Trying to be objective on the political implications of the policy or a moment:
- On one hand, it will be popular with the Boomer Tory/Reform voting contingent. I can imagine an uptick in Tory support from this contingent, which is their core vote now.
- On the other hand, young people (including Millennials in their 30s and 40s with kids under 18) will hate this policy. It is stupid and the compulsory nature could drive higher turnout against the Tories in a tactical voting kind of way: hold your nose and vote for who is the best opposition in your area.
I'm not sure which effect will be greater. But it comes across as desperate in any case.
There are many more boomers. It's a net positive I'd guess.
Tbh I think its smart from sunak. He needs a few game changers, this might be one.
It's true that the Conservatives are being smashed by Reform in the key cohort 65+, which is the rough crossover point with Labour. The Tory vote has aged by about 25 years since 2019.
Long term, they need to think about getting that crossover age back down to 40. Policies like this are good for the next 6 weeks; dreadful for the next 6 years.
"So I have called in my book for a compulsory national civic service for all. You can see it’s the Peterborough side me that called for that, because the more liberal Tottenham side me would never have used the word compulsory because there’s an aversion to compulsion in the Labour Party! But if you’re serious about nation building, which is what I think we’ve got to be serious about, then you have to be serious about obligation as well as choice. Choice is an interesting word, because it goes to the heart of the New Labour period and the age of individualism that we’re now in. So I do deliberately talk about compulsion. I do deliberately talk about duty. But, let me just be clear, this is about civic service, not the armed services, because I think that would be controversial. But some engagement in our nation, and in building our nation, is important."
I think David might be a bit busy to talk to the media for a few days.
Trying to be objective on the political implications of the policy or a moment:
- On one hand, it will be popular with the Boomer Tory/Reform voting contingent. I can imagine an uptick in Tory support from this contingent, which is their core vote now.
- On the other hand, young people (including Millennials in their 30s and 40s with kids under 18) will hate this policy. It is stupid and the compulsory nature could drive higher turnout against the Tories in a tactical voting kind of way: hold your nose and vote for who is the best opposition in your area.
I'm not sure which effect will be greater. But it comes across as desperate in any case.
There are many more boomers. It's a net positive I'd guess.
Tbh I think its smart from sunak. He needs a few game changers, this might be one.
It's true that the Conservatives are being smashed by Reform in the key cohort 65+, which is the rough crossover point with Labour. The Tory vote has aged by about 25 years since 2019.
Long term, they need to think about getting that crossover age back down to 40. Policies like this are good for the next 6 weeks; dreadful for the next 6 years.
Rishi Sunak has announced that he will bring back national service if re-elected, offering youngsters a choice between serving in the military for a year or a scheme to volunteer for one weekend a month for a year
In September we found that 64% of Britons would oppose year-long compulsory military service for young people - although older Britons were much less likely to oppose than their younger peers
Trying to be objective on the political implications of the policy or a moment:
- On one hand, it will be popular with the Boomer Tory/Reform voting contingent. I can imagine an uptick in Tory support from this contingent, which is their core vote now.
- On the other hand, young people (including Millennials in their 30s and 40s with kids under 18) will hate this policy. It is stupid and the compulsory nature could drive higher turnout against the Tories in a tactical voting kind of way: hold your nose and vote for who is the best opposition in your area.
I'm not sure which effect will be greater. But it comes across as desperate in any case.
There are many more boomers. It's a net positive I'd guess.
Tbh I think its smart from sunak. He needs a few game changers, this might be one.
It's true that the Conservatives are being smashed by Reform in the key cohort 65+, which is the rough crossover point with Labour. The Tory vote has aged by about 25 years since 2019.
Long term, they need to think about getting that crossover age back down to 40. Policies like this are good for the next 6 weeks; dreadful for the next 6 years.
The national service nonsense does give me the opportunity to tweet one of my favourite recent bits of polling when Ipsos actually ran the famous "Yes Minister" questions as a randomised experiment, and showed that it worked.
"So I have called in my book for a compulsory national civic service for all. You can see it’s the Peterborough side me that called for that, because the more liberal Tottenham side me would never have used the word compulsory because there’s an aversion to compulsion in the Labour Party! But if you’re serious about nation building, which is what I think we’ve got to be serious about, then you have to be serious about obligation as well as choice. Choice is an interesting word, because it goes to the heart of the New Labour period and the age of individualism that we’re now in. So I do deliberately talk about compulsion. I do deliberately talk about duty. But, let me just be clear, this is about civic service, not the armed services, because I think that would be controversial. But some engagement in our nation, and in building our nation, is important."
I think David might be a bit busy to talk to the media for a few days.
I wouldn't disagree with Lammy's thesis in the context it was written. It needs a look.
To invent some old shite that hasn't been thought through because you think it might trigger Reform voters is altogether less optimal.
Trying to be objective on the political implications of the policy or a moment:
- On one hand, it will be popular with the Boomer Tory/Reform voting contingent. I can imagine an uptick in Tory support from this contingent, which is their core vote now.
- On the other hand, young people (including Millennials in their 30s and 40s with kids under 18) will hate this policy. It is stupid and the compulsory nature could drive higher turnout against the Tories in a tactical voting kind of way: hold your nose and vote for who is the best opposition in your area.
I'm not sure which effect will be greater. But it comes across as desperate in any case.
If it's only unpopular with people who'd never vote for you in the first place, it's arguably good politics.
Essentially what this actually is, is forced volunteering in the community for every 18 year old. Surely they should be paid minimum wage?
Yes, obviously - even prisoners get paid for any work they do.
Arguably, they should be paid more than minimum wage to cover them for the likely loss of earnings resulting from participation in this compulsory scheme.
For instance, most employers would rather have someone who's available every weekend, rather than only 3/4 of them. 18 year olds will therefore be disadvantaged in the job market, and should expect to receive compensation for that.
"So I have called in my book for a compulsory national civic service for all. You can see it’s the Peterborough side me that called for that, because the more liberal Tottenham side me would never have used the word compulsory because there’s an aversion to compulsion in the Labour Party! But if you’re serious about nation building, which is what I think we’ve got to be serious about, then you have to be serious about obligation as well as choice. Choice is an interesting word, because it goes to the heart of the New Labour period and the age of individualism that we’re now in. So I do deliberately talk about compulsion. I do deliberately talk about duty. But, let me just be clear, this is about civic service, not the armed services, because I think that would be controversial. But some engagement in our nation, and in building our nation, is important."
I think David might be a bit busy to talk to the media for a few days.
Trying to be objective on the political implications of the policy or a moment:
- On one hand, it will be popular with the Boomer Tory/Reform voting contingent. I can imagine an uptick in Tory support from this contingent, which is their core vote now.
