WhatsApp update: conversation has now moved on from hysteria and derision at the policy to recognising it's probably not as awful as advertised, but it's just not costed, and has pivoted to debating wider UK security and defence policy, and how the UK needs to up its spend and skills in this area.
So, now, everyone's talking about security and defence. Not Labour's preferred 'cost of living' line on their grid for this weekend.
That'll do them nicely.
The policy may well be wrong, but the questions that prompt it are important. Labour on the other hand have a pitch that would make way more sense if this was still 2019, it's not vastly different from the "levelling up" that Boris was selling. I don't think Labour will get the chance to do what they want to, I expect they'll be dealing with some very big crises.
If Tories believe, already, that “levelling up is so 2019” then that might explain a bit of their red wall polling.
She wouldn't be getting half of it if she were a bloke.
I wouldn't say there is a lot of hate, just a lot of people have cottoned on that she is more of a cheerleader for the government than an impartial broadcaster, and she's definitely been outshone by Victoria Derbyshire whenever she takes a Sunday morning off.
So, interested to hear what you all think on this musing The 16 to 17 votes and the NS policy for 18s will apply to nobody voting this time. I've seen comments on socials about 'youth vote' etc.... how long does 'affinity' with those to be affected by, or benefit from, a policy go on? Do 23 year olds give a shit if a 16 year old can vote?
Good point. Sometimes though, a policy is worth implementing just because it's the right thing to do.
WhatsApp update: conversation has now moved on from hysteria and derision at the policy to recognising it's probably not as awful as advertised, but it's just not costed, and has pivoted to debating wider UK security and defence policy, and how the UK needs to up its spend and skills in this area.
So, now, everyone's talking about security and defence. Not Labour's preferred 'cost of living' line on their grid for this weekend.
That'll do them nicely.
Genius. Except who hollowed out the armed forces over the last 14 years?
So, Starmer could maybe spike it by pledging to raise UK defence spending to 2.5% - or more - of GDP.
Will he?
You think dumping up to 700k 18 year olds on the armed forces every year will improve our defence position?
To be fair, they're only having 30000 teenagers doing military service. Presumably because that's all they can afford.
Most will be doing weekend shifts in the public sector... that can't be right, there will be hardly anyone to supervise them.
It'd be slightly more convincing if the Tories hadn't invented recruitment systems which positively discourage recruitment.
She wouldn't be getting half of it if she were a bloke.
That's true, sadly it's true of any female who ever dares to have a public opinion. I don't even believe that she's a Tory stooge, I rather suspect that if SKS becomes PM she'll be a Labour stooge.
Nah wait a sec. There are some great female commentators but she hasn’t had a good month. Her infamous post about the London mayoral was so off-beam and highly misleading, including for punters.
For obvious reasons I’ll defend females in any and all positions of responsibility and leadership but part of that means we have to keep up good and professional standards. We can’t let sloppy journalism pass just because she’s one of us. Laura hasn’t had a good month.
(and Beth and Sophy did a vg job during the announcement)
I didn't say that she was any good as a journalist, but there's plenty of male journalists that are equally poor but don't get the same abuse.
And Pesto makes frequent wild errors but doesn’t get the same opprobrium
It’s almost as though this policy hasn’t been properly thought through and has been written on back of a fag packet (now that cigs aren’t going to be banned)
She wouldn't be getting half of it if she were a bloke.
I wouldn't say there is a lot of hate, just a lot of people have cottoned on that she is more of a cheerleader for the government than an impartial broadcaster, and she's definitely been outshone by Victoria Derbyshire whenever she takes a Sunday morning off.
+1
Victoria is genuinely brilliant. How on earth the BBC cut her show before is beyond baffling.
Does anyone have Facebook by the way? I’m interested to know what’s being pumped out by the Conservative targeting operation to the retired. Particularly interested if you use Facebook and are right-leaning (or move in right leaning circles).
I only see Twitter, which is full of angry millennials, and Instagram for my vineyard which is full of vain millennials. So my exposure to boomer social media where the real electioneering goes on is very limited.
So, now, everyone's talking about security and defence. Not Labour's preferred 'cost of living' line on their grid for this weekend.
That'll do them nicely.
Security and Defence is not what Tories want to be talking about.
Labour respond:
“This is not a plan – it’s a review which could cost billions and is only needed because the Tories hollowed out the Armed Forces to their smallest size since Napoleon.”
RN Combatant Fleet Status
Destroyers: 1 on ops, 1 working up, 4 in refit
Frigates: 2 on ops, 2 working up, rest in refit/maintenance/on the wall due to lack of crew
Carriers: 1 in maintenance, 1 in refit
SSN: All(!) Astutes in maintenance/refit. Trafalgar (aka the 'Antiques Roadshow') deployed
People who think the tories are sound on defence would do well to remember the words of Maya Angelou.
"When people show you who they really are. Believe them."
@TSE and others with betting in mind, is there any way of us drilling down into tactical voting?
It’s mentioned a lot. We know it goes on. It’s allegedly on the increase. But this is all so vague when you’re trying to make bets.
Is there any way of us quantifying this? How many people in the key affected constituencies a) are really properly informed about it and b) prepared and motivated enough to vote tactically accordingly?
Any chance of an in-depth thread on tactical voting please pretty please?
It’s almost as though this policy hasn’t been properly thought through and has been written on back of a fag packet (now that cigs aren’t going to be banned)
Is National Service just this week's version of banning rainbow lanyards? Introduced on a Monday, watered down on Tuesday and sent to the memory hole by Thursday.
@RobDotHutton Cleverly now at the If You Don't Support This You're Against Investing In Young People stage.
It really is desperate stuff . Forcing 18 year olds to volunteer is investing in them .
My daughter has done two lots of volunteering that weren't entirely voluntary.
One as part of the Duke of Edinburgh Awards, and another as part of a university scholarship scheme. Both were a really positive experience for her, but I think she was a bit more diffident when she was younger and wouldn't have done the volunteering without the impetus from the schemes.
