Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The age cohorts least likely to be conscripted are the most in favour of conscription

SystemSystem Posts: 12,364
edited 7:28AM in General
The age cohorts least likely to be conscripted are the most in favour of conscription – politicalbetting.com

?A third of Britons would support conscription if the UK were to enter a war and required soldiers, but there are significant age variations – 60% of those aged over 60 would support reintroduce conscription in those circumstances compared to 20% of Gen Z and 27% of Millennials

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,693
    First? (To be conscripted)
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 50,463
    Hell no!, we won't go!

    As Boomers chanted in 60s America.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 861
    Gen X less supportive than millennials? Their kids I suppose. I wonder how it would change with a Ukraine age limit of over 27?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,315
    I'm shocked that people who wouldn't be affected by conscription are n favour and those who would be affected are not.

    Next up: higher taxes on people who aren't me to pay for services I use are popular ;)

    F1: Undercutters Ep12 is now up, looking back at the #AustralianGP and ahead to the #ChineseGP. Australia was pretty interesting as a lot of drivers had a very good or very bad weekend. Won't be many feeling so-so about how things went.

    Podbean: https://undercutters.podbean.com/e/f1-2025-australian-gp-review-and-chinese-gp-preview/

    Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/1VXxW8AN7JoZB75pHgttjc

    Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/bcfe213b-55fb-408a-a823-dc6693ee9f78/episodes/f299d15e-312e-43de-bc9f-242e21a92b0f/undercutters---f1-podcast-f1-2025-australian-gp-review-and-chinese-gp-preview

    Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/f1-2025-australian-gp-review-and-chinese-gp-preview/id1786574257?i=1000699606331

    Transcript: https://morrisf1.blogspot.com/2025/03/f1-2025-australian-gp-review-and.html
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,118
    algarkirk said:

    In reality views are going to depend. The question posed is very open, and in a context where most people don't in fact expect us to be attacked.

    If the question were posed at a point of, say, Day 3 of an actual attack on the UK, following horrible brutalities in western Europe and were posed thus 'Do you support conscription if the alternative is being taken over by the Russians over the next few days' you may get a different answer.

    Conscription would take several months to deliver a usable fighting force, so in that scenario, I’d say no. What would be the point? #pbpedantry
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 572
    Shouldn't laugh but those least likely to be conscripted voting for those most likely to be sent to the front line. Same goes for votes for taxes so it shouldn't be a surprise.

  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,580
    A really stark line between Gen X and Baby boomers. I'd imagine those 40+ wouldn't be conscripted either...
    I wonder if the real dividing line is being retired?

    Once you're retired you have a bit more time to worry about the state of the world, and perhaps a bit more fearful of losing what you've got?
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 9,797
    edited 7:44AM
    rkrkrk said:

    A really stark line between Gen X and Baby boomers. I'd imagine those 40+ wouldn't be conscripted either...
    I wonder if the real dividing line is being retired?

    Once you're retired you have a bit more time to worry about the state of the world, and perhaps a bit more fearful of losing what you've got?

    And it's the inverse for something like climate change.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 861
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/mar/18/thames-water-data-reveals-raw-sewage-discharges-rivers-2024
    Sewage discharges up 50%, debt up 25%.
    Will it outlast the showing of its documentary
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,118
    My late mother, who would be in her late 80s, grew up in WWII and the period of conscription afterwards. As a result, she was very opposed to conscription. Whenever the geopolitical situation looked bad, she’d worry that I would be conscripted. Even when I was in my late forties, with various joint injuries, and clearly of no use to any fighting force, she’d worry about this. But maybe there are fewer of that generation left and the over-65s are dominated by those who don’t remember the war, but grew up on romanticised images of it?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,322
    White House border czar Tom Homan said that the Trump administration would press on with its immigration crackdown even if judges rule against them:

    “We’re not stopping. I don’t care what the judges think. I don’t care what the left thinks. We’re coming,” Homan told Fox News.

    https://x.com/JackRyanlives/status/1901747714146042137
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,414
    edited 7:54AM
    This could be a case of mixing correlation and causation as Russia is our most likely adversary and the older generations are more likely to remember Russia's behaviour during the Cold War and are often said (admittedly mostly by themselves) to have a more elevated sense of duty and sacrifice than those born in the 90s and beyond.

    As nobody seriously suggests that over-60s should be conscripted, you can't really test whether the elderly would be more likely to oppose it if they were subject to it.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 18,080
    Eabhal said:

    rkrkrk said:

    A really stark line between Gen X and Baby boomers. I'd imagine those 40+ wouldn't be conscripted either...
    I wonder if the real dividing line is being retired?

    Once you're retired you have a bit more time to worry about the state of the world, and perhaps a bit more fearful of losing what you've got?

    And it's the inverse for something like climate change.
    Lest we forget, it's not that long ago the the British Prime Blooming Minister thought that reintroducing National Service was a pretty neat idea.

    And on the climate change issue, Kemi B has given up (fighting Reform);

    Kemi Badenoch has said it is "impossible" for the UK to meet its net zero target by 2050 - a goal set by a previous Conservative government...

    The Conservative leader did not set out a replacement for the target, but her words mark a sharp break from years of political consensus.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly3pnjyzp4o
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,510
    rkrkrk said:

    A really stark line between Gen X and Baby boomers. I'd imagine those 40+ wouldn't be conscripted either...
    I wonder if the real dividing line is being retired?

    Once you're retired you have a bit more time to worry about the state of the world, and perhaps a bit more fearful of losing what you've got?

    Directly your kids vs your (sometimes distant) grandkids.

    Also the dividing line for WW2 being very personally central in the psyche, even if you were only a glint in the eye.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,322
    The implication of the 'deal' Trump seems to be negotiating are that it's quite likely Russia will be in a position to renew its invasion in a couple of years time - with the US completely disengaged militarily.

    We are yet to see anything conceded by Moscow. But trump has demanded that Zelenskyy prepare to concede territory, give away Ukraine natural resources and he's offering to lift sanctions on russia.

    A master deal maker who gives away the farm before negations even begin...

    https://x.com/JackRyanlives/status/1901790847672238531

    Any European politician who doesn't see that as a genuine risk is a fool.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,580
    Pro_Rata said:

    rkrkrk said:

    A really stark line between Gen X and Baby boomers. I'd imagine those 40+ wouldn't be conscripted either...
    I wonder if the real dividing line is being retired?

    Once you're retired you have a bit more time to worry about the state of the world, and perhaps a bit more fearful of losing what you've got?

    Directly your kids vs your (sometimes distant) grandkids.

    Also the dividing line for WW2 being very personally central in the psyche, even if you were only a glint in the eye.
    Dunno, in my observation many people prefer their grandkids to their children!
    If you're 60, then your child could easily be called up. If you're 40, then likely your child is too young (although presumably that will happen in future).
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 572

    Eabhal said:

    rkrkrk said:

    A really stark line between Gen X and Baby boomers. I'd imagine those 40+ wouldn't be conscripted either...
    I wonder if the real dividing line is being retired?

    Once you're retired you have a bit more time to worry about the state of the world, and perhaps a bit more fearful of losing what you've got?

