However, ministers who have watched Sunak’s short-tempered frustration that nothing he has done since last summer has seemed to work see a man who has had enough. A close aide told friends that Sunak had been hit hard by the Tories’ dire polling numbers and was “emotionally finding it hard to struggle with being unpopular”. Those monitoring things in the major polling companies say the Tory position has eroded further in the four days since Sunak’s election announcement....
...All this dissent led to false rumours on Friday night that veterans such as Sir Lynton Crosby, Andy Coulson, Cameron’s communications director, and George Osborne, were set to return to revive the campaign. Crosby is in Australia, while a friend of Osborne said the suggestion was not only untrue but impossible:
“George thinks Rishi is hopeless. He’s always thought he doesn’t have a big political brain and that Rishi has made two big calls in his career — backing Brexit and backing Boris — and that those are the two most catastrophic things to happen to this country in the last decade.”
If I was a Tory who wanted to win the election, I might look more closely at the platform that won a majority of 80 than the Cameron/Osborne/Crosby one that got the slimmest majority in 2015, threw one away in 2010, and lost a Brexit referendum they should have won.
The 2019 platform had a lot on levelling up. The national service plan is funded by taking that levelling up money.
The 2019 platform was about getting Brexit done and taking back control of immigration. Immigration is now at record high levels.
The 2019 platform was about keeping out Corbyn, which has now become Labour Party policy.
However, ministers who have watched Sunak’s short-tempered frustration that nothing he has done since last summer has seemed to work see a man who has had enough. A close aide told friends that Sunak had been hit hard by the Tories’ dire polling numbers and was “emotionally finding it hard to struggle with being unpopular”. Those monitoring things in the major polling companies say the Tory position has eroded further in the four days since Sunak’s election announcement....
...All this dissent led to false rumours on Friday night that veterans such as Sir Lynton Crosby, Andy Coulson, Cameron’s communications director, and George Osborne, were set to return to revive the campaign. Crosby is in Australia, while a friend of Osborne said the suggestion was not only untrue but impossible:
“George thinks Rishi is hopeless. He’s always thought he doesn’t have a big political brain and that Rishi has made two big calls in his career — backing Brexit and backing Boris — and that those are the two most catastrophic things to happen to this country in the last decade.”
If I was a Tory who wanted to win the election, I might look more closely at the platform that won a majority of 80 than the Cameron/Osborne/Crosby one that got the slimmest majority in 2015, threw one away in 2010, and lost a Brexit referendum they should have won.
Dave and George started on 198 seats, Boris Johnson started on 317 seats.
Getting a party from 198 seats to 331 seats is a damn sight more impressive than going from 317 seats to 365 seats.
Nah. After 13 years of rule by one party, you can say pretty much say anything and make big gains. And Cameron and Osborne did.
Much harder to win a majority of 80 after nine years in power and from a position where, earlier in 2019, everyone hated the party and they had slipped to third. To do that you have to offer something the public actually want, and engage with them in a way Cameron could never dream of.
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.
Its an interesting point with the farmers. Their complaint has been a lack of available labour at almost any sustainable price. So the question is whether the scheme would work better if it was national service but paid by the farmers at the rates being paid to farm workers now?
I am not suggesting this would necessarily work, just asking the question.
But also we have already had posters down thread saying it woudln't work because the youths would steal from old people in care homes. Not exactly a balanced opinion.
Are all those being sent to care homes/domestic care support going to be vetted, DRB'd and supervised?
If not, would you want your granny have them help her get dressed in the morning?
And what are you going to do with all the 18 year olds who do have a criminal record?
Do what they do in other European countries that run have successfully run such schemes for many years. Again. This is not in support of the half arsed proposals from Sunak but the assertion that somehow Alternative Service is a non starter and some of the shameful reasons being advanced to support that assertion are pretty offensive.
If you are starting from a position that the youth of today are dishonest and not to be trusted looking after the elderly (as in your example) then it is no surprise they feel alienated.
1 year of civilian service is very different to 1 weekend a month for a year. It allows time for training and vetting, also it is paid.
I have a number of colleagues who have done their national service, mostly Greeks.
Some enjoyed it. A Consultant colleague of mine quite liked driving a Leopard 2 and firing machine guns, but others hated being frozen on the Albanian border in mountain huts with smelly colleagues. Another was on a coastguard vessel that deliberately swamped migrant boats.
So mixed opinions of its utility.
Which is why all the way through I have emphasized that I think the Sunak Scheme is stupid. But that is not the scheme used in other countries with National and Alternative Service. That is what I am pointing out. A full time scheme with some element of payment but with Governmental direction of manpower into those areas of society that need them the most seems very sensible to me. Too many people here seem to like the concept of 'society' in theory but rail against the idea that this requires responsibilities as well as rights.
However, ministers who have watched Sunak’s short-tempered frustration that nothing he has done since last summer has seemed to work see a man who has had enough. A close aide told friends that Sunak had been hit hard by the Tories’ dire polling numbers and was “emotionally finding it hard to struggle with being unpopular”. Those monitoring things in the major polling companies say the Tory position has eroded further in the four days since Sunak’s election announcement....
...All this dissent led to false rumours on Friday night that veterans such as Sir Lynton Crosby, Andy Coulson, Cameron’s communications director, and George Osborne, were set to return to revive the campaign. Crosby is in Australia, while a friend of Osborne said the suggestion was not only untrue but impossible:
“George thinks Rishi is hopeless. He’s always thought he doesn’t have a big political brain and that Rishi has made two big calls in his career — backing Brexit and backing Boris — and that those are the two most catastrophic things to happen to this country in the last decade.”
If I was a Tory who wanted to win the election, I might look more closely at the platform that won a majority of 80 than the Cameron/Osborne/Crosby one that got the slimmest majority in 2015, threw one away in 2010, and lost a Brexit referendum they should have won.