Something along those lines, but reaching larger numbers of people, could be a positive thing.
But people are so reflexively anti-Tory that they're now attacking the very idea of encouraging teenagers to volunteer.
Labour should have come up with a policy like this. Something to tap into the desire to help out and to be part of something that was shown when so many people volunteered to help the NHS at the start of the pandemic.
I know people are ridiculing this policy at the moment, but I think it's a good example of the Tories still being better at campaigning than Labour.
Once again, it needs to be said. This is a terrible Government and it will fall, but the facts of life are that the Starmer Government will have to bring in a form of national service to increase the pool with basic training that could be swiftly mobilised if we had to. That’s happening all over Europe and it will happen here too, unless we want to be a joke nation and abandon on our leadership on European defence.
Neither 'being a joke nation' nor losing 'our leadership of European defence' are remotely compelling reasons for doing anything. They are bullshit. They don't matter. Being able to defend our nation from attack matters. Being able, in a tightly focused way, to project might overseas if British interests or people are in severe jeopardy, is a good secondary aim. The rest is willy waving bollocks that leads to crap like Trident and the useless aircraft carriers.
Once again, it needs to be said. This is a terrible Government and it will fall, but the facts of life are that the Starmer Government will have to bring in a form of national service to increase the pool with basic training that could be swiftly mobilised if we had to. That’s happening all over Europe and it will happen here too, unless we want to be a joke nation and abandon on our leadership on European defence.
No it won't.
Improving our defence does not necessitate getting a bunch of teenagers to hang around the army for a year.
Investing in drone technology and cyber warfare might be a better use of money given we aren't living in 1790.
It’s almost as though this policy hasn’t been properly thought through and has been written on back of a fag packet (now that cigs aren’t going to be banned)
IANAE but inventing a new policy on the spur of the moment might be a risky game to play.
She wouldn't be getting half of it if she were a bloke.
That's true, sadly it's true of any female who ever dares to have a public opinion. I don't even believe that she's a Tory stooge, I rather suspect that if SKS becomes PM she'll be a Labour stooge.
Nah wait a sec. There are some great female commentators but she hasn’t had a good month. Her infamous post about the London mayoral was so off-beam and highly misleading, including for punters.
For obvious reasons I’ll defend females in any and all positions of responsibility and leadership but part of that means we have to keep up good and professional standards. We can’t let sloppy journalism pass just because she’s one of us. Laura hasn’t had a good month.
(and Beth and Sophy did a vg job during the announcement)
I didn't say that she was any good as a journalist, but there's plenty of male journalists that are equally poor but don't get the same abuse.
And Pesto makes frequent wild errors but doesn’t get the same opprobrium
Who will enforce the National Service? Who will administer the National Service? Where will you house the recruits? How will you equip the recruits? Who will train the recruits? How will you pay for any of the above?
When the public services and armed forces have been hollowed out as they have all of these are questions with no obvious answers.
However, given the plan is to set up a Royal Commission there is zero chance of its reporting before the re-elected Con Govt or Mr Sunak or both have left office.
I see why they are doing this but wasn't the idea that the GE campaign would focus all eyes on Starmer and show up the gaps in his plans? Focusing on your own unrealistic proposals (abolish national insurance, introduce national service, space colony on Mars (well why not)) doesn't help with that does it.
Young folk are notoriously difficult to get to the polls. However, I think the Cons just gave a lot of students and youngsters (as well as their parents) a very good reason to turn out.
If you are over 18 you are safe.
If you are under 18 you cannot vote.
And no I don't think it's a good policy but majority in my age group probably do.
So, interested to hear what you all think on this musing The 16 to 17 votes and the NS policy for 18s will apply to nobody voting this time. I've seen comments on socials about 'youth vote' etc.... how long does 'affinity' with those to be affected by, or benefit from, a policy go on? Do 23 year olds give a shit if a 16 year old can vote?
Good point. Sometimes though, a policy is worth implementing just because it's the right thing to do.
I agree on that front, for sure, but I'm interested in the framing around 'youth vote' and other policies on 'pensioners' when the policy will not kick in until they are likely long gone etc..... How tight is the affinity really in age groups? Someone below said their sons mates will be motivated to vote now. It interests me why, because they are anti National Service as a concept? That's fair enough if so, but they won't be personally affected of course so it ought not be that..... its interesting as to how all this factors into VI
WhatsApp update: conversation has now moved on from hysteria and derision at the policy to recognising it's probably not as awful as advertised, but it's just not costed, and has pivoted to debating wider UK security and defence policy, and how the UK needs to up its spend and skills in this area.
So, now, everyone's talking about security and defence. Not Labour's preferred 'cost of living' line on their grid for this weekend.
@TSE and others with betting in mind, is there any way of us drilling down into tactical voting?
It’s mentioned a lot. We know it goes on. It’s allegedly on the increase. But this is all so vague when you’re trying to make bets.
Is there any way of us quantifying this? How many people in the key affected constituencies a) are really properly informed about it and b) prepared and motivated enough to vote tactically accordingly?
Any chance of an in-depth thread on tactical voting please pretty please?
Not at all, it's going precisely as planned and its opponents are playing right into their hands.
ROFLMAO
Casino Ali does seem relentlessly positive today. Or do I detect a note fo irony?
In fairness to @Casino_Royale everyone is talking about the Tory stuff today. We might all think it is mad, but if it catches the people's interest who knows, plus nobody is talking about what Labour wants to talk about.
They say if you are in a hole stop digging, but if you are so far down you might as well give it a go; you might strike gold.
The annoying thing is that I am all in favour of encouraging children to try different things - Scouts, CCF, Duke of Edinburgh - as well as social volunteering. But this is so unconvincing above all at this late stage. There is also a conflation between an emergency reserve - a good thing but which need not involve children only - and child education/social indoctrination.
