No teenager in their right mind is going to sign up for the armed forces for a year, so that leaves 700k bored, bundles of energy and hormones all volunteering for the sectors of public service that are on their arse. The "glamorous" bits, like maybe the Fire Service, RNLI, NHS and Police all don't have enough staff to do the jobs they're supposed to do, let alone keep unpaid volunteers meaningfully busy. They'll just get in the way. If it was full on National Service in the armed forces, then it's still a wank idea, but would make more sense than this half arsed civic duty bollocks. The Tories have spent 14 years destroying the country and now want the kids to fix it for free. How can anyone sane vote Tory? You want this lot back in again?
Forcing young lads to go help out old folk in their homes should create a lot of work for the police volunteers tracking down the fencing of stolen goods.
It's going to be a brilliant work creation scheme.
How sad you have such little confidence in our young people.
If you had such confidence you’d simply pay them to do a job rather than force them to “volunteer”.
The disparity around 2001 is a strong indictment of fptp
The fact that it used to be a bias in favour of Labour in the Blair years suggests to me that there isn't really a bias against either party, but rather a bias against parties relying on their core vote only.
So appealing to the political centre ground not only appeals to floating voters but also flips the bias in the FPTP system in your own parties favour.
It wouldn't surprise me at all to see a bias in favour of Labour showing on that Cat graph on July 5th.
I had never thought about it like that, but that’s a really good thing
One of the major concerns I have about PR (worst with list systems, like Israel, but all with challenges) is the fissiparous influence of the system reinforcing atomisation of our society.
Ordinal voting systems, like STV, encourage appeals to the political centre ground.
So for those remaining aspirational Cons voters, I do believe there might be one or two left on here, with young children, do they vote Lab and pay more in school fees or Cons and see their precious Violets and Harrys go off to 1 QDG.
This isn't conscription. It's a form of mandatory service when you turn eighteen, and you can either do social service, emergency services, or environmental service, and 12 months in the military or cyber security - neither of which would be for front line combat - is just one of the options.
I have no problem it nor am I worried about what it means for him.
The emergency services won't want them. Your average Fire Station is minimum crewed. On a one pump station there will be four firefighters on duty. There will be no one around to hold the conscripts hand. It's a six week residential training school to qualify to sit on a pump, so they'll never get near any fire or rescue activity. I'll say it again, there will be no one free to babysit them, and no meaningful training you can give them. They'll just be in the way. They might get lumped with helping out with Community Fire Safety, but that will just be fitting a few smoke detectors, handing out leaflets and talking to people but that's not station based. What else can they do, at weekends, in the fire service?
Rishi's apparently genuine National Service announcement has finally given me a reason to vote Labour. Keeping Labour out is now less important to me than stopping the Tories.
Thing is, I am pretty receptive to the idea that our military is far less than it needs to be. But this doesn't strike me as a massively helpful solution to the problem.
It's like the maths to 18 policy. I'm receptive to the argument that as a nation we are insufficiently numerate. I'm a maths fan. But what we need is a) better basic maths education to 16, and b) encouragement for those so inclined to take it further than 18.
Like this, the national service policy is a bafflingly stupid solution to a valid problem. But at least the maths to 18 argument isn't going to needlessly ruin long periods of my kids' childhoods.
Before you do, perhaps remind yourself of what that might mean:
So, now, everyone's talking about security and defence. Not Labour's preferred 'cost of living' line on their grid for this weekend.
That'll do them nicely.
Security and Defence is not what Tories want to be talking about.
Labour respond:
“This is not a plan – it’s a review which could cost billions and is only needed because the Tories hollowed out the Armed Forces to their smallest size since Napoleon.”
A night's sleep has not made me rethink how ridiculous the national service proposal is. Even if the idea has potential merit this is not the way to drop it into the mix, you'd need a lot popularity and good will to convince people.
It's way worse than May's dementia tax. That was supported by more people and was to address a need the public accepted whereas even if for sake of argument we do need more soldiers and volunteers, the public are not by and large accepting of that.
It's presentation needed to be detailed, not dropped overnight, and it seems toxic already.
I don't go in for extravagant predictions, but I now think 150 seats is a highpoint for the Tories after this. Utter destruction is now more likely than not.
Yes, I'm now inclined to think my speculative punt on Labour 500 seats plus might not be that unlikely.
For trying to push a party's vote share up, it's possibly the worst idea sincerely announced in a GE campaign in my lifetime. Do any of its enthusiasts have kids or grandkids?
She wouldn't be getting half of it if she were a bloke.
Nick Robinson was a bloke and he was lambasted on here as Toenails for his pro-Labour bias, at least until David Cameron tried to recruit Robinson who had been a Conservative even at Oxford.
True, but that was sort of a meme/piss-take but the stuff aimed at Laura Kuenssberg is just aggressive and downright nasty.
The disparity around 2001 is a strong indictment of fptp
The fact that it used to be a bias in favour of Labour in the Blair years suggests to me that there isn't really a bias against either party, but rather a bias against parties relying on their core vote only.
So appealing to the political centre ground not only appeals to floating voters but also flips the bias in the FPTP system in your own parties favour.
It wouldn't surprise me at all to see a bias in favour of Labour showing on that Cat graph on July 5th.
I had never thought about it like that, but that’s a really good thing
One of the major concerns I have about PR (worst with list systems, like Israel, but all with challenges) is the fissiparous influence of the system reinforcing atomisation of our society.
I don't think the evidence is there that voting systems make societies more atomised - if that is even a bad or avoidable thing. E.g. Israel has over a dozen meaningful political parties because everyone arrived in the last few generations with different religious and cultural attachments that they still live out, from Western liberals to Zionist settlers, not the other way round.
Rishi's apparently genuine National Service announcement has finally given me a reason to vote Labour. Keeping Labour out is now less important to me than stopping the Tories.
Thing is, I am pretty receptive to the idea that our military is far less than it needs to be. But this doesn't strike me as a massively helpful solution to the problem.
It's like the maths to 18 policy. I'm receptive to the argument that as a nation we are insufficiently numerate. I'm a maths fan. But what we need is a) better basic maths education to 16, and b) encouragement for those so inclined to take it further than 18.
Like this, the national service policy is a bafflingly stupid solution to a valid problem. But at least the maths to 18 argument isn't going to needlessly ruin long periods of my kids' childhoods.
Before you do, perhaps remind yourself of what that might mean:
Prsesumably females only? Women's Land Army aka Land Girls.
Exactly and if Mrs Thatcher was so patriotic, why did she go straight to Oxford rather than joining the Women's Land Army? Sorry, I've come over all 1980s Ben Elton, little bit of politics. (The answers presumably being she was not stupid and chemistry was of national importance during the war: analysis of German aviation fuel in downed aircraft and so on.)