The platform was Get Brexit Done. Rather hard to repeat.
I wonder if it is just a sign of my own increasing age that even though he is older than me Sunak feels very much like a young policitian, whereas Cameron seemed older thank Sunak in 2010 despite being the same age Sunak is now.
It's not due to experience, as Sunak has been an MP just as long as Cameron had back then, and is a lot more politically experienced than Cameron was in 2010, with years as a senior minister behind him.
However, ministers who have watched Sunak’s short-tempered frustration that nothing he has done since last summer has seemed to work see a man who has had enough. A close aide told friends that Sunak had been hit hard by the Tories’ dire polling numbers and was “emotionally finding it hard to struggle with being unpopular”. Those monitoring things in the major polling companies say the Tory position has eroded further in the four days since Sunak’s election announcement....
...All this dissent led to false rumours on Friday night that veterans such as Sir Lynton Crosby, Andy Coulson, Cameron’s communications director, and George Osborne, were set to return to revive the campaign. Crosby is in Australia, while a friend of Osborne said the suggestion was not only untrue but impossible:
“George thinks Rishi is hopeless. He’s always thought he doesn’t have a big political brain and that Rishi has made two big calls in his career — backing Brexit and backing Boris — and that those are the two most catastrophic things to happen to this country in the last decade.”
If I was a Tory who wanted to win the election, I might look more closely at the platform that won a majority of 80 than the Cameron/Osborne/Crosby one that got the slimmest majority in 2015, threw one away in 2010, and lost a Brexit referendum they should have won.
Dave and George started on 198 seats, Boris Johnson started on 317 seats.
Getting a party from 198 seats to 331 seats is a damn sight more impressive than going from 317 seats to 365 seats.
You never really got the concept of low hanging fruit did you.
However, ministers who have watched Sunak’s short-tempered frustration that nothing he has done since last summer has seemed to work see a man who has had enough. A close aide told friends that Sunak had been hit hard by the Tories’ dire polling numbers and was “emotionally finding it hard to struggle with being unpopular”. Those monitoring things in the major polling companies say the Tory position has eroded further in the four days since Sunak’s election announcement....
...All this dissent led to false rumours on Friday night that veterans such as Sir Lynton Crosby, Andy Coulson, Cameron’s communications director, and George Osborne, were set to return to revive the campaign. Crosby is in Australia, while a friend of Osborne said the suggestion was not only untrue but impossible:
“George thinks Rishi is hopeless. He’s always thought he doesn’t have a big political brain and that Rishi has made two big calls in his career — backing Brexit and backing Boris — and that those are the two most catastrophic things to happen to this country in the last decade.”
If I was a Tory who wanted to win the election, I might look more closely at the platform that won a majority of 80 than the Cameron/Osborne/Crosby one that got the slimmest majority in 2015, threw one away in 2010, and lost a Brexit referendum they should have won.
Dave and George started on 198 seats, Boris Johnson started on 317 seats.
Getting a party from 198 seats to 331 seats is a damn sight more impressive than going from 317 seats to 365 seats.
Nah. After 13 years of rule by one party, you can say pretty much say anything and make big gains. And Cameron and Osborne did.
Much harder to win a majority of 80 after nine years in power and from a position where, earlier in 2019, everyone hated the party and they had slipped to third. To do that you have to offer something the public actually want, and engage with them in a way Cameron could never dream of.
Boris won seats that hadn't been entertained seriously by the Tories for decades. Cameron squeezed the Lib Dems.
However, ministers who have watched Sunak’s short-tempered frustration that nothing he has done since last summer has seemed to work see a man who has had enough. A close aide told friends that Sunak had been hit hard by the Tories’ dire polling numbers and was “emotionally finding it hard to struggle with being unpopular”. Those monitoring things in the major polling companies say the Tory position has eroded further in the four days since Sunak’s election announcement....
...All this dissent led to false rumours on Friday night that veterans such as Sir Lynton Crosby, Andy Coulson, Cameron’s communications director, and George Osborne, were set to return to revive the campaign. Crosby is in Australia, while a friend of Osborne said the suggestion was not only untrue but impossible:
“George thinks Rishi is hopeless. He’s always thought he doesn’t have a big political brain and that Rishi has made two big calls in his career — backing Brexit and backing Boris — and that those are the two most catastrophic things to happen to this country in the last decade.”
If I was a Tory who wanted to win the election, I might look more closely at the platform that won a majority of 80 than the Cameron/Osborne/Crosby one that got the slimmest majority in 2015, threw one away in 2010, and lost a Brexit referendum they should have won.
Dave and George started on 198 seats, Boris Johnson started on 317 seats.
Getting a party from 198 seats to 331 seats is a damn sight more impressive than going from 317 seats to 365 seats.
Nah. After 13 years of rule by one party, you can say pretty much say anything and make big gains. And Cameron and Osborne did.
Much harder to win a majority of 80 after nine years in power and from a position where, earlier in 2019, everyone hated the party and they had slipped to third. To do that you have to offer something the public actually want, and engage with them in a way Cameron could never dream of.
Thatcher/Blair achieved similar majorities 8 years after first being elected.
Why had the Tories slipped to third? Because of the actions of Boris Johnson and some of the Brexiteers.
Dave's performance as LOTO was the third most impressive since VE Day and the system was stacked against the Tories.
2% lead for Labour in 2005 = 66 seat majority
6% lead for the Tories in 2010 - Just short of a majority.
I bet you're one of those idiots who think Graham Gooch's best test innings was the 333 he hit against India's dibbly dobbly seamers in a hot July at Lord's as opposed to his 154 against the peak Windies at a cloudy Leeds.
I wonder if it is just a sign of my own increasing age that even though he is older than me Sunak feels very much like a young policitian, whereas Cameron seemed older in 2010 despite being the same age Sunak is now.
