See. The danger I worry about is that this is going to turn into blind fury against the older generation. Jibes about bone idleness from folk who haven't worked in 25 years are contributing. And to demand "punishment". They may end up a lot worse off than they'd imagined.
They wont be.
Labour's already promising to increase the spending on the oldies.
While anyone doing GCSE's this year will get increased tuition fees if they go to university.
The increased tuition fees will be a reality, the 'forced labour' a hypothetical.
And a reality that teenagers today will be paying decades after talk of national service are long forgotten.
We’ve had a period of high inflation, in part because of Tory misrule. Universities’ costs have increased. They therefore need more income. If that doesn’t come from an inflation-linked rise in tuition fees, where does it come from?
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
Because these people are adults. Many of whom have responsibilities and aspirations that aren't best served by the government telling them what they have to do for 25 days a year - and it's not education, it's forced labour. You don't get a useful qualification (unless you're planning to join a related service - in which case you might volunteer for a voluntary scheme) at the end of it.
If for, example, you study full-time at college but need to work weekends to help pay your way at home or the rent, then it's a massive inconvenience. If you're caring for a parent, brother or sister, or your own child it is too. Or volunteer for valuable things that don't qualify or are looking to do to further your professional skills in a specific area.
It's also an insult because younger generations have been made poorer and had rights taken away by their elders, who now want to make their lives even harder because of their creepy World War 2 fetish and failure to come to terms with how feckless and selfish they have been themselves.
Seeing as you're not against forcing into work that makes their lives harder but provides an education and sense of community. How about we do National Service but for pensioners who own their own home? They can work the second jobs many young people have to to afford rent in such the inflated property market they benefited from.
Oh. Thought not.
Oh please. If we need to create an exemption system for those caring for a relative or doing other, genuine volunteer work, then we can make that part of a scheme. I bet it is less than 2% of the 18 year old population.
And the reason why it makes sense to do it for this group is because the primary benefit of doing it is equipping people for the lives ahead of them. Therefore it makes sense to do it with people entering the workforce, not those who have left it. Too many British people lack a real work ethic or sense of service and I am glad Sunak is a politician actually willing to do something about it.
As for house and rental prices, that is overwhelmingly driven by the population growing far more quickly than construction can keep up. The best approach to that is to limit immigration to those who contribute more than they cost the system. The only PM that has actually done anything about that is Sunak, with meaningful income thresholds and limits on student dependents.
Equip them in the vital skill of fruit picking? Teach them the ethic that work doesn't pay and you have no control?
Surely the first step is to decide what skills they should acquire by their compulsory volunteering, and how on earth it stimulates a work ethic.
Don't conscript them first then wonder what you are going to do with them. That will just teach them to skive off.
Wasn’t the ‘keep your head down, never volunteer for anything’ culture the principal product of national service the last time around?
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.
What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.
If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.
One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.
The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)
But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.
In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.
Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
Not inflicting forced labour on 18 year-olds seems a pretty realistic alternative to me.
You modernise and reform what is actually happening.
Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.
Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.
Forced labour for 18 year-olds is not currently happening. It will happen if the Tories are returned to power. So saying you won’t do it is a very realistic alternative.
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.
What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.
If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.
One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.
The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)
But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.
In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.
Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
Not inflicting forced labour on 18 year-olds seems a pretty realistic alternative to me.
You modernise and reform what is actually happening.
Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.
Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.
Forced labour for 18 year-olds is not currently happening. It will happen if the Tories are returned to power. So saying you won’t do it is a very realistic alternative.
Utterly absurd misrepresentation.
How would you represent it ?
It's not "forced labour" and it's absurd to suggest it is, anymore than compulsory education to the age of 18 is "forced labour".
"Forced labour" is exactly what it is. Why pretend otherwise?
Absolute nonsense.
If the policy is to be seen as 'forced labour', does that term also apply to other countries that run similar schemes?
Goodness me, I'm not a fan of the triple lock as it is but the reaction I saw on here last night to keeping the state pension out of income tax was borderline hysterical. Hair-trigger reactions within seconds, which will no doubt be repeated with the next Tory policy that's announced.
Get a grip people.
Call it what it actually is - the exempt pensioners (and no one else) from our fiscal drag stealth tax policy.
..Under the plans, the personal allowance for pensioners will increase at least 2.5% or in line with the highest of earnings or inflation. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said the scheme "shows we are on the side of pensioners,".. and against everyone else.
You're not familiar with the story of the straw and the camel ?
My first reaction was that it was a piss take (by someone else other than Sunak).
It does make sense to keep the Personal Allwance at or above the State Pension, for the sake of simplicity, but that should really apply to everyone.
[rest snipped]
Does it (sort of) already apply to everyone? Are other benefits subject to income tax?
It turns out some benefits are taxable and others are not. From the government's website:-
The most common benefits that you pay Income Tax on are:
Goodness me, I'm not a fan of the triple lock as it is but the reaction I saw on here last night to keeping the state pension out of income tax was borderline hysterical. Hair-trigger reactions within seconds, which will no doubt be repeated with the next Tory policy that's announced.
Get a grip people.
Call it what it actually is - the exempt pensioners (and no one else) from our fiscal drag stealth tax policy.
..Under the plans, the personal allowance for pensioners will increase at least 2.5% or in line with the highest of earnings or inflation. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said the scheme "shows we are on the side of pensioners,".. and against everyone else.
You're not familiar with the story of the straw and the camel ?
My first reaction was that it was a piss take (by someone else other than Sunak).
It does make sense to keep the Personal Allwance at or above the State Pension, for the sake of simplicity, but that should really apply to everyone.
[rest snipped]
Does it (sort of) already apply to everyone? Are other benefits subject to income tax?
It turns out some benefits are taxable and others are not. From the government's website:-
The most common benefits that you pay Income Tax on are:
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.
What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.
If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.
One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.
The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)
But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.
In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.
Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
Not inflicting forced labour on 18 year-olds seems a pretty realistic alternative to me.
You modernise and reform what is actually happening.
Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.
Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.
Forced labour for 18 year-olds is not currently happening. It will happen if the Tories are returned to power. So saying you won’t do it is a very realistic alternative.
Utterly absurd misrepresentation.
How would you represent it ?
It's not "forced labour" and it's absurd to suggest it is, anymore than compulsory education to the age of 18 is "forced labour".
Being compelled by law to work without pay is forced labour.
“Rishi Sunak is planning to reward Britain’s pensioners for their loyalty by stabbing them in the back, just like he did to Boris Johnson and just like he has done to his own MPs.”
Actually, Labour seems to be attacking the proposed NI cuts on the basis of their putative link to pensions. Clever politics, perhaps, even though everyone knows it is largely a government fiction that pensions are paid from NI.
I see that the Pope has been caught out making a derogatory remark about homosexuals. The term ‘frociaggione’ roughly translates as ‘faggots’. He’s still not prepared to permit gay priests (even though there are thousands of them) or married priests, but leaves other priests free to abuse children. And if you think this is a problem only for the RC’s, the Church of England has still tied itself in absurd knots on the issue. Bear this in mind next time you drag their antediluvian beliefs into support against trans rights. Any doctrine based on the nonsense that man was created from a woman’s spare rib in the image of a God (who most believers deep down still think has a penis) should be given short shrift. If you have pages written by bigoted old men, you’ll get a god in that image.
The Church has been on the wrong side of just about every piece of human progress, often in particularly nasty ways.
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
Because these people are adults. Many of whom have responsibilities and aspirations that aren't best served by the government telling them what they have to do for 25 days a year - and it's not education, it's forced labour. You don't get a useful qualification (unless you're planning to join a related service - in which case you might volunteer for a voluntary scheme) at the end of it.