    And it's the inverse for something like climate change.
    Lest we forget, it's not that long ago the the British Prime Blooming Minister thought that reintroducing National Service was a pretty neat idea.

    And on the climate change issue, Kemi B has given up (fighting Reform);

    Kemi Badenoch has said it is "impossible" for the UK to meet its net zero target by 2050 - a goal set by a previous Conservative government...

    The Conservative leader did not set out a replacement for the target, but her words mark a sharp break from years of political consensus.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly3pnjyzp4o
    Why would anyone listen to her ramblings. Soundbites and not plans. At least IDS put some effort in, even if it was the ideas behind Universal Credit.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 37,158
    @DPJHodges

    Keir Starmer has been doing his best. But it looks like today is going to be the moment his attempts to position himself as "the bridge" between Ukraine and the US runs out of road. Will he side with Ukraine. Or will he endorse the Trump/Putin carve-up.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 50,463
    Quite a few of my colleagues have done National Service, mostly in Greece.

    Some enjoyed it. One close friend can drive a MBT and enjoyed firing 50 cal machine guns.

    Another learnt a tolerance of body odour living in overcrowded tents on the Albanian border.

    Another spoke of swamping dinghies in the Greek Navy.

    All sorts of interesting life skills.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 25,797
    edited 8:01AM
    Conscription ended in 1960 , with National Service ending in 1963. That is, 65 and 62 years ago.

    The Silent Generation were subject to it; the boomers had people around them subject to it when they were young. I'm Gen X, but I had adults around me who had been conscripted when I was growing up (eg to Malaya).

    I think the question is a bit of a media-created red herring in that even the armed forces don't like it - they lose more from looking after them for short term conscription than any gain. So if we get to a situwation where it is necessary, it will be necessary.

    It will be major expansion of reserves first.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,693

    My late mother, who would be in her late 80s, grew up in WWII and the period of conscription afterwards. As a result, she was very opposed to conscription. Whenever the geopolitical situation looked bad, she’d worry that I would be conscripted. Even when I was in my late forties, with various joint injuries, and clearly of no use to any fighting force, she’d worry about this. But maybe there are fewer of that generation left and the over-65s are dominated by those who don’t remember the war, but grew up on romanticised images of it?

    I will always remember what my father (served in RAF 1939-1945, with no special enthusiasm; totally unwarlike) said about how it felt in 1940-1941 when we didn't know who would win.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 30,630
    Scott_xP said:

    @DPJHodges

    Keir Starmer has been doing his best. But it looks like today is going to be the moment his attempts to position himself as "the bridge" between Ukraine and the US runs out of road. Will he side with Ukraine. Or will he endorse the Trump/Putin carve-up.

    Bin Starmer and bring in the unequivocal Ukraine supporting Boris Johnson.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 25,797

    Eabhal said:

    rkrkrk said:

    A really stark line between Gen X and Baby boomers. I'd imagine those 40+ wouldn't be conscripted either...
    I wonder if the real dividing line is being retired?

    Once you're retired you have a bit more time to worry about the state of the world, and perhaps a bit more fearful of losing what you've got?

    And it's the inverse for something like climate change.
    Lest we forget, it's not that long ago the the British Prime Blooming Minister thought that reintroducing National Service was a pretty neat idea.

    And on the climate change issue, Kemi B has given up (fighting Reform);

    Kemi Badenoch has said it is "impossible" for the UK to meet its net zero target by 2050 - a goal set by a previous Conservative government...

    The Conservative leader did not set out a replacement for the target, but her words mark a sharp break from years of political consensus.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly3pnjyzp4o
    Was not Nation Service Rishi in his headless chicken mode? Do we take things seriously said by non-serious politicians?

    And Kemi is ... Kemi. Does she present any evidence that this is impossible? We seem still to be on track.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,855
    An interesting further test for the rule of law will be when the New York appeals court decide on the case linked to Trump about the value of his assets .

    If they support the original judges ruling that means a huge fine , even if they lower the fine it’s still going to amount to hundreds of millions of dollars .

    I expect Trump will say it’s a witch hunt and refuse to pay the fine . Who would enforce any fine ?

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 50,463
    MattW said:

    Conscription ended in 1960 , w0th National Service ending in 1963. That is, 65 and 62 years ago.

    The Silent Generation were subject to it; the boomers had people around them subject to it when they were young. I'm Gen X, but I had adults around me who had been conscripted when I was growing up (eg to Malaya).

    I think the question is a bit of a media-created red herring in that even the armed forces don't like it - they lose more from looking after them for short term conscription than any gain. So if we get to a situwation where it is necessary, it will be necessary.

    It will be major expansion of reserves first.

    Considering that we can't recruit regulars, how can we have a major expansion of reserves?
  • eekeek Posts: 29,416
    Any idea which town /city has the worst performing secondary schools as I think moving Ofsted there would answer the Education Secretaries current complaint
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 30,630
    Battlebus said:

    Shouldn't laugh but those least likely to be conscripted voting for those most likely to be sent to the front line. Same goes for votes for taxes so it shouldn't be a surprise.

    We were of an age where we dodged the War, National Service and we are now too old to fight for King and Country. No wonder we are up for sending the younger generations to the trenches of Ukraine. I'm alright Jack. Conductor, you can ring the bell, I'm on the bus.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,580
    I do think some kind of americorps equivalent could be good for the UK. I'd never met anyone from Wales, North of England, Midlands... growing up. It could be a kind of national unifying experience if done well. Probably too expensive to run...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,322
    .
    Foxy said:

    MattW said:

    Conscription ended in 1960 , w0th National Service ending in 1963. That is, 65 and 62 years ago.

    The Silent Generation were subject to it; the boomers had people around them subject to it when they were young. I'm Gen X, but I had adults around me who had been conscripted when I was growing up (eg to Malaya).

    I think the question is a bit of a media-created red herring in that even the armed forces don't like it - they lose more from looking after them for short term conscription than any gain. So if we get to a situwation where it is necessary, it will be necessary.

    It will be major expansion of reserves first.

    Considering that we can't recruit regulars, how can we have a major expansion of reserves?
    We couldn't recruit regulars.
    It remains to be seen whether that will still be the case after a major uplift in the defence budget.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 37,158
    rkrkrk said:

    I do think some kind of americorps equivalent could be good for the UK. I'd never met anyone from Wales, North of England, Midlands... growing up. It could be a kind of national unifying experience if done well. Probably too expensive to run...

    My Dad from Glasgow did his National Service with a bunch of lads from the South East. Changed his life
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,322
    eek said:

    Any idea which town /city has the worst performing secondary schools as I think moving Ofsted there would answer the Education Secretaries current complaint

    Put them in Blackpool.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,942
    Scott_xP said:

    @DPJHodges

    Keir Starmer has been doing his best. But it looks like today is going to be the moment his attempts to position himself as "the bridge" between Ukraine and the US runs out of road. Will he side with Ukraine. Or will he endorse the Trump/Putin carve-up.

    Good question.