It's not due to experience, as Sunak has been an MP just as long as Cameron had back then, and is a lot more politically experienced than Cameron was in 2010, with years as a senior minister behind him.
Both Cameron and Sunak (as well as Truss) are younger than me. It does sometimes make me feel old.
I dislike the "all changes within the margin error" statement on some polls.
Over time, you could have a statistically significant change over the course of several consecutive polls obscured by this. There is a higher risk than normal given the high frequency of polling over the next few weeks.
However, ministers who have watched Sunak’s short-tempered frustration that nothing he has done since last summer has seemed to work see a man who has had enough. A close aide told friends that Sunak had been hit hard by the Tories’ dire polling numbers and was “emotionally finding it hard to struggle with being unpopular”. Those monitoring things in the major polling companies say the Tory position has eroded further in the four days since Sunak’s election announcement....
...All this dissent led to false rumours on Friday night that veterans such as Sir Lynton Crosby, Andy Coulson, Cameron’s communications director, and George Osborne, were set to return to revive the campaign. Crosby is in Australia, while a friend of Osborne said the suggestion was not only untrue but impossible:
“George thinks Rishi is hopeless. He’s always thought he doesn’t have a big political brain and that Rishi has made two big calls in his career — backing Brexit and backing Boris — and that those are the two most catastrophic things to happen to this country in the last decade.”
If I was a Tory who wanted to win the election, I might look more closely at the platform that won a majority of 80 than the Cameron/Osborne/Crosby one that got the slimmest majority in 2015, threw one away in 2010, and lost a Brexit referendum they should have won.
Dave and George started on 198 seats, Boris Johnson started on 317 seats.
Getting a party from 198 seats to 331 seats is a damn sight more impressive than going from 317 seats to 365 seats.
Nah. After 13 years of rule by one party, you can say pretty much say anything and make big gains. And Cameron and Osborne did.
Much harder to win a majority of 80 after nine years in power and from a position where, earlier in 2019, everyone hated the party and they had slipped to third. To do that you have to offer something the public actually want, and engage with them in a way Cameron could never dream of.
Thatcher/Blair achieved similar majorities 8 years after first being elected.
Why had the Tories slipped to third? Because of the actions of Boris Johnson and some of the Brexiteers.
Dave's performance as LOTO was the third most impressive since VE Day and the system was stacked against the Tories.
2% lead for Labour in 2005 = 66 seat majority
6% lead for the Tories in 2010 - Just short of a majority.
I wonder if it is just a sign of my own increasing age that even though he is older than me Sunak feels very much like a young policitian, whereas Cameron seemed older in 2010 despite being the same age Sunak is now.
It's not due to experience, as Sunak has been an MP just as long as Cameron had back then, and is a lot more politically experienced than Cameron was in 2010, with years as a senior minister behind him.
Both Cameron and Sunak (as well as Truss) are younger than me. It does sometimes make me feel old.
Boris Johnson's 2019 strategy was one that worked for one election and then probably has thrown it away for a generation. Daniel Finkelstein has commented on this a lot.
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.
Its an interesting point with the farmers. Their complaint has been a lack of available labour at almost any sustainable price. So the question is whether the scheme would work better if it was national service but paid by the farmers at the rates being paid to farm workers now?
I am not suggesting this would necessarily work, just asking the question.
But also we have already had posters down thread saying it woudln't work because the youths would steal from old people in care homes. Not exactly a balanced opinion.
Are all those being sent to care homes/domestic care support going to be vetted, DRB'd and supervised?
If not, would you want your granny have them help her get dressed in the morning?
And what are you going to do with all the 18 year olds who do have a criminal record?
Do what they do in other European countries that run have successfully run such schemes for many years. Again. This is not in support of the half arsed proposals from Sunak but the assertion that somehow Alternative Service is a non starter and some of the shameful reasons being advanced to support that assertion are pretty offensive.
If you are starting from a position that the youth of today are dishonest and not to be trusted looking after the elderly (as in your example) then it is no surprise they feel alienated.
1 year of civilian service is very different to 1 weekend a month for a year. It allows time for training and vetting, also it is paid.
I have a number of colleagues who have done their national service, mostly Greeks.
Some enjoyed it. A Consultant colleague of mine quite liked driving a Leopard 2 and firing machine guns, but others hated being frozen on the Albanian border in mountain huts with smelly colleagues. Another was on a coastguard vessel that deliberately swamped migrant boats.
So mixed opinions of its utility.
Which is why all the way through I have emphasized that I think the Sunak Scheme is stupid. But that is not the scheme used in other countries with National and Alternative Service. That is what I am pointing out. A full time scheme with some element of payment but with Governmental direction of manpower into those areas of society that need them the most seems very sensible to me. Too many people here seem to like the concept of 'society' in theory but rail against the idea that this requires responsibilities as well as rights.
Sure, but saying this scheme over here that is different from the proposal is good doesn’t seem that relevant. (Compare also Bart on the Rwanda scheme talking about an entirely different scheme done in Australia.)
We have the scheme that has been proposed. People can vote for it or not.
Let me count the ways...12 months military service for 18-yr olds.
13 weeks at ATR (I would note that it is 44 weeks at RMAS but I can't see any ABC1sprog being allowed to get close to this) unleashes nine months of some kind of activity for the crows to undertake. Let's give them a month or two special to arms training (not sure if today's CVR(T)s are self-driving). So 6-7 months of doing something useful. Now let's see. Are they going to be sent to Estonia as part of Cabrit? Unlikely. Are they going as trainers to ANSF? I would say no. Is HMF going to invest in training for some specialist discipline (likely three months training course)? Unlikely. Will they be trained on "interesting" elements (cyber, etc)? Perhaps, but these are 12-month soldiers and investment in training would like to see a return over subsequent years. Could they spend a few weeks on Salisbury Plain or indeed Kenya or Belize? For sure. Could they mount Kings (foot) Guard at Buckingham Palace? Yep. If the balloon goes up will they be sent out on ops into the thick of it? Oh yes.