- On the other hand, young people (including Millennials in their 30s and 40s with kids under 18) will hate this policy. It is stupid and the compulsory nature could drive higher turnout against the Tories in a tactical voting kind of way: hold your nose and vote for who is the best opposition in your area.
I'm not sure which effect will be greater. But it comes across as desperate in any case.
If it's only unpopular with people who'd never vote for you in the first place, it's arguably good politics.
Many of those millennials do, or did, vote Tory before. I have. Writing them off as forever lost, and making that a self fulfulling prophecy, is the opposite of good politics.
Essentially what this actually is, is forced volunteering in the community for every 18 year old. Surely they should be paid minimum wage?
Yes, obviously - even prisoners get paid for any work they do.
Arguably, they should be paid more than minimum wage to cover them for the likely loss of earnings resulting from participation in this compulsory scheme.
For instance, most employers would rather have someone who's available every weekend, rather than only 3/4 of them. 18 year olds will therefore be disadvantaged in the job market, and should expect to receive compensation for that.
It will certainly sting for people to lose out on paid employment for this volunteering opportunity.
When a disaster happens, people often want to help, but the best way for most people to help is to work an hour of overtime at their regular job and donate that money to the experts. That's because people are good at their jobs, but not good at randomly helping in a disaster.
18 year olds doing 25 days of volunteering are not going to be the most effective volunteers and won't learn very much. Even those doing a year in the armed forces aren't going to be very good soldiers until the end of their year. If society needs all these things to be done, tax people and spend the money on professionals.
If they had any sense they would run this shit past a panel of PB posters....within 30 mins we have already tuned this steaming pile of poo into perhaps an interesting policy idea and even got the tag line for it.
I don't in any way think people need to be parents to be political leaders, but I wonder if Rishi contemplated running this by his kids before announcing it just as a sense check.
Will be interesting to see how Tory MPs react to this. It must be the first some of them have heard of the idea. You'd imagine at least a few will have reservations
Robert Peston @Peston · 22m As for the military bit of the national service plan, this is what Sunak’s official spokesman said about military national service in January: “The British military has a proud tradition of being a voluntary force. There are no plans to change that.”
@Peston If you wondered where Rishi Sunak got the idea for compulsory national service, it was proposed last August by the right think tank Onward. Sunak’s deputy chief of staff Will Tanner was a founder and initial director of Onward
See. This is the other thing that gets me. Why would you choose to work in a SENDMH school when you can get better pay, and much less aggro in a call centre, nail bar or building site? And don't mention holidays. Pay for TA's, unlike teachers is pro rata'd. They do it because they care. They want to be of service, and make a difference. And this is the thanks they get. I don't like using the F word. But I have no other.
Will be interesting to see how Tory MPs react to this. It must be the first some of them have heard of the idea. You'd imagine at least a few will have reservations
They are all standing down apart from the two dozen who think they will be leader in September.
Trying to be objective on the political implications of the policy or a moment:
- On one hand, it will be popular with the Boomer Tory/Reform voting contingent. I can imagine an uptick in Tory support from this contingent, which is their core vote now.
- On the other hand, young people (including Millennials in their 30s and 40s with kids under 18) will hate this policy. It is stupid and the compulsory nature could drive higher turnout against the Tories in a tactical voting kind of way: hold your nose and vote for who is the best opposition in your area.
I'm not sure which effect will be greater. But it comes across as desperate in any case.
If it's only unpopular with people who'd never vote for you in the first place, it's arguably good politics.
And if it's only popular with people who are going to vote for you anyway?
Thankfully this policy will never actually happen. I never bothered doing D of E at school and I have no regrets about that. Going to have to think about what I do on 4 July.
Trying to be objective on the political implications of the policy or a moment:
- On one hand, it will be popular with the Boomer Tory/Reform voting contingent. I can imagine an uptick in Tory support from this contingent, which is their core vote now.
- On the other hand, young people (including Millennials in their 30s and 40s with kids under 18) will hate this policy. It is stupid and the compulsory nature could drive higher turnout against the Tories in a tactical voting kind of way: hold your nose and vote for who is the best opposition in your area.
I'm not sure which effect will be greater. But it comes across as desperate in any case.
If it's only unpopular with people who'd never vote for you in the first place, it's arguably good politics.
Many of those millennials do, or did, vote Tory before. I have. Writing them off as forever lost, and making that a self fulfulling prophecy, is the opposite of good politics.
It's also an amazing way to signal "We don't care about anyone young enough to have grandkids affected by the policy". Utter idiocy. I can see it being popular with a certain type of baby boomer, like the various red-faced sunlounger posters on here, but in the country? Can't see it going down as well as he thinks. If it was part of a coherent narrative it might work. But what narrative is there other than "I'm bloody desperate and I have no sane ideas?".
For the last time, it is NOT military service, it is mostly people volunteering every week for a year.
One weekend a month in the voluntary sector
The national service sector.
The Big Unpaid Society.
Maybe Dave is making a comeback after all.
Difficult, but it might be possible for Labour to turn this into a debate about slavery and the gig economy.
"Compulsory volunteering" might be Sunak's death tax.
I think we'll be spoilt for choice.
I honestly didn't think the campaign had gotten off to that bad a start, most of the talk seemed to be focused on silly memes and minor flubs, not great but not a big deal either.
For the last time, it is NOT military service, it is mostly people volunteering every week for a year.
One weekend a month in the voluntary sector
The national service sector.
The Big Unpaid Society.
Maybe Dave is making a comeback after all.
Difficult, but it might be possible for Labour to turn this into a debate about slavery and the gig economy.
"Compulsory volunteering" might be Sunak's death tax.
Sunak is talking to some of the voters still in the Conservatives camp and Reform voters. Does he lose as many remaining one-nation Tories as he gains the swivel -eyed from Reform? I don't think this brings back many Con to Labour switchers.
It will take the intellectual low-watt cohort of PBers a year or two to catch up with this, but a much more militarised society is coming, like it or not
Putin will get an Armistice in Ukraine, because we are not willing to send NATO troops to defend Kharkhiv, and neither side can "win". Putin and Xi wll then co-ordinate. Xi will go for Taiwan and Putin will probe the eastern flanks of NATO and the UK will be obliged to up its defence spending by billions and it will have to forcibly recruit young men and women, if they are not willing to serve voluntarily
= National Service, one way or another
Is it a good election winning policy? Probably not. Is it a serious pointer to the probable future? Yep
Rishi Sunak's announcement committing CUP to reviving National Service for Uker youth, is pretty clearly aimed at older voters.
However, note that original cold-war National Service was fazed out starting in 1957 and ended in 1963, meaning that an 18-year old back in that year, born circa 1945, would be turning 78 this year.
So those who actually conscripted are at the higher end of the geezer-meter.