If for, example, you study full-time at college but need to work weekends to help pay your way at home or the rent, then it's a massive inconvenience. If you're caring for a parent, brother or sister, or your own child it is too. Or volunteer for valuable things that don't qualify or are looking to do to further your professional skills in a specific area.
It's also an insult because younger generations have been made poorer and had rights taken away by their elders, who now want to make their lives even harder because of their creepy World War 2 fetish and failure to come to terms with how feckless and selfish they have been themselves.
Seeing as you're not against forcing into work that makes their lives harder but provides an education and sense of community. How about we do National Service but for pensioners who own their own home? They can work the second jobs many young people have to to afford rent in such the inflated property market they benefited from.
Oh. Thought not.
Oh please. If we need to create an exemption system for those caring for a relative or doing other, genuine volunteer work, then we can make that part of a scheme. I bet it is less than 2% of the 18 year old population.
And the reason why it makes sense to do it for this group is because the primary benefit of doing it is equipping people for the lives ahead of them. Therefore it makes sense to do it with people entering the workforce, not those who have left it. Too many British people lack a real work ethic or sense of service and I am glad Sunak is a politician actually willing to do something about it.
As for house and rental prices, that is overwhelmingly driven by the population growing far more quickly than construction can keep up. The best approach to that is to limit immigration to those who contribute more than they cost the system. The only PM that has actually done anything about that is Sunak, with meaningful income thresholds and limits on student dependents.
Equip them in the vital skill of fruit picking? Teach them the ethic that work doesn't pay and you have no control?
Surely the first step is to decide what skills they should acquire by their compulsory volunteering, and how on earth it stimulates a work ethic.
Don't conscript them first then wonder what you are going to do with them. That will just teach them to skive off.
Wasn’t the ‘keep your head down, never volunteer for anything’ culture the principal product of national service the last time around?
If my Dad was anything to go by I should a culture of resenting and obstructing authority was very much inculcated by The Army.
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.
What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.
If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.
One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.
The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)
But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.
In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.
Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
Not inflicting forced labour on 18 year-olds seems a pretty realistic alternative to me.
You modernise and reform what is actually happening.
Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.
Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.
Forced labour for 18 year-olds is not currently happening. It will happen if the Tories are returned to power. So saying you won’t do it is a very realistic alternative.
Utterly absurd misrepresentation.
How would you represent it ?
It's not "forced labour" and it's absurd to suggest it is, anymore than compulsory education to the age of 18 is "forced labour".
Being compelled by law to work without pay is forced labour.
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.
What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.
If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.
One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.
The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)
But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.
In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.
Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
Not inflicting forced labour on 18 year-olds seems a pretty realistic alternative to me.
You modernise and reform what is actually happening.
Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.
Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.
Forced labour for 18 year-olds is not currently happening. It will happen if the Tories are returned to power. So saying you won’t do it is a very realistic alternative.
Utterly absurd misrepresentation.
How would you represent it ?
It's not "forced labour" and it's absurd to suggest it is, anymore than compulsory education to the age of 18 is "forced labour".
"Forced labour" is exactly what it is. Why pretend otherwise?
Absolute nonsense.
If the policy is to be seen as 'forced labour', does that term also apply to other countries that run similar schemes?
Which other countries force 18 year-olds to work for free without it being part of a wider package of benefits, such as free university education (or much lower tuition fees), generous welfare provisions for young people, the right to live, work and study in multiple countries etc etc? Comparing what the government is proposing to what happens in other countries, without looking at the wider context of what those countries’ schemes are part of is nonsensical.
I see that the Pope has been caught out making a derogatory remark about homosexuals. The term ‘frociaggione’ roughly translates as ‘faggots’. He’s still not prepared to permit gay priests (even though there are thousands of them) or married priests, but leaves other priests free to abuse children. And if you think this is a problem only for the RC’s, the Church of England has still tied itself in absurd knots on the issue. Bear this in mind next time you drag their antediluvian beliefs into support against trans rights. Any doctrine based on the nonsense that man was created from a woman’s spare rib in the image of a God (who most believers deep down still think has a penis) should be given short shrift. If you have pages written by bigoted old men, you’ll get a god in that image.
The Church has been on the wrong side of just about every piece of human progress, often in particularly nasty ways.
Our Canadian daughter in law is travelling to London today and flies to Vancouver tomorrow whilst our son spends a couple of weeks more with us
All Llandudno Junction to Euston trains have been cancelled today due to crew shortages leaving her with no option but take the Manchester Airport train to Chester, then a train to Crewe, then to Euston arriving much later and missing an appointment she had in London today
The railways are truly broken and is Starmer just going to concede all ASLEF's demands reinforcing the view that the unions are holding our railways to ransom
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.
What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.
If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.
One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.
The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)
But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.
In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.
Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
Not inflicting forced labour on 18 year-olds seems a pretty realistic alternative to me.
You modernise and reform what is actually happening.
Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.
Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.
Forced labour for 18 year-olds is not currently happening. It will happen if the Tories are returned to power. So saying you won’t do it is a very realistic alternative.
Utterly absurd misrepresentation.
How would you represent it ?
It's not "forced labour" and it's absurd to suggest it is, anymore than compulsory education to the age of 18 is "forced labour".
Being compelled by law to work without pay is forced labour.
Whether paid or not it is still forced labour.
Yes, that’s fair. The government is proposing forced, unpaid labour.
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.
What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.
If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.
One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.
The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)
But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.
In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.
Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
Not inflicting forced labour on 18 year-olds seems a pretty realistic alternative to me.
You modernise and reform what is actually happening.
Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.
Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.
Forced labour for 18 year-olds is not currently happening. It will happen if the Tories are returned to power. So saying you won’t do it is a very realistic alternative.
Utterly absurd misrepresentation.
Exactly
Good luck getting any work out of an 18 year old.
This kind of youth-bashing by older folk is appalling.
Unfortunately hatred is surfacing during this campaign, and we’ve still got c. 5 weeks to go.
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.
What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.
If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.
One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.
The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)
But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.
In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.
Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
Not inflicting forced labour on 18 year-olds seems a pretty realistic alternative to me.
You modernise and reform what is actually happening.
Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.
Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.
Forced labour for 18 year-olds is not currently happening. It will happen if the Tories are returned to power. So saying you won’t do it is a very realistic alternative.
Utterly absurd misrepresentation.
How would you represent it ?
It's not "forced labour" and it's absurd to suggest it is, anymore than compulsory education to the age of 18 is "forced labour".
"Forced labour" is exactly what it is. Why pretend otherwise?
Absolute nonsense.
If the policy is to be seen as 'forced labour', does that term also apply to other countries that run similar schemes?
Which other countries force 18 year-olds to work for free without it being part of a wider package of benefits, such as free university education (or much lower tuition fees), generous welfare provisions for young people, the right to live, work and study in multiple countries etc etc? Comparing what the government is proposing to what happens in other countries, without looking at the wider context of what those countries’ schemes are part of is nonsensical.
LOL. So the scheme itself is fine; but the 'wider package' is the problem? You do realise that as every country will have different 'wider packages'; it means this argument can never be proved wrong?
I'm not in favour of this scheme, but some of the arguments being used against it are ridiculous. Including yours.
Our Canadian daughter in law is travelling to London today and flies to Vancouver tomorrow whilst our son spends a couple of weeks more with us
All Llandudno Junction to Euston trains have been cancelled today due to crew shortages leaving her with no option but take the Manchester Airport train to Chester, then a train to Crewe, then to Euston arriving much later and missing an appointment she had in London today
The railways are truly broken and is Starmer just going to concede all ASLEF's demands reinforcing the view that the unions are holding our railways to ransom
I see that the Pope has been caught out making a derogatory remark about homosexuals. The term ‘frociaggione’ roughly translates as ‘faggots’. He’s still not prepared to permit gay priests (even though there are thousands of them) or married priests, but leaves other priests free to abuse children. And if you think this is a problem only for the RC’s, the Church of England has still tied itself in absurd knots on the issue. Bear this in mind next time you drag their antediluvian beliefs into support against trans rights. Any doctrine based on the nonsense that man was created from a woman’s spare rib in the image of a God (who most believers deep down still think has a penis) should be given short shrift. If you have pages written by bigoted old men, you’ll get a god in that image.