So for those remaining aspirational Cons voters, I do believe there might be one or two left on here, with young children, do they vote Lab and pay more in school fees or Cons and see their precious Violets and Harrys go off to 1 QDG.
This isn't conscription. It's a form of mandatory service when you turn eighteen, and you can either do social service, emergency services, or environmental service, and 12 months in the military or cyber security - neither of which would be for front line combat - is just one of the options.
I have no problem it nor am I worried about what it means for him.
The emergency services won't want them. Your average Fire Station is minimum crewed. On a one pump station there will be four firefighters on duty. There will be no one around to hold the conscripts hand. It's a six week residential training school to qualify to sit on a pump, so they'll never get near any fire or rescue activity. I'll say it again, there will be no one free to babysit them, and no meaningful training you can give them. They'll just be in the way. They might get lumped with helping out with Community Fire Safety, but that will just be fitting a few smoke detectors, handing out leaflets and talking to people but that's not station based. What else can they do, at weekends, in the fire service?
The community service side is ill-thought-out, because it's not the point of the policy. The point of the policy is to play to right-wing tropes around feral youth needing the starch and birch of military life to whip them into being good, obedient citizens.
The majority won't be doing the military bit (note, this is the bit that gets good polling) and that will be capped at about 20,000 people.
So the majority will be doing forced volunteering, without pay. What if they have a job, actually trying to contribute to the economy, or they're doing work experience?
And then the cost, this has been plucked out of thin air but the cost is apparently being covered by ending the levelling up plan altogether.
So if somebody has a job at 18, is working hard, they either have to quit their job or face consequences for not being forced to work without pay.
I could maybe support it if they were being paid. But they're not.
I don't care if it's good politics, the policy is completely wrong. And it's quite shameful to see a few who always talk about young people not working, supporting it.
If conscription hadn’t stopped when it did, we wouldn’t have had the Beatles and the extraordinary flowering of working class artistry and boundary pushing we saw in the 60s.
But that’s the point, isn’t it? The Tories really do want to take us back to some imagined 1950s, where deference reigned and the lower orders knew their place.
That’s why, really when you strip everything away, they wanted Brexit. It’s why want ‘lesser’ universities to fail. It’s why they want to bring back conscription.
They’ve abandoned Johnsonian levelling up - we can’t have money going to the backward northern provincial types.
It’s insane. Brexit has convinced the right that this is what Britain wants. It doesn’t. It’s government by nostalgia, hankering for an imagined, ‘better’, past that is long gone.
“We won’t send you to jail for avoiding national service”. A genuine headline in a national newspaper in Britain in 2024. And this is not in response to a Labour attack, but the Tories own policy announcement.
Although I’m labouring the point our economic system is supposed use money to incentivise people to do the work that needs doing. Has that totally failed?
No teenager in their right mind is going to sign up for the armed forces for a year, so that leaves 700k bored, bundles of energy and hormones all volunteering for the sectors of public service that are on their arse. The "glamorous" bits, like maybe the Fire Service, RNLI, NHS and Police all don't have enough staff to do the jobs they're supposed to do, let alone keep unpaid volunteers meaningfully busy. They'll just get in the way. If it was full on National Service in the armed forces, then it's still a wank idea, but would make more sense than this half arsed civic duty bollocks. The Tories have spent 14 years destroying the country and now want the kids to fix it for free. How can anyone sane vote Tory? You want this lot back in again?
I don't agree with this scheme, with its implementation or its timing. But it is worth pointing out that the system of Alternative Service has been successfully used in many European Countries for many years. Seven Countries still use it and it was only dropped in France and Norway in the last couple of decades. It can be a very successful system if handled properly. But of course with the current Tory administration, that is where the problem lies. No one trusts them to actually do it properly.
So for those remaining aspirational Cons voters, I do believe there might be one or two left on here, with young children, do they vote Lab and pay more in school fees or Cons and see their precious Violets and Harrys go off to 1 QDG.
This isn't conscription. It's a form of mandatory service when you turn eighteen, and you can either do social service, emergency services, or environmental service, and 12 months in the military or cyber security - neither of which would be for front line combat - is just one of the options.
I have no problem it nor am I worried about what it means for him.
The emergency services won't want them. Your average Fire Station is minimum crewed. On a one pump station there will be four firefighters on duty. There will be no one around to hold the conscripts hand. It's a six week residential training school to qualify to sit on a pump, so they'll never get near any fire or rescue activity. I'll say it again, there will be no one free to babysit them, and no meaningful training you can give them. They'll just be in the way. They might get lumped with helping out with Community Fire Safety, but that will just be fitting a few smoke detectors, handing out leaflets and talking to people but that's not station based. What else can they do, at weekends, in the fire service?
Very similar, I suggest, in the Ambulance Service.
Rishi's apparently genuine National Service announcement has finally given me a reason to vote Labour. Keeping Labour out is now less important to me than stopping the Tories.
Thing is, I am pretty receptive to the idea that our military is far less than it needs to be. But this doesn't strike me as a massively helpful solution to the problem.
It's like the maths to 18 policy. I'm receptive to the argument that as a nation we are insufficiently numerate. I'm a maths fan. But what we need is a) better basic maths education to 16, and b) encouragement for those so inclined to take it further than 18.
Like this, the national service policy is a bafflingly stupid solution to a valid problem. But at least the maths to 18 argument isn't going to needlessly ruin long periods of my kids' childhoods.
Before you do, perhaps remind yourself of what that might mean:
I'm quite aware that Labour are a bunch of dangerous and spiteful left wing nutters who will make everything worse in countless ways. But what are the Tories doing to stop any of this? State spending up, immigration up, woke up, growth down. And now they propose to deprive my kids of their liberty.
Just to give an example, I had a job on my gap year when I turned 18, I worked in sales for a year. I didn't lounge around, I made a positive contribution to the economy and I paid taxes.
So with the Tory plan I've have had to quit my job and stop paying tax, or get a fine or something else for continuing to work.
No teenager in their right mind is going to sign up for the armed forces for a year, so that leaves 700k bored, bundles of energy and hormones all volunteering for the sectors of public service that are on their arse. The "glamorous" bits, like maybe the Fire Service, RNLI, NHS and Police all don't have enough staff to do the jobs they're supposed to do, let alone keep unpaid volunteers meaningfully busy. They'll just get in the way. If it was full on National Service in the armed forces, then it's still a wank idea, but would make more sense than this half arsed civic duty bollocks. The Tories have spent 14 years destroying the country and now want the kids to fix it for free. How can anyone sane vote Tory? You want this lot back in again?
I don't agree with this scheme, with its implementation or its timing. But it is worth pointing out that the system of Alternative Service has been successfully used in many European Countries for many years. Seven Countries still use it and it was only dropped in France and Norway in the last couple of decades. It can be a very successful system if handled properly. But of course with the current Tory administration, that is where the problem lies. No one trusts them to actually do it properly.