On the other hand, what's potential that youth turnout on 4th of July will be boosted, by Tory promise - or rather threat in their case - to re-establish National Service? A group notoriously difficult to turn out UNLESS you give them a big incentive.
Perhaps time to recycle in UK the old anti-war US slogan: "Draft beer, not students".
On the face of it and certainly on here it seems a very controversial policy
It will be interesting how it is received in the populace generally and how Sunak attempts to sell it
Like a bag of sick. Twin A is currently doing her gold DofE sailing with random group of 7 others who she doesn’t know. This is the current topic of conversation and I can safely say no child or parent is voting Tory.
Now it’s perfectly possible that none of them ever would but that’s a potential 20 votes lost…
Typical community sentences for criminal damage, theft or assault are 40-300 hours, so the proposed "volunteering" scheme would be about the middle of the range for those offences
@Peston If you wondered where Rishi Sunak got the idea for compulsory national service, it was proposed last August by the right think tank Onward. Sunak’s deputy chief of staff Will Tanner was a founder and initial director of Onward
It will take the intellectual low-watt cohort of PBers a year or two to catch up with this, but a much more militarised society is coming, like it or not
Putin will get an Armistice in Ukraine, because we are not willing to send NATO troops to defend Kharkhiv, and neither side can "win". Putin and Xi wll then co-ordinate. Xi will go for Taiwan and Putin will probe the eastern flanks of NATO and the UK will be obliged to up its defence spending by billions and it will have to forcibly recruit young men and women, if they are not willing to serve voluntarily
= National Service, one way or another
Is it a good election winning policy? Probably not. Is it a serious pointer to the probable future? Yep
Maybe. Points for boldness I guess. But Theresa May couldn't get away with a bold policy to tackle an urgent need when she looked like she was 20 points ahead, there's no way Rishi can when 20 points behind.
Trying to be objective on the political implications of the policy or a moment:
- On one hand, it will be popular with the Boomer Tory/Reform voting contingent. I can imagine an uptick in Tory support from this contingent, which is their core vote now.
- On the other hand, young people (including Millennials in their 30s and 40s with kids under 18) will hate this policy. It is stupid and the compulsory nature could drive higher turnout against the Tories in a tactical voting kind of way: hold your nose and vote for who is the best opposition in your area.
I'm not sure which effect will be greater. But it comes across as desperate in any case.
If it's only unpopular with people who'd never vote for you in the first place, it's arguably good politics.
And if it's only popular with people who are going to vote for you anyway?
I strongly suspect this is the kind of policy that will get young people off their arses and actually voting against them.
Turnout in the 18-34 group in 2019 was around 53%, vs ~78% for the retired.
This is the sort of policy that could generate enough viral anger on a youth orientated platform like TikTok to actually get the yoof off their arses and into voting booths.
Trying to be objective on the political implications of the policy or a moment:
- On one hand, it will be popular with the Boomer Tory/Reform voting contingent. I can imagine an uptick in Tory support from this contingent, which is their core vote now.
- On the other hand, young people (including Millennials in their 30s and 40s with kids under 18) will hate this policy. It is stupid and the compulsory nature could drive higher turnout against the Tories in a tactical voting kind of way: hold your nose and vote for who is the best opposition in your area.
I'm not sure which effect will be greater. But it comes across as desperate in any case.
If it's only unpopular with people who'd never vote for you in the first place, it's arguably good politics.
Many of those millennials do, or did, vote Tory before. I have. Writing them off as forever lost, and making that a self fulfulling prophecy, is the opposite of good politics.
It's also an amazing way to signal "We don't care about anyone young enough to have grandkids affected by the policy". Utter idiocy. I can see it being popular with a certain type of baby boomer, like the various red-faced sunlounger posters on here, but in the country? Can't see it going down as well as he thinks. If it was part of a coherent narrative it might work. But what narrative is there other than "I'm bloody desperate and I have no sane ideas?".
How else do we defend the nation against Putin and Xi?
See. This is the other thing that gets me. Why would you choose to work in a SENDMH school when you can get better pay, and much less aggro in a call centre, nail bar or building site? And don't mention holidays. Pay for TA's, unlike teachers is pro rata'd. They do it because they care. They want to be of service, and make a difference. And this is the thanks they get. I don't like using the F word. But I have no other.
There are a lot of public sector jobs like that. Staff that work long hours at the EA wading through thigh-deep shitwater because a breakwater in disrepair broke and are paid worse than an assistant manager at Aldi. Engineers at RAL who (until recently at least) were paid 50% the national average for their role to keep vital UK infrastructure online. Coppers and firefighters too obviously. Very few do it for the pension or the perks. It's because they see their job as mattering and don't want to leave even though the rewards suck and the ministers are morons. I'm extremely lucky in that I got a regrading that put my salary just about where it should be, but there are roles that are just criminally undergraded or unrecognised.
Apparently Tory MPs are not thrilled by this announcement
"I think I will take Saturday off to reboot my campaign and to avoid any gaffes. Saturday will be my first gaffe free day since I announced the election. What could possibly go wrong?"
It will take the intellectual low-watt cohort of PBers a year or two to catch up with this, but a much more militarised society is coming, like it or not
Putin will get an Armistice in Ukraine, because we are not willing to send NATO troops to defend Kharkhiv, and neither side can "win". Putin and Xi wll then co-ordinate. Xi will go for Taiwan and Putin will probe the eastern flanks of NATO and the UK will be obliged to up its defence spending by billions and it will have to forcibly recruit young men and women, if they are not willing to serve voluntarily
= National Service, one way or another
Is it a good election winning policy? Probably not. Is it a serious pointer to the probable future? Yep
Maybe. Points for boldness I guess. But Theresa May couldn't get away with a bold policy to tackle an urgent need when she looked like she was 20 points ahead, there's no way Rishi can when 20 points behind.
25 points or more by Tuesday.
When Putin starts menacing Moldova, the Baltic states, and Finland, then it won't seem so mad. At all
Honestly, PB is just a bunch of stupid flailing midwit geeks who can't extrapolate more than 3 months ahead, with some honourable exceptions, who I shall not name to spare their proud blushes
Trying to be objective on the political implications of the policy or a moment:
- On one hand, it will be popular with the Boomer Tory/Reform voting contingent. I can imagine an uptick in Tory support from this contingent, which is their core vote now.
- On the other hand, young people (including Millennials in their 30s and 40s with kids under 18) will hate this policy. It is stupid and the compulsory nature could drive higher turnout against the Tories in a tactical voting kind of way: hold your nose and vote for who is the best opposition in your area.
I'm not sure which effect will be greater. But it comes across as desperate in any case.
If it's only unpopular with people who'd never vote for you in the first place, it's arguably good politics.