The Church has been on the wrong side of just about every piece of human progress, often in particularly nasty ways.
Bit of a hostage to fortune here, but I suspect this campaign is actually going quite well for Rishi.
He's making headlines with his policies- he is getting a hearing. I suspect his ideas are popular with his core demographics, and maybe beyond them.
Enough to win? I'd say no. Maybe a hung parliament?
But this is probably the best strategy for him... he has to try to claim to be the change candidate whilst making sure he hoovers up the pensioner vote.
Our Canadian daughter in law is travelling to London today and flies to Vancouver tomorrow whilst our son spends a couple of weeks more with us
All Llandudno Junction to Euston trains have been cancelled today due to crew shortages leaving her with no option but take the Manchester Airport train to Chester, then a train to Crewe, then to Euston arriving much later and missing an appointment she had in London today
The railways are truly broken and is Starmer just going to concede all ASLEF's demands reinforcing the view that the unions are holding our railways to ransom
Our Canadian daughter in law is travelling to London today and flies to Vancouver tomorrow whilst our son spends a couple of weeks more with us
All Llandudno Junction to Euston trains have been cancelled today due to crew shortages leaving her with no option but take the Manchester Airport train to Chester, then a train to Crewe, then to Euston arriving much later and missing an appointment she had in London today
The railways are truly broken and is Starmer just going to concede all ASLEF's demands reinforcing the view that the unions are holding our railways to ransom
Crew shortages imply a lack of crew.
+1 would need to speak to my mate who lives there but I believe that train not working is a regular occurrence
But it’s a staff issue - very few drivers know the route and the train (both of which is required) so it’s possible that a combination of school holidays and someone being ill can knock the early morning train off.
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.
What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.
If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.
One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.
The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)
But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.
In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.
Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
Not inflicting forced labour on 18 year-olds seems a pretty realistic alternative to me.
You modernise and reform what is actually happening.
Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.
Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.
Forced labour for 18 year-olds is not currently happening. It will happen if the Tories are returned to power. So saying you won’t do it is a very realistic alternative.
Utterly absurd misrepresentation.
Exactly
Good luck getting any work out of an 18 year old.
It can (and does) happen. At our local park run, we often have young kids turning out to volunteer as part of their DoE scheme. At 8.40 on a Sunday morning, in all weathers. I think one continues volunteering occasionally.
The yoof aren't as useless and Kevin-like as we oldies like to paint them.
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.
What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.
If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.
One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.
The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)
But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.
In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.
Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
Not inflicting forced labour on 18 year-olds seems a pretty realistic alternative to me.
You modernise and reform what is actually happening.
Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.
Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.
Forced labour for 18 year-olds is not currently happening. It will happen if the Tories are returned to power. So saying you won’t do it is a very realistic alternative.
Utterly absurd misrepresentation.
How would you represent it ?
It's not "forced labour" and it's absurd to suggest it is, anymore than compulsory education to the age of 18 is "forced labour".
Being compelled by law to work without pay is forced labour.
Whether paid or not it is still forced labour.
And that's why "ah, but education until 18 is compulsory" isn't the gotcha some hope for.
For a start, that education can be one day a week if you are in employment or doing an apprenticeship. So there's some pragmatic flex.
Also, in reality, we still have ten percent of the cohort who are NEETs, for whatever reason. Education to eighteen is normalised, but not enforced.
One of the few bits of the "plan" that are clear is that the forced uptake of this scheme, should it ever happen, will be as close as dammit to one hundred percent, even if they don't know how.
Goodness me, I'm not a fan of the triple lock as it is but the reaction I saw on here last night to keeping the state pension out of income tax was borderline hysterical. Hair-trigger reactions within seconds, which will no doubt be repeated with the next Tory policy that's announced.
Get a grip people.
Call it what it actually is - the exempt pensioners (and no one else) from our fiscal drag stealth tax policy.
..Under the plans, the personal allowance for pensioners will increase at least 2.5% or in line with the highest of earnings or inflation. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said the scheme "shows we are on the side of pensioners,".. and against everyone else.
You're not familiar with the story of the straw and the camel ?
My first reaction was that it was a piss take (by someone else other than Sunak).
It does make sense to keep the Personal Allwance at or above the State Pension, for the sake of simplicity, but that should really apply to everyone.
Interesting figures here on the problem of having such an elderly cohort of voters:
The estimates for where the 14m 2019 Conservatives are today: 6.4m (46%) Still Conservative 1.7m (12%) Don't Know 1.7m (12%) Labour 1.7m (12%) Reform 1.2m (8%) Deceased 0.5m (4%) Lib Dem 0.5m (4%) Would Not Vote 0.2m (1%) Green 0.1m (1%) Other
For the 10.3m 2019 Labour voters: 7.8m (76%) are still Labour 0.6m (6%) Green 0.5m (5%) Don't Know 0.3m (3%) Lib Dem 0.3m (3%) Deceased 0.3m (3%) Won't Vote 0.2m (2%) Conservative 0.1m (1%) Reform 0.1m (1%) Other 0.05m (1%) SNP/PC
Of 3.7m 2019 LD voters currently: 1.9m (52%) remain LD 0.8m (21%) Labour 0.4m (10%) Don't Know 0.2m (5%) Dead 0.2m (4%) Conservative 0.1m (3%) Green 0.1m (2%) Won't Vote 0.1m (2%) Reform (This actually adds to 3.8m due to rounding error).
Figures from Jan 12 so probably shifted a bit further since.
So of the 1.6 million 2019 voters RIP, 1.2 million voted Tory. In order to retain electoral viability the Tories need to replace those voters. They seem to have no plans to do so.
For the dead to vote you will now need their driving licence and at least look a bit like the photo -though you could keep your thumb over it.
Our Canadian daughter in law is travelling to London today and flies to Vancouver tomorrow whilst our son spends a couple of weeks more with us
All Llandudno Junction to Euston trains have been cancelled today due to crew shortages leaving her with no option but take the Manchester Airport train to Chester, then a train to Crewe, then to Euston arriving much later and missing an appointment she had in London today
The railways are truly broken and is Starmer just going to concede all ASLEF's demands reinforcing the view that the unions are holding our railways to ransom
Crew shortages imply a lack of crew.
+1 would need to speak to my mate who lives there but I believe that train not working is a regular occurrence
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.
What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.
If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.
One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.
The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)
But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.
In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.
Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
Not inflicting forced labour on 18 year-olds seems a pretty realistic alternative to me.
You modernise and reform what is actually happening.
Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.
Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.
Forced labour for 18 year-olds is not currently happening. It will happen if the Tories are returned to power. So saying you won’t do it is a very realistic alternative.
Utterly absurd misrepresentation.
How would you represent it ?
It's not "forced labour" and it's absurd to suggest it is, anymore than compulsory education to the age of 18 is "forced labour".
"Forced labour" is exactly what it is. Why pretend otherwise?
Absolute nonsense.
If the policy is to be seen as 'forced labour', does that term also apply to other countries that run similar schemes?
Which other countries force 18 year-olds to work for free without it being part of a wider package of benefits, such as free university education (or much lower tuition fees), generous welfare provisions for young people, the right to live, work and study in multiple countries etc etc? Comparing what the government is proposing to what happens in other countries, without looking at the wider context of what those countries’ schemes are part of is nonsensical.