So for those remaining aspirational Cons voters, I do believe there might be one or two left on here, with young children, do they vote Lab and pay more in school fees or Cons and see their precious Violets and Harrys go off to 1 QDG.
This isn't conscription. It's a form of mandatory service when you turn eighteen, and you can either do social service, emergency services, or environmental service, and 12 months in the military or cyber security - neither of which would be for front line combat - is just one of the options.
I have no problem it nor am I worried about what it means for him.
She wouldn't be getting half of it if she were a bloke.
That's true, sadly it's true of any female who ever dares to have a public opinion. I don't even believe that she's a Tory stooge, I rather suspect that if SKS becomes PM she'll be a Labour stooge.
Nah wait a sec. There are some great female commentators but she hasn’t had a good month. Her infamous post about the London mayoral was so off-beam and highly misleading, including for punters.
For obvious reasons I’ll defend females in any and all positions of responsibility and leadership but part of that means we have to keep up good and professional standards. We can’t let sloppy journalism pass just because she’s one of us. Laura hasn’t had a good month.
(and Beth and Sophy did a vg job during the announcement)
I didn't say that she was any good as a journalist, but there's plenty of male journalists that are equally poor but don't get the same abuse.
And Pesto makes frequent wild errors but doesn’t get the same opprobrium
She wouldn't be getting half of it if she were a bloke.
I wouldn't say there is a lot of hate, just a lot of people have cottoned on that she is more of a cheerleader for the government than an impartial broadcaster, and she's definitely been outshone by Victoria Derbyshire whenever she takes a Sunday morning off.
+1
Victoria is genuinely brilliant. How on earth the BBC cut her show before is beyond baffling.
Anyone thinking criticism of Kuenssberg is because she’s female needs to reckon with criticism of, to name a few, Owen Williams, Peston, Paul Mason, Piers Morgan…
Does anyone have Facebook by the way? I’m interested to know what’s being pumped out by the Conservative targeting operation to the retired. Particularly interested if you use Facebook and are right-leaning (or move in right leaning circles).
I only see Twitter, which is full of angry millennials, and Instagram for my vineyard which is full of vain millennials. So my exposure to boomer social media where the real electioneering goes on is very limited.
I have an account, though rarely use it.
I logged on earlier to see if there was anything political, but very little other than the usual birthday wishes, holiday snaps, photos of old times and data scraping quizzes about "what animal are you".
@RobDotHutton Cleverly now at the If You Don't Support This You're Against Investing In Young People stage.
It really is desperate stuff . Forcing 18 year olds to volunteer is investing in them .
My daughter has done two lots of volunteering that weren't entirely voluntary.
One as part of the Duke of Edinburgh Awards, and another as part of a university scholarship scheme. Both were a really positive experience for her, but I think she was a bit more diffident when she was younger and wouldn't have done the volunteering without the impetus from the schemes.
Something along those lines, but reaching larger numbers of people, could be a positive thing.
But people are so reflexively anti-Tory that they're now attacking the very idea of encouraging teenagers to volunteer.
Labour should have come up with a policy like this. Something to tap into the desire to help out and to be part of something that was shown when so many people volunteered to help the NHS at the start of the pandemic.
I know people are ridiculing this policy at the moment, but I think it's a good example of the Tories still being better at campaigning than Labour.
Encouraging youngsters (or indeed anyone) to volunteer is a good thing. Giving young people a chance to learn new skills while also benefitting the community is a good thing. Conscription introduced without any actual plan is not the same thing.
In other words, it's really important to keep your opponents divided, rather than having them all train their fire on you. The hegemonies of Thatcher and Blair were driven by the other lot being beyond the pale.
A lesson that the Corbynites never learned, and Team Rishi seems to have missed that lesson as well.
Maybe he was too busy doing National Service.
CCF at his Public School, more likely. (No idea if other schools even have it now.)
CCF has grown quite rapidly over the last few years.
It doubled from ~250 groups in 2012 to ~500 in 2022, under a project called the Cadet Expansion Programme. The Private Education sector share of groups has fallen from just under 80% to just under 50%.
On topic - TSE is right to point up the above. Very important for those minded to bet on a hung Parliament or to dip their toes into the seats spread betting market.
Does anyone have Facebook by the way? I’m interested to know what’s being pumped out by the Conservative targeting operation to the retired. Particularly interested if you use Facebook and are right-leaning (or move in right leaning circles).
I only see Twitter, which is full of angry millennials, and Instagram for my vineyard which is full of vain millennials. So my exposure to boomer social media where the real electioneering goes on is very limited.
I have an account, though rarely use it.
I logged on earlier to see if there was anything political, but very little other than the usual birthday wishes, holiday snaps, photos of old times and data scraping quizzes about "what animal are you".
My parents use it but they’re in a very unrepresentative vehemently remainer bubble.
@RobDotHutton Cleverly now at the If You Don't Support This You're Against Investing In Young People stage.
It really is desperate stuff . Forcing 18 year olds to volunteer is investing in them .
My daughter has done two lots of volunteering that weren't entirely voluntary.
One as part of the Duke of Edinburgh Awards, and another as part of a university scholarship scheme. Both were a really positive experience for her, but I think she was a bit more diffident when she was younger and wouldn't have done the volunteering without the impetus from the schemes.
Something along those lines, but reaching larger numbers of people, could be a positive thing.
But people are so reflexively anti-Tory that they're now attacking the very idea of encouraging teenagers to volunteer.
Labour should have come up with a policy like this. Something to tap into the desire to help out and to be part of something that was shown when so many people volunteered to help the NHS at the start of the pandemic.
I know people are ridiculing this policy at the moment, but I think it's a good example of the Tories still being better at campaigning than Labour.
She wouldn't be getting half of it if she were a bloke.
I wouldn't say there is a lot of hate, just a lot of people have cottoned on that she is more of a cheerleader for the government than an impartial broadcaster, and she's definitely been outshone by Victoria Derbyshire whenever she takes a Sunday morning off.