In those countries, alternative service is a long commitment. It’s not 25 days in total.
Ok - to be absolutely honest, the Slave Labour thing had not cut through at all in my whatsapps groups. However, about 10 minutes ago the BBC sent out a push notification:
"National service plan will get young people 'out of their bubble', James Cleverly tells BBC"
A night's sleep has not made me rethink how ridiculous the national service proposal is. Even if the idea has potential merit this is not the way to drop it into the mix, you'd need a lot popularity and good will to convince people.
It's way worse than May's dementia tax. That was supported by more people and was to address a need the public accepted whereas even if for sake of argument we do need more soldiers and volunteers, the public are not by and large accepting of that.
It's presentation needed to be detailed, not dropped overnight, and it seems toxic already.
I don't go in for extravagant predictions, but I now think 150 seats is a highpoint for the Tories after this. Utter destruction is now more likely than not.
Yes, I'm now inclined to think my speculative punt on Labour 500 seats plus might not be that unlikely.
For trying to push a party's vote share up, it's possibly the worst idea sincerely announced in a GE campaign in my lifetime. Do any of its enthusiasts have kids or grandkids?
Yes.
There's a lot of hyperbole on here this morning, but this has always been a panicky site.
No teenager in their right mind is going to sign up for the armed forces for a year, so that leaves 700k bored, bundles of energy and hormones all volunteering for the sectors of public service that are on their arse. The "glamorous" bits, like maybe the Fire Service, RNLI, NHS and Police all don't have enough staff to do the jobs they're supposed to do, let alone keep unpaid volunteers meaningfully busy. They'll just get in the way. If it was full on National Service in the armed forces, then it's still a wank idea, but would make more sense than this half arsed civic duty bollocks. The Tories have spent 14 years destroying the country and now want the kids to fix it for free. How can anyone sane vote Tory? You want this lot back in again?
I don't agree with this scheme, with its implementation or its timing. But it is worth pointing out that the system of Alternative Service has been successfully used in many European Countries for many years. Seven Countries still use it and it was only dropped in France and Norway in the last couple of decades. It can be a very successful system if handled properly. But of course with the current Tory administration, that is where the problem lies. No one trusts them to actually do it properly.
Richard, I can maybe get behind the idea of some kind of service for some years (I think some countries like Singapore do three years?) because it might then actually help the armed forces. But for a year it won't be enough to actually do anything positive for them. But at least they're getting paid.
But the majority won't be doing that, it's capped at 20,000. The rest are doing unpaid work, with consequences for not.
Frankly I don't care if this is amazing politics and Rishi now wins the election, this policy is morally and ethically wrong.
Prsesumably females only? Women's Land Army aka Land Girls.
Exactly and if Mrs Thatcher was so patriotic, why did she go straight to Oxford rather than joining the Women's Land Army? Sorry, I've come over all 1980s Ben Elton, little bit of politics. (The answers presumably being she was not stupid and chemistry was of national importance during the war: analysis of German aviation fuel in downed aircraft and so on.)
Met someone once who told me that after getting a good First in Chemistry from Imperial in 1942 or thereabouts was immediately pulled out of the call-up he expected, and sent to work on the development of penicillin. Interesting chap.
No teenager in their right mind is going to sign up for the armed forces for a year, so that leaves 700k bored, bundles of energy and hormones all volunteering for the sectors of public service that are on their arse. The "glamorous" bits, like maybe the Fire Service, RNLI, NHS and Police all don't have enough staff to do the jobs they're supposed to do, let alone keep unpaid volunteers meaningfully busy. They'll just get in the way. If it was full on National Service in the armed forces, then it's still a wank idea, but would make more sense than this half arsed civic duty bollocks. The Tories have spent 14 years destroying the country and now want the kids to fix it for free. How can anyone sane vote Tory? You want this lot back in again?
I don't agree with this scheme, with its implementation or its timing. But it is worth pointing out that the system of Alternative Service has been successfully used in many European Countries for many years. Seven Countries still use it and it was only dropped in France and Norway in the last couple of decades. It can be a very successful system if handled properly. But of course with the current Tory administration, that is where the problem lies. No one trusts them to actually do it properly.
I absolutely agree with you. A well thought out Civic Duty scheme that benefitted both the country and the teenagers would be very welcome.
A night's sleep has not made me rethink how ridiculous the national service proposal is. Even if the idea has potential merit this is not the way to drop it into the mix, you'd need a lot popularity and good will to convince people.
It's way worse than May's dementia tax. That was supported by more people and was to address a need the public accepted whereas even if for sake of argument we do need more soldiers and volunteers, the public are not by and large accepting of that.
It's presentation needed to be detailed, not dropped overnight, and it seems toxic already.
I don't go in for extravagant predictions, but I now think 150 seats is a highpoint for the Tories after this. Utter destruction is now more likely than not.
Yes, I'm now inclined to think my speculative punt on Labour 500 seats plus might not be that unlikely.
For trying to push a party's vote share up, it's possibly the worst idea sincerely announced in a GE campaign in my lifetime. Do any of its enthusiasts have kids or grandkids?
Yes.
There's a lot of hyperbole on here this morning, but this has always been a panicky site.
I really don't think it is hyperbole. I can buy that the politics is superb - but as above this policy would have meant I'd have had to quit my job.
No teenager in their right mind is going to sign up for the armed forces for a year, so that leaves 700k bored, bundles of energy and hormones all volunteering for the sectors of public service that are on their arse. The "glamorous" bits, like maybe the Fire Service, RNLI, NHS and Police all don't have enough staff to do the jobs they're supposed to do, let alone keep unpaid volunteers meaningfully busy. They'll just get in the way. If it was full on National Service in the armed forces, then it's still a wank idea, but would make more sense than this half arsed civic duty bollocks. The Tories have spent 14 years destroying the country and now want the kids to fix it for free. How can anyone sane vote Tory? You want this lot back in again?
I don't agree with this scheme, with its implementation or its timing. But it is worth pointing out that the system of Alternative Service has been successfully used in many European Countries for many years. Seven Countries still use it and it was only dropped in France and Norway in the last couple of decades. It can be a very successful system if handled properly. But of course with the current Tory administration, that is where the problem lies. No one trusts them to actually do it properly.
In those countries, alternative service is a long commitment. It’s not 25 days in total.
Oh absolutely. As I said in my OP I don't agree at all with what is being proposed by Sunak. But the general tone here of Alternative Service being a wildly stupid idea is not, in my opinion, a valid one. It was only dropped in Norway in 2012 and even then it still had pretty widespread support. Done properly as a civilian alternative to military service it can work well and it is depressing that so many posters on here seem to think it is a non starter because British youth are lazy, feckless thieves.