Many of those millennials do, or did, vote Tory before. I have. Writing them off as forever lost, and making that a self fulfulling prophecy, is the opposite of good politics.
It's also an amazing way to signal "We don't care about anyone young enough to have grandkids affected by the policy". Utter idiocy. I can see it being popular with a certain type of baby boomer, like the various red-faced sunlounger posters on here, but in the country? Can't see it going down as well as he thinks. If it was part of a coherent narrative it might work. But what narrative is there other than "I'm bloody desperate and I have no sane ideas?".
How else do we defend the nation against Putin and Xi?
Only 18 year olds can keep the Chinese from Cleethorpes.
Trying to be objective on the political implications of the policy or a moment:
- On one hand, it will be popular with the Boomer Tory/Reform voting contingent. I can imagine an uptick in Tory support from this contingent, which is their core vote now.
- On the other hand, young people (including Millennials in their 30s and 40s with kids under 18) will hate this policy. It is stupid and the compulsory nature could drive higher turnout against the Tories in a tactical voting kind of way: hold your nose and vote for who is the best opposition in your area.
I'm not sure which effect will be greater. But it comes across as desperate in any case.
If it's only unpopular with people who'd never vote for you in the first place, it's arguably good politics.
Many of those millennials do, or did, vote Tory before. I have. Writing them off as forever lost, and making that a self fulfulling prophecy, is the opposite of good politics.
It's also an amazing way to signal "We don't care about anyone young enough to have grandkids affected by the policy". Utter idiocy. I can see it being popular with a certain type of baby boomer, like the various red-faced sunlounger posters on here, but in the country? Can't see it going down as well as he thinks. If it was part of a coherent narrative it might work. But what narrative is there other than "I'm bloody desperate and I have no sane ideas?".
How else do we defend the nation against Putin and Xi?
Nukes. We have nukes.
How is the meat grinder working out for Ukraine and Russia?
When we're already under replacement levels, is sending our nation's youth off to die in some foreign war really a good idea?
Trying to be objective on the political implications of the policy or a moment:
- On one hand, it will be popular with the Boomer Tory/Reform voting contingent. I can imagine an uptick in Tory support from this contingent, which is their core vote now.
- On the other hand, young people (including Millennials in their 30s and 40s with kids under 18) will hate this policy. It is stupid and the compulsory nature could drive higher turnout against the Tories in a tactical voting kind of way: hold your nose and vote for who is the best opposition in your area.
I'm not sure which effect will be greater. But it comes across as desperate in any case.
If it's only unpopular with people who'd never vote for you in the first place, it's arguably good politics.
Many of those millennials do, or did, vote Tory before. I have. Writing them off as forever lost, and making that a self fulfulling prophecy, is the opposite of good politics.
It's also an amazing way to signal "We don't care about anyone young enough to have grandkids affected by the policy". Utter idiocy. I can see it being popular with a certain type of baby boomer, like the various red-faced sunlounger posters on here, but in the country? Can't see it going down as well as he thinks. If it was part of a coherent narrative it might work. But what narrative is there other than "I'm bloody desperate and I have no sane ideas?".
How else do we defend the nation against Putin and Xi?
I dunno, off the top of my head, a decent-sized, trained professional army and navy who are supplied with modern and well resourced equipment and training?
Trying to be objective on the political implications of the policy or a moment:
- On one hand, it will be popular with the Boomer Tory/Reform voting contingent. I can imagine an uptick in Tory support from this contingent, which is their core vote now.
- On the other hand, young people (including Millennials in their 30s and 40s with kids under 18) will hate this policy. It is stupid and the compulsory nature could drive higher turnout against the Tories in a tactical voting kind of way: hold your nose and vote for who is the best opposition in your area.
I'm not sure which effect will be greater. But it comes across as desperate in any case.
If it's only unpopular with people who'd never vote for you in the first place, it's arguably good politics.
Many of those millennials do, or did, vote Tory before. I have. Writing them off as forever lost, and making that a self fulfulling prophecy, is the opposite of good politics.
It's also an amazing way to signal "We don't care about anyone young enough to have grandkids affected by the policy". Utter idiocy. I can see it being popular with a certain type of baby boomer, like the various red-faced sunlounger posters on here, but in the country? Can't see it going down as well as he thinks. If it was part of a coherent narrative it might work. But what narrative is there other than "I'm bloody desperate and I have no sane ideas?".
How else do we defend the nation against Putin and Xi?
We defended the nation against a succession of Soviet Premiers, fought a low intensity war in Northern Ireland and a high intensity one in Iraq twice without conscription. Conscription is not the answer to great power conflict, to think it so is empty headed. Spend money on the regular army. I acknowledge we need to and it will require us to both raise taxes and adjust the state around it. Spending several billion on sending 18 year olds to either cosplay army or carry boxes around a police warehouse is a waste of time and economic productivity.
Trying to be objective on the political implications of the policy or a moment:
- On one hand, it will be popular with the Boomer Tory/Reform voting contingent. I can imagine an uptick in Tory support from this contingent, which is their core vote now.
- On the other hand, young people (including Millennials in their 30s and 40s with kids under 18) will hate this policy. It is stupid and the compulsory nature could drive higher turnout against the Tories in a tactical voting kind of way: hold your nose and vote for who is the best opposition in your area.
I'm not sure which effect will be greater. But it comes across as desperate in any case.
If it's only unpopular with people who'd never vote for you in the first place, it's arguably good politics.
Many of those millennials do, or did, vote Tory before. I have. Writing them off as forever lost, and making that a self fulfulling prophecy, is the opposite of good politics.
It's also an amazing way to signal "We don't care about anyone young enough to have grandkids affected by the policy". Utter idiocy. I can see it being popular with a certain type of baby boomer, like the various red-faced sunlounger posters on here, but in the country? Can't see it going down as well as he thinks. If it was part of a coherent narrative it might work. But what narrative is there other than "I'm bloody desperate and I have no sane ideas?".
How else do we defend the nation against Putin and Xi?
Nukes. We have nukes.
How is the meat grinder working out for Ukraine and Russia?
When we're already under replacement levels, is sending our nation's youth off to die in some foreign war really a good idea?
It won't be a foreign war, you ridiculous cretin
Is Ukraine "a foreign war"? Maybe to you, because you are dim. I've been there, it is part of Europe, and they are at war, and it is absolutely not foreign
Tomorrow is going to be Rishi pissily whinging that people don't understand this great policy isn't it?
Then it will get dropped before the manifesto gets launched.
I think I'll give it a miss.
I would argue I'm not one given to frequent hysteria, but I've not been this flabbergasted by a political idea and presentation in years, it's inconcievably bad, the MPs will be mutinous, and the more I ponder it the worse it seems to me.
What the heck was he thinking? - that will be the title of his biography.