+1
Victoria is genuinely brilliant. How on earth the BBC cut her show before is beyond baffling.
Anyone thinking criticism of Kuenssberg is because she’s female needs to reckon with criticism of, to name a few, Owen Williams, Peston, Paul Mason, Piers Morgan…
Yes, Peston in particular attracts an irrational amount of ire. Then you have Andra Neil, and Nick Robinson. Kuenssberg is shit, and gets shit for being shit, but she's got plenty of shit male peers in the same shit boat.
I have being forecasting Tories promising a Referendum on Capital Punishment but didn't really see Compulsory National Service being in there.
It was too stupid to contemplate
Capital punishment would be a very effective wedge issue that could get some votes back, except for one fatal flaw: it would divide the Tory party very visibly.
Will the 18 year olds conscripted into the Army get duty free fags like my Mum and Dad did?
That was the Navy, though, I thought? At least in the UK (the officers were very careful to dump heavily on any rating smuggling tobacco out into the outside world, lest that privilege be rescinded).
I think ther Army only did that overseas? Or on troopships?
It’s almost as though this policy hasn’t been properly thought through and has been written on back of a fag packet (now that cigs aren’t going to be banned)
IANAE but inventing a new policy on the spur of the moment might be a risky game to play.
But it hasn’t been. It has been in development a while. William Hague has been involved in crafting it.
@RobDotHutton Cleverly now at the If You Don't Support This You're Against Investing In Young People stage.
It really is desperate stuff . Forcing 18 year olds to volunteer is investing in them .
My daughter has done two lots of volunteering that weren't entirely voluntary.
One as part of the Duke of Edinburgh Awards, and another as part of a university scholarship scheme. Both were a really positive experience for her, but I think she was a bit more diffident when she was younger and wouldn't have done the volunteering without the impetus from the schemes.
Something along those lines, but reaching larger numbers of people, could be a positive thing.
But people are so reflexively anti-Tory that they're now attacking the very idea of encouraging teenagers to volunteer.
Labour should have come up with a policy like this. Something to tap into the desire to help out and to be part of something that was shown when so many people volunteered to help the NHS at the start of the pandemic.
I know people are ridiculing this policy at the moment, but I think it's a good example of the Tories still being better at campaigning than Labour.
Encouraging teenagers to volunteer is a good idea. This is not encouraging. It is compulsory. It pollutes the idea of volunteering. It overwhelms volunteering opportunities with reluctant recruits.
@RobDotHutton Cleverly now at the If You Don't Support This You're Against Investing In Young People stage.
It really is desperate stuff . Forcing 18 year olds to volunteer is investing in them .
My daughter has done two lots of volunteering that weren't entirely voluntary.
One as part of the Duke of Edinburgh Awards, and another as part of a university scholarship scheme. Both were a really positive experience for her, but I think she was a bit more diffident when she was younger and wouldn't have done the volunteering without the impetus from the schemes.
Something along those lines, but reaching larger numbers of people, could be a positive thing.
But people are so reflexively anti-Tory that they're now attacking the very idea of encouraging teenagers to volunteer.
Labour should have come up with a policy like this. Something to tap into the desire to help out and to be part of something that was shown when so many people volunteered to help the NHS at the start of the pandemic.
I know people are ridiculing this policy at the moment, but I think it's a good example of the Tories still being better at campaigning than Labour.
Encouraging teenagers to volunteer is a good idea. This is not encouraging. It is compulsory. It pollutes the idea of volunteering. It overwhelms volunteering opportunities with reluctant recruits.
It’s compulsory, but with civil penalties not imprisonment for those who refuse. Which means fines. Which means rich families can get out of it.
It’s almost as though this policy hasn’t been properly thought through and has been written on back of a fag packet (now that cigs aren’t going to be banned)
IANAE but inventing a new policy on the spur of the moment might be a risky game to play.
But it hasn’t been. It has been in development a while. William Hague has been involved in crafting it.
She wouldn't be getting half of it if she were a bloke.
That's true, sadly it's true of any female who ever dares to have a public opinion. I don't even believe that she's a Tory stooge, I rather suspect that if SKS becomes PM she'll be a Labour stooge.
Nah wait a sec. There are some great female commentators but she hasn’t had a good month. Her infamous post about the London mayoral was so off-beam and highly misleading, including for punters.
For obvious reasons I’ll defend females in any and all positions of responsibility and leadership but part of that means we have to keep up good and professional standards. We can’t let sloppy journalism pass just because she’s one of us. Laura hasn’t had a good month.
(and Beth and Sophy did a vg job during the announcement)
I didn't say that she was any good as a journalist, but there's plenty of male journalists that are equally poor but don't get the same abuse.
And Pesto makes frequent wild errors but doesn’t get the same opprobrium
@RobDotHutton Cleverly now at the If You Don't Support This You're Against Investing In Young People stage.
It really is desperate stuff . Forcing 18 year olds to volunteer is investing in them .
My daughter has done two lots of volunteering that weren't entirely voluntary.
One as part of the Duke of Edinburgh Awards, and another as part of a university scholarship scheme. Both were a really positive experience for her, but I think she was a bit more diffident when she was younger and wouldn't have done the volunteering without the impetus from the schemes.
Something along those lines, but reaching larger numbers of people, could be a positive thing.
But people are so reflexively anti-Tory that they're now attacking the very idea of encouraging teenagers to volunteer.
Labour should have come up with a policy like this. Something to tap into the desire to help out and to be part of something that was shown when so many people volunteered to help the NHS at the start of the pandemic.
I know people are ridiculing this policy at the moment, but I think it's a good example of the Tories still being better at campaigning than Labour.
Encouraging youngsters (or indeed anyone) to volunteer is a good thing. Giving young people a chance to learn new skills while also benefitting the community is a good thing. Conscription introduced without any actual plan is not the same thing.
I think that’s where I sit, and I do think the policy has the wrong emphasis. In time I will be fascinated to learn the backstory to this - was it focus grouped or just back of a fag packet?