It’s half term so a week in France and time to pick up a local paper from the boulangerie.
One UK story on the international news page of Le Journal de Saône et Loire today: record 10,000 migrants arrive in boats across the channel so far in 2024, 35% up on last year. Then a brief mention of Rwanda scheme.
I don’t recall seeing that news splashed anywhere here, but the TV must have got it from somewhere, or was it just drowned out by the election & Paula Vennels?
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 1h There's also a cosmic irony in pontificating about "social mixing" for teenagers while also campaigning to preserve tax breaks for private schools.
I have also had time to digest the policy overnight and while I won’t deny that I am sympathetic to the aims of driving youth volunteering/engagement having seen the details a bit more and the way it has been (terribly) announced I am more convinced that it was a misstep.
I have in the past had several debates on here about the fact that I genuinely think the government should and can do more to engage young people in their communities and encourage them to learn practical skills and foster community spirit. I do agree that the Internet and social media have pushed us into bubbles. And I do think that younger people who have had the opportunity to do things like volunteer learn tremendous social and practical skills that will put them in such great stead for their careers and help them get the most out of their further education. So I don’t have a problem with policies that encourage that - go for it.
The issue with this is a) emphasis on “national service” and military service. Immediately puts peoples backs up as it looks like conscription. My little darlings aren’t going to go and fight your wars, etc etc.
And b) emphasis on penalty for not complying rather than incentivisation. A better message/policy might be - no-one is forced to do this but we think it will be really beneficial for people to do so and as a result there will be an incentive that we’re exploring e.g maybe additional UCAS points for further education or an extra qualification or tuition fee reduction or something like that (these aren’t fully formed ideas of mine but you get the gist).
So yeah, I like the nugget of the idea behind this but I don’t like the particular policy and the Tory media game has gone completely cuckoo.
Rishi's apparently genuine National Service announcement has finally given me a reason to vote Labour. Keeping Labour out is now less important to me than stopping the Tories.
Thing is, I am pretty receptive to the idea that our military is far less than it needs to be. But this doesn't strike me as a massively helpful solution to the problem.
It's like the maths to 18 policy. I'm receptive to the argument that as a nation we are insufficiently numerate. I'm a maths fan. But what we need is a) better basic maths education to 16, and b) encouragement for those so inclined to take it further than 18.
Like this, the national service policy is a bafflingly stupid solution to a valid problem. But at least the maths to 18 argument isn't going to needlessly ruin long periods of my kids' childhoods.
Before you do, perhaps remind yourself of what that might mean:
I'm quite aware that Labour are a bunch of dangerous and spiteful left wing nutters who will make everything worse in countless ways. But what are the Tories doing to stop any of this? State spending up, immigration up, woke up, growth down. And now they propose to deprive my kids of their liberty.
Have you read all the detail properly? That's not at all how I see it.
There are quite a few flakey Tories on here and I sometimes wonder if it's just me, @MarqueeMark and @HYUFD fighting to back our own team. I get that morale is low but, goodness, we need to pull ourselves together.
I don't think you've enjoy a Labour government with a massive majority - and a huge phalanx of left-wing MPs on its backbenches - one iota. It'd be far worse on all the things you describe and you'd have to deal with the knowledge (and the guilt) that you helped enable it.
No teenager in their right mind is going to sign up for the armed forces for a year, so that leaves 700k bored, bundles of energy and hormones all volunteering for the sectors of public service that are on their arse. The "glamorous" bits, like maybe the Fire Service, RNLI, NHS and Police all don't have enough staff to do the jobs they're supposed to do, let alone keep unpaid volunteers meaningfully busy. They'll just get in the way. If it was full on National Service in the armed forces, then it's still a wank idea, but would make more sense than this half arsed civic duty bollocks. The Tories have spent 14 years destroying the country and now want the kids to fix it for free. How can anyone sane vote Tory? You want this lot back in again?
I don't agree with this scheme, with its implementation or its timing. But it is worth pointing out that the system of Alternative Service has been successfully used in many European Countries for many years. Seven Countries still use it and it was only dropped in France and Norway in the last couple of decades. It can be a very successful system if handled properly. But of course with the current Tory administration, that is where the problem lies. No one trusts them to actually do it properly.
It’s the same problem as the dementia tax: in theory a serious policy effort that has some potential merits but just dropped Willy nilly into an election campaign with no warm up.
I’m watching LK on catch-up. Cleverly is talking about national service teens being on-call firefighters or police community support officers. That is ludicrous, impossible. PSCOs need 8 weeks of training. National service teens will be around for 5 weeks. They’ll get 62.5% of the training and then leave.
No teenager in their right mind is going to sign up for the armed forces for a year, so that leaves 700k bored, bundles of energy and hormones all volunteering for the sectors of public service that are on their arse. The "glamorous" bits, like maybe the Fire Service, RNLI, NHS and Police all don't have enough staff to do the jobs they're supposed to do, let alone keep unpaid volunteers meaningfully busy. They'll just get in the way. If it was full on National Service in the armed forces, then it's still a wank idea, but would make more sense than this half arsed civic duty bollocks. The Tories have spent 14 years destroying the country and now want the kids to fix it for free. How can anyone sane vote Tory? You want this lot back in again?
I don't agree with this scheme, with its implementation or its timing. But it is worth pointing out that the system of Alternative Service has been successfully used in many European Countries for many years. Seven Countries still use it and it was only dropped in France and Norway in the last couple of decades. It can be a very successful system if handled properly. But of course with the current Tory administration, that is where the problem lies. No one trusts them to actually do it properly.
In those countries, alternative service is a long commitment. It’s not 25 days in total.
Oh absolutely. As I said in my OP I don't agree at all with what is being proposed by Sunak. But the general tone here of Alternative Service being a wildly stupid idea is not, in my opinion, a valid one. It was only dropped in Norway in 2012 and even then it still had pretty widespread support. Done properly as a civilian alternative to military service it can work well and it is depressing that so many posters on here seem to think it is a non starter because British youth are lazy, feckless thieves.
It's a massive red flag that the NFU have jumped in and called for it to be used as agricultural slave labour.
You can't blame young people for being deeply suspicious of anything the Conservatives propose. It's a shame really - I think it's over for any form of youth volunteering scheme, whatever party proposes it.
It’s half term so a week in France and time to pick up a local paper from the boulangerie.
One UK story on the international news page of Le Journal de Saône et Loire today: record 10,000 migrants arrive in boats across the channel so far in 2024, 35% up on last year. Then a brief mention of Rwanda scheme.
I don’t recall seeing that news splashed anywhere here, but the TV must have got it from somewhere, or was it just drowned out by the election & Paula Vennels?
It was the lead story on BBC radio 4 yesterday.