  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 29,681
    Ofcom drops investigations after GB News ruling

    Ofcom has dropped all of its remaining impartiality investigations into politicians' TV and radio programmes, following a High Court decision to overturn the media regulator's past rulings against Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg's GB News show.
    ...
    It has dropped probes into Reform UK leader Nigel Farage on GB News, Foreign Secretary David Lammy on LBC, and Conservative former minister Jake Berry on TalkTV and Local TV.

    It has also discontinued investigations into a show hosted by former Brexit Party MEP Alex Phillips on TalkTV, and another fronted by former Reform UK deputy leader David Bull when he was guest host of Morning Glory on the same channel.

    Last week, Ofcom also withdrew three previous rulings against GB News programmes hosted by Conservative MP Esther McVey and her husband, former MP Philip Davies.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq6yje0zr0do
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 861

    Scott_xP said:

    @DPJHodges

    Keir Starmer has been doing his best. But it looks like today is going to be the moment his attempts to position himself as "the bridge" between Ukraine and the US runs out of road. Will he side with Ukraine. Or will he endorse the Trump/Putin carve-up.

    Bin Starmer and bring in the unequivocal Ukraine supporting Boris Johnson.
    On form this would be the point at which "Big Dog " hid in his kennel.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,510
    Foxy said:

    Quite a few of my colleagues have done National Service, mostly in Greece.

    Some enjoyed it. One close friend can drive a MBT and enjoyed firing 50 cal machine guns.

    Another learnt a tolerance of body odour living in overcrowded tents on the Albanian border.

    Another spoke of swamping dinghies in the Greek Navy.

    All sorts of interesting life skills.

    I shared a flat with some Italians who had done national service. One did his adjacent to the Carabinieri, who are technically military, and one of the captains had a few absences and decided they should help police the Turin derby. No great issues ensued, but an interesting decision.

    Another registered as a conscientious objector and did cultural exchange as his national service. This involved working in a pizzeria in Stockport.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,240
    Battlebus said:

    Shouldn't laugh but those least likely to be conscripted voting for those most likely to be sent to the front line. Same goes for votes for taxes so it shouldn't be a surprise.

    Same goes for PB opinions on the UK getting tasty with Bad Vlad in Ukraine. The comfier the armchair the keener to charge (metaphorically) into the cannon's mouth.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 29,681
    MattW said:

    Conscription ended in 1960 , with National Service ending in 1963. That is, 65 and 62 years ago.

    The Silent Generation were subject to it; the boomers had people around them subject to it when they were young. I'm Gen X, but I had adults around me who had been conscripted when I was growing up (eg to Malaya).

    I think the question is a bit of a media-created red herring in that even the armed forces don't like it - they lose more from looking after them for short term conscription than any gain. So if we get to a situwation where it is necessary, it will be necessary.

    It will be major expansion of reserves first.

    I knew a chap who'd fought in Malaya. Two condoms: one on your rifle to keep water out; one on your willy to keep leeches off.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 29,541
    The Ukraine war did make me consider how Brits would react if we were in their shoes. Let’s imagine that France had invaded Kent and Sussex, having taken the Channel Islands already.

    An awful lot of Ukrainians have given up their normal lives to go and fight - and die. Would we have done the same?

    I’m having breakfast in Royal Tunbridge Wells and I’m struggling to conceive of kids from up north getting motivated enough to defend this very well to do spa town.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 30,630

    Battlebus said:

    Shouldn't laugh but those least likely to be conscripted voting for those most likely to be sent to the front line. Same goes for votes for taxes so it shouldn't be a surprise.

    Same goes for PB opinions on the UK getting tasty with Bad Vlad in Ukraine. The comfier the armchair the keener to charge (metaphorically) into the cannon's mouth.
    If the first cohort to be conscripted for things like driving duties, front line cooks, medical orderlies, that kind of thing, were the 50 to 67 year olds the next generation pensions crisis would be resolved in the stop of a heartbeat.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 572
    MattW said:

    Conscription ended in 1960 , with National Service ending in 1963. That is, 65 and 62 years ago.

    The Silent Generation were subject to it; the boomers had people around them subject to it when they were young. I'm Gen X, but I had adults around me who had been conscripted when I was growing up (eg to Malaya).

    I think the question is a bit of a media-created red herring in that even the armed forces don't like it - they lose more from looking after them for short term conscription than any gain. So if we get to a situwation where it is necessary, it will be necessary.

    It will be major expansion of reserves first.

    I work with Veterans and they'll tell you some hairy stories. A friend's son spent a few years in Ukraine ferrying people from the front line. He loved doing this and was offered the chance at UKR nationality if he signed up for their army. He got a few weeks training and then sent to the front line where he was injured (and sent home to the UK). A couple of his friends didn't make it.

    No advantage to conscription as thousands of Russian mothers will state.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,315

    The Ukraine war did make me consider how Brits would react if we were in their shoes. Let’s imagine that France had invaded Kent and Sussex, having taken the Channel Islands already.

    An awful lot of Ukrainians have given up their normal lives to go and fight - and die. Would we have done the same?

    I’m having breakfast in Royal Tunbridge Wells and I’m struggling to conceive of kids from up north getting motivated enough to defend this very well to do spa town.

    It's worth remembering Ukraine is right next to Russia, which must change a nation's mentality substantially.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,138
    Foxy said:

    Hell no!, we won't go!

    As Boomers chanted in 60s America.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQBVgtcR2rM
  • vikvik Posts: 165
    edited 8:26AM
    nico67 said:

    An interesting further test for the rule of law will be when the New York appeals court decide on the case linked to Trump about the value of his assets .

    I expect Trump will say it’s a witch hunt and refuse to pay the fine . Who would enforce any fine ?

    Letitia James will seize and sell his properties.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 25,797
    Nigelb said:

    White House border czar Tom Homan said that the Trump administration would press on with its immigration crackdown even if judges rule against them:

    “We’re not stopping. I don’t care what the judges think. I don’t care what the left thinks. We’re coming,” Homan told Fox News.

    https://x.com/JackRyanlives/status/1901747714146042137

    He's walking blindfolded towards a lamp post !
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 30,630
    vik said:

    nico67 said:

    An interesting further test for the rule of law will be when the New York appeals court decide on the case linked to Trump about the value of his assets .

    I expect Trump will say it’s a witch hunt and refuse to pay the fine . Who would enforce any fine ?

    Letitia James will seize and sell his properties.
    Had he not won the Presidency, Trump would be up S**t Street, but he did.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,322

    The Ukraine war did make me consider how Brits would react if we were in their shoes. Let’s imagine that France had invaded Kent and Sussex, having taken the Channel Islands already.

    An awful lot of Ukrainians have given up their normal lives to go and fight - and die. Would we have done the same?

    I’m having breakfast in Royal Tunbridge Wells and I’m struggling to conceive of kids from up north getting motivated enough to defend this very well to do spa town.

    Would the French have committed the mass murder of civilians in your hypothetical ?
    And be bombing Leeds and Manchester every night ?
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,855
    Wouldn’t it be great if Greenland decided to join up with Canada . One can only imagine the scenes in the Oval !
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 64,802

    My late mother, who would be in her late 80s, grew up in WWII and the period of conscription afterwards. As a result, she was very opposed to conscription. Whenever the geopolitical situation looked bad, she’d worry that I would be conscripted. Even when I was in my late forties, with various joint injuries, and clearly of no use to any fighting force, she’d worry about this. But maybe there are fewer of that generation left and the over-65s are dominated by those who don’t remember the war, but grew up on romanticised images of it?