@DPJHodges Still trying to come to terms with the fact the Tories actually decided to make a policy of forcing voter’s children into compulsory military service their first major offer of the 2024 election campaign. Not only is it bonkers in itself. It raises the question “if we give these people 5 more years what other mad s**t will they come up with”.
In the US, drug firms, including Bayer, Baxter and Armour, accused of selling infected product agreed a $640m settlement for haemophiliacs in August 1996. These drug firms and others were also required to contribute to a settlement package established in Germany in July 1995.
The prospects of pharmaceutical firms agreeing similar payouts to victims in the UK were undermined by the insistence for years by ministers and officials that patients were given the “best available treatment”. Langstaff found this claim was wrong and the treatment disaster could largely have been avoided...
I’m all in favour of young people volunteering in public service activities. However, as somebody, many of whose friends actually did the ‘old’ National Service, I’m totally against the suggestion of a compulsory year in the military if you don’t! While some of those friends came back with stories of comradeship, many also came back with tales of bullying and boredom. Interestingly, the Navy, very soon after 1950, set its face very firmly against taking conscripts.
One thing that I haven't sen mentioned about national service is immigration. In most European countries that have a form of national service, immigrants to the country need to complete national service before qualifying for citizenship. With an upper bound of 35-40 years old I believe. I have a hunch this could be a popular element to the policy in fairly large parts of the electorate, so am surprised to see the conservatives not make any links.
In other words, it's really important to keep your opponents divided, rather than having them all train their fire on you. The hegemonies of Thatcher and Blair were driven by the other lot being beyond the pale.
A lesson that the Corbynites never learned, and Team Rishi seems to have missed that lesson as well.
Maybe he was too busy doing National Service.
CCF at his Public School, more likely. (No idea if other schools even have it now.)
Winchester CCF might have played a part but it looks like a Cameron-era policy, and as it happens, Cameron is back in the Cabinet. Eton CCF maybe? If Casino_Royale is right, this is a policy for shitposting not implementing, Rishi's £350 million on the side of a bus.
No teenager in their right mind is going to sign up for the armed forces for a year, so that leaves 700k bored, bundles of energy and hormones all volunteering for the sectors of public service that are on their arse. The "glamorous" bits, like maybe the Fire Service, RNLI, NHS and Police all don't have enough staff to do the jobs they're supposed to do, let alone keep unpaid volunteers meaningfully busy. They'll just get in the way. If it was full on National Service in the armed forces, then it's still a wank idea, but would make more sense than this half arsed civic duty bollocks. The Tories have spent 14 years destroying the country and now want the kids to fix it for free. How can anyone sane vote Tory? You want this lot back in again?
She wouldn't be getting half of it if she were a bloke.
I wouldn't say there is a lot of hate, just a lot of people have cottoned on that she is more of a cheerleader for the government than an impartial broadcaster, and she's definitely been outshone by Victoria Derbyshire whenever she takes a Sunday morning off.
+1
Victoria is genuinely brilliant. How on earth the BBC cut her show before is beyond baffling.
Anyone thinking criticism of Kuenssberg is because she’s female needs to reckon with criticism of, to name a few, Owen Williams, Peston, Paul Mason, Piers Morgan…
Yes, Peston in particular attracts an irrational amount of ire. Then you have Andra Neil, and Nick Robinson. Kuenssberg is shit, and gets shit for being shit, but she's got plenty of shit male peers in the same shit boat.
Sure, but Andrew Neil would always give the Tory politicians the same amount of stick as the Labour politicians, whatever his views. Whereas Kuenssberg always plays softball with the government.
Put it this way Boris Johnson never ran away from a Laura K interview.
Sunday Rawnsley The defining image of the last general election was Boris Johnson driving a digger emblazoned with “Get Brexit Done” through a fake wall made of polystyrene bricks. This proved to be a presentiment that he was about to demolish a load of Labour seats before going on to do the same to standards in public life.
Rishi Sunak made an early bid to provide the enduring visual metaphor of campaign 2024 when he presented his hunched and drenched back to the cameras after making his announcement on Downing Street. I have never seen, and I’ve witnessed quite a lot of them, a prime minister launch their appeal for re-election in such a dismal fashion. Even incumbents who know in their bones that they are fated to lose usually manage to invest the moment with some authority and dignity. Mr Sunak resembled a drowned ferret during a speech that was rendered near inaudible because he proved unequal to the fight with pelting rain and a protester’s boom box blasting out New Labour’s 1997 victory anthem. Every wag at Westminster chortled: “Things can only get wetter”. If your central electoral pitch is that you are the man with a plan, best to have someone on your staff who knows how to erect a covering or hold an umbrella.
In other words, it's really important to keep your opponents divided, rather than having them all train their fire on you. The hegemonies of Thatcher and Blair were driven by the other lot being beyond the pale.
A lesson that the Corbynites never learned, and Team Rishi seems to have missed that lesson as well.
Maybe he was too busy doing National Service.
CCF at his Public School, more likely. (No idea if other schools even have it now.)
Winchester CCF might have played a part but it looks like a Cameron-era policy, and as it happens, Cameron is back in the Cabinet. Eton CCF maybe? If Casino_Royale is right, this is a policy for shitposting not implementing, Rishi's £350 million on the side of a bus.
Cameron’s National Civil Service scheme exists, but everybody forgets it exists because it’s been so inconsequential.
She wouldn't be getting half of it if she were a bloke.
Nick Robinson was a bloke and he was lambasted on here as Toenails for his pro-Labour bias, at least until David Cameron tried to recruit Robinson who had been a Conservative even at Oxford.
In other words, it's really important to keep your opponents divided, rather than having them all train their fire on you. The hegemonies of Thatcher and Blair were driven by the other lot being beyond the pale.
A lesson that the Corbynites never learned, and Team Rishi seems to have missed that lesson as well.
Maybe he was too busy doing National Service.