Not much evidence that the threat of Rwanda has really influenced arrivals, whatever the Irish politicians say.
Two related middle class (and not just middle class) concerns which would be catnip to a lot of the electorate and could usefully be in either party's manifesto
1. Unjust difference on divorce or the equivalent, in the treatment of wives (usually) vs partners who weren't actually married but might as well have been
2. The law whereby marriage revokes all wills, so dad remarrying at 70 means the 25 year old bride scoops the pool at the expense of the children
Ok - to be absolutely honest, the Slave Labour thing had not cut through at all in my whatsapps groups. However, about 10 minutes ago the BBC sent out a push notification:
"National service plan will get young people 'out of their bubble', James Cleverly tells BBC"
This has penetrated the bubble somewhat.
This is the real point and this is the politics.
It's about young, lazy, leftie snowflakes sitting at home not working like the older generation used to. This was aimed at reform and wavering Tories.
Although I’m labouring the point our economic system is supposed use money to incentivise people to do the work that needs doing. Has that totally failed?
It's the whole foundation of of society. Liberalism means choice, market forces. As opposed to rigid feudal hierarchies or central planning. Telling a person that they have to do this particular thing is not only wrong, it undermines everything we are. It's a wet dream for communists or fascists who will be emboldened as part of THEIR vision becomes OUR policy. Anybody who does this needs to think about what a future government (one that's far less sensible than 2024 Conservative or 2024 Labour) would do with this.
This kind of shit needs to be nipped in bud. Don't build pathways that would make the job of very, very bad people easier in future.
The model for NS proposed is very similar to the model in all of the Northern European/Scandinavian social democracies. There are arguments against, arguments for. The hyperventilation and 'bonkers' stuff from journos and social media is, as usual, completely overdone. As I said, on a personal level I don't care much either way for the policy but in electoral terms I'll be interested in how it goes.
I don't think you've enjoy a Labour government with a massive majority - and a huge phalanx of left-wing MPs on its backbenches - one iota. It'd be far worse on all the things you describe and you'd have to deal with the knowledge (and the guilt) that you helped enable it.
As a lifelong Conservative and Unionist supporter, I can't tell you how desperate I am for the current Government to be defeated. Heavily.
I’m watching LK on catch-up. Cleverly is talking about national service teens being on-call firefighters or police community support officers. That is ludicrous, impossible. PSCOs need 8 weeks of training. National service teens will be around for 5 weeks. They’ll get 62.5% of the training and then leave.
So, his argument is that the first year is compulsory, but it will trigger a lifelong commitment to volunteering. In my experience, the best way to put people, particularly teenagers, off something is to make it compulsory.
The model for NS proposed is very similar to the model in all of the Northern European/Scandinavian social democracies. There are arguments against, arguments for. The hyperventilation and 'bonkers' stuff from journos and social media is, as usual, completely overdone. As I said, on a personal level I don't care much either way for the policy but in electoral terms I'll be interested in how it goes.
Do you really think we should not at least be paying these people?
I do lots of voluntary activity, mostly conservation based. Nearly all the volunteers are retired or near-retired.
Is this because the yoof have no time for such things or because they have better things to be doing? I suspect the latter but it is hard to generalise.
We scare all schoolchildren to death with 'we're all doomed' stories of environmental damage and the like and I think it is a shame we don't get them to do more positive things too as I think that is healthier.
Perhaps if this was sold as 'fight climate change' instead of 'fight the Russians' then it might get more traction.
But compulsory? That's not very free market. Paid and learn a few skills at the same time? Why not.
If we are going to have compulsory "volunteering" for 18 year olds, perhaps we should do the same for the newly retired too. It would probably do them good.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges Still trying to come to terms with the fact the Tories actually decided to make a policy of forcing voter’s children into compulsory military service their first major offer of the 2024 election campaign. Not only is it bonkers in itself. It raises the question “if we give these people 5 more years what other mad s**t will they come up with”.
James Cleverly says that National Service will be "compulsory" but then says there won't be any criminal sanction for those who refuse.
So what's the point then? Surely just pay them and problem solved.
Personally I think this could have been a much better idea if it were for people at 18 that couldn't easily find work or a job. Pay them minimum wage and they can do something for a year, I can get behind that.
The model for NS proposed is very similar to the model in all of the Northern European/Scandinavian social democracies. There are arguments against, arguments for. The hyperventilation and 'bonkers' stuff from journos and social media is, as usual, completely overdone. As I said, on a personal level I don't care much either way for the policy but in electoral terms I'll be interested in how it goes.
Do you really think we should not at least be paying these people?
Probably, yes. If I were implementing the plan you'd either get paid as you will in this for military service, or for the volunteer version at the completion of your 12th weekend/25th day you get a lump sum of £1500
I’m watching LK on catch-up. Cleverly is talking about national service teens being on-call firefighters or police community support officers. That is ludicrous, impossible. PSCOs need 8 weeks of training. National service teens will be around for 5 weeks. They’ll get 62.5% of the training and then leave.
So, his argument is that the first year is compulsory, but it will trigger a lifelong commitment to volunteering. In my experience, the best way to put people, particularly teenagers, off something is to make it compulsory.
Duke of Edinburgh award already includes some volunteering.
Making a backup character for Pathfinder 2e. Going for a ranger (archer, as the party of 5 already has 3 frontline types). I am indeed contemplating the cat as one of the animal companions, alongside bear, scorpion, and bird.
Cat looks good (none of them seem bad, strictly) - but the dromeosaur looks particularly strong.
When I was planning this out (I went for a flurry ranger close combat ranger instead) I actually like the look of the bird; flight just solves a lot of problems.
So for those remaining aspirational Cons voters, I do believe there might be one or two left on here, with young children, do they vote Lab and pay more in school fees or Cons and see their precious Violets and Harrys go off to 1 QDG.
This isn't conscription. It's a form of mandatory service when you turn eighteen, and you can either do social service, emergency services, or environmental service, and 12 months in the military or cyber security - neither of which would be for front line combat - is just one of the options.
It's not mandatory as "Clever"ly has now clarified that there is no sanction for not complying.
I don't think you've enjoy a Labour government with a massive majority - and a huge phalanx of left-wing MPs on its backbenches - one iota. It'd be far worse on all the things you describe and you'd have to deal with the knowledge (and the guilt) that you helped enable it.
As a lifelong Conservative and Unionist supporter, I can't tell you how desperate I am for the current Government to be defeated. Heavily.
Well, you can tell me.
You've been telling me (and the rest of us) twenty-five times a day for the last 8 years.
I’m watching LK on catch-up. Cleverly is talking about national service teens being on-call firefighters or police community support officers. That is ludicrous, impossible. PSCOs need 8 weeks of training. National service teens will be around for 5 weeks. They’ll get 62.5% of the training and then leave.