So in total they will be providing bodies in case things go tits up in the East.
There is a group of senior or retired officers that believe the UK has slipped down the ladder of importance these past few decades. They want to put us on a "war footing". This, they believe, will help to repair the UK's global standing and make us ready to undertake operations that even with this influx of bodies, we are manifestly unprepared to undertake.
It is a vanity project for those senior officers, for the government (who ofc don't understand it), and will be in the world we live in, of no practical use to our armed forces. If the govt really wants to make us more battle ready they should invest in recruiting more soldiers. Not telling spotty 18-yr olds that they are going to be attached to HMF for a year.
However, ministers who have watched Sunak’s short-tempered frustration that nothing he has done since last summer has seemed to work see a man who has had enough. A close aide told friends that Sunak had been hit hard by the Tories’ dire polling numbers and was “emotionally finding it hard to struggle with being unpopular”. Those monitoring things in the major polling companies say the Tory position has eroded further in the four days since Sunak’s election announcement....
...All this dissent led to false rumours on Friday night that veterans such as Sir Lynton Crosby, Andy Coulson, Cameron’s communications director, and George Osborne, were set to return to revive the campaign. Crosby is in Australia, while a friend of Osborne said the suggestion was not only untrue but impossible:
“George thinks Rishi is hopeless. He’s always thought he doesn’t have a big political brain and that Rishi has made two big calls in his career — backing Brexit and backing Boris — and that those are the two most catastrophic things to happen to this country in the last decade.”
If I was a Tory who wanted to win the election, I might look more closely at the platform that won a majority of 80 than the Cameron/Osborne/Crosby one that got the slimmest majority in 2015, threw one away in 2010, and lost a Brexit referendum they should have won.
Dave and George started on 198 seats, Boris Johnson started on 317 seats.
Getting a party from 198 seats to 331 seats is a damn sight more impressive than going from 317 seats to 365 seats.
You never really got the concept of low hanging fruit did you.
Between them Boris, Truss and Sunak may just have killed the tree.
However, ministers who have watched Sunak’s short-tempered frustration that nothing he has done since last summer has seemed to work see a man who has had enough. A close aide told friends that Sunak had been hit hard by the Tories’ dire polling numbers and was “emotionally finding it hard to struggle with being unpopular”. Those monitoring things in the major polling companies say the Tory position has eroded further in the four days since Sunak’s election announcement....
...All this dissent led to false rumours on Friday night that veterans such as Sir Lynton Crosby, Andy Coulson, Cameron’s communications director, and George Osborne, were set to return to revive the campaign. Crosby is in Australia, while a friend of Osborne said the suggestion was not only untrue but impossible:
“George thinks Rishi is hopeless. He’s always thought he doesn’t have a big political brain and that Rishi has made two big calls in his career — backing Brexit and backing Boris — and that those are the two most catastrophic things to happen to this country in the last decade.”
If I was a Tory who wanted to win the election, I might look more closely at the platform that won a majority of 80 than the Cameron/Osborne/Crosby one that got the slimmest majority in 2015, threw one away in 2010, and lost a Brexit referendum they should have won.
The 2019 platform had a lot on levelling up. The national service plan is funded by taking that levelling up money.
The 2019 platform was about getting Brexit done and taking back control of immigration. Immigration is now at record high levels.
The 2019 platform was about keeping out Corbyn, which has now become Labour Party policy.
Well you do have to layer in the fact that it’s Labour’s “turn”. The Tories have had had their “go” and countries need there to be rotation of Governments. It’s healthy.
I assume even the Tories grasp this and the real campaign is to try and get over 30%, reduce or (in a perfect world for them) avoid a Labour majority, and bounce back soon. I’m sure they would like to win but they know they won’t.
The point I was making, however, was that the 2019 campaign was objectively harder to win, and the campaign more successful.
How many Senior Tories have actually done a day's work in the Public sector? Because they appear to think it's summat for the completely untrained and unskilled. And that's precisely the message it conveys to millions already struggling to do those jobs. Maybe 25 weekends on the frontline for Tory MP's would be better for community cohesion?
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.
Its an interesting point with the farmers. Their complaint has been a lack of available labour at almost any sustainable price. So the question is whether the scheme would work better if it was national service but paid by the farmers at the rates being paid to farm workers now?
I am not suggesting this would necessarily work, just asking the question.
But also we have already had posters down thread saying it woudln't work because the youths would steal from old people in care homes. Not exactly a balanced opinion.
Are all those being sent to care homes/domestic care support going to be vetted, DRB'd and supervised?
If not, would you want your granny have them help her get dressed in the morning?
And what are you going to do with all the 18 year olds who do have a criminal record?
Do what they do in other European countries that run have successfully run such schemes for many years. Again. This is not in support of the half arsed proposals from Sunak but the assertion that somehow Alternative Service is a non starter and some of the shameful reasons being advanced to support that assertion are pretty offensive.
If you are starting from a position that the youth of today are dishonest and not to be trusted looking after the elderly (as in your example) then it is no surprise they feel alienated.
1 year of civilian service is very different to 1 weekend a month for a year. It allows time for training and vetting, also it is paid.
I have a number of colleagues who have done their national service, mostly Greeks.
Some enjoyed it. A Consultant colleague of mine quite liked driving a Leopard 2 and firing machine guns, but others hated being frozen on the Albanian border in mountain huts with smelly colleagues. Another was on a coastguard vessel that deliberately swamped migrant boats.
So mixed opinions of its utility.
Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but are the Tories really proposing that this new compulsory service scheme should be unpaid?
If so, surely it won't be legal under the Human Rights Act and Modern Slavery Act? And, if not, why have they not included this in their costings?