CCF at his Public School, more likely. (No idea if other schools even have it now.)
Winchester CCF might have played a part but it looks like a Cameron-era policy, and as it happens, Cameron is back in the Cabinet. Eton CCF maybe? If Casino_Royale is right, this is a policy for shitposting not implementing, Rishi's £350 million on the side of a bus.
Of course, yes, you may be right. It's also worth remembering that schools like that have the staff, facilities and money as well as the total control over time to make children do this and that, at least for a set minimum period - compulsory CCF, compulsory voluntary service eg in local mental hospital, compulsory DoE or similar, and so on and so forth, with the option to do more if wished. Partly for genuine paedogogical reasons and partly cos it looks good on the CV for the next stage in life.
It's possible to interpret the current Tory proposal as a panic-stricken cut'n'pasta of this model over into the outside world beyond St Cake's.
Rishi's apparently genuine National Service announcement has finally given me a reason to vote Labour. Keeping Labour out is now less important to me than stopping the Tories.
Thing is, I am pretty receptive to the idea that our military is far less than it needs to be. But this doesn't strike me as a massively helpful solution to the problem.
It's like the maths to 18 policy. I'm receptive to the argument that as a nation we are insufficiently numerate. I'm a maths fan. But what we need is a) better basic maths education to 16, and b) encouragement for those so inclined to take it further than 18.
Like this, the national service policy is a bafflingly stupid solution to a valid problem. But at least the maths to 18 argument isn't going to needlessly ruin long periods of my kids' childhoods.
On topic - TSE is right to point up the above. Very important for those minded to bet on a hung Parliament or to dip their toes into the seats spread betting market.
As a data geek and gambler I think it is important I show my workings.
Data is good as it gives more reassurance than basing it on a bloke I spoke to on train.
A night's sleep has not made me rethink how ridiculous the national service proposal is. Even if the idea has potential merit this is not the way to drop it into the mix, you'd need a lot popularity and good will to convince people.
It's way worse than May's dementia tax. That was supported by more people and was to address a need the public accepted whereas even if for sake of argument we do need more soldiers and volunteers, the public are not by and large accepting of that.
It's presentation needed to be detailed, not dropped overnight, and it seems toxic already.
I don't go in for extravagant predictions, but I now think 150 seats is a highpoint for the Tories after this. Utter destruction is now more likely than not.
No teenager in their right mind is going to sign up for the armed forces for a year, so that leaves 700k bored, bundles of energy and hormones all volunteering for the sectors of public service that are on their arse. The "glamorous" bits, like maybe the Fire Service, RNLI, NHS and Police all don't have enough staff to do the jobs they're supposed to do, let alone keep unpaid volunteers meaningfully busy. They'll just get in the way. If it was full on National Service in the armed forces, then it's still a wank idea, but would make more sense than this half arsed civic duty bollocks. The Tories have spent 14 years destroying the country and now want the kids to fix it for free. How can anyone sane vote Tory? You want this lot back in again?
Forcing young lads to go help out old folk in their homes should create a lot of work for the police volunteers tracking down the fencing of stolen goods.
It's going to be a brilliant work creation scheme.
She wouldn't be getting half of it if she were a bloke.
Nick Robinson was a bloke and he was lambasted on here as Toenails for his pro-Labour bias, at least until David Cameron tried to recruit Robinson who had been a Conservative even at Oxford.
I think all political editors have somewhat of a pro-government bias. The government is doing the governing, so comes under the most scrutiny/public criticism. So there is a bit of a correction in behaviour to try to demonstrate “balance.”
The issue I have had with Kuenssberg is that she has on many occasions seemed to reel off, uncritically, the party line without really delving into it or providing any insight.
@RobDotHutton Cleverly now at the If You Don't Support This You're Against Investing In Young People stage.
It really is desperate stuff . Forcing 18 year olds to volunteer is investing in them .
My daughter has done two lots of volunteering that weren't entirely voluntary.
One as part of the Duke of Edinburgh Awards, and another as part of a university scholarship scheme. Both were a really positive experience for her, but I think she was a bit more diffident when she was younger and wouldn't have done the volunteering without the impetus from the schemes.
Something along those lines, but reaching larger numbers of people, could be a positive thing.
But people are so reflexively anti-Tory that they're now attacking the very idea of encouraging teenagers to volunteer.
Labour should have come up with a policy like this. Something to tap into the desire to help out and to be part of something that was shown when so many people volunteered to help the NHS at the start of the pandemic.
I know people are ridiculing this policy at the moment, but I think it's a good example of the Tories still being better at campaigning than Labour.
Encouraging teenagers to volunteer is a good idea. This is not encouraging. It is compulsory. It pollutes the idea of volunteering. It overwhelms volunteering opportunities with reluctant recruits.
It’s compulsory, but with civil penalties not imprisonment for those who refuse. Which means fines. Which means rich families can get out of it.
Ors exemptions for those attending Winchester etc.? (which would probably qualify in large part already and need only some tweaking.)
A night's sleep has not made me rethink how ridiculous the national service proposal is. Even if the idea has potential merit this is not the way to drop it into the mix, you'd need a lot popularity and good will to convince people.
It's way worse than May's dementia tax. That was supported by more people and was to address a need the public accepted whereas even if for sake of argument we do need more soldiers and volunteers, the public are not by and large accepting of that.
It's presentation needed to be detailed, not dropped overnight, and it seems toxic already.
I don't go in for extravagant predictions, but I now think 150 seats is a highpoint for the Tories after this. Utter destruction is now more likely than not.
The disparity around 2001 is a strong indictment of fptp
The fact that it used to be a bias in favour of Labour in the Blair years suggests to me that there isn't really a bias against either party, but rather a bias against parties relying on their core vote only.
So appealing to the political centre ground not only appeals to floating voters but also flips the bias in the FPTP system in your own parties favour.
It wouldn't surprise me at all to see a bias in favour of Labour showing on that Cat graph on July 5th.