So, his argument is that the first year is compulsory, but it will trigger a lifelong commitment to volunteering. In my experience, the best way to put people, particularly teenagers, off something is to make it compulsory.
Duke of Edinburgh award already includes some volunteering.
So for those remaining aspirational Cons voters, I do believe there might be one or two left on here, with young children, do they vote Lab and pay more in school fees or Cons and see their precious Violets and Harrys go off to 1 QDG.
This isn't conscription. It's a form of mandatory service when you turn eighteen, and you can either do social service, emergency services, or environmental service, and 12 months in the military or cyber security - neither of which would be for front line combat - is just one of the options.
It's not mandatory as "Clever"ly has now clarified that there is no sanction for not complying.
I'm not sure Cleverly even understands what he's supposedly arguing.
The idea is to setup a Royal Commission to figure out how to make this idea work. One of its remits is to figure out how to make people do it, i.e. what sanctions will apply.
It's nuts to say there will be no consequences because otherwise the whole thing is pointless.
I’m watching LK on catch-up. Cleverly is talking about national service teens being on-call firefighters or police community support officers. That is ludicrous, impossible. PSCOs need 8 weeks of training. National service teens will be around for 5 weeks. They’ll get 62.5% of the training and then leave.
So, his argument is that the first year is compulsory, but it will trigger a lifelong commitment to volunteering. In my experience, the best way to put people, particularly teenagers, off something is to make it compulsory.
Duke of Edinburgh award already includes some volunteering.
And of course, it’s not volunteering if somebody makes you do it.
I’m watching LK on catch-up. Cleverly is talking about national service teens being on-call firefighters or police community support officers. That is ludicrous, impossible. PSCOs need 8 weeks of training. National service teens will be around for 5 weeks. They’ll get 62.5% of the training and then leave.
So, his argument is that the first year is compulsory, but it will trigger a lifelong commitment to volunteering. In my experience, the best way to put people, particularly teenagers, off something is to make it compulsory.
Duke of Edinburgh award already includes some volunteering.
But you're not forced to do DofE.
Also, not being funny but DofE amongst my peers has been one of the most pointless things we ever had to do.
So for those remaining aspirational Cons voters, I do believe there might be one or two left on here, with young children, do they vote Lab and pay more in school fees or Cons and see their precious Violets and Harrys go off to 1 QDG.
This isn't conscription. It's a form of mandatory service when you turn eighteen, and you can either do social service, emergency services, or environmental service, and 12 months in the military or cyber security - neither of which would be for front line combat - is just one of the options.
I have no problem it nor am I worried about what it means for him.
The emergency services won't want them. Your average Fire Station is minimum crewed. On a one pump station there will be four firefighters on duty. There will be no one around to hold the conscripts hand. It's a six week residential training school to qualify to sit on a pump, so they'll never get near any fire or rescue activity. I'll say it again, there will be no one free to babysit them, and no meaningful training you can give them. They'll just be in the way. They might get lumped with helping out with Community Fire Safety, but that will just be fitting a few smoke detectors, handing out leaflets and talking to people but that's not station based. What else can they do, at weekends, in the fire service?
Even the Community Fire Safety stuff is problematic - they'd still need to be recruited, trained, supervised, insured.
The £2.5bn costing of this is a complete nonsense - it's going to take four times that to run the scheme, and that's without even considering paying people for their time.
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 1h There's also a cosmic irony in pontificating about "social mixing" for teenagers while also campaigning to preserve tax breaks for private schools.
And with that comment Sam Freedman has shown himself to be the complete idiot we always secretly thought him to be.
Labour have already closed my son's fucking school and now the 352 pupils displaced will largely (wait for it..) be displaced into local state schools at significant cost to the State.
So for those remaining aspirational Cons voters, I do believe there might be one or two left on here, with young children, do they vote Lab and pay more in school fees or Cons and see their precious Violets and Harrys go off to 1 QDG.
This isn't conscription. It's a form of mandatory service when you turn eighteen, and you can either do social service, emergency services, or environmental service, and 12 months in the military or cyber security - neither of which would be for front line combat - is just one of the options.
It's not mandatory as "Clever"ly has now clarified that there is no sanction for not complying.
I'm not sure Cleverly even understands what he's supposedly arguing.
The idea is to setup a Royal Commission to figure out how to make this idea work. One of its remits is to figure out how to make people do it, i.e. what sanctions will apply.
It's nuts to say there will be no consequences because otherwise the whole thing is pointless.
But there will be no consequences to the no consequences statement because the Tories are going to get buried.
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 1h There's also a cosmic irony in pontificating about "social mixing" for teenagers while also campaigning to preserve tax breaks for private schools.
And with that comment Sam Freedman has shown himself to be the complete idiot we always secretly thought him to be.
Labour have already closed my son's fucking school and now the 352 pupils displaced will largely (wait for it..) be displaced into local state schools at significant cost to the State.
Did we get some polling yesterday? I'm still hoping it gets so bad that Sunak just packs it in and leaves a caretaker leader to hobble through this election. I'm thinking Mordaunt. Better than prospective voters thinking he's going to be PM.
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 1h There's also a cosmic irony in pontificating about "social mixing" for teenagers while also campaigning to preserve tax breaks for private schools.
And with that comment Sam Freedman has shown himself to be the complete idiot we always secretly thought him to be.
Labour have already closed my son's fucking school and now the 352 pupils displaced will largely (wait for it..) be displaced into local state schools at significant cost to the State.
Brilliant.
"How do you type that noise where you wibble your lips with your fingers really rapidly whilst air comes out, followed by "diddums" ?" -- You, last week, when imagining the closure of education institutions that aren't your son's school.
Rishi's apparently genuine National Service announcement has finally given me a reason to vote Labour. Keeping Labour out is now less important to me than stopping the Tories.
Thing is, I am pretty receptive to the idea that our military is far less than it needs to be. But this doesn't strike me as a massively helpful solution to the problem.
It's like the maths to 18 policy. I'm receptive to the argument that as a nation we are insufficiently numerate. I'm a maths fan. But what we need is a) better basic maths education to 16, and b) encouragement for those so inclined to take it further than 18.
Like this, the national service policy is a bafflingly stupid solution to a valid problem. But at least the maths to 18 argument isn't going to needlessly ruin long periods of my kids' childhoods.
Before you do, perhaps remind yourself of what that might mean:
I'm quite aware that Labour are a bunch of dangerous and spiteful left wing nutters who will make everything worse in countless ways. But what are the Tories doing to stop any of this? State spending up, immigration up, woke up, growth down. And now they propose to deprive my kids of their liberty.
Have you read all the detail properly? That's not at all how I see it.
There are quite a few flakey Tories on here and I sometimes wonder if it's just me, @MarqueeMark and @HYUFD fighting to back our own team. I get that morale is low but, goodness, we need to pull ourselves together.