LOL. So the scheme itself is fine; but the 'wider package' is the problem? You do realise that as every country will have different 'wider packages'; it means this argument can never be proved wrong?
I'm not in favour of this scheme, but some of the arguments being used against it are ridiculous. Including yours.
No, a scheme of forced, unpaid labour for 18-year olds is not fine in the absence of a wider social compact which as well as imposing obligations delivers benefits to those who are conscripted. I am sorry you don’t understand that argument but that’s your problem, not mine.
Our Canadian daughter in law is travelling to London today and flies to Vancouver tomorrow whilst our son spends a couple of weeks more with us
All Llandudno Junction to Euston trains have been cancelled today due to crew shortages leaving her with no option but take the Manchester Airport train to Chester, then a train to Crewe, then to Euston arriving much later and missing an appointment she had in London today
The railways are truly broken and is Starmer just going to concede all ASLEF's demands reinforcing the view that the unions are holding our railways to ransom
ASLEF (and other Rail Unions) are not on strike today, so why blame them?
Bit of a hostage to fortune here, but I suspect this campaign is actually going quite well for Rishi.
He's making headlines with his policies- he is getting a hearing. I suspect his ideas are popular with his core demographics, and maybe beyond them.
Enough to win? I'd say no. Maybe a hung parliament?
But this is probably the best strategy for him... he has to try to claim to be the change candidate whilst making sure he hoovers up the pensioner vote.
Let’s wait and see how the opinion polls are looking, after the bank holiday weekend and half-term have shaken out of the system, before we rush to judgements.
However, I would comment that he won’t be ‘hoovering up’ the pensioner vote, not even with a £2000 bribe. They’re not stupid. It’s no good putting money in their bank accounts with one hand, whilst simultaneously removing it with the other whilst running down public services including, and especially, the NHS. We underestimate the importance of healthcare to older people at our peril.
Our Canadian daughter in law is travelling to London today and flies to Vancouver tomorrow whilst our son spends a couple of weeks more with us
All Llandudno Junction to Euston trains have been cancelled today due to crew shortages leaving her with no option but take the Manchester Airport train to Chester, then a train to Crewe, then to Euston arriving much later and missing an appointment she had in London today
The railways are truly broken and is Starmer just going to concede all ASLEF's demands reinforcing the view that the unions are holding our railways to ransom
ASLEF (and other Rail Unions) are not on strike today, so why blame them?
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.
What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.
If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.
One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.
The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)
But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.
In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.
Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
Not inflicting forced labour on 18 year-olds seems a pretty realistic alternative to me.
You modernise and reform what is actually happening.
Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.
Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.
Forced labour for 18 year-olds is not currently happening. It will happen if the Tories are returned to power. So saying you won’t do it is a very realistic alternative.
Utterly absurd misrepresentation.
Exactly
Good luck getting any work out of an 18 year old.
It can (and does) happen. At our local park run, we often have young kids turning out to volunteer as part of their DoE scheme. At 8.40 on a Sunday morning, in all weathers. I think one continues volunteering occasionally.
The yoof aren't as useless and Kevin-like as we oldies like to paint them.
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.
What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.
If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.
One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.
The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)
But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.
In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.
Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
Not inflicting forced labour on 18 year-olds seems a pretty realistic alternative to me.
You modernise and reform what is actually happening.
Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.
Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.
Forced labour for 18 year-olds is not currently happening. It will happen if the Tories are returned to power. So saying you won’t do it is a very realistic alternative.
Utterly absurd misrepresentation.
How would you represent it ?
It's not "forced labour" and it's absurd to suggest it is, anymore than compulsory education to the age of 18 is "forced labour".
Being compelled by law to work without pay is forced labour.
Whether paid or not it is still forced labour.
And that's why "ah, but education until 18 is compulsory" isn't the gotcha some hope for.
For a start, that education can be one day a week if you are in employment or doing an apprenticeship. So there's some pragmatic flex.
Also, in reality, we still have ten percent of the cohort who are NEETs, for whatever reason. Education to eighteen is normalised, but not enforced.
One of the few bits of the "plan" that are clear is that the forced uptake of this scheme, should it ever happen, will be as close as dammit to one hundred percent, even if they don't know how.
Education is, at least in theory, a benefit. Yes, you have to go to school but in return you learn stuff. And we don’t force adults to go to school.
Very likely. Pensions, VAT and ISAs haven't been "pledged" and are natural targets for additional taxation, and a significant tightening of allowances and tax relief.
I note they haven't pledged to freeze Council Tax either.
Council Tax needs to be significantly increased. It would still be cheaper than constant car suspension repairs due to potholes, the effects on children of underfunded schools, or shortage of care home places.
They would just waste it for sure, mine is more than £3K a year already so we are being robbed as it is , what do the F**kers do with all the money they steal off people, it certainly does not seem to be spent on services.
Doesn’t Ayrshire have roads, bins, social care, police or education then?
Our Canadian daughter in law is travelling to London today and flies to Vancouver tomorrow whilst our son spends a couple of weeks more with us
All Llandudno Junction to Euston trains have been cancelled today due to crew shortages leaving her with no option but take the Manchester Airport train to Chester, then a train to Crewe, then to Euston arriving much later and missing an appointment she had in London today
The railways are truly broken and is Starmer just going to concede all ASLEF's demands reinforcing the view that the unions are holding our railways to ransom
ASLEF (and other Rail Unions) are not on strike today, so why blame them?
Overtime bans
So the service cannot run on its existing staff. That's poor workforce planning, not an overtime ban.
Our Canadian daughter in law is travelling to London today and flies to Vancouver tomorrow whilst our son spends a couple of weeks more with us
All Llandudno Junction to Euston trains have been cancelled today due to crew shortages leaving her with no option but take the Manchester Airport train to Chester, then a train to Crewe, then to Euston arriving much later and missing an appointment she had in London today
The railways are truly broken and is Starmer just going to concede all ASLEF's demands reinforcing the view that the unions are holding our railways to ransom
ASLEF (and other Rail Unions) are not on strike today, so why blame them?
Overtime bans
Not at the moment - and my source is Avanti’s union negotiator
Our Canadian daughter in law is travelling to London today and flies to Vancouver tomorrow whilst our son spends a couple of weeks more with us
All Llandudno Junction to Euston trains have been cancelled today due to crew shortages leaving her with no option but take the Manchester Airport train to Chester, then a train to Crewe, then to Euston arriving much later and missing an appointment she had in London today
The railways are truly broken and is Starmer just going to concede all ASLEF's demands reinforcing the view that the unions are holding our railways to ransom
ASLEF (and other Rail Unions) are not on strike today, so why blame them?
I see that the Pope has been caught out making a derogatory remark about homosexuals. The term ‘frociaggione’ roughly translates as ‘faggots’. He’s still not prepared to permit gay priests (even though there are thousands of them) or married priests, but leaves other priests free to abuse children. And if you think this is a problem only for the RC’s, the Church of England has still tied itself in absurd knots on the issue. Bear this in mind next time you drag their antediluvian beliefs into support against trans rights. Any doctrine based on the nonsense that man was created from a woman’s spare rib in the image of a God (who most believers deep down still think has a penis) should be given short shrift. If you have pages written by bigoted old men, you’ll get a god in that image.
The Church has been on the wrong side of just about every piece of human progress, often in particularly nasty ways.
Conflating the homosexual with the trans means misunderstanding and patronizing both groups in about equal measure.
It’s of a piece. Bigotry writ large.
Of course, trans haters can’t stand the idea of linking the two example of bigotry. It has ever been thus, with all areas of discrimination.
LGBGTQ+ forever
Yes. Just as let's say Pakistanis and Zimbabweans have no interesting differences from one another. How's it going in the 1950s?