I had never thought about it like that, but that’s a really good thing
One of the major concerns I have about PR (worst with list systems, like Israel, but all with challenges) is the fissiparous influence of the system reinforcing atomisation of our society.
Rishi's apparently genuine National Service announcement has finally given me a reason to vote Labour. Keeping Labour out is now less important to me than stopping the Tories.
Thing is, I am pretty receptive to the idea that our military is far less than it needs to be. But this doesn't strike me as a massively helpful solution to the problem.
It's like the maths to 18 policy. I'm receptive to the argument that as a nation we are insufficiently numerate. I'm a maths fan. But what we need is a) better basic maths education to 16, and b) encouragement for those so inclined to take it further than 18.
Like this, the national service policy is a bafflingly stupid solution to a valid problem. But at least the maths to 18 argument isn't going to needlessly ruin long periods of my kids' childhoods.
Yes, every policy you have to ask what is the problem identified, is it in fact a problem, does the policy actually address the problem, and does it have any negative consequences which would affect if its worth it.
No teenager in their right mind is going to sign up for the armed forces for a year, so that leaves 700k bored, bundles of energy and hormones all volunteering for the sectors of public service that are on their arse. The "glamorous" bits, like maybe the Fire Service, RNLI, NHS and Police all don't have enough staff to do the jobs they're supposed to do, let alone keep unpaid volunteers meaningfully busy. They'll just get in the way. If it was full on National Service in the armed forces, then it's still a wank idea, but would make more sense than this half arsed civic duty bollocks. The Tories have spent 14 years destroying the country and now want the kids to fix it for free. How can anyone sane vote Tory? You want this lot back in again?
Forcing young lads to go help out old folk in their homes should create a lot of work for the police volunteers tracking down the fencing of stolen goods.
It's going to be a brilliant work creation scheme.
How sad you have such little confidence in our young people.
She wouldn't be getting half of it if she were a bloke.
I wouldn't say there is a lot of hate, just a lot of people have cottoned on that she is more of a cheerleader for the government than an impartial broadcaster, and she's definitely been outshone by Victoria Derbyshire whenever she takes a Sunday morning off.
+1
Victoria is genuinely brilliant. How on earth the BBC cut her show before is beyond baffling.
Anyone thinking criticism of Kuenssberg is because she’s female needs to reckon with criticism of, to name a few, Owen Williams, Peston, Paul Mason, Piers Morgan…
Yes, Peston in particular attracts an irrational amount of ire. Then you have Andra Neil, and Nick Robinson. Kuenssberg is shit, and gets shit for being shit, but she's got plenty of shit male peers in the same shit boat.
Sure, but Andrew Neil would always give the Tory politicians the same amount of stick as the Labour politicians, whatever his views. Whereas Kuenssberg always plays softball with the government.
Put it this way Boris Johnson never ran away from a Laura K interview.
Neil gets shit more from the Scottish Nationalist side for perceived pro-Union bias. And like most of these cases, I think there's truth wrapped up in exaggeration. Kuenssberg, Robinson, Peston, Williams, Morgan, Neil... they each have problems of one type or another.
Comments
It might get the votes of a few oldies.
James Cleverly immediately rows back on the compulsory nature of the National Service idea
No criminal sanction if people don’t want to do it, he tells Sky
@rafaelbehr
So they've u-turned already or they lied in the press briefing?
@jonsopel
It’s almost as though this policy hasn’t been properly thought through and has been written on back of a fag packet (now that cigs aren’t going to be banned)
Victoria is genuinely brilliant. How on earth the BBC cut her show before is beyond baffling.
I chuckled.
I only see Twitter, which is full of angry millennials, and Instagram for my vineyard which is full of vain millennials. So my exposure to boomer social media where the real electioneering goes on is very limited.
I will just add that having James Cleverly make up the answers to some of them as he goes on live TV might not have been the best idea
I have stroked lazy Larry.
One as part of the Duke of Edinburgh Awards, and another as part of a university scholarship scheme. Both were a really positive experience for her, but I think she was a bit more diffident when she was younger and wouldn't have done the volunteering without the impetus from the schemes.
Something along those lines, but reaching larger numbers of people, could be a positive thing.
But people are so reflexively anti-Tory that they're now attacking the very idea of encouraging teenagers to volunteer.
Labour should have come up with a policy like this. Something to tap into the desire to help out and to be part of something that was shown when so many people volunteered to help the NHS at the start of the pandemic.
I know people are ridiculing this policy at the moment, but I think it's a good example of the Tories still being better at campaigning than Labour.
Improving our defence does not necessitate getting a bunch of teenagers to hang around the army for a year.
Investing in drone technology and cyber warfare might be a better use of money given we aren't living in 1790.
If you are under 18 you cannot vote.
And no I don't think it's a good policy but majority in my age group probably do.
How tight is the affinity really in age groups?
Someone below said their sons mates will be motivated to vote now. It interests me why, because they are anti National Service as a concept? That's fair enough if so, but they won't be personally affected of course so it ought not be that..... its interesting as to how all this factors into VI
Let me guess, our PB Tory in Hampshire?
I’d just love to see a real in-depth thread about how many people really are a) aware of it and b) going to vote accordingly
As with many other factors in this election it could make a big difference. And that matters when we’re putting our money on the line.
This isn't conscription. It's a form of mandatory service when you turn eighteen, and you can either do social service, emergency services, or environmental service, and 12 months in the military or cyber security - neither of which would be for front line combat - is just one of the options.
I have no problem it nor am I worried about what it means for him.
Could we perhaps reintroduce rationing? (Obviously only for working class types tho)
I am so pleased about that. I have a great bet on that at long odds.
I logged on earlier to see if there was anything political, but very little other than the usual birthday wishes, holiday snaps, photos of old times and data scraping quizzes about "what animal are you".