    Good morning

    Much the opinion of my wife [85] and I [81] and we obviously would not want our grandchildren to be conscripted

    Indeed it seems bizarre to talking about it
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,825
    MattW said:

    Eabhal said:

    rkrkrk said:

    A really stark line between Gen X and Baby boomers. I'd imagine those 40+ wouldn't be conscripted either...
    I wonder if the real dividing line is being retired?

    Once you're retired you have a bit more time to worry about the state of the world, and perhaps a bit more fearful of losing what you've got?

    And it's the inverse for something like climate change.
    Lest we forget, it's not that long ago the the British Prime Blooming Minister thought that reintroducing National Service was a pretty neat idea.

    And on the climate change issue, Kemi B has given up (fighting Reform);

    Kemi Badenoch has said it is "impossible" for the UK to meet its net zero target by 2050 - a goal set by a previous Conservative government...

    The Conservative leader did not set out a replacement for the target, but her words mark a sharp break from years of political consensus.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly3pnjyzp4o
    Was not Nation Service Rishi in his headless chicken mode? Do we take things seriously said by non-serious politicians?

    And Kemi is ... Kemi. Does she present any evidence that this is impossible? We seem still to be on track.
    I think she means it is "impossible" to support it and remain Tory leader.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 30,630
    Roger said:

    Foxy said:

    Hell no!, we won't go!

    As Boomers chanted in 60s America.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQBVgtcR2rM
    It is somewhat ironic that the architect of the current crisis, Putin enabler Donald J. Trump could indirectly be sending hundreds of thousands of European youngsters to their deaths on the Eastern Front when he dodged the draft.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,118
    nico67 said:

    An interesting further test for the rule of law will be when the New York appeals court decide on the case linked to Trump about the value of his assets .

    If they support the original judges ruling that means a huge fine , even if they lower the fine it’s still going to amount to hundreds of millions of dollars .

    I expect Trump will say it’s a witch hunt and refuse to pay the fine . Who would enforce any fine ?

    He still owes Jean Carroll millions of dollars and shows no sign of paying.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 25,797
    Battlebus said:

    MattW said:

    Conscription ended in 1960 , with National Service ending in 1963. That is, 65 and 62 years ago.

    The Silent Generation were subject to it; the boomers had people around them subject to it when they were young. I'm Gen X, but I had adults around me who had been conscripted when I was growing up (eg to Malaya).

    I think the question is a bit of a media-created red herring in that even the armed forces don't like it - they lose more from looking after them for short term conscription than any gain. So if we get to a situwation where it is necessary, it will be necessary.

    It will be major expansion of reserves first.

    I work with Veterans and they'll tell you some hairy stories. A friend's son spent a few years in Ukraine ferrying people from the front line. He loved doing this and was offered the chance at UKR nationality if he signed up for their army. He got a few weeks training and then sent to the front line where he was injured (and sent home to the UK). A couple of his friends didn't make it.

    No advantage to conscription as thousands of Russian mothers will state.
    I don't know if Keir & Co are on this yet, but they should be pursuing in a consistent way the successful Conservative expansion of the cadet core, and be following through with reserves.

    IMO it's important that these things exist widely to help young people develop, but also so that a propaganda win is not handed to Corbyn & similar.

    In my region the chair of the Green Party has argued (summarising) that money should be spent on WFA not Ukraine afaics.

    In general they seem well enough organised on background long-term things to have picked this up, but the bean counters nit-picking could undermine everything.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 30,630

    My late mother, who would be in her late 80s, grew up in WWII and the period of conscription afterwards. As a result, she was very opposed to conscription. Whenever the geopolitical situation looked bad, she’d worry that I would be conscripted. Even when I was in my late forties, with various joint injuries, and clearly of no use to any fighting force, she’d worry about this. But maybe there are fewer of that generation left and the over-65s are dominated by those who don’t remember the war, but grew up on romanticised images of it?

    Good morning

    Much the opinion of my wife [85] and I [81] and we obviously would not want our grandchildren to be conscripted

    Indeed it seems bizarre to talking about it
    If Kamala Harris had been elected President, we wouldn't be talking about pan European conscription.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 25,797
    Foxy said:

    Hell no!, we won't go!

    As Boomers chanted in 60s America.

    Do hippies count as boomers?

    Has anyone told Nonny-Nonny-Nigel? :wink:
  • eekeek Posts: 29,416
    Battlebus said:

    MattW said:

    Conscription ended in 1960 , with National Service ending in 1963. That is, 65 and 62 years ago.

    The Silent Generation were subject to it; the boomers had people around them subject to it when they were young. I'm Gen X, but I had adults around me who had been conscripted when I was growing up (eg to Malaya).

    I think the question is a bit of a media-created red herring in that even the armed forces don't like it - they lose more from looking after them for short term conscription than any gain. So if we get to a situwation where it is necessary, it will be necessary.

    It will be major expansion of reserves first.

    I work with Veterans and they'll tell you some hairy stories. A friend's son spent a few years in Ukraine ferrying people from the front line. He loved doing this and was offered the chance at UKR nationality if he signed up for their army. He got a few weeks training and then sent to the front line where he was injured (and sent home to the UK). A couple of his friends didn't make it.

    No advantage to conscription as thousands of Russian mothers will state.
    The reason we don’t have military service and conscription is that we discovered in the 50s it was more better (in every way) to have a professional (and voluntary) military.


  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,993
    edited 8:39AM
    War?? What do you fools know of WAR

    *stares moodily across the moonlit runways of Sao Paolo airport*

    Only those of us who have seen the true horror of war, smelt the reek of rotten death, gazed at the severed limbs and ruined cities - only we privileged yet traumatised veterans and heroes get to speak of this

    WAR

    And I say pack the whining brats off to the trenches, pronto
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 64,802

    My late mother, who would be in her late 80s, grew up in WWII and the period of conscription afterwards. As a result, she was very opposed to conscription. Whenever the geopolitical situation looked bad, she’d worry that I would be conscripted. Even when I was in my late forties, with various joint injuries, and clearly of no use to any fighting force, she’d worry about this. But maybe there are fewer of that generation left and the over-65s are dominated by those who don’t remember the war, but grew up on romanticised images of it?

    Good morning

    Much the opinion of my wife [85] and I [81] and we obviously would not want our grandchildren to be conscripted

    Indeed it seems bizarre to talking about it
    If Kamala Harris had been elected President, we wouldn't be talking about pan European conscription.
    But she wasn't !!!!!!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,322
    Thames Water data reveals raw sewage discharges in rivers rose 50% in 2024
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/mar/18/thames-water-data-reveals-raw-sewage-discharges-rivers-2024

    We were told last year that it would be a mistake to drive Thames into administration, as it would push up the cost of borrowing for the industry.

    Yesterday Thames was allowed to borrow another £3bn at an interest rate of 9.75%.
    To be funded by customers, of course.