I think I know a lot more about this than you do. This kind of bigotry is all of a piece. I recommend you read the sociologist René Girard’s Scapegoat theories, amongst others. When society finishes parodying one set of ‘other’ it moves on to the next, and then the next.
Removing the T from LGBGTQ+ is a tactic of those who are obsessed with the ‘does it have a penis’ reductionism, which is about the size of their brains.
Fortunately those like you are on the wrong side of history, and about to be consigned to the dustbin of discourse on the subject.
Bit of a hostage to fortune here, but I suspect this campaign is actually going quite well for Rishi.
He's making headlines with his policies- he is getting a hearing. I suspect his ideas are popular with his core demographics, and maybe beyond them.
Enough to win? I'd say no. Maybe a hung parliament?
But this is probably the best strategy for him... he has to try to claim to be the change candidate whilst making sure he hoovers up the pensioner vote.
Let’s wait and see how the opinion polls are looking, after the bank holiday weekend and half-term have shaken out of the system, before we rush to judgements.
However, I would comment that he won’t be ‘hoovering up’ the pensioner vote, not even with a £2000 bribe. They’re not stupid. It’s no good putting money in their bank accounts with one hand, whilst simultaneously removing it with the other whilst running down public services including, and especially, the NHS. We underestimate the importance of healthcare to older people at our peril.
The Tories seem keen to bribe the pensioners with everything apart from a functioning NHS and Social Care system.
See. The danger I worry about is that this is going to turn into blind fury against the older generation. Jibes about bone idleness from folk who haven't worked in 25 years are contributing. And to demand "punishment". They may end up a lot worse off than they'd imagined.
They wont be.
Labour's already promising to increase the spending on the oldies.
While anyone doing GCSE's this year will get increased tuition fees if they go to university.
The increased tuition fees will be a reality, the 'forced labour' a hypothetical.
And a reality that teenagers today will be paying decades after talk of national service are long forgotten.
We’ve had a period of high inflation, in part because of Tory misrule. Universities’ costs have increased. They therefore need more income. If that doesn’t come from an inflation-linked rise in tuition fees, where does it come from?
Cutting their cloth and get rid of the bloated management structures eating up all the cash. Tory freee for all on huge salaries for doing diddly squat whilst shafting staff that do the actual work.
Good morning. I often respect your posts but not so much this one.
That’s not an opinion poll. It’s a projection by a guy called ‘Marwan’ and tweeted by an organisation called ‘Stats for Lefties’.
It doesn’t mean JC won’t win Islington North, although I’m dubious, but please let’s check our sources for accuracy, and not call them something they aren’t.
Good morning. I often respect your posts but not so much this one.
That’s not an opinion poll. It’s a projection by a guy called ‘Marwan’ and tweeted by an organisation called ‘Stats for Lefties’.
It doesn’t mean JC won’t win Islington North, although I’m dubious, but please let’s check our sources for accuracy, and not call them something they aren’t.
Considering the source, Lab looks value there.
I've just had a taste.
Corbyn won't win.
I’m genuinely not sure. Fair play to you for hopping on now though.
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.
What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.
If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.
One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.
The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)
But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.
In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.
Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
Not inflicting forced labour on 18 year-olds seems a pretty realistic alternative to me.
You modernise and reform what is actually happening.
Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.
Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.
Forced labour for 18 year-olds is not currently happening. It will happen if the Tories are returned to power. So saying you won’t do it is a very realistic alternative.
Utterly absurd misrepresentation.
Exactly
Good luck getting any work out of an 18 year old.
This kind of youth-bashing by older folk is appalling.
Unfortunately hatred is surfacing during this campaign, and we’ve still got c. 5 weeks to go.
Exactly.
I have two teen boys. One at university one at college. Both doing gig jobs to pay their way. Youngest is in a band and 3 of the lads all have part-time jobs (the other is doing GCSEs). One helps care for his Dad who had a stroke last Summer.
Your characterisation of young people is not just wrong, it's a rather sad cliché. I would actually go out and get to know some young people (and I mean listen to them, don't just 'give them the benefit of your opinion). You never know, you might just be pleasantly surprised.
"If we open a quarrel between the past and the present, we shall find that we have lost the future."
Our Canadian daughter in law is travelling to London today and flies to Vancouver tomorrow whilst our son spends a couple of weeks more with us
All Llandudno Junction to Euston trains have been cancelled today due to crew shortages leaving her with no option but take the Manchester Airport train to Chester, then a train to Crewe, then to Euston arriving much later and missing an appointment she had in London today
The railways are truly broken and is Starmer just going to concede all ASLEF's demands reinforcing the view that the unions are holding our railways to ransom
Drivel. The railways are broken because it has suited all sides to embed a culture of rest day working, driven by goodwill. Originally this covered for low pay, but post privatisation, the franchises have allowed the unions to set their own conditions. The franchises have failed to build resilience into their bids, giving Unions the opportunity to hold them hostage.
I know alot of rail staff well, and it has to be one of the few industries with shop stewards who are both right wing and militant as hell.
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.
What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.
If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.
One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.
The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)
But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.
In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.
Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
Not inflicting forced labour on 18 year-olds seems a pretty realistic alternative to me.
You modernise and reform what is actually happening.
Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.
Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.
Forced labour for 18 year-olds is not currently happening. It will happen if the Tories are returned to power. So saying you won’t do it is a very realistic alternative.
Utterly absurd misrepresentation.
How would you represent it ?
It's not "forced labour" and it's absurd to suggest it is, anymore than compulsory education to the age of 18 is "forced labour".
This isn't education. And it's subject to compulsion.
I asked how you would characterise it; I already know you don't like my honest appraisal.
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.
What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.
If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.
One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.
The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)
But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.
In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.
Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
Not inflicting forced labour on 18 year-olds seems a pretty realistic alternative to me.
You modernise and reform what is actually happening.
Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.
Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.
Forced labour for 18 year-olds is not currently happening. It will happen if the Tories are returned to power. So saying you won’t do it is a very realistic alternative.
Utterly absurd misrepresentation.
How would you represent it ?
It's not "forced labour" and it's absurd to suggest it is, anymore than compulsory education to the age of 18 is "forced labour".
"Forced labour" is exactly what it is. Why pretend otherwise?
Absolute nonsense.
If the policy is to be seen as 'forced labour', does that term also apply to other countries that run similar schemes?
Which other countries force 18 year-olds to work for free without it being part of a wider package of benefits, such as free university education (or much lower tuition fees), generous welfare provisions for young people, the right to live, work and study in multiple countries etc etc? Comparing what the government is proposing to what happens in other countries, without looking at the wider context of what those countries’ schemes are part of is nonsensical.
LOL. So the scheme itself is fine; but the 'wider package' is the problem? You do realise that as every country will have different 'wider packages'; it means this argument can never be proved wrong?
I'm not in favour of this scheme, but some of the arguments being used against it are ridiculous. Including yours.
No, a scheme of forced, unpaid labour for 18-year olds is not fine in the absence of a wider social compact which as well as imposing obligations delivers benefits to those who are conscripted. I am sorry you don’t understand that argument but that’s your problem, not mine.
No idea of the reliability of the source. I like the Dutch approach:
"Officially, the Netherlands has mandatory military service, however, it is not enforced.
After turning 17, a conscript receives a letter from the Ministry of Defence stating they are registered for military service. But, there is no obligation to show up.'
In Austria and Switzerland the basic obligation is military service, with alternatives only permitted to conscientious objectors. That makes more sense to me - we are (I assume) comfortable with the thought of conscription in time of war, and if it is necessary for national security we should be in peacetime too
Incidentally we already routinely force adult citizens into the most onerous, distressing and traumatizing labour imaginable called jury service. Another case where it's a horrible job but someone has to do it.
Very likely. Pensions, VAT and ISAs haven't been "pledged" and are natural targets for additional taxation, and a significant tightening of allowances and tax relief.