It will take the intellectual low-watt cohort of PBers a year or two to catch up with this, but a much more militarised society is coming, like it or not
Putin will get an Armistice in Ukraine, because we are not willing to send NATO troops to defend Kharkhiv, and neither side can "win". Putin and Xi wll then co-ordinate. Xi will go for Taiwan and Putin will probe the eastern flanks of NATO and the UK will be obliged to up its defence spending by billions and it will have to forcibly recruit young men and women, if they are not willing to serve voluntarily
= National Service, one way or another
Is it a good election winning policy? Probably not. Is it a serious pointer to the probable future? Yep
and your plan is to give an SA80 to a Vegan, Hamas-supporting trans cyclist and airdrop them over the South China Sea/Estonia?
What has been shown not to work in Ukraine is mass infantry assaults against artillery and minefields, which is pretty much all a national service bod would be capable of.
Trying to be objective on the political implications of the policy or a moment:
- On one hand, it will be popular with the Boomer Tory/Reform voting contingent. I can imagine an uptick in Tory support from this contingent, which is their core vote now.
- On the other hand, young people (including Millennials in their 30s and 40s with kids under 18) will hate this policy. It is stupid and the compulsory nature could drive higher turnout against the Tories in a tactical voting kind of way: hold your nose and vote for who is the best opposition in your area.
I'm not sure which effect will be greater. But it comes across as desperate in any case.
If it's only unpopular with people who'd never vote for you in the first place, it's arguably good politics.
Many of those millennials do, or did, vote Tory before. I have. Writing them off as forever lost, and making that a self fulfulling prophecy, is the opposite of good politics.
It's also an amazing way to signal "We don't care about anyone young enough to have grandkids affected by the policy". Utter idiocy. I can see it being popular with a certain type of baby boomer, like the various red-faced sunlounger posters on here, but in the country? Can't see it going down as well as he thinks. If it was part of a coherent narrative it might work. But what narrative is there other than "I'm bloody desperate and I have no sane ideas?".
How else do we defend the nation against Putin and Xi?
Nukes. We have nukes.
How is the meat grinder working out for Ukraine and Russia?
When we're already under replacement levels, is sending our nation's youth off to die in some foreign war really a good idea?
It won't be a foreign war, you ridiculous cretin
Is Ukraine "a foreign war"? Maybe to you, because you are dim. I've been there, it is part of Europe, and they are at war, and it is absolutely not foreign
Poland understands this; we will too, in time
Agree.
But the answer is rearming and rebuilding a professional military. Not some bollx about a load of bored 18 year olds running around a field several weekends a year.
Both parties are lying about the costs we need to face to rebuild for war with Russia.
But this crap from Sunak is nothing to do with that.
Trying to be objective on the political implications of the policy or a moment:
- On one hand, it will be popular with the Boomer Tory/Reform voting contingent. I can imagine an uptick in Tory support from this contingent, which is their core vote now.
- On the other hand, young people (including Millennials in their 30s and 40s with kids under 18) will hate this policy. It is stupid and the compulsory nature could drive higher turnout against the Tories in a tactical voting kind of way: hold your nose and vote for who is the best opposition in your area.
I'm not sure which effect will be greater. But it comes across as desperate in any case.
If it's only unpopular with people who'd never vote for you in the first place, it's arguably good politics.
Many of those millennials do, or did, vote Tory before. I have. Writing them off as forever lost, and making that a self fulfulling prophecy, is the opposite of good politics.
It's also an amazing way to signal "We don't care about anyone young enough to have grandkids affected by the policy". Utter idiocy. I can see it being popular with a certain type of baby boomer, like the various red-faced sunlounger posters on here, but in the country? Can't see it going down as well as he thinks. If it was part of a coherent narrative it might work. But what narrative is there other than "I'm bloody desperate and I have no sane ideas?".
How else do we defend the nation against Putin and Xi?
Nukes. We have nukes.
How is the meat grinder working out for Ukraine and Russia?
When we're already under replacement levels, is sending our nation's youth off to die in some foreign war really a good idea?
It won't be a foreign war, you ridiculous cretin
Is Ukraine "a foreign war"? Maybe to you, because you are dim. I've been there, it is part of Europe, and they are at war, and it is absolutely not foreign
Poland understands this; we will too, in time
If the Russians arrived on these shores, you'd join them in a heartbeat.
Trying to be objective on the political implications of the policy or a moment:
- On one hand, it will be popular with the Boomer Tory/Reform voting contingent. I can imagine an uptick in Tory support from this contingent, which is their core vote now.
- On the other hand, young people (including Millennials in their 30s and 40s with kids under 18) will hate this policy. It is stupid and the compulsory nature could drive higher turnout against the Tories in a tactical voting kind of way: hold your nose and vote for who is the best opposition in your area.
I'm not sure which effect will be greater. But it comes across as desperate in any case.
If it's only unpopular with people who'd never vote for you in the first place, it's arguably good politics.
And if it's only popular with people who are going to vote for you anyway?
I strongly suspect this is the kind of policy that will get young people off their arses and actually voting against them.
Turnout in the 18-34 group in 2019 was around 53%, vs ~78% for the retired.
This is the sort of policy that could generate enough viral anger on a youth orientated platform like TikTok to actually get the yoof off their arses and into voting booths.
It will take the intellectual low-watt cohort of PBers a year or two to catch up with this, but a much more militarised society is coming, like it or not
Putin will get an Armistice in Ukraine, because we are not willing to send NATO troops to defend Kharkhiv, and neither side can "win". Putin and Xi wll then co-ordinate. Xi will go for Taiwan and Putin will probe the eastern flanks of NATO and the UK will be obliged to up its defence spending by billions and it will have to forcibly recruit young men and women, if they are not willing to serve voluntarily
= National Service, one way or another
Is it a good election winning policy? Probably not. Is it a serious pointer to the probable future? Yep
It is Leon, but first as a political leader you engage with the voting public. You explain how dangerous Putin is and you develop a conversation to explain that in order to secure a free United Kingdom for our children and our children's children we need to look at certain difficult options.
You don't ponder "how do we attract crazy ape- bonkers Reform voters? I know send their sons, daughters and grandchildren to Deepcut for 12 months. That should do the trick".
Trying to be objective on the political implications of the policy or a moment:
- On one hand, it will be popular with the Boomer Tory/Reform voting contingent. I can imagine an uptick in Tory support from this contingent, which is their core vote now.
- On the other hand, young people (including Millennials in their 30s and 40s with kids under 18) will hate this policy. It is stupid and the compulsory nature could drive higher turnout against the Tories in a tactical voting kind of way: hold your nose and vote for who is the best opposition in your area.
I'm not sure which effect will be greater. But it comes across as desperate in any case.
If it's only unpopular with people who'd never vote for you in the first place, it's arguably good politics.
