registered for service.”
But when war was declared, the age range was immediately widened to any man aged 18 to 41.
It continues: “On the day Britain declared war on Germany, 3 September 1939, Parliament immediately passed a more wide-reaching measure. The National Service (Armed Forces) Act imposed conscription on all males aged between 18 and 41 who had to register for service.”
The only men who weren’t called up were those who were too unfit medically, or who worked in vital industries like baking, farming, and medicine, which were vital to the war effort.
It adds: “Those medically unfit were exempted, as were others in key industries and jobs such as baking, farming, medicine, and engineering.”
By the end of 1941, women and ‘all childless widows’ between the ages of 20 and 30 were called up, while men aged up to 51 were called up for military service. Even those aged 52 to 60 were required to take part in “some form of military service.”
In 2024, Grant Shapps, who at the time was Defence Secretary, said that we are “moving from a post-war to a pre-war world”, and General Sir Patrick Sanders, Britain’s most senior army officer, called for an increase in the size of the army and said that the country needed to increase preparedness for conflict.
It isn’t clear what would happen to those refusing to serve in a potential WW3 scenario, but in WW2, British ‘conscientious objectors’ were put on trial, with some given mandatory jobs to contribute to the war effort in other ways instead.