I note they haven't pledged to freeze Council Tax either.
Council Tax needs to be significantly increased. It would still be cheaper than constant car suspension repairs due to potholes, the effects on children of underfunded schools, or shortage of care home places.
They would just waste it for sure, mine is more than £3K a year already so we are being robbed as it is , what do the F**kers do with all the money they steal off people, it certainly does not seem to be spent on services.
Doesn’t Ayrshire have roads, bins, social care, police or education then?
Your point is caller? As elsewhere it has shit roads , shit social care , invisible police and a few schools. Over £3K to get bins lifted once every 3 weeks and huge potholes on all the roads. I could employ private companies to do it for a lot less.
When Labour wins nearly two-thirds of the seats with around 40% of the vote, I wonder whether some Tories will start to reconsider their support for FPTP. (Probably not).
Definitely not. Possibly the only subject on which both Labour and the Conservatives have ever been both united and wholly in lockstep with another is the absolute necessity of maintaining FPTP for election to the House of Commons. They know that, no matter how badly they get beaten, Buggins' Turn dictates that they'll get back in again if they just wait for the other lot to screw up enough times.
Whereas the public spirited LibDems favour PR because it is fair and not because they hope to be permanently in government as the centrist party in a coalition.
The Lib Dems want PR as part of a serious modernisation of our Victorian political system. STV gives more power to the voters, FPTP or lists give more power to the parties. The last few years of Tory mess was based on giving 100% power to a party winning 40% of the vote. It is quite clearly time to accept the fact that our political system needs serious change. PR is a necessary but not sufficient part of this change.
Our Canadian daughter in law is travelling to London today and flies to Vancouver tomorrow whilst our son spends a couple of weeks more with us
All Llandudno Junction to Euston trains have been cancelled today due to crew shortages leaving her with no option but take the Manchester Airport train to Chester, then a train to Crewe, then to Euston arriving much later and missing an appointment she had in London today
The railways are truly broken and is Starmer just going to concede all ASLEF's demands reinforcing the view that the unions are holding our railways to ransom
Crew shortages imply a lack of crew.
+1 would need to speak to my mate who lives there but I believe that train not working is a regular occurrence
But it’s a staff issue - very few drivers know the route and the train (both of which is required) so it’s possible that a combination of school holidays and someone being ill can knock the early morning train off.
Feck's sake , they don't know how to press a few buttons and turn a wheel , pampered arses right enough. Imagine lorry drivers saying "Sorry Boss I don't know that road". Useless overpaid lazy twats.
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.
What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.
If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.
One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.
The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)
But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.
In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.
Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
Not inflicting forced labour on 18 year-olds seems a pretty realistic alternative to me.
You modernise and reform what is actually happening.
Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.
Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.
Forced labour for 18 year-olds is not currently happening. It will happen if the Tories are returned to power. So saying you won’t do it is a very realistic alternative.
Utterly absurd misrepresentation.
Exactly
Good luck getting any work out of an 18 year old.
This kind of youth-bashing by older folk is appalling.
Unfortunately hatred is surfacing during this campaign, and we’ve still got c. 5 weeks to go.
Says the person who went on what could be interpreted as a hate flecked tirade against Christian beliefs not many posts ago that was devoid of any actual understanding of the religion in question and seemed to merely stem from deep seated prejudice.
Our Canadian daughter in law is travelling to London today and flies to Vancouver tomorrow whilst our son spends a couple of weeks more with us
All Llandudno Junction to Euston trains have been cancelled today due to crew shortages leaving her with no option but take the Manchester Airport train to Chester, then a train to Crewe, then to Euston arriving much later and missing an appointment she had in London today
The railways are truly broken and is Starmer just going to concede all ASLEF's demands reinforcing the view that the unions are holding our railways to ransom
ASLEF (and other Rail Unions) are not on strike today, so why blame them?
It's easier than thinking about the problem.
Network Rail aren't allowed to recruit new signallers until there's a vacancy to fill (would be a waste of money otherwise). It takes about two months for basic training for a new signaller, and then longer for training on a specific route. So, by design of their recruitment policy, there will be a shortage of signallers.
A large proportion of existing signallers are approaching retirement age. Rather than anticipate the need to replace these signallers, Network Rail is forced by the policy dictated to it, to wait until they've gone to replace them.
I don't know about the situation with respect to drivers specifically, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were similar rules. I remember there were problems immediately after privatisation when the new franchises sacked too many drivers.
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.
What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.
If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.
One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.
The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)
But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.
In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.
Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
Not inflicting forced labour on 18 year-olds seems a pretty realistic alternative to me.
You modernise and reform what is actually happening.
Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.
Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.
Forced labour for 18 year-olds is not currently happening. It will happen if the Tories are returned to power. So saying you won’t do it is a very realistic alternative.
Utterly absurd misrepresentation.
How would you represent it ?
It's not "forced labour" and it's absurd to suggest it is, anymore than compulsory education to the age of 18 is "forced labour".
"Forced labour" is exactly what it is. Why pretend otherwise?
Absolute nonsense.
If the policy is to be seen as 'forced labour', does that term also apply to other countries that run similar schemes?
They are trying to create false equivalence between, say, the Chinese treatment of the Uighars and the Tories.
It’s the debasement of language for political effect.
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.
What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.
If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.
One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.
The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)
But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.
In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.
Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
Not inflicting forced labour on 18 year-olds seems a pretty realistic alternative to me.
You modernise and reform what is actually happening.
Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.
Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.
Forced labour for 18 year-olds is not currently happening. It will happen if the Tories are returned to power. So saying you won’t do it is a very realistic alternative.
Utterly absurd misrepresentation.
How would you represent it ?
It's not "forced labour" and it's absurd to suggest it is, anymore than compulsory education to the age of 18 is "forced labour".
"Forced labour" is exactly what it is. Why pretend otherwise?
Absolute nonsense.
If the policy is to be seen as 'forced labour', does that term also apply to other countries that run similar schemes?
Which other countries force 18 year-olds to work for free without it being part of a wider package of benefits, such as free university education (or much lower tuition fees), generous welfare provisions for young people, the right to live, work and study in multiple countries etc etc? Comparing what the government is proposing to what happens in other countries, without looking at the wider context of what those countries’ schemes are part of is nonsensical.
LOL. So the scheme itself is fine; but the 'wider package' is the problem? You do realise that as every country will have different 'wider packages'; it means this argument can never be proved wrong?
I'm not in favour of this scheme, but some of the arguments being used against it are ridiculous. Including yours.
No, a scheme of forced, unpaid labour for 18-year olds is not fine in the absence of a wider social compact which as well as imposing obligations delivers benefits to those who are conscripted. I am sorry you don’t understand that argument but that’s your problem, not mine.
No idea of the reliability of the source. I like the Dutch approach:
"Officially, the Netherlands has mandatory military service, however, it is not enforced.
After turning 17, a conscript receives a letter from the Ministry of Defence stating they are registered for military service. But, there is no obligation to show up.'
In Austria and Switzerland the basic obligation is military service, with alternatives only permitted to conscientious objectors. That makes more sense to me - we are (I assume) comfortable with the thought of conscription in time of war, and if it is necessary for national security we should be in peacetime too
Incidentally we already routinely force adult citizens into the most onerous, distressing and traumatizing labour imaginable called jury service. Another case where it's a horrible job but someone has to do it.
15 jurors plus 5 substitutes will be empanelled for my new case today. They will appear tomorrow and at least to the end of the week, more probably into Monday of next week.
The substitutes are used if any members are found not able to serve tomorrow but then released. They receive derisory payment which does not reimburse them for lost wages. They have to listen to pretty grisly and disgusting stuff. You can often see distress from this. They spend a lot of time sitting around waiting whilst the court resolves legal issues. Its a lot to ask of anyone.