Many of those millennials do, or did, vote Tory before. I have. Writing them off as forever lost, and making that a self fulfulling prophecy, is the opposite of good politics.
It's also an amazing way to signal "We don't care about anyone young enough to have grandkids affected by the policy". Utter idiocy. I can see it being popular with a certain type of baby boomer, like the various red-faced sunlounger posters on here, but in the country? Can't see it going down as well as he thinks. If it was part of a coherent narrative it might work. But what narrative is there other than "I'm bloody desperate and I have no sane ideas?".
How else do we defend the nation against Putin and Xi?
I dunno, off the top of my head, a decent-sized, trained professional army and navy who are supplied with modern and well resourced equipment and training?
We don't have the numbers. We are struggling to man the army and navy we have, and they are comparatively tiny
Either we raise the pay for soldiering to a level which requires income tax to double, or we take the easier route, and require national service of all 18 year olds. Which one will be more popular with tax payers, in the end?
It will take the intellectual low-watt cohort of PBers a year or two to catch up with this, but a much more militarised society is coming, like it or not
Putin will get an Armistice in Ukraine, because we are not willing to send NATO troops to defend Kharkhiv, and neither side can "win". Putin and Xi wll then co-ordinate. Xi will go for Taiwan and Putin will probe the eastern flanks of NATO and the UK will be obliged to up its defence spending by billions and it will have to forcibly recruit young men and women, if they are not willing to serve voluntarily
= National Service, one way or another
Is it a good election winning policy? Probably not. Is it a serious pointer to the probable future? Yep
It is Leon, but first as a political leader you engage with the voting public. You explain how dangerous Putin is and you develop a conversation to explain that in order to secure a free United Kingdom for our children and our children's children we need to look at certain difficult options.
You don't ponder "how do we attract crazy ape- bonkers Reform voters? I know send their sons, daughters and grandchildren to Deepcut for 12 months. That should do the trick".
But that’s not the policy. It’s compulsory community service with an exception for people who join the military.
War is changing. Look at Ukraine and how first person view drones have completely revolutionised the battlefield. Fighting a war is becoming more like a videogame. You need the right people to fight that sort of war. You need people with the right skills, not children who spend all their time on Xbox... Hold on, maybe this is a fantastically good idea!
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn National Service is a very interesting idea, but I’m seriously struggling to understand the Tory costings for it. They nowhere near add up.
There are 717,000 18 year olds in the UK. Even if only half of them sign up for military service instead of opting for volunteering, the £2.5bn a year the Tories have allocated for it is a per capita spending of £6,000 a head - and that’s to train, equip, house and presumably pay all of them an annual salary.
Then there is the lost tax revenue to HMT of taking 350,000 out of the workplace (albeit for a good cause and where they learn new skills).
I can’t see how it won’t end up constituting 10 times that, ie £25bn a year. Unless I’ve missed something quite big here?
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn National Service is a very interesting idea, but I’m seriously struggling to understand the Tory costings for it. They nowhere near add up.
There are 717,000 18 year olds in the UK. Even if only half of them sign up for military service instead of opting for volunteering, the £2.5bn a year the Tories have allocated for it is a per capita spending of £6,000 a head - and that’s to train, equip, house and presumably pay all of them an annual salary.
Then there is the lost tax revenue to HMT of taking 350,000 out of the workplace (albeit for a good cause and where they learn new skills).
I can’t see how it won’t end up constituting 10 times that, ie £25bn a year. Unless I’ve missed something quite big here?
As I said above, it's not 717,000 military, it is at most 20,000. The rest are volunteering for work but without pay.
It will take the intellectual low-watt cohort of PBers a year or two to catch up with this, but a much more militarised society is coming, like it or not
Putin will get an Armistice in Ukraine, because we are not willing to send NATO troops to defend Kharkhiv, and neither side can "win". Putin and Xi wll then co-ordinate. Xi will go for Taiwan and Putin will probe the eastern flanks of NATO and the UK will be obliged to up its defence spending by billions and it will have to forcibly recruit young men and women, if they are not willing to serve voluntarily
= National Service, one way or another
Is it a good election winning policy? Probably not. Is it a serious pointer to the probable future? Yep
and your plan is to give an SA80 to a Vegan, Hamas-supporting trans cyclist and airdrop them over the South China Sea/Estonia?
What has been shown not to work in Ukraine is mass infantry assaults against artillery and minefields, which is pretty much all a national service bod would be capable of.
Ah but you're discussing it with noted military historian and expert Leon, master of manoeuvre, a tactician on par with Rommel, a strategist on par with Napoleon, a logistician greater than Zhukhov and truly madder than all three.
It will take the intellectual low-watt cohort of PBers a year or two to catch up with this, but a much more militarised society is coming, like it or not
Putin will get an Armistice in Ukraine, because we are not willing to send NATO troops to defend Kharkhiv, and neither side can "win". Putin and Xi wll then co-ordinate. Xi will go for Taiwan and Putin will probe the eastern flanks of NATO and the UK will be obliged to up its defence spending by billions and it will have to forcibly recruit young men and women, if they are not willing to serve voluntarily
= National Service, one way or another
Is it a good election winning policy? Probably not. Is it a serious pointer to the probable future? Yep
It is Leon, but first as a political leader you engage with the voting public. You explain how dangerous Putin is.and you engage a conversation to explain that in order to secure a free United Kingdom for our children and our children's children we need to look at certain difficult options.
You don't ponder "how do we attract crazy ape- bonkers Reform voters? I know send their sons, daughters and grandchildren to Deepcut for 12 months. That should do the trick".
Exactly this. Those trying to sell this is a regrettably necessary strategic choice ought to stop and think why it's been dropped out on a Saturday evening by a campaign in crisis mode. If it looks like an ill-conceived panic measure, and quacks like an ill-conceived panic measure, it's a duck.
War is changing. Look at Ukraine and how first person view drones have completely revolutionised the battlefield. Fighting a war is becoming more like a videogame. You need the right people to fight that sort of war. You need people with the right skills, not children who spend all their time on Xbox... Hold on, maybe this is a fantastically good idea!
Rishi's next job could be in cyber, he just doesn't know it yet
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn National Service is a very interesting idea, but I’m seriously struggling to understand the Tory costings for it. They nowhere near add up.
There are 717,000 18 year olds in the UK. Even if only half of them sign up for military service instead of opting for volunteering, the £2.5bn a year the Tories have allocated for it is a per capita spending of £6,000 a head - and that’s to train, equip, house and presumably pay all of them an annual salary.
Then there is the lost tax revenue to HMT of taking 350,000 out of the workplace (albeit for a good cause and where they learn new skills).
I can’t see how it won’t end up constituting 10 times that, ie £25bn a year. Unless I’ve missed something quite big here?