  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,923
    It's a silly question because nobody wants conscription. It just may be that it might be required if we want to protect our way of life.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,426
    I suspect the only difference between boomers and silent gen is the gender mix.

    Not that this is a likely scenario, of course. I suspect the first response is also the last resort.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,923
    Nigelb said:

    Thames Water data reveals raw sewage discharges in rivers rose 50% in 2024
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/mar/18/thames-water-data-reveals-raw-sewage-discharges-rivers-2024

    We were told last year that it would be a mistake to drive Thames into administration, as it would push up the cost of borrowing for the industry.

    Yesterday Thames was allowed to borrow another £3bn at an interest rate of 9.75%.
    To be funded by customers, of course.

    The whole thing stinks. The Government should be providing capital in exchange for equity, not this socialised losses nonsense.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,262

    Roger said:

    Foxy said:

    Hell no!, we won't go!

    As Boomers chanted in 60s America.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQBVgtcR2rM
    It is somewhat ironic that the architect of the current crisis, Putin enabler Donald J. Trump could indirectly be sending hundreds of thousands of European youngsters to their deaths on the Eastern Front when he dodged the draft.
    Ironic, but unsurprising, that a draft dodger would be indifferent to such deaths.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 37,158
    MattW said:

    I don't know if Keir & Co are on this yet, but they should be pursuing in a consistent way the successful Conservative expansion of the cadet core, and be following through with reserves.

    My nephew spent 10 years working his way to an Army commission. All he ever wanted to do.

    Quit after his first tour saying the Army was wasting his talents

    He is now training to join the Royal Marines Reserves while working in industry.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 25,797
    edited 8:49AM

    Ofcom drops investigations after GB News ruling

    Ofcom has dropped all of its remaining impartiality investigations into politicians' TV and radio programmes, following a High Court decision to overturn the media regulator's past rulings against Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg's GB News show.
    ...
    It has dropped probes into Reform UK leader Nigel Farage on GB News, Foreign Secretary David Lammy on LBC, and Conservative former minister Jake Berry on TalkTV and Local TV.

    It has also discontinued investigations into a show hosted by former Brexit Party MEP Alex Phillips on TalkTV, and another fronted by former Reform UK deputy leader David Bull when he was guest host of Morning Glory on the same channel.

    Last week, Ofcom also withdrew three previous rulings against GB News programmes hosted by Conservative MP Esther McVey and her husband, former MP Philip Davies.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq6yje0zr0do

    That's interesting. Ofcom has just had some updated powers come into force under the Online Safety Act (introduced by the Sunak Govt), which included live streaming. I'll have to have a read, but those aren't the areas where I think the real problems are.

    I was quite looking forward to the potential for Reform TV to have a bit of sense knocked into it, around balance and not making this up.

    There may be changes anyway, since last year (ie 23/24) it lost something like £63 per minute.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 37,158
    @davidgauke.bsky.social‬

    Who could succeed Kemi Badenoch? Why speculation about a change of Tory leader is increasing but why the return of Boris Johnson looks fanciful. My
    @NewStatesman.com piece.

    https://bsky.app/profile/davidgauke.bsky.social/post/3lknamrczpb2k
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,138

    Roger said:

    Foxy said:

    Hell no!, we won't go!

    As Boomers chanted in 60s America.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQBVgtcR2rM
    It is somewhat ironic that the architect of the current crisis, Putin enabler Donald J. Trump could indirectly be sending hundreds of thousands of European youngsters to their deaths on the Eastern Front when he dodged the draft.
    We're all waiting for one of our leaders to make this point at a salient moment. It showed great restraint by Zelensky not to be that person during his dressing down. A world stage is pretty irresistable for a politician
  • eekeek Posts: 29,416

    Nigelb said:

    Thames Water data reveals raw sewage discharges in rivers rose 50% in 2024
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/mar/18/thames-water-data-reveals-raw-sewage-discharges-rivers-2024

    We were told last year that it would be a mistake to drive Thames into administration, as it would push up the cost of borrowing for the industry.

    Yesterday Thames was allowed to borrow another £3bn at an interest rate of 9.75%.
    To be funded by customers, of course.

    The whole thing stinks. The Government should be providing capital in exchange for equity, not this socialised losses nonsense.
    The company is worth about zilch - but are desperate to not end up nationalized

    Equally the Government doesn’t want them nationalized as it opens a whole world of hassle and pain.

    Hence giving that very expensive loan to keep the can going down the road a bit longer
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 572
    Off Topic.

    Can we have another discussion on mobile phone and internet masts. PB seems to be ahead of the curve on where these masts should be placed.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cx2ge0ejg08o
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,923
    eek said:

    Nigelb said:

    Thames Water data reveals raw sewage discharges in rivers rose 50% in 2024
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/mar/18/thames-water-data-reveals-raw-sewage-discharges-rivers-2024

    We were told last year that it would be a mistake to drive Thames into administration, as it would push up the cost of borrowing for the industry.

    Yesterday Thames was allowed to borrow another £3bn at an interest rate of 9.75%.
    To be funded by customers, of course.

    The whole thing stinks. The Government should be providing capital in exchange for equity, not this socialised losses nonsense.
    The company is worth about zilch - but are desperate to not end up nationalized

    Equally the Government doesn’t want them nationalized as it opens a whole world of hassle and pain.

    Hence giving that very expensive loan to keep the can going down the road a bit longer
    So because the Government doesn't want to do their jobs, i.e. the "hassle and pain" the customers have to pay more?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,138
    Scott_xP said:

    @davidgauke.bsky.social‬

    Who could succeed Kemi Badenoch? Why speculation about a change of Tory leader is increasing but why the return of Boris Johnson looks fanciful. My
    @NewStatesman.com piece.

    https://bsky.app/profile/davidgauke.bsky.social/post/3lknamrczpb2k

    They need someone prepared to get into bed with Farage.

    I wouldn't put it past either of them.
  • eekeek Posts: 29,416
    Battlebus said:

    Off Topic.

    Can we have another discussion on mobile phone and internet masts. PB seems to be ahead of the curve on where these masts should be placed.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cx2ge0ejg08o

    WTAF put the cabinet on the road side of the pavement

    Then I saw it was Kingston Telecom (as Hull always had its own telecom company for “reasons”) and it makes perfect sense they are utter idiots
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,855
    I expect Trump will big up the illusory concession today that Putin spared the lives of Ukrainians who are allegedly “ surrounded “.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 6,177

    BTW this BBC article is misleading as it has a chart showing the US giving a greater share of GDP to Ukraine than many European countries. But it separates the EU aid from the direct bilateral aid. If you include eg the German share of EU aid to Ukraine, it has given a greater share of GDP than the US.

    And that's before you consider the price tag of the US military aid to Ukraine, a large proportion of which was getting rid of old stockpiles.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg102564g2o

    Is it just me, or is the BBC tending towards repeating Trumpy disinformation these days?
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,855
    MattW said:

    Ofcom drops investigations after GB News ruling

    Ofcom has dropped all of its remaining impartiality investigations into politicians' TV and radio programmes, following a High Court decision to overturn the media regulator's past rulings against Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg's GB News show.
    ...
    It has dropped probes into Reform UK leader Nigel Farage on GB News, Foreign Secretary David Lammy on LBC, and Conservative former minister Jake Berry on TalkTV and Local TV.