Incidentally, I read that "lets ban computers" is part of Sunak's Bold Action strategy.
Apparently, The Plan includes dropping in things from very left field with zero notice. That just happen to dogwhistle the remaining 12 people who will vote Tory.
Lets consider what other Bold Action policies we can look forward to over the next few weeks:
Chain-gangs for the so-called disabled The Birch in our schools and a ban on sex education Solve the prison crisis by walling off places like Middlesbrough and turning them into a gulag. A flat tax Raise the voting threshold to Additional Rate taxpayers only
I log on and wtf!? I have to go straight to the Graun to find out.
One thing *anyone* knows from the history of National Service - there almost certainly aren't enough service people to actually do the training of a significant fraction of the young population as well as their other jobs. Incredibly inefficient in terms of producing squaddie-hours on the ground, too, and as for matelots and Raff types, forget it - they need too much training now (even in the 1950s with simpler tech it was getting pretty obvious).
At least we have the prospect of the mines being reopened to provide the materiel for conscripts to be occupied with painting it white. May be trouble ahead with Wokesters over this valuable life lesson mind..
Plenty of precedent there, Bevin's Boys and all that.
However, ministers who have watched Sunak’s short-tempered frustration that nothing he has done since last summer has seemed to work see a man who has had enough. A close aide told friends that Sunak had been hit hard by the Tories’ dire polling numbers and was “emotionally finding it hard to struggle with being unpopular”. Those monitoring things in the major polling companies say the Tory position has eroded further in the four days since Sunak’s election announcement....
...All this dissent led to false rumours on Friday night that veterans such as Sir Lynton Crosby, Andy Coulson, Cameron’s communications director, and George Osborne, were set to return to revive the campaign. Crosby is in Australia, while a friend of Osborne said the suggestion was not only untrue but impossible:
“George thinks Rishi is hopeless. He’s always thought he doesn’t have a big political brain and that Rishi has made two big calls in his career — backing Brexit and backing Boris — and that those are the two most catastrophic things to happen to this country in the last decade.”
If I was a Tory who wanted to win the election, I might look more closely at the platform that won a majority of 80 than the Cameron/Osborne/Crosby one that got the slimmest majority in 2015, threw one away in 2010, and lost a Brexit referendum they should have won.
Dave and George started on 198 seats, Boris Johnson started on 317 seats.
Getting a party from 198 seats to 331 seats is a damn sight more impressive than going from 317 seats to 365 seats.
You never really got the concept of low hanging fruit did you.
I do, which is why David Cameron's performance in 2010 was the third best by a LOTO since VE day.
I wonder if it is just a sign of my own increasing age that even though he is older than me Sunak feels very much like a young policitian, whereas Cameron seemed older thank Sunak in 2010 despite being the same age Sunak is now.
It's not due to experience, as Sunak has been an MP just as long as Cameron had back then, and is a lot more politically experienced than Cameron was in 2010, with years as a senior minister behind him.
Sunak comes across as being too green and inexperienced. Cameron, for all his faults, was a much smarter political operator across the board (a lot of that also, it has to be said, being driven by Osborne).
I do actually think Sunak has also suffered from what seems to be a paucity of good advisors. I did think bringing Cameron back might be a way to try and fix that - his Mandelson moment if you will - but it seems not.
Let me count the ways...12 months military service for 18-yr olds.
13 weeks at ATR (I would note that it is 44 weeks at RMAS but I can't see any ABC1sprog being allowed to get close to this) unleashes nine months of some kind of activity for the crows to undertake. Let's give them a month or two special to arms training (not sure if today's CVR(T)s are self-driving). So 6-7 months of doing something useful. Now let's see. Are they going to be sent to Estonia as part of Cabrit? Unlikely. Are they going as trainers to ANSF? I would say no. Is HMF going to invest in training for some specialist discipline (likely three months training course)? Unlikely. Will they be trained on "interesting" elements (cyber, etc)? Perhaps, but these are 12-month soldiers and investment in training would like to see a return over subsequent years. Could they spend a few weeks on Salisbury Plain or indeed Kenya or Belize? For sure. Could they mount Kings (foot) Guard at Buckingham Palace? Yep. If the balloon goes up will they be sent out on ops into the thick of it? Oh yes.
So in total they will be providing bodies in case things go tits up in the East.
There is a group of senior or retired officers that believe the UK has slipped down the ladder of importance these past few decades. They want to put us on a "war footing". This, they believe, will help to repair the UK's global standing and make us ready to undertake operations that even with this influx of bodies, we are manifestly unprepared to undertake.
It is a vanity project for those senior officers, for the government (who ofc don't understand it), and will be in the world we live in, of no practical use to our armed forces. If the govt really wants to make us more battle ready they should invest in recruiting more soldiers. Not telling spotty 18-yr olds that they are going to be attached to HMF for a year.
Get rid.
How about 2 years, stick them all in REME. Teach them to build houses.
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.
Its an interesting point with the farmers. Their complaint has been a lack of available labour at almost any sustainable price. So the question is whether the scheme would work better if it was national service but paid by the farmers at the rates being paid to farm workers now?
I am not suggesting this would necessarily work, just asking the question.
But also we have already had posters down thread saying it woudln't work because the youths would steal from old people in care homes. Not exactly a balanced opinion.
Are all those being sent to care homes/domestic care support going to be vetted, DRB'd and supervised?
If not, would you want your granny have them help her get dressed in the morning?
And what are you going to do with all the 18 year olds who do have a criminal record?
Do what they do in other European countries that run have successfully run such schemes for many years. Again. This is not in support of the half arsed proposals from Sunak but the assertion that somehow Alternative Service is a non starter and some of the shameful reasons being advanced to support that assertion are pretty offensive.
If you are starting from a position that the youth of today are dishonest and not to be trusted looking after the elderly (as in your example) then it is no surprise they feel alienated.
