Sky’s The Wargame puts former politicians, military commanders and intelligence figures through a simulated Russian attack on Britain. The authority of the programme rests heavily on the CVs of its participants. But some of the CVs used to present them as experts leave out current commercial links to the defence and security sector.
Action on Armed Violence (AOAV) has raised the omissions directly with Sky.
Our concern is whether viewers are being given enough information to judge their expertise in context. It also raises a deeper question: when people with commercial links to the defence sector are presented as authorities on national security, should those interests be disclosed to viewers?
What is missing?
General Sir Richard Barrons is cast in The Wargame as the Chief of Defence Staff. In real life, Barrons is a retired British Army general who served as Commander of Joint Forces Command from 2013 to 2016, having previously been Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff for Military Strategy and Operations. He is now the co-chair of Universal Defence & Security Solutions, a commercial consultancy providing advice and services to governments, armed forces, defence organisations and private industry. UDSS describes itself as working across defence and security, including defence transformation and cyber.
Lord George Robertson is cast as NATO Secretary General, a job he actually held from 1999 to 2003. Before that he was UK Defence Secretary from 1997 to 1999, and more recently led the external review that produced the UK’s 2025 Strategic Defence Review. What is not mentioned is that he is also a senior counsellor at The Cohen Group, a US consultancy. The company says its aerospace and defence practice assists companies with policy, business development and transactions.
Penny Mordaunt is cast as Defence Secretary. She actually held that office in 2019, becoming the first woman to do so, after previously serving as Armed Forces Minister. She was subsequently Leader of the House of Commons and Lord President of the Council from 2022 to 2024. What audiences are not told is that she now has a number of commercial roles, including chairing SubSea Craft and serving as a paid, part-time Non-Executive Director at Boka Capital, a firm who “invest in sovereign resilience”. Her Boka appointment was considered under the government’s Business Appointment Rules. SubSea Craft, meanwhile, operates directly in the defence sector, developing its MARS maritime platform and working on technologies and partnerships relevant to UK and allied defence.
Jim Murphy is a former Labour politician who served as Secretary of State for Scotland from 2008 to 2010, Shadow Defence Secretary from 2010 to 2013 and Leader of the Scottish Labour Party from 2014 to 2015. His Wargame biography refers to his role at Arden Strategies. What readers and viewers are not alerted to is the fact that Arden has a dedicated Defence and Security Practice advising clients on UK defence.
Why does it matter?
Sky describes The Wargame as a series in which senior politicians, military leaders and intelligence chiefs confront a simulated attack on the UK. Its publicity emphasises the participants’ public careers and experience.
Yes, a former general’s military record helps viewers understand why he is being asked for his judgement. But a current senior leader in a defence consultancy might give another judgement – one that raises the commercial spectre that more money needs to be spent on defence. After all, the series was – as Dan Sabbagh in the Guardian has reported – praised by the defence secretary, Wes Streeting, for writing “my spending review submission”.
To be clear – there is no allegation here of wrongdoing. AOAV is not suggesting that these commercial relationships prove that anyone’s views have been influenced. Our point is that audiences should be able to see relevant conflicts of interests and make their own assessment.
AOAV has put the issue to Sky. Yet Sky’s published material continues to identify the participants principally through their public-service credentials without giving any nod to these commercial interests. That raises a straightforward editorial question: why not update the biographies?
In a programme about military threats, national preparedness and decisions that could lead to greater defence spending, commercial links to the defence sector are plainly relevant context.
Alongside documenting the civilian impact of armed violence, AOAV examines the institutions, commercial interests and public narratives that shape military policy and the use of force. That includes scrutiny of the relationship between government, the armed forces, the defence industry and the media, particularly where individuals with commercial interests in defence are presented to the public as independent authorities on military threats, preparedness and spending, without it being noted that they may, indeed, profit from the defence roles they now occupy.
We don’t contend that such people should not appear in the Wargame. Their expertise may be considerable.
Our point is more that audiences should be given enough information to understand the interests surrounding that expertise.
When discussion of national security may help shape public attitudes towards rearmament and increased defence expenditure, transparency about financial and professional connections to the defence sector is part of informed public debate.
Sky has been alerted to those connections.
Perhaps the deeper question is why it believes its audience need not be.
Did you find this story interesting? Please support AOAV's work and donate.
Donate