    It has also discontinued investigations into a show hosted by former Brexit Party MEP Alex Phillips on TalkTV, and another fronted by former Reform UK deputy leader David Bull when he was guest host of Morning Glory on the same channel.

    Last week, Ofcom also withdrew three previous rulings against GB News programmes hosted by Conservative MP Esther McVey and her husband, former MP Philip Davies.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq6yje0zr0do

    That's interesting. Ofcom has just had some updated powers come into force under the Online Safety Act (introduced by the Sunak Govt), which included live streaming. I'll have to have a read, but those aren't the areas where I think the real problems are.

    I was quite looking forward to the potential for Reform TV to have a bit of sense knocked into it, around balance and not making this up.

    There may be changes anyway, since last year (ie 23/24) it lost something like £63 per minute.
    The owner doesn’t care about losses . He just wants a vehicle to push propaganda to dupe the gullible .
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,537
    eek said:

    Battlebus said:

    MattW said:

    Conscription ended in 1960 , with National Service ending in 1963. That is, 65 and 62 years ago.

    The Silent Generation were subject to it; the boomers had people around them subject to it when they were young. I'm Gen X, but I had adults around me who had been conscripted when I was growing up (eg to Malaya).

    I think the question is a bit of a media-created red herring in that even the armed forces don't like it - they lose more from looking after them for short term conscription than any gain. So if we get to a situwation where it is necessary, it will be necessary.

    It will be major expansion of reserves first.

    I work with Veterans and they'll tell you some hairy stories. A friend's son spent a few years in Ukraine ferrying people from the front line. He loved doing this and was offered the chance at UKR nationality if he signed up for their army. He got a few weeks training and then sent to the front line where he was injured (and sent home to the UK). A couple of his friends didn't make it.

    No advantage to conscription as thousands of Russian mothers will state.
    The reason we don’t have military service and conscription is that we discovered in the 50s it was more better (in every way) to have a professional (and voluntary) military.


    Conscription is mostly talked about, either as a Back-To-The-Fifties nonsense. Or a performative flex - “I’m a virtuous total pacifist. Unlike the evil, arm chair warriors.”

    One thing that came out of Ukraine, incidentally is a shattering of the myth that all soldiers have to be 19. Plenty of 50+ on the frontlines there.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,315
    kamski said:


    BTW this BBC article is misleading as it has a chart showing the US giving a greater share of GDP to Ukraine than many European countries. But it separates the EU aid from the direct bilateral aid. If you include eg the German share of EU aid to Ukraine, it has given a greater share of GDP than the US.

    And that's before you consider the price tag of the US military aid to Ukraine, a large proportion of which was getting rid of old stockpiles.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg102564g2o

    Is it just me, or is the BBC tending towards repeating Trumpy disinformation these days?

    It's entirely possible it's just incompetence. I remember years ago reading a BBC article that confused e-readers with reading e-books on tablets, and the effect of light emitted by the device on readers' sleep.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 6,005
    edited 9:04AM
    MattW said:

    Battlebus said:

    MattW said:

    Conscription ended in 1960 , with National Service ending in 1963. That is, 65 and 62 years ago.

    The Silent Generation were subject to it; the boomers had people around them subject to it when they were young. I'm Gen X, but I had adults around me who had been conscripted when I was growing up (eg to Malaya).

    I think the question is a bit of a media-created red herring in that even the armed forces don't like it - they lose more from looking after them for short term conscription than any gain. So if we get to a situwation where it is necessary, it will be necessary.

    It will be major expansion of reserves first.

    I work with Veterans and they'll tell you some hairy stories. A friend's son spent a few years in Ukraine ferrying people from the front line. He loved doing this and was offered the chance at UKR nationality if he signed up for their army. He got a few weeks training and then sent to the front line where he was injured (and sent home to the UK). A couple of his friends didn't make it.

    No advantage to conscription as thousands of Russian mothers will state.
    I don't know if Keir & Co are on this yet, but they should be pursuing in a consistent way the successful Conservative expansion of the cadet core, and be following through with reserves.

    IMO it's important that these things exist widely to help young people develop, but also so that a propaganda win is not handed to Corbyn & similar.

    In my region the chair of the Green Party has argued (summarising) that money should be spent on WFA not Ukraine afaics.

    In general they seem well enough organised on background long-term things to have picked this up, but the bean counters nit-picking could undermine everything.
    I was watching a large group of Sea Cadet/Marine Cadets doing practice infantry skills such as section assaults somewhere on Saturday and was thinking I still remember the skills I learnt in four years as a Royal Marine cadet in the CCF.

    I think that rather than full scale national service or conscription a compulsory few years in the CCF and its required massive expansion would be worthwhile.

    It would be a lot cheaper than carrying loads of conscripts in the main army - a case of kitting out every teen with fatigues and relevant kit and teaching them to shoot, basic infantry tactics and skills.

    The cost is for the basic kit, training officers, extra guns and ammunition and you have, in the worst case scenario hundreds of thousands of people who already know the basics of what to do.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,315

    eek said:

    Battlebus said:

    MattW said:

    Conscription ended in 1960 , with National Service ending in 1963. That is, 65 and 62 years ago.

    The Silent Generation were subject to it; the boomers had people around them subject to it when they were young. I'm Gen X, but I had adults around me who had been conscripted when I was growing up (eg to Malaya).

    I think the question is a bit of a media-created red herring in that even the armed forces don't like it - they lose more from looking after them for short term conscription than any gain. So if we get to a situwation where it is necessary, it will be necessary.

    It will be major expansion of reserves first.

    I work with Veterans and they'll tell you some hairy stories. A friend's son spent a few years in Ukraine ferrying people from the front line. He loved doing this and was offered the chance at UKR nationality if he signed up for their army. He got a few weeks training and then sent to the front line where he was injured (and sent home to the UK). A couple of his friends didn't make it.

    No advantage to conscription as thousands of Russian mothers will state.
    The reason we don’t have military service and conscription is that we discovered in the 50s it was more better (in every way) to have a professional (and voluntary) military.


    Conscription is mostly talked about, either as a Back-To-The-Fifties nonsense. Or a performative flex - “I’m a virtuous total pacifist. Unlike the evil, arm chair warriors.”

    One thing that came out of Ukraine, incidentally is a shattering of the myth that all soldiers have to be 19. Plenty of 50+ on the frontlines there.
    The Silver Shields were the greatest military unit in the Diadochi era, even though many were in their 50s, 60s, or even older.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,118
    kamski said:


    BTW this BBC article is misleading as it has a chart showing the US giving a greater share of GDP to Ukraine than many European countries. But it separates the EU aid from the direct bilateral aid. If you include eg the German share of EU aid to Ukraine, it has given a greater share of GDP than the US.

    And that's before you consider the price tag of the US military aid to Ukraine, a large proportion of which was getting rid of old stockpiles.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg102564g2o

    Is it just me, or is the BBC tending towards repeating Trumpy disinformation these days?