It doubled from ~250 groups in 2012 to ~500 in 2022, under a project called the Cadet Expansion Programme. The Private Education sector share of groups has fallen from just under 80% to just under 50%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Cadet_Force
"We've already had a bit of a Thick of It-style election campaign launch from the Conservatives."
Labour peer @ayeshahazarika says the Tories' plans for mandatory National Service "smacks [of] real desperation".
https://x.com/SkyNews/status/1794641500384469055
Then you have Andra Neil, and Nick Robinson. Kuenssberg is shit, and gets shit for being shit, but she's got plenty of shit male peers in the same shit boat.
I think ther Army only did that overseas? Or on troopships?
Bloody hell. I’m stunned.
Almost as stunned as Nicky Morgan saying the PM had a good week last week.
Still trying to come to terms with the fact the Tories actually decided to make a policy of forcing voter’s children into compulsory military service their first major offer of the 2024 election campaign. Not only is it bonkers in itself. It raises the question “if we give these people 5 more years what other mad s**t will they come up with”.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/may/26/infected-blood-scandal-call-for-drug-firms-to-pay-part-of-10bn-compensation
...In March 1996 in Japan, drug firm executives involved in the global blood scandal were pictured in newspapers bowing on their knees to haemophiliacs who had filed lawsuits that led to a settlement. The firms, including subsidiaries of drug giants Bayer and Baxter, agreed to pay 60% of a settlement worth up to $810m, with payments of $450,000 for each person infected with HIV.
In the US, drug firms, including Bayer, Baxter and Armour, accused of selling infected product agreed a $640m settlement for haemophiliacs in August 1996. These drug firms and others were also required to contribute to a settlement package established in Germany in July 1995.
The prospects of pharmaceutical firms agreeing similar payouts to victims in the UK were undermined by the insistence for years by ministers and officials that patients were given the “best available treatment”. Langstaff found this claim was wrong and the treatment disaster could largely have been avoided...
I’m all in favour of young people volunteering in public service activities. However, as somebody, many of whose friends actually did the ‘old’ National Service, I’m totally against the suggestion of a compulsory year in the military if you don’t!
While some of those friends came back with stories of comradeship, many also came back with tales of bullying and boredom.
Interestingly, the Navy, very soon after 1950, set its face very firmly against taking conscripts.
"There's going to be no criminal sanctions," Home Secretary James Cleverly tells Sky News.
*BUT*
"We are going to compel people to do this."
@Samfr
Please can all interviewers focus on this bizarre bit of illogic until we get an answer? What are they going to do - fine them?
Give them community service for not doing their community service?
I have a hunch this could be a popular element to the policy in fairly large parts of the electorate, so am surprised to see the conservatives not make any links.
Next week: army to be moved “oop north” ©️James Hacker
I’m not totally sure I’m joking
If it was full on National Service in the armed forces, then it's still a wank idea, but would make more sense than this half arsed civic duty bollocks.
The Tories have spent 14 years destroying the country and now want the kids to fix it for free.
How can anyone sane vote Tory? You want this lot back in again?
Why not fly all 18 year olds to Rwanda for six months?
We’ve paid for the accommodation anyway.
Put it this way Boris Johnson never ran away from a Laura K interview.
The defining image of the last general election was Boris Johnson driving a digger emblazoned with “Get Brexit Done” through a fake wall made of polystyrene bricks. This proved to be a presentiment that he was about to demolish a load of Labour seats before going on to do the same to standards in public life.
Rishi Sunak made an early bid to provide the enduring visual metaphor of campaign 2024 when he presented his hunched and drenched back to the cameras after making his announcement on Downing Street. I have never seen, and I’ve witnessed quite a lot of them, a prime minister launch their appeal for re-election in such a dismal fashion. Even incumbents who know in their bones that they are fated to lose usually manage to invest the moment with some authority and dignity. Mr Sunak resembled a drowned ferret during a speech that was rendered near inaudible because he proved unequal to the fight with pelting rain and a protester’s boom box blasting out New Labour’s 1997 victory anthem. Every wag at Westminster chortled: “Things can only get wetter”. If your central electoral pitch is that you are the man with a plan, best to have someone on your staff who knows how to erect a covering or hold an umbrella.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/26/rishi-sunak-summer-election-gamble-is-already-backfiring-on-the-tory-leader
It's possible to interpret the current Tory proposal as a panic-stricken cut'n'pasta of this model over into the outside world beyond St Cake's.
https://x.com/henrymance/status/1794040625102286862?s=61
Thing is, I am pretty receptive to the idea that our military is far less than it needs to be. But this doesn't strike me as a massively helpful solution to the problem.
It's like the maths to 18 policy. I'm receptive to the argument that as a nation we are insufficiently numerate. I'm a maths fan. But what we need is a) better basic maths education to 16, and b) encouragement for those so inclined to take it further than 18.
Like this, the national service policy is a bafflingly stupid solution to a valid problem. But at least the maths to 18 argument isn't going to needlessly ruin long periods of my kids' childhoods.
Data is good as it gives more reassurance than basing it on a bloke I spoke to on train.
It's way worse than May's dementia tax. That was supported by more people and was to address a need the public accepted whereas even if for sake of argument we do need more soldiers and volunteers, the public are not by and large accepting of that.
It's presentation needed to be detailed, not dropped overnight, and it seems toxic already.
I don't go in for extravagant predictions, but I now think 150 seats is a highpoint for the Tories after this. Utter destruction is now more likely than not.
It's going to be a brilliant work creation scheme.
The issue I have had with Kuenssberg is that she has on many occasions seemed to reel off, uncritically, the party line without really delving into it or providing any insight.
She’s certainly improved over the last few years .
One of the major concerns I have about PR (worst with list systems, like Israel, but all with challenges) is the fissiparous influence of the system reinforcing atomisation of our society.
This doesn't get passed the third question.
And like most of these cases, I think there's truth wrapped up in exaggeration. Kuenssberg, Robinson, Peston, Williams, Morgan, Neil... they each have problems of one type or another.