1 year of civilian service is very different to 1 weekend a month for a year. It allows time for training and vetting, also it is paid.
I have a number of colleagues who have done their national service, mostly Greeks.
Some enjoyed it. A Consultant colleague of mine quite liked driving a Leopard 2 and firing machine guns, but others hated being frozen on the Albanian border in mountain huts with smelly colleagues. Another was on a coastguard vessel that deliberately swamped migrant boats.
So mixed opinions of its utility.
Similar with National Service in the UK armed forces in the 1940s and 1950s. Though one could do service in a hospital instead. David Hockney was a hospital porter IIRC. His account was published in a very mixed - like your examples - bunch of accounts of NS some years back.
Let me count the ways...12 months military service for 18-yr olds.
13 weeks at ATR (I would note that it is 44 weeks at RMAS but I can't see any ABC1sprog being allowed to get close to this) unleashes nine months of some kind of activity for the crows to undertake. Let's give them a month or two special to arms training (not sure if today's CVR(T)s are self-driving). So 6-7 months of doing something useful. Now let's see. Are they going to be sent to Estonia as part of Cabrit? Unlikely. Are they going as trainers to ANSF? I would say no. Is HMF going to invest in training for some specialist discipline (likely three months training course)? Unlikely. Will they be trained on "interesting" elements (cyber, etc)? Perhaps, but these are 12-month soldiers and investment in training would like to see a return over subsequent years. Could they spend a few weeks on Salisbury Plain or indeed Kenya or Belize? For sure. Could they mount Kings (foot) Guard at Buckingham Palace? Yep. If the balloon goes up will they be sent out on ops into the thick of it? Oh yes.
So in total they will be providing bodies in case things go tits up in the East.
There is a group of senior or retired officers that believe the UK has slipped down the ladder of importance these past few decades. They want to put us on a "war footing". This, they believe, will help to repair the UK's global standing and make us ready to undertake operations that even with this influx of bodies, we are manifestly unprepared to undertake.
It is a vanity project for those senior officers, for the government (who ofc don't understand it), and will be in the world we live in, of no practical use to our armed forces. If the govt really wants to make us more battle ready they should invest in recruiting more soldiers. Not telling spotty 18-yr olds that they are going to be attached to HMF for a year.
Get rid.
How about 2 years, stick them all in REME. Teach them to build houses.
Er, REME are the spanner and grease monkeys. It's the REs who build things.
I wonder if it is just a sign of my own increasing age that even though he is older than me Sunak feels very much like a young policitian, whereas Cameron seemed older thank Sunak in 2010 despite being the same age Sunak is now.
It's not due to experience, as Sunak has been an MP just as long as Cameron had back then, and is a lot more politically experienced than Cameron was in 2010, with years as a senior minister behind him.
Sunak comes across as being too green and inexperienced. Cameron, for all his faults, was a much smarter political operator across the board (a lot of that also, it has to be said, being driven by Osborne).
I do actually think Sunak has also suffered from what seems to be a paucity of good advisors. I did think bringing Cameron back might be a way to try and fix that - his Mandelson moment if you will - but it seems not.
I'm still baffled by bringing Cameron back. I liked him fine, but it was a snub to all the MPs who could have filled the role, he is not popular now, and it did not form part of any cohesive strategy to pitch to the centre - instead they've still wobbled back and forth from appealing to the right with some gimmicks and attempts at steady as she goes dull competence.
I think there were more votes available on the right, I think the centre was already lost by the Boris-Truss-Sunak debacle, so the campaign going that way is not a surprise, but undercut by things like bringing back Cameron.
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.
Its an interesting point with the farmers. Their complaint has been a lack of available labour at almost any sustainable price. So the question is whether the scheme would work better if it was national service but paid by the farmers at the rates being paid to farm workers now?
I am not suggesting this would necessarily work, just asking the question.
But also we have already had posters down thread saying it woudln't work because the youths would steal from old people in care homes. Not exactly a balanced opinion.
Are all those being sent to care homes/domestic care support going to be vetted, DRB'd and supervised?
If not, would you want your granny have them help her get dressed in the morning?
And what are you going to do with all the 18 year olds who do have a criminal record?
Do what they do in other European countries that run have successfully run such schemes for many years. Again. This is not in support of the half arsed proposals from Sunak but the assertion that somehow Alternative Service is a non starter and some of the shameful reasons being advanced to support that assertion are pretty offensive.
If you are starting from a position that the youth of today are dishonest and not to be trusted looking after the elderly (as in your example) then it is no surprise they feel alienated.
1 year of civilian service is very different to 1 weekend a month for a year. It allows time for training and vetting, also it is paid.
I have a number of colleagues who have done their national service, mostly Greeks.
Some enjoyed it. A Consultant colleague of mine quite liked driving a Leopard 2 and firing machine guns, but others hated being frozen on the Albanian border in mountain huts with smelly colleagues. Another was on a coastguard vessel that deliberately swamped migrant boats.
So mixed opinions of its utility.
Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but are the Tories really proposing that this new compulsory service scheme should be unpaid?
If so, surely it won't be legal under the Human Rights Act and Modern Slavery Act? And, if not, why have they not included this in their costings?
It's compulsory... but voluntary. Volpulsory. Or compuntary maybe.
However, ministers who have watched Sunak’s short-tempered frustration that nothing he has done since last summer has seemed to work see a man who has had enough. A close aide told friends that Sunak had been hit hard by the Tories’ dire polling numbers and was “emotionally finding it hard to struggle with being unpopular”. Those monitoring things in the major polling companies say the Tory position has eroded further in the four days since Sunak’s election announcement....