And yet justice depends on it. In the High Court, at least, most juries take their role very seriously. They pay close attention. And, by and large, they come back with reasonable verdicts. It is not a perfect system but it is better than any alternative that I have seen.
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.
What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.
If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.
One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.
The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)
But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.
In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.
Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
Not inflicting forced labour on 18 year-olds seems a pretty realistic alternative to me.
You modernise and reform what is actually happening.
Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.
Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.
Forced labour for 18 year-olds is not currently happening. It will happen if the Tories are returned to power. So saying you won’t do it is a very realistic alternative.
Utterly absurd misrepresentation.
Exactly
Good luck getting any work out of an 18 year old.
It can (and does) happen. At our local park run, we often have young kids turning out to volunteer as part of their DoE scheme. At 8.40 on a Sunday morning, in all weathers. I think one continues volunteering occasionally.
The yoof aren't as useless and Kevin-like as we oldies like to paint them.
Yes, but those are volunteers, not conscripts.
I know. I was responding to RCS's comment, and showing that some 18 year olds can, and do, do work. Even unpaid work.
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.
What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.
If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.
One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.
The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)
But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.
In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.
Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
Not inflicting forced labour on 18 year-olds seems a pretty realistic alternative to me.
You modernise and reform what is actually happening.
Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.
Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.
Forced labour for 18 year-olds is not currently happening. It will happen if the Tories are returned to power. So saying you won’t do it is a very realistic alternative.
Utterly absurd misrepresentation.
How would you represent it ?
It's not "forced labour" and it's absurd to suggest it is, anymore than compulsory education to the age of 18 is "forced labour".
"Forced labour" is exactly what it is. Why pretend otherwise?
Absolute nonsense.
If the policy is to be seen as 'forced labour', does that term also apply to other countries that run similar schemes?
Which other countries force 18 year-olds to work for free without it being part of a wider package of benefits, such as free university education (or much lower tuition fees), generous welfare provisions for young people, the right to live, work and study in multiple countries etc etc? Comparing what the government is proposing to what happens in other countries, without looking at the wider context of what those countries’ schemes are part of is nonsensical.
LOL. So the scheme itself is fine; but the 'wider package' is the problem? You do realise that as every country will have different 'wider packages'; it means this argument can never be proved wrong?
I'm not in favour of this scheme, but some of the arguments being used against it are ridiculous. Including yours.
No, a scheme of forced, unpaid labour for 18-year olds is not fine in the absence of a wider social compact which as well as imposing obligations delivers benefits to those who are conscripted. I am sorry you don’t understand that argument but that’s your problem, not mine.
LOL. You should really listen to yourself. This policy is cr@p, and there is lots to be said against it. But you're going for a stupid argument, and one that relies not on the policy itself, but on some fuckwit intangible 'wider social compact', just because you want to make the policy sound like it is something the Chinese government would come up with.
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.
What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.
If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.
One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.
The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)
But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.
In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.
Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
Not inflicting forced labour on 18 year-olds seems a pretty realistic alternative to me.
You modernise and reform what is actually happening.
Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.
Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.
Forced labour for 18 year-olds is not currently happening. It will happen if the Tories are returned to power. So saying you won’t do it is a very realistic alternative.
Utterly absurd misrepresentation.
How would you represent it ?
It's not "forced labour" and it's absurd to suggest it is, anymore than compulsory education to the age of 18 is "forced labour".
"Forced labour" is exactly what it is. Why pretend otherwise?
Absolute nonsense.
If the policy is to be seen as 'forced labour', does that term also apply to other countries that run similar schemes?
Which other countries force 18 year-olds to work for free without it being part of a wider package of benefits, such as free university education (or much lower tuition fees), generous welfare provisions for young people, the right to live, work and study in multiple countries etc etc? Comparing what the government is proposing to what happens in other countries, without looking at the wider context of what those countries’ schemes are part of is nonsensical.
LOL. So the scheme itself is fine; but the 'wider package' is the problem? You do realise that as every country will have different 'wider packages'; it means this argument can never be proved wrong?
I'm not in favour of this scheme, but some of the arguments being used against it are ridiculous. Including yours.
No, a scheme of forced, unpaid labour for 18-year olds is not fine in the absence of a wider social compact which as well as imposing obligations delivers benefits to those who are conscripted. I am sorry you don’t understand that argument but that’s your problem, not mine.
No, you don't have an argument - you're simply fishing around for attack lines. If Labour were doing it you'd be cheering it.
The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!
The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.
Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.
A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.
Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.
Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.
What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.
If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.
One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.
The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)
But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.
In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.
Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
Not inflicting forced labour on 18 year-olds seems a pretty realistic alternative to me.
You modernise and reform what is actually happening.
Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.
Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.
Forced labour for 18 year-olds is not currently happening. It will happen if the Tories are returned to power. So saying you won’t do it is a very realistic alternative.
Utterly absurd misrepresentation.
How would you represent it ?
It's not "forced labour" and it's absurd to suggest it is, anymore than compulsory education to the age of 18 is "forced labour".
This isn't education. And it's subject to compulsion.
I asked how you would characterise it; I already know you don't like my honest appraisal.
I'd characterise it as a form of National Service.
Our Canadian daughter in law is travelling to London today and flies to Vancouver tomorrow whilst our son spends a couple of weeks more with us
All Llandudno Junction to Euston trains have been cancelled today due to crew shortages leaving her with no option but take the Manchester Airport train to Chester, then a train to Crewe, then to Euston arriving much later and missing an appointment she had in London today
The railways are truly broken and is Starmer just going to concede all ASLEF's demands reinforcing the view that the unions are holding our railways to ransom
Crew shortages imply a lack of crew.
+1 would need to speak to my mate who lives there but I believe that train not working is a regular occurrence
But it’s a staff issue - very few drivers know the route and the train (both of which is required) so it’s possible that a combination of school holidays and someone being ill can knock the early morning train off.
Feck's sake , they don't know how to press a few buttons and turn a wheel , pampered arses right enough. Imagine lorry drivers saying "Sorry Boss I don't know that road". Useless overpaid lazy twats.
Trains generally go so fast that they can't stop in the distance visible to the driver, so it's kinda important that the driver knows the route, rather than reacting to it as it happens.
When Labour wins nearly two-thirds of the seats with around 40% of the vote, I wonder whether some Tories will start to reconsider their support for FPTP. (Probably not).
Definitely not. Possibly the only subject on which both Labour and the Conservatives have ever been both united and wholly in lockstep with another is the absolute necessity of maintaining FPTP for election to the House of Commons. They know that, no matter how badly they get beaten, Buggins' Turn dictates that they'll get back in again if they just wait for the other lot to screw up enough times.
Whereas the public spirited LibDems favour PR because it is fair and not because they hope to be permanently in government as the centrist party in a coalition.
The Lib Dems want PR as part of a serious modernisation of our Victorian political system. STV gives more power to the voters, FPTP or lists give more power to the parties. The last few years of Tory mess was based on giving 100% power to a party winning 40% of the vote. It is quite clearly time to accept the fact that our political system needs serious change. PR is a necessary but not sufficient part of this change.
I’m not sure that voters end up with more power in PR systems when all the policies that attract people to support one party over another tend to be the things which first get sacrificed in order to get the numbers together for a parliamentary majority. I’m not sure pointing at interesting coalition voting maths when the program of government is a Frankenstein’s monster of all the ideas that didn’t shift votes is a particularly useful exercise.
I’m open to persuasion on voting systems reform but I’d need a lot of convincing that you’d end up with something a lot better than present. I’d hate to end up in the position that voting for this or that side makes no difference as you always end up with the same policy outcome. Worse would be a situation where you get a minor party that is a permanent feature of government switching who they prop up depending on who gets the lions share. Worse still would be a fringe player exerting outsize influence by being key to a majority and therefore slowly yanking the centre of gravity to the fringes.