I don't think you've enjoy a Labour government with a massive majority - and a huge phalanx of left-wing MPs on its backbenches - one iota. It'd be far worse on all the things you describe and you'd have to deal with the knowledge (and the guilt) that you helped enable it.
You see, this is why I thought the general election would be held in January 2025. What Rishi's snap election has done is brought mad leftie Starmer into Downing Street six months earlier than necessary.
Urgh not Labour bringing back the smoking ban. I'd legalise cannabis and tax it.
One of the things I am not looking forward to in the next parliament is that Labour will absolutely revert to type and come up with all sorts of statist wheezes and bans on things. One of my big dislikes of the last Labour government. I can’t say the Tories have been much better, to be fair.
Reading through the thread there is widespread ridicule about Sunak's National Service proposals and I genuinely do not know whether it will be popular amongst voters but it certainly has grabbed the headlines
On volunteering work I can do no more than refer to my son's commitment to the RNLI and his determination to save lives at sea. The time he devotes to it is extraordinary and involves intense training and hopefully he will soon qualify as a helm being his first command position.
He does this entirely free as do all RNLI volunteers but also he holds down a full time senior management role in IT and devotes a lot of time to his family including 3 young children
It is a calling but giving to your community without expecting payment is something that should be encouraged and welcomed
I would just say that @Casino_Royale has his views and he is entitled to make his case and the pile on him is rather disappointing
The model for NS proposed is very similar to the model in all of the Northern European/Scandinavian social democracies. There are arguments against, arguments for. The hyperventilation and 'bonkers' stuff from journos and social media is, as usual, completely overdone. As I said, on a personal level I don't care much either way for the policy but in electoral terms I'll be interested in how it goes.
It’s not very similar to those models. Consider the Finnish system. That’s for men only, unlike the Tories’ plan. It’s for 9-12 months military service, with civilian service available as an alternative of 12 months, so the same or longer than the military option. The UK system offers a year with the military or 25 days civilian service. 80% of Finnish men do military service. The vast majority of UK teens won’t. If you dodge service in Finland, you go to jail for the equivalent time. There will be no jail sentences for avoiding service in the UK. Those on civilian service get paid in Finland; not in the UK plan.
I’m watching LK on catch-up. Cleverly is talking about national service teens being on-call firefighters or police community support officers. That is ludicrous, impossible. PSCOs need 8 weeks of training. National service teens will be around for 5 weeks. They’ll get 62.5% of the training and then leave.
So, his argument is that the first year is compulsory, but it will trigger a lifelong commitment to volunteering. In my experience, the best way to put people, particularly teenagers, off something is to make it compulsory.
Duke of Edinburgh award already includes some volunteering.
But you're not forced to do DofE.
Also, not being funny but DofE amongst my peers has been one of the most pointless things we ever had to do.
Horses (or in my experience, pointy gorses) for courses I guess.
Along with cooking, DoE was probably the most useful thing I did at school.
Will the 18 year olds conscripted into the Army get duty free fags like my Mum and Dad did?
That was the Navy, though, I thought? At least in the UK (the officers were very careful to dump heavily on any rating smuggling tobacco out into the outside world, lest that privilege be rescinded).
I think the Army only did that overseas? Or on troopships?
Every ship I served on had several smuggling rackets going. It was one of the (very) few perks of being a sailor. As long as it wasn't anything too egregious like Desert Eagles or opium and no officers were involved then a partially-sighted eye was turned to it. In the first half of my career the trade was very much dominated by fags and grot mags.
As Admiral Cochrane observed, there's the Navy in print and then there's the Navy in practice.
On the national service thing, what are the implications on inflation of taking several percent of the workforce out of employment and reassigning them to government-mandated busywork?
I think I am happy to have Casino and others articulate the case for this election on this policy - but surely long term making even more younger voters turn off the Tories is not a sensible idea? One day they presumably want some of these people to vote for them.
On the national service thing, what are the implications on inflation of taking several percent of the workforce out of employment and reassigning them to government-mandated busywork?
This was the point I made above. If I'd have done it, they'd have lost my tax revenue.
Comments
I'll say it again, there will be no one free to babysit them, and no meaningful training you can give them. They'll just be in the way.
They might get lumped with helping out with Community Fire Safety, but that will just be fitting a few smoke detectors, handing out leaflets and talking to people but that's not station based.
What else can they do, at weekends, in the fire service?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-13456697/Boris-Johnson-Keir-Starmer-dangerous-left-wing-1970s.html
We’d beat Napoleon in about 4 minutes.
Including the post battle brew up.
For trying to push a party's vote share up, it's possibly the worst idea sincerely announced in a GE campaign in my lifetime. Do any of its enthusiasts have kids or grandkids?
The majority won't be doing the military bit (note, this is the bit that gets good polling) and that will be capped at about 20,000 people.
So the majority will be doing forced volunteering, without pay. What if they have a job, actually trying to contribute to the economy, or they're doing work experience?
And then the cost, this has been plucked out of thin air but the cost is apparently being covered by ending the levelling up plan altogether.
So if somebody has a job at 18, is working hard, they either have to quit their job or face consequences for not being forced to work without pay.
I could maybe support it if they were being paid. But they're not.
I don't care if it's good politics, the policy is completely wrong. And it's quite shameful to see a few who always talk about young people not working, supporting it.
But that’s the point, isn’t it? The Tories really do want to take us back to some imagined 1950s, where deference reigned and the lower orders knew their place.
That’s why, really when you strip everything away, they wanted Brexit. It’s why want ‘lesser’ universities to fail. It’s why they want to bring back conscription.
They’ve abandoned Johnsonian levelling up - we can’t have money going to the backward northern provincial types.
It’s insane. Brexit has convinced the right that this is what Britain wants. It doesn’t. It’s government by nostalgia, hankering for an imagined, ‘better’, past that is long gone.
“We won’t send you to jail for avoiding national service”. A genuine headline in a national newspaper in Britain in 2024. And this is not in response to a Labour attack, but the Tories own policy announcement.
Stop treating young people like criminals you silly *****
I don’t call it National Service I call it ‘Nashy Serve’
@MrHarryCole
Natty Serves, surely?
I'd just like to reassure everyone that national service will not apply to kids with rich parents.
So with the Tory plan I've have had to quit my job and stop paying tax, or get a fine or something else for continuing to work.
This policy is insane, can nobody see it?
Not a great look to copy that.
"National service plan will get young people 'out of their bubble', James Cleverly tells BBC"
This has penetrated the bubble somewhat.
There's a lot of hyperbole on here this morning, but this has always been a panicky site.
But the majority won't be doing that, it's capped at 20,000. The rest are doing unpaid work, with consequences for not.