Presumably the assumption is that hardly anyone will actually do it.
Trying to be objective on the political implications of the policy or a moment:
- On one hand, it will be popular with the Boomer Tory/Reform voting contingent. I can imagine an uptick in Tory support from this contingent, which is their core vote now.
- On the other hand, young people (including Millennials in their 30s and 40s with kids under 18) will hate this policy. It is stupid and the compulsory nature could drive higher turnout against the Tories in a tactical voting kind of way: hold your nose and vote for who is the best opposition in your area.
I'm not sure which effect will be greater. But it comes across as desperate in any case.
If it's only unpopular with people who'd never vote for you in the first place, it's arguably good politics.
Many of those millennials do, or did, vote Tory before. I have. Writing them off as forever lost, and making that a self fulfulling prophecy, is the opposite of good politics.
It's also an amazing way to signal "We don't care about anyone young enough to have grandkids affected by the policy". Utter idiocy. I can see it being popular with a certain type of baby boomer, like the various red-faced sunlounger posters on here, but in the country? Can't see it going down as well as he thinks. If it was part of a coherent narrative it might work. But what narrative is there other than "I'm bloody desperate and I have no sane ideas?".
How else do we defend the nation against Putin and Xi?
Nukes. We have nukes.
How is the meat grinder working out for Ukraine and Russia?
When we're already under replacement levels, is sending our nation's youth off to die in some foreign war really a good idea?
It won't be a foreign war, you ridiculous cretin
Is Ukraine "a foreign war"? Maybe to you, because you are dim. I've been there, it is part of Europe, and they are at war, and it is absolutely not foreign
Poland understands this; we will too, in time
You're the one who keeps banging on about immigrants. Sending an entire generation off to die more or less ensures the British way of life gets wiped out within a generation anyway.
So the best bet for Britain is to pull up the drawbridge, and promise mutually assured destruction to anyone threatening our country.
Or do you reckon British youth are really going to be prepared to pick up a rifle and fight and die if Putin pushes on into Slovakia?
Britain won't go to war until it's existential. And by the time it's existential for us, it's time to roll out Trident, not a bunch of spotty faced teens with army surplus SA-80s.
Trying to be objective on the political implications of the policy or a moment:
- On one hand, it will be popular with the Boomer Tory/Reform voting contingent. I can imagine an uptick in Tory support from this contingent, which is their core vote now.
- On the other hand, young people (including Millennials in their 30s and 40s with kids under 18) will hate this policy. It is stupid and the compulsory nature could drive higher turnout against the Tories in a tactical voting kind of way: hold your nose and vote for who is the best opposition in your area.
I'm not sure which effect will be greater. But it comes across as desperate in any case.
If it's only unpopular with people who'd never vote for you in the first place, it's arguably good politics.
Many of those millennials do, or did, vote Tory before. I have. Writing them off as forever lost, and making that a self fulfulling prophecy, is the opposite of good politics.
It's also an amazing way to signal "We don't care about anyone young enough to have grandkids affected by the policy". Utter idiocy. I can see it being popular with a certain type of baby boomer, like the various red-faced sunlounger posters on here, but in the country? Can't see it going down as well as he thinks. If it was part of a coherent narrative it might work. But what narrative is there other than "I'm bloody desperate and I have no sane ideas?".
How else do we defend the nation against Putin and Xi?
I dunno, off the top of my head, a decent-sized, trained professional army and navy who are supplied with modern and well resourced equipment and training?
We don't have the numbers. We are struggling to man the army and navy we have, and they are comparatively tiny
Either we raise the pay for soldiering to a level which requires income tax to double, or we take the easier route, and require national service of all 18 year olds. Which one will be more popular with tax payers, in the end?
EXTRAPOLATE, you dimwits
'Sorry, sweet child of mine. I know you have career plans, and military service is dangerous, but just think how much tax I will be saving.'
Trying to be objective on the political implications of the policy or a moment:
- On one hand, it will be popular with the Boomer Tory/Reform voting contingent. I can imagine an uptick in Tory support from this contingent, which is their core vote now.
- On the other hand, young people (including Millennials in their 30s and 40s with kids under 18) will hate this policy. It is stupid and the compulsory nature could drive higher turnout against the Tories in a tactical voting kind of way: hold your nose and vote for who is the best opposition in your area.
I'm not sure which effect will be greater. But it comes across as desperate in any case.
If it's only unpopular with people who'd never vote for you in the first place, it's arguably good politics.
Many of those millennials do, or did, vote Tory before. I have. Writing them off as forever lost, and making that a self fulfulling prophecy, is the opposite of good politics.
It's also an amazing way to signal "We don't care about anyone young enough to have grandkids affected by the policy". Utter idiocy. I can see it being popular with a certain type of baby boomer, like the various red-faced sunlounger posters on here, but in the country? Can't see it going down as well as he thinks. If it was part of a coherent narrative it might work. But what narrative is there other than "I'm bloody desperate and I have no sane ideas?".
How else do we defend the nation against Putin and Xi?
Nukes. We have nukes.
How is the meat grinder working out for Ukraine and Russia?
When we're already under replacement levels, is sending our nation's youth off to die in some foreign war really a good idea?
It won't be a foreign war, you ridiculous cretin
Is Ukraine "a foreign war"? Maybe to you, because you are dim. I've been there, it is part of Europe, and they are at war, and it is absolutely not foreign
Poland understands this; we will too, in time
You obviously feel very strongly about this. So why aren't you in the country volunteering? You could set an example by forcing your daughters into the military and refusing to leave Blighty till we are all safe. So why haven't you? Just curious.
Comments
It will be interesting how it is received in the populace generally and how Sunak attempts to sell it
Maybe Dave is making a comeback after all.
Laurence Fox
@LozzaFox
·
4m
No thanks. I’m not sending my kids off to die to pay for the coke habit of some Eastern European mafia boss.
https://x.com/LozzaFox
Long term, they need to think about getting that crossover age back down to 40. Policies like this are good for the next 6 weeks; dreadful for the next 6 years.
I think David might be a bit busy to talk to the media for a few days.
Tories 49 seats or less at 12/1
50-99 seats at 11/4
100-149 at 15/8
150-199 at 9/4
The rest are not worth looking at.
Before I was thinking between 150 and 175.
Now I'm thinking 100-125. 150 now their best case scenario.
In September we found that 64% of Britons would oppose year-long compulsory military service for young people - although older Britons were much less likely to oppose than their younger peers
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1794481011574591682
https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/TheTimes_VI_240524_W.pdf
Tory offer to young people:
1. We’ll take away your smartphones;
2. Compulsory maths exams until 18; and
3. “Compulsory voluntary” service thereafter.