I see that the Pope has been caught out making a derogatory remark about homosexuals. The term ‘frociaggione’ roughly translates as ‘faggots’. He’s still not prepared to permit gay priests (even though there are thousands of them) or married priests, but leaves other priests free to abuse children. And if you think this is a problem only for the RC’s, the Church of England has still tied itself in absurd knots on the issue. Bear this in mind next time you drag their antediluvian beliefs into support against trans rights. Any doctrine based on the nonsense that man was created from a woman’s spare rib in the image of a God (who most believers deep down still think has a penis) should be given short shrift. If you have pages written by bigoted old men, you’ll get a god in that image.
The Church has been on the wrong side of just about every piece of human progress, often in particularly nasty ways.
Comments
🤣🤣🤣🤣
https://youtu.be/iIl8aFAeX9Q?si=LTycHFNA9TTztcYW
Good luck getting any work out of an 18 year old.
It turns out some benefits are taxable and others are not. From the government's website:-
The most common benefits that you pay Income Tax on are:
- Bereavement Allowance (previously Widow’s pension)
- Carer’s Allowance or (in Scotland only) Carer Support Payment
- contribution-based Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)
- Incapacity Benefit (from the 29th week you get it)
- Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA)
- pensions paid by the Industrial Death Benefit scheme
- the State Pension
- Widowed Parent’s Allowance
- Tax-free state benefits
The most common state benefits you do not have to pay Income Tax on are:- Attendance Allowance
- Bereavement support payment
- Child Benefit (income-based - use the Child Benefit tax calculator to see if you’ll have to pay tax)
- Child Tax Credit
- Disability Living Allowance (DLA)
- free TV licence for over-75s
- Guardian’s Allowance
- Housing Benefit
- Income Support - though you may have to pay tax on Income Support if you’re involved in a strike
- income-related Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)
- Industrial Injuries Benefit
- lump-sum bereavement payments
- Maternity Allowance
- Pension Credit
- Personal Independence Payment (PIP)
- Severe Disablement Allowance
- Universal Credit
- War Widow’s Pension
- Winter Fuel Payments and Christmas Bonus
- Working Tax Credit
https://www.gov.uk/income-tax/taxfree-and-taxable-state-benefitsConflating the homosexual with the trans means misunderstanding and patronizing both groups in about equal measure.
Of course, trans haters can’t stand the idea of linking the two example of bigotry. It has ever been thus, with all areas of discrimination.
LGBGTQ+ forever
Our Canadian daughter in law is travelling to London today and flies to Vancouver tomorrow whilst our son spends a couple of weeks more with us
All Llandudno Junction to Euston trains have been cancelled today due to crew shortages leaving her with no option but take the Manchester Airport train to Chester, then a train to Crewe, then to Euston arriving much later and missing an appointment she had in London today
The railways are truly broken and is Starmer just going to concede all ASLEF's demands reinforcing the view that the unions are holding our railways to ransom
Unfortunately hatred is surfacing during this campaign, and we’ve still got c. 5 weeks to go.
I'm not in favour of this scheme, but some of the arguments being used against it are ridiculous. Including yours.
He's making headlines with his policies- he is getting a hearing. I suspect his ideas are popular with his core demographics, and maybe beyond them.
Enough to win? I'd say no. Maybe a hung parliament?
But this is probably the best strategy for him... he has to try to claim to be the change candidate whilst making sure he hoovers up the pensioner vote.
But it’s a staff issue - very few drivers know the route and the train (both of which is required) so it’s possible that a combination of school holidays and someone being ill can knock the early morning train off.
The yoof aren't as useless and Kevin-like as we oldies like to paint them.
For a start, that education can be one day a week if you are in employment or doing an apprenticeship. So there's some pragmatic flex.
Also, in reality, we still have ten percent of the cohort who are NEETs, for whatever reason. Education to eighteen is normalised, but not enforced.
One of the few bits of the "plan" that are clear is that the forced uptake of this scheme, should it ever happen, will be as close as dammit to one hundred percent, even if they don't know how.
Vote early, vote often!
However, I would comment that he won’t be ‘hoovering up’ the pensioner vote, not even with a £2000 bribe. They’re not stupid. It’s no good putting money in their bank accounts with one hand, whilst simultaneously removing it with the other whilst running down public services including, and especially, the NHS. We underestimate the importance of healthcare to older people at our peril.
NEW THREAD
Removing the T from LGBGTQ+ is a tactic of those who are obsessed with the ‘does it have a penis’ reductionism, which is about the size of their brains.
Fortunately those like you are on the wrong side of history, and about to be consigned to the dustbin of discourse on the subject.
Roll on the Labour victory!
It's not very well thought through.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/28/israeli-spy-chief-icc-prosecutor-war-crimes-inquiry
I have two teen boys. One at university one at college. Both doing gig jobs to pay their way. Youngest is in a band and 3 of the lads all have part-time jobs (the other is doing GCSEs). One helps care for his Dad who had a stroke last Summer.
Your characterisation of young people is not just wrong, it's a rather sad cliché. I would actually go out and get to know some young people (and I mean listen to them, don't just 'give them the benefit of your opinion). You never know, you might just be pleasantly surprised.
"If we open a quarrel between the past and the present, we shall find that we have lost the future."
I know alot of rail staff well, and it has to be one of the few industries with shop stewards who are both right wing and militant as hell.
And it's subject to compulsion.
I asked how you would characterise it; I already know you don't like my honest appraisal.
No idea of the reliability of the source. I like the Dutch approach:
"Officially, the Netherlands has mandatory military service, however, it is not enforced.
After turning 17, a conscript receives a letter from the Ministry of Defence stating they are registered for military service. But, there is no obligation to show up.'
In Austria and Switzerland the basic obligation is military service, with alternatives only permitted to conscientious objectors. That makes more sense to me - we are (I assume) comfortable with the thought of conscription in time of war, and if it is necessary for national security we should be in peacetime too
Incidentally we already routinely force adult citizens into the most onerous, distressing and traumatizing labour imaginable called jury service. Another case where it's a horrible job but someone has to do it.
Network Rail aren't allowed to recruit new signallers until there's a vacancy to fill (would be a waste of money otherwise). It takes about two months for basic training for a new signaller, and then longer for training on a specific route. So, by design of their recruitment policy, there will be a shortage of signallers.
A large proportion of existing signallers are approaching retirement age. Rather than anticipate the need to replace these signallers, Network Rail is forced by the policy dictated to it, to wait until they've gone to replace them.
I don't know about the situation with respect to drivers specifically, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were similar rules. I remember there were problems immediately after privatisation when the new franchises sacked too many drivers.
It’s the debasement of language for political effect.
Tiresome, really
The substitutes are used if any members are found not able to serve tomorrow but then released. They receive derisory payment which does not reimburse them for lost wages. They have to listen to pretty grisly and disgusting stuff. You can often see distress from this. They spend a lot of time sitting around waiting whilst the court resolves legal issues. Its a lot to ask of anyone.
And yet justice depends on it. In the High Court, at least, most juries take their role very seriously. They pay close attention. And, by and large, they come back with reasonable verdicts. It is not a perfect system but it is better than any alternative that I have seen.
It's utterly pathetic.
Do you think Jury Duty is forced labour?
I’m open to persuasion on voting systems reform but I’d need a lot of convincing that you’d end up with something a lot better than present. I’d hate to end up in the position that voting for this or that side makes no difference as you always end up with the same policy outcome. Worse would be a situation where you get a minor party that is a permanent feature of government switching who they prop up depending on who gets the lions share. Worse still would be a fringe player exerting outsize influence by being key to a majority and therefore slowly yanking the centre of gravity to the fringes.
(ducks)