...All this dissent led to false rumours on Friday night that veterans such as Sir Lynton Crosby, Andy Coulson, Cameron’s communications director, and George Osborne, were set to return to revive the campaign. Crosby is in Australia, while a friend of Osborne said the suggestion was not only untrue but impossible:
“George thinks Rishi is hopeless. He’s always thought he doesn’t have a big political brain and that Rishi has made two big calls in his career — backing Brexit and backing Boris — and that those are the two most catastrophic things to happen to this country in the last decade.”
If I was a Tory who wanted to win the election, I might look more closely at the platform that won a majority of 80 than the Cameron/Osborne/Crosby one that got the slimmest majority in 2015, threw one away in 2010, and lost a Brexit referendum they should have won.
Dave and George started on 198 seats, Boris Johnson started on 317 seats.
Getting a party from 198 seats to 331 seats is a damn sight more impressive than going from 317 seats to 365 seats.
Nah. After 13 years of rule by one party, you can say pretty much say anything and make big gains. And Cameron and Osborne did.
Much harder to win a majority of 80 after nine years in power and from a position where, earlier in 2019, everyone hated the party and they had slipped to third. To do that you have to offer something the public actually want, and engage with them in a way Cameron could never dream of.
Thatcher/Blair achieved similar majorities 8 years after first being elected.
Why had the Tories slipped to third? Because of the actions of Boris Johnson and some of the Brexiteers.
Dave's performance as LOTO was the third most impressive since VE Day and the system was stacked against the Tories.
2% lead for Labour in 2005 = 66 seat majority
6% lead for the Tories in 2010 - Just short of a majority.
I bet you're one of those idiots who think Graham Gooch's best test innings was the 333 he hit against India's dibbly dobbly seamers in a hot July at Lord's as opposed to his 154 against the peak Windies at a cloudy Leeds.
Let me count the ways...12 months military service for 18-yr olds.
13 weeks at ATR (I would note that it is 44 weeks at RMAS but I can't see any ABC1sprog being allowed to get close to this) unleashes nine months of some kind of activity for the crows to undertake. Let's give them a month or two special to arms training (not sure if today's CVR(T)s are self-driving). So 6-7 months of doing something useful. Now let's see. Are they going to be sent to Estonia as part of Cabrit? Unlikely. Are they going as trainers to ANSF? I would say no. Is HMF going to invest in training for some specialist discipline (likely three months training course)? Unlikely. Will they be trained on "interesting" elements (cyber, etc)? Perhaps, but these are 12-month soldiers and investment in training would like to see a return over subsequent years. Could they spend a few weeks on Salisbury Plain or indeed Kenya or Belize? For sure. Could they mount Kings (foot) Guard at Buckingham Palace? Yep. If the balloon goes up will they be sent out on ops into the thick of it? Oh yes.
So in total they will be providing bodies in case things go tits up in the East.
There is a group of senior or retired officers that believe the UK has slipped down the ladder of importance these past few decades. They want to put us on a "war footing". This, they believe, will help to repair the UK's global standing and make us ready to undertake operations that even with this influx of bodies, we are manifestly unprepared to undertake.
It is a vanity project for those senior officers, for the government (who ofc don't understand it), and will be in the world we live in, of no practical use to our armed forces. If the govt really wants to make us more battle ready they should invest in recruiting more soldiers. Not telling spotty 18-yr olds that they are going to be attached to HMF for a year.
Get rid.
How about 2 years, stick them all in REME. Teach them to build houses.
Er, REME are the spanner and grease monkeys. It's the REs who build things.
Let me count the ways...12 months military service for 18-yr olds.
13 weeks at ATR (I would note that it is 44 weeks at RMAS but I can't see any ABC1sprog being allowed to get close to this) unleashes nine months of some kind of activity for the crows to undertake. Let's give them a month or two special to arms training (not sure if today's CVR(T)s are self-driving). So 6-7 months of doing something useful. Now let's see. Are they going to be sent to Estonia as part of Cabrit? Unlikely. Are they going as trainers to ANSF? I would say no. Is HMF going to invest in training for some specialist discipline (likely three months training course)? Unlikely. Will they be trained on "interesting" elements (cyber, etc)? Perhaps, but these are 12-month soldiers and investment in training would like to see a return over subsequent years. Could they spend a few weeks on Salisbury Plain or indeed Kenya or Belize? For sure. Could they mount Kings (foot) Guard at Buckingham Palace? Yep. If the balloon goes up will they be sent out on ops into the thick of it? Oh yes.
So in total they will be providing bodies in case things go tits up in the East.
There is a group of senior or retired officers that believe the UK has slipped down the ladder of importance these past few decades. They want to put us on a "war footing". This, they believe, will help to repair the UK's global standing and make us ready to undertake operations that even with this influx of bodies, we are manifestly unprepared to undertake.
It is a vanity project for those senior officers, for the government (who ofc don't understand it), and will be in the world we live in, of no practical use to our armed forces. If the govt really wants to make us more battle ready they should invest in recruiting more soldiers. Not telling spotty 18-yr olds that they are going to be attached to HMF for a year.
Get rid.
How about 2 years, stick them all in REME. Teach them to build houses.
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.
Its an interesting point with the farmers. Their complaint has been a lack of available labour at almost any sustainable price. So the question is whether the scheme would work better if it was national service but paid by the farmers at the rates being paid to farm workers now?
I am not suggesting this would necessarily work, just asking the question.
But also we have already had posters down thread saying it woudln't work because the youths would steal from old people in care homes. Not exactly a balanced opinion.
Are all those being sent to care homes/domestic care support going to be vetted, DRB'd and supervised?
If not, would you want your granny have them help her get dressed in the morning?
And what are you going to do with all the 18 year olds who do have a criminal record?
Do what they do in other European countries that run have successfully run such schemes for many years. Again. This is not in support of the half arsed proposals from Sunak but the assertion that somehow Alternative Service is a non starter and some of the shameful reasons being advanced to support that assertion are pretty offensive.
If you are starting from a position that the youth of today are dishonest and not to be trusted looking after the elderly (as in your example) then it is no surprise they feel alienated.