They just need:
4. You’re not going out looking like that; and
5. Don’t use that tone of voice with me.
"Compulsory volunteering" might be Sunak's death tax.
To invent some old shite that hasn't been thought through because you think it might trigger Reform voters is altogether less optimal.
On a purely ideological level, is national service a very conservative idea? 🤷🏻♂️
Isn’t it essentially the state telling adults how they must spend their free time?
Interesting discussion
You're supposed to be able to take the dead cat away when you want to.
Arguably, they should be paid more than minimum wage to cover them for the likely loss of earnings resulting from participation in this compulsory scheme.
For instance, most employers would rather have someone who's available every weekend, rather than only 3/4 of them. 18 year olds will therefore be disadvantaged in the job market, and should expect to receive compensation for that.
UKGov: ...
UKGov: Will a barracks do?
18 year olds doing 25 days of volunteering are not going to be the most effective volunteers and won't learn very much. Even those doing a year in the armed forces aren't going to be very good soldiers until the end of their year. If society needs all these things to be done, tax people and spend the money on professionals.
The HOC select committee have recommended that you have to be 16 to own a smartphone
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjmm0zgx9zno
But not their own.
Robert Peston
@Peston
·
22m
As for the military bit of the national service plan, this is what Sunak’s official spokesman said about military national service in January: “The British military has a proud tradition of being a voluntary force. There are no plans to change that.”
https://x.com/Peston/status/1794489939742052542
Why would you choose to work in a SENDMH school when you can get better pay, and much less aggro in a call centre, nail bar or building site?
And don't mention holidays. Pay for TA's, unlike teachers is pro rata'd.
They do it because they care.
They want to be of service, and make a difference.
And this is the thanks they get.
I don't like using the F word.
But I have no other.
I honestly didn't think the campaign had gotten off to that bad a start, most of the talk seemed to be focused on silly memes and minor flubs, not great but not a big deal either.
But this idea, in this way? Death wish territory.
Putin will get an Armistice in Ukraine, because we are not willing to send NATO troops to defend Kharkhiv, and neither side can "win". Putin and Xi wll then co-ordinate. Xi will go for Taiwan and Putin will probe the eastern flanks of NATO and the UK will be obliged to up its defence spending by billions and it will have to forcibly recruit young men and women, if they are not willing to serve voluntarily
= National Service, one way or another
Is it a good election winning policy? Probably not. Is it a serious pointer to the probable future? Yep
However, note that original cold-war National Service was fazed out starting in 1957 and ended in 1963, meaning that an 18-year old back in that year, born circa 1945, would be turning 78 this year.
So those who actually conscripted are at the higher end of the geezer-meter.
On the other hand, what's potential that youth turnout on 4th of July will be boosted, by Tory promise - or rather threat in their case - to re-establish National Service? A group notoriously difficult to turn out UNLESS you give them a big incentive.
Perhaps time to recycle in UK the old anti-war US slogan: "Draft beer, not students".
Now it’s perfectly possible that none of them ever would but that’s a potential 20 votes lost…
Typical community sentences for criminal damage, theft or assault are 40-300 hours, so the proposed "volunteering" scheme would be about the middle of the range for those offences
25 points or more by Tuesday.
Turnout in the 18-34 group in 2019 was around 53%, vs ~78% for the retired.
This is the sort of policy that could generate enough viral anger on a youth orientated platform like TikTok to actually get the yoof off their arses and into voting booths.
And I’m tempted to top up at 12-1 after todays “announcement”.
I’m starting to think that Rishi hates the Tory party and wants it to be destroyed by this election
Question is - when is May’s death tax going to be re-announced
Honestly, PB is just a bunch of stupid flailing midwit geeks who can't extrapolate more than 3 months ahead, with some honourable exceptions, who I shall not name to spare their proud blushes
How is the meat grinder working out for Ukraine and Russia?
When we're already under replacement levels, is sending our nation's youth off to die in some foreign war really a good idea?
I'm sure you're bored with me saying this, but the Conservatives have forgotten how to be conservative.
Is Ukraine "a foreign war"? Maybe to you, because you are dim. I've been there, it is part of Europe, and they are at war, and it is absolutely not foreign
Poland understands this; we will too, in time
Then it will get dropped before the manifesto gets launched.
I think I'll give it a miss.
I would argue I'm not one given to frequent hysteria, but I've not been this flabbergasted by a political idea and presentation in years, it's inconcievably bad, the MPs will be mutinous, and the more I ponder it the worse it seems to me.
What the heck was he thinking? - that will be the title of his biography.
It is a shit idea.
What has been shown not to work in Ukraine is mass infantry assaults against artillery and minefields, which is pretty much all a national service bod would be capable of.
But the answer is rearming and rebuilding a professional military. Not some bollx about a load of bored 18 year olds running around a field several weekends a year.
Both parties are lying about the costs we need to face to rebuild for war with Russia.
But this crap from Sunak is nothing to do with that.
If that doesn't work, what would?
You don't ponder "how do we attract crazy ape- bonkers Reform voters? I know send their sons, daughters and grandchildren to Deepcut for 12 months. That should do the trick".
Either we raise the pay for soldiering to a level which requires income tax to double, or we take the easier route, and require national service of all 18 year olds. Which one will be more popular with tax payers, in the end?
EXTRAPOLATE, you dimwits
@jamiesont
Eighteen year olds get to choose between 12months in the army or 6weeks as a Tory election candidate
Tom Newton Dunn
@tnewtondunn
National Service is a very interesting idea, but I’m seriously struggling to understand the Tory costings for it. They nowhere near add up.
There are 717,000 18 year olds in the UK. Even if only half of them sign up for military service instead of opting for volunteering, the £2.5bn a year the Tories have allocated for it is a per capita spending of £6,000 a head - and that’s to train, equip, house and presumably pay all of them an annual salary.
Then there is the lost tax revenue to HMT of taking 350,000 out of the workplace (albeit for a good cause and where they learn new skills).
I can’t see how it won’t end up constituting 10 times that, ie £25bn a year. Unless I’ve missed something quite big here?
Makes her campaign look like New Labour 1997.
So the best bet for Britain is to pull up the drawbridge, and promise mutually assured destruction to anyone threatening our country.
Or do you reckon British youth are really going to be prepared to pick up a rifle and fight and die if Putin pushes on into Slovakia?
Britain won't go to war until it's existential. And by the time it's existential for us, it's time to roll out Trident, not a bunch of spotty faced teens with army surplus SA-80s.
It's a bit slave labour like, but it seems just as likely to appeal to Reform without upsetting any parents or grandparents among Reform voters.
So why aren't you in the country volunteering?
You could set an example by forcing your daughters into the military and refusing to leave Blighty till we are all safe.
So why haven't you?
Just curious.
And, how soon before the Tory leadership contest kicks off in earnest?