Frankly I don't care if this is amazing politics and Rishi now wins the election, this policy is morally and ethically wrong.
Interesting chap.
Registration plates on bicycles. It's gonna be the Kim Jong Un media grid.
One UK story on the international news page of Le Journal de Saône et Loire today: record 10,000 migrants arrive in boats across the channel so far in 2024, 35% up on last year. Then a brief mention of Rwanda scheme.
I don’t recall seeing that news splashed anywhere here, but the TV must have got it from somewhere, or was it just drowned out by the election & Paula Vennels?
Sam Freedman
@Samfr
·
1h
There's also a cosmic irony in pontificating about "social mixing" for teenagers while also campaigning to preserve tax breaks for private schools.
https://x.com/Samfr
I have in the past had several debates on here about the fact that I genuinely think the government should and can do more to engage young people in their communities and encourage them to learn practical skills and foster community spirit. I do agree that the Internet and social media have pushed us into bubbles. And I do think that younger people who have had the opportunity to do things like volunteer learn tremendous social and practical skills that will put them in such great stead for their careers and help them get the most out of their further education. So I don’t have a problem with policies that encourage that - go for it.
The issue with this is a) emphasis on “national service” and military service. Immediately puts peoples backs up as it looks like conscription. My little darlings aren’t going to go and fight your wars, etc etc.
And b) emphasis on penalty for not complying rather than incentivisation. A better message/policy might be - no-one is forced to do this but we think it will be really beneficial for people to do so and as a result there will be an incentive that we’re exploring e.g maybe additional UCAS points for further education or an extra qualification or tuition fee reduction or something like that (these aren’t fully formed ideas of mine but you get the gist).
So yeah, I like the nugget of the idea behind this but I don’t like the particular policy and the Tory media game has gone completely cuckoo.
There are quite a few flakey Tories on here and I sometimes wonder if it's just me, @MarqueeMark and @HYUFD fighting to back our own team. I get that morale is low but, goodness, we need to pull ourselves together.
I don't think you've enjoy a Labour government with a massive majority - and a huge phalanx of left-wing MPs on its backbenches - one iota. It'd be far worse on all the things you describe and you'd have to deal with the knowledge (and the guilt) that you helped enable it.
You can't blame young people for being deeply suspicious of anything the Conservatives propose. It's a shame really - I think it's over for any form of youth volunteering scheme, whatever party proposes it.
Not much evidence that the threat of Rwanda has really influenced arrivals, whatever the Irish politicians say.
1. Unjust difference on divorce or the equivalent, in the treatment of wives (usually) vs partners who weren't actually married but might as well have been
2. The law whereby marriage revokes all wills, so dad remarrying at 70 means the 25 year old bride scoops the pool at the expense of the children
Law reform badly needed
It's about young, lazy, leftie snowflakes sitting at home not working like the older generation used to. This was aimed at reform and wavering Tories.
It may well work.
Anybody who does this needs to think about what a future government (one that's far less sensible than 2024 Conservative or 2024 Labour) would do with this.
This kind of shit needs to be nipped in bud. Don't build pathways that would make the job of very, very bad people easier in future.
As I said, on a personal level I don't care much either way for the policy but in electoral terms I'll be interested in how it goes.
https://x.com/carryonkeith/status/1794649417246781805?s=46
Is this because the yoof have no time for such things or because they have better things to be doing? I suspect the latter but it is hard to generalise.
We scare all schoolchildren to death with 'we're all doomed' stories of environmental damage and the like and I think it is a shame we don't get them to do more positive things too as I think that is healthier.
Perhaps if this was sold as 'fight climate change' instead of 'fight the Russians' then it might get more traction.
But compulsory? That's not very free market. Paid and learn a few skills at the same time? Why not.
If we are going to have compulsory "volunteering" for 18 year olds, perhaps we should do the same for the newly retired too. It would probably do them good.
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
Still trying to come to terms with the fact the Tories actually decided to make a policy of forcing voter’s children into compulsory military service their first major offer of the 2024 election campaign. Not only is it bonkers in itself. It raises the question “if we give these people 5 more years what other mad s**t will they come up with”.
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/1794649677196927417
So what's the point then? Surely just pay them and problem solved.
Personally I think this could have been a much better idea if it were for people at 18 that couldn't easily find work or a job. Pay them minimum wage and they can do something for a year, I can get behind that.
Isn't forcing young people into national service at odds with the liberal tradition of the Conservative Party, asks @bbclaurak?
"We force people to do things all the time," James Cleverly says.
"I speak to young people a lot and always have done," Cleverly adds.
When I was planning this out (I went for a flurry ranger close combat ranger instead) I actually like the look of the bird; flight just solves a lot of problems.
You've been telling me (and the rest of us) twenty-five times a day for the last 8 years.
The idea is to setup a Royal Commission to figure out how to make this idea work. One of its remits is to figure out how to make people do it, i.e. what sanctions will apply.
It's nuts to say there will be no consequences because otherwise the whole thing is pointless.
Keir will be the cat who's got the cream
😼
The £2.5bn costing of this is a complete nonsense - it's going to take four times that to run the scheme, and that's without even considering paying people for their time.
Labour have already closed my son's fucking school and now the 352 pupils displaced will largely (wait for it..) be displaced into local state schools at significant cost to the State.
Brilliant.
Definitely prone to an accidental Partridge, but then so am I.
She's only 3 yrs older than me and manages to look like a 62 year old spinster in the WI.
Who on earth is advising her on her style?
-- You, last week, when imagining the closure of education institutions that aren't your son's school.
Insert leopards / face cliche here.
Reading through the thread there is widespread ridicule about Sunak's National Service proposals and I genuinely do not know whether it will be popular amongst voters but it certainly has grabbed the headlines
On volunteering work I can do no more than refer to my son's commitment to the RNLI and his determination to save lives at sea. The time he devotes to it is extraordinary and involves intense training and hopefully he will soon qualify as a helm being his first command position.
He does this entirely free as do all RNLI volunteers but also he holds down a full time senior management role in IT and devotes a lot of time to his family including 3 young children
It is a calling but giving to your community without expecting payment is something that should be encouraged and welcomed
I would just say that @Casino_Royale has his views and he is entitled to make his case and the pile on him is rather disappointing
I suspect FPTP will be shown to be in Labour's favour on July 5th.
Along with cooking, DoE was probably the most useful thing I did at school.
As Admiral Cochrane observed, there's the Navy in print and then there's the Navy in practice.
Times Radio’s
@EdVaizey
says the Tories’ mandatory National Service policy is “a terrible idea.”
https://x.com/TimesRadio/status/1794661649732809134
I think I am happy to have Casino and others articulate the case for this election on this policy - but surely long term making even more younger voters turn off the Tories is not a sensible idea? One day they presumably want some of these people to vote for them.