    You can submit a complaint at https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/comments-feedback/#/Your comment I’ve seen them change articles in response.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,537
    eek said:

    Battlebus said:

    Off Topic.

    Can we have another discussion on mobile phone and internet masts. PB seems to be ahead of the curve on where these masts should be placed.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cx2ge0ejg08o

    WTAF put the cabinet on the road side of the pavement

    Then I saw it was Kingston Telecom (as Hull always had its own telecom company for “reasons”) and it makes perfect sense they are utter idiots
    Some years ago, some people worked out what you could do by demolishing certain cabinets in London.

    It’s much more distributed now, but there is a reason they seriously armour them in some counties. Or even put them underground.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,778
    kamski said:


    BTW this BBC article is misleading as it has a chart showing the US giving a greater share of GDP to Ukraine than many European countries. But it separates the EU aid from the direct bilateral aid. If you include eg the German share of EU aid to Ukraine, it has given a greater share of GDP than the US.

    And that's before you consider the price tag of the US military aid to Ukraine, a large proportion of which was getting rid of old stockpiles.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg102564g2o

    Is it just me, or is the BBC tending towards repeating Trumpy disinformation these days?

    And that is not the only misinformation. It claims:

    "This should not come as a surprise. Moscow put its economy on to a war footing some time ago. It appointed an economist as its defence minister and retooled many of its factories to churn out vast quantities of munitions, especially explosive-tipped drones."

    As if these munitions and drones were all sitting there neatly, waiting to attack us. Instead of having been used in an attritional war where Ukraine's production (and quality) of drones outpaces Russia. Where the Russians have exhausted reserves kept since the 1950s to put more tanks into the front line, over 10k of which have now been destroyed. Where vast numbers of artillery systems have been lost and continue to be lost on a daily basis. Completely misleading.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 14,180


    One thing that came out of Ukraine, incidentally is a shattering of the myth that all soldiers have to be 19. Plenty of 50+ on the frontlines there.

    How is it shattering the myth? They're fucking losing.

    I was 36 when I was working with professional infantrymen and I was 10 years too old then. I was as fit as the booties but far more susceptible to injury, heat exhaustion and dehydration.

    Younger men are much more physically resilient and are far easier to condition psychologically than flabby, jaded middle aged blokes.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,322
    eek said:

    Nigelb said:

    Thames Water data reveals raw sewage discharges in rivers rose 50% in 2024
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/mar/18/thames-water-data-reveals-raw-sewage-discharges-rivers-2024

    We were told last year that it would be a mistake to drive Thames into administration, as it would push up the cost of borrowing for the industry.

    Yesterday Thames was allowed to borrow another £3bn at an interest rate of 9.75%.
    To be funded by customers, of course.

    The whole thing stinks. The Government should be providing capital in exchange for equity, not this socialised losses nonsense.
    The company is worth about zilch - but are desperate to not end up nationalized

    Equally the Government doesn’t want them nationalized as it opens a whole world of hassle and pain.

    Hence giving that very expensive loan to keep the can going down the road a bit longer
    It's already a world of hassle and pain.

    It should be put into administration and nationalised.
    Either way the customers will end up paying, but they'll pay less to borrow if it's government owned, and less money will go overseas.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 25,797
    edited 9:11AM

    eek said:

    Battlebus said:

    Off Topic.

    Can we have another discussion on mobile phone and internet masts. PB seems to be ahead of the curve on where these masts should be placed.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cx2ge0ejg08o

    WTAF put the cabinet on the road side of the pavement

    Then I saw it was Kingston Telecom (as Hull always had its own telecom company for “reasons”) and it makes perfect sense they are utter idiots
    Some years ago, some people worked out what you could do by demolishing certain cabinets in London.

    It’s much more distributed now, but there is a reason they seriously armour them in some counties. Or even put them underground.

    Make the stupid moron drive properly.

    If he can't keep his vehicle on the road under 99.99% of circumstances (eg driving up a clear road in clear conditions with no other traffic with an urban speed limit) then he doesn't deserve a licence.

    Even so, it's better he hit that than a pedestrian. That needs a couple of bollards on it capable of stopping a small vehicle like that one. Or perhaps a higher kerb.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,576
    Leon said:

    War?? What do you fools know of WAR

    *stares moodily across the moonlit runways of Sao Paolo airport*

    Only those of us who have seen the true horror of war, smelt the reek of rotten death, gazed at the severed limbs and ruined cities - only we privileged yet traumatised veterans and heroes get to speak of this

    WAR

    And I say pack the whining brats off to the trenches, pronto

    I wasn't on here much yesterday, did I miss the vote?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,993
    Lot of young women staring at me in Sao paolo terminal 3. But then this is Brazil, isn’t it? women are so liberated sexually they feel able to express their lust. Quite openly

    I’m used to be being ogled but this is a new league
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,855
    Leon said:

    Lot of young women staring at me in Sao paolo terminal 3. But then this is Brazil, isn’t it? women are so liberated sexually they feel able to express their lust. Quite openly

    I’m used to be being ogled but this is a new league

    Haven’t your meds kicked in yet ?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,778

    eek said:

    Nigelb said:

    Thames Water data reveals raw sewage discharges in rivers rose 50% in 2024
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/mar/18/thames-water-data-reveals-raw-sewage-discharges-rivers-2024

    We were told last year that it would be a mistake to drive Thames into administration, as it would push up the cost of borrowing for the industry.

    Yesterday Thames was allowed to borrow another £3bn at an interest rate of 9.75%.
    To be funded by customers, of course.

    The whole thing stinks. The Government should be providing capital in exchange for equity, not this socialised losses nonsense.
    The company is worth about zilch - but are desperate to not end up nationalized

    Equally the Government doesn’t want them nationalized as it opens a whole world of hassle and pain.

    Hence giving that very expensive loan to keep the can going down the road a bit longer
    So because the Government doesn't want to do their jobs, i.e. the "hassle and pain" the customers have to pay more?
    If the government triggers a default in Thames Water bonds, and we are very close to that, we will all pay more because the implicit guarantee or back up to these bonds will have gone and no utility or University or quasi public institution would be able to borrow at the current rates.

    That might be a necessary step, it is not clear what the UK taxpayer or the customers have got out of this ability to borrow cheap (unlike the shareholders) but it is a big step and I have no doubt that there are some deeply unpleasant models in the Treasury explaining the implications.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,322
    kamski said:


    BTW this BBC article is misleading as it has a chart showing the US giving a greater share of GDP to Ukraine than many European countries. But it separates the EU aid from the direct bilateral aid. If you include eg the German share of EU aid to Ukraine, it has given a greater share of GDP than the US.

    And that's before you consider the price tag of the US military aid to Ukraine, a large proportion of which was getting rid of old stockpiles.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg102564g2o

    Is it just me, or is the BBC tending towards repeating Trumpy disinformation these days?

    Webb and Co have been (with acknowledgments to Dura) gargling his balls for some time.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 25,797
    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Battlebus said:

    MattW said:

    Conscription ended in 1960 , with National Service ending in 1963. That is, 65 and 62 years ago.

    The Silent Generation were subject to it; the boomers had people around them subject to it when they were young. I'm Gen X, but I had adults around me who had been conscripted when I was growing up (eg to Malaya).

    I think the question is a bit of a media-created red herring in that even the armed forces don't like it - they lose more from looking after them for short term conscription than any gain. So if we get to a situwation where it is necessary, it will be necessary.

    It will be major expansion of reserves first.

    I work with Veterans and they'll tell you some hairy stories. A friend's son spent a few years in Ukraine ferrying people from the front line. He loved doing this and was offered the chance at UKR nationality if he signed up for their army. He got a few weeks training and then sent to the front line where he was injured (and sent home to the UK). A couple of his friends didn't make it.

    No advantage to conscription as thousands of Russian mothers will state.
    I don't know if Keir & Co are on this yet, but they should be pursuing in a consistent way the successful Conservative expansion of the cadet core, and be following through with reserves.

    IMO it's important that these things exist widely to help young people develop, but also so that a propaganda win is not handed to Corbyn & similar.

    In my region the chair of the Green Party has argued (summarising) that money should be spent on WFA not Ukraine afaics.

    In general they seem well enough organised on background long-term things to have picked this up, but the bean counters nit-picking could undermine everything.
    I was watching a large group of Sea Cadet/Marine Cadets doing practice infantry skills such as section assaults somewhere on Saturday and was thinking I still remember the skills I learnt in four years as a Royal Marine cadet in the CCF.

    I think that rather than full scale national service or conscription a compulsory few years in the CCF and its required massive expansion would be worthwhile.

    It would be a lot cheaper than carrying loads of conscripts in the main army - a case of kitting out every teen with fatigues and relevant kit and teaching them to shoot, basic infantry tactics and skills.

    The cost is for the basic kit, training officers, extra guns and ammunition and you have, in the worst case scenario hundreds of thousands of people who already know the basics of what to do.
    Compared to alternatives, it is good value.

    I went the Duke of Edinburgh / Community Service route instead - but the same insights apply.

    We also need, over time, to counter the fake race-based patriotism coming from the harder elements of the Right.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,576
    Leon said:

    Lot of young women staring at me in Sao paolo terminal 3. But then this is Brazil, isn’t it? women are so liberated sexually they feel able to express their lust. Quite openly

    I’m used to be being ogled but this is a new league

    You are not used to being ogled. You are an old git and no one younger than you thinks of you as anything other than an old git who might be friends with, or perhaps reminds them of their father.

    Always remember that.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,262

    eek said:

    Battlebus said:

    MattW said:

    Conscription ended in 1960 , with National Service ending in 1963. That is, 65 and 62 years ago.

    The Silent Generation were subject to it; the boomers had people around them subject to it when they were young. I'm Gen X, but I had adults around me who had been conscripted when I was growing up (eg to Malaya).

    I think the question is a bit of a media-created red herring in that even the armed forces don't like it - they lose more from looking after them for short term conscription than any gain. So if we get to a situwation where it is necessary, it will be necessary.

    It will be major expansion of reserves first.

    I work with Veterans and they'll tell you some hairy stories. A friend's son spent a few years in Ukraine ferrying people from the front line. He loved doing this and was offered the chance at UKR nationality if he signed up for their army. He got a few weeks training and then sent to the front line where he was injured (and sent home to the UK). A couple of his friends didn't make it.

    No advantage to conscription as thousands of Russian mothers will state.
    The reason we don’t have military service and conscription is that we discovered in the 50s it was more better (in every way) to have a professional (and voluntary) military.


    Conscription is mostly talked about, either as a Back-To-The-Fifties nonsense. Or a performative flex - “I’m a virtuous total pacifist. Unlike the evil, arm chair warriors.”

    One thing that came out of Ukraine, incidentally is a shattering of the myth that all soldiers have to be 19. Plenty of 50+ on the frontlines there.
    Also, support soldiers (without which, combat arms can’t function), can be in their forties and fifties.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,307
    Morning all :)

    The key words in the question are "were to enter a war" - this isn't 1914. Even then, you had to teach factory workers how to fire a gun and march around when all the weaponry they really needed was a spade.

    The professional army (what there was of it) took on the Germans at the Marne - not conscripts.

    We wouldn't have anywhere near enough time to train anyone to do anything useful if we only started on the day war broke out. Whether we need conscription now is a different question and the answers might be different too.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,262
    Leon said:

    Lot of young women staring at me in Sao paolo terminal 3. But then this is Brazil, isn’t it? women are so liberated sexually they feel able to express their lust. Quite openly

    I’m used to be being ogled but this is a new league

    Oh lord, it’s hard to be humble ..
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,324
    eek said:

    Battlebus said:

    Off Topic.

    Can we have another discussion on mobile phone and internet masts. PB seems to be ahead of the curve on where these masts should be placed.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cx2ge0ejg08o

    WTAF put the cabinet on the road side of the pavement

    Then I saw it was Kingston Telecom (as Hull always had its own telecom company for “reasons”) and it makes perfect sense they are utter idiots
    I'm a big fan of Kingston Telecom. They were customers of mine (decades ago) and accidentally paid me over £80,000. It was my birthday as well. Sadly I owned up and paid it back. A normal invoice from me would have been under £1000.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 4,351
    Leon said:

    Lot of young women staring at me in Sao paolo terminal 3. But then this is Brazil, isn’t it? women are so liberated sexually they feel able to express their lust. Quite openly

    I’m used to be being ogled but this is a new league

    Perhaps you should put your cock back in your trousers?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,322
    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    Nigelb said:

    Thames Water data reveals raw sewage discharges in rivers rose 50% in 2024
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/mar/18/thames-water-data-reveals-raw-sewage-discharges-rivers-2024

    We were told last year that it would be a mistake to drive Thames into administration, as it would push up the cost of borrowing for the industry.

    Yesterday Thames was allowed to borrow another £3bn at an interest rate of 9.75%.
    To be funded by customers, of course.

    The whole thing stinks. The Government should be providing capital in exchange for equity, not this socialised losses nonsense.
    The company is worth about zilch - but are desperate to not end up nationalized

    Equally the Government doesn’t want them nationalized as it opens a whole world of hassle and pain.

    Hence giving that very expensive loan to keep the can going down the road a bit longer
    So because the Government doesn't want to do their jobs, i.e. the "hassle and pain" the customers have to pay more?
    If the government triggers a default in Thames Water bonds, and we are very close to that, we will all pay more because the implicit guarantee or back up to these bonds will have gone and no utility or University or quasi public institution would be able to borrow at the current rates.

    That might be a necessary step, it is not clear what the UK taxpayer or the customers have got out of this ability to borrow cheap (unlike the shareholders) but it is a big step and I have no doubt that there are some deeply unpleasant models in the Treasury explaining the implications.
    Will we ?
    9.75% already implies just that.

    The reality of the water companies us that they've been plundered by largely overseas share - and bond - holders for years, at the cost of capital investment.

    Either customers, or government, or both will have to fund the recapitalisation of the weakest. There's no reason that we should pay more to rebuild the value of the otherwise worthless shares and bonds.
    And if we do that, the regulator will award those shareholders a "reasonable return" in perpetuity on the capital that we have paid to rebuild.
Sign In or Register to comment.