1 year of civilian service is very different to 1 weekend a month for a year. It allows time for training and vetting, also it is paid.
I have a number of colleagues who have done their national service, mostly Greeks.
Some enjoyed it. A Consultant colleague of mine quite liked driving a Leopard 2 and firing machine guns, but others hated being frozen on the Albanian border in mountain huts with smelly colleagues. Another was on a coastguard vessel that deliberately swamped migrant boats.
So mixed opinions of its utility.
Which is why all the way through I have emphasized that I think the Sunak Scheme is stupid. But that is not the scheme used in other countries with National and Alternative Service. That is what I am pointing out. A full time scheme with some element of payment but with Governmental direction of manpower into those areas of society that need them the most seems very sensible to me. Too many people here seem to like the concept of 'society' in theory but rail against the idea that this requires responsibilities as well as rights.
Sure, but saying this scheme over here that is different from the proposal is good doesn’t seem that relevant. (Compare also Bart on the Rwanda scheme talking about an entirely different scheme done in Australia.)
We have the scheme that has been proposed. People can vote for it or not.
It is entirely relevant given that so many arguments being made on here this morning are about the general concept of National Service being bad. And the ludicrous claims being made to support that assertion - young people are thieves, it is un-British, it is slave labour etc.
The Sunak scheme is unworkable, ill considered and stupid. But that doesn't mean that National and Alternative Service is a bad thing and should not be considered on a more measured basis.
Let me count the ways...12 months military service for 18-yr olds.
13 weeks at ATR (I would note that it is 44 weeks at RMAS but I can't see any ABC1sprog being allowed to get close to this) unleashes nine months of some kind of activity for the crows to undertake. Let's give them a month or two special to arms training (not sure if today's CVR(T)s are self-driving). So 6-7 months of doing something useful. Now let's see. Are they going to be sent to Estonia as part of Cabrit? Unlikely. Are they going as trainers to ANSF? I would say no. Is HMF going to invest in training for some specialist discipline (likely three months training course)? Unlikely. Will they be trained on "interesting" elements (cyber, etc)? Perhaps, but these are 12-month soldiers and investment in training would like to see a return over subsequent years. Could they spend a few weeks on Salisbury Plain or indeed Kenya or Belize? For sure. Could they mount Kings (foot) Guard at Buckingham Palace? Yep. If the balloon goes up will they be sent out on ops into the thick of it? Oh yes.
So in total they will be providing bodies in case things go tits up in the East.
There is a group of senior or retired officers that believe the UK has slipped down the ladder of importance these past few decades. They want to put us on a "war footing". This, they believe, will help to repair the UK's global standing and make us ready to undertake operations that even with this influx of bodies, we are manifestly unprepared to undertake.
It is a vanity project for those senior officers, for the government (who ofc don't understand it), and will be in the world we live in, of no practical use to our armed forces. If the govt really wants to make us more battle ready they should invest in recruiting more soldiers. Not telling spotty 18-yr olds that they are going to be attached to HMF for a year.
Get rid.
How about 2 years, stick them all in REME. Teach them to build houses.
Sponsored by Barratts. Good call.
They can chuck in all the MoD land theyre holding on to and not using get them started.
I wonder if it is just a sign of my own increasing age that even though he is older than me Sunak feels very much like a young policitian, whereas Cameron seemed older thank Sunak in 2010 despite being the same age Sunak is now.
It's not due to experience, as Sunak has been an MP just as long as Cameron had back then, and is a lot more politically experienced than Cameron was in 2010, with years as a senior minister behind him.
Sunak comes across as being too green and inexperienced. Cameron, for all his faults, was a much smarter political operator across the board (a lot of that also, it has to be said, being driven by Osborne).
I do actually think Sunak has also suffered from what seems to be a paucity of good advisors. I did think bringing Cameron back might be a way to try and fix that - his Mandelson moment if you will - but it seems not.
I imagine the Cameron team attracted many bright campaigners and strategists too (not to mention a groundswell of support from backers who saw him as a winner); Sunak by contrast has gone through the bottom of the barrel - it is written in the warp and weft of the campaign so far (e.g. that graphic which would embarrass a regional upholstery wholesaler).
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.
Its an interesting point with the farmers. Their complaint has been a lack of available labour at almost any sustainable price. So the question is whether the scheme would work better if it was national service but paid by the farmers at the rates being paid to farm workers now?
I am not suggesting this would necessarily work, just asking the question.
But also we have already had posters down thread saying it woudln't work because the youths would steal from old people in care homes. Not exactly a balanced opinion.
Are all those being sent to care homes/domestic care support going to be vetted, DRB'd and supervised?
If not, would you want your granny have them help her get dressed in the morning?
And what are you going to do with all the 18 year olds who do have a criminal record?
Do what they do in other European countries that run have successfully run such schemes for many years. Again. This is not in support of the half arsed proposals from Sunak but the assertion that somehow Alternative Service is a non starter and some of the shameful reasons being advanced to support that assertion are pretty offensive.
If you are starting from a position that the youth of today are dishonest and not to be trusted looking after the elderly (as in your example) then it is no surprise they feel alienated.
1 year of civilian service is very different to 1 weekend a month for a year. It allows time for training and vetting, also it is paid.
I have a number of colleagues who have done their national service, mostly Greeks.
Some enjoyed it. A Consultant colleague of mine quite liked driving a Leopard 2 and firing machine guns, but others hated being frozen on the Albanian border in mountain huts with smelly colleagues. Another was on a coastguard vessel that deliberately swamped migrant boats.
So mixed opinions of its utility.
Which is why all the way through I have emphasized that I think the Sunak Scheme is stupid. But that is not the scheme used in other countries with National and Alternative Service. That is what I am pointing out. A full time scheme with some element of payment but with Governmental direction of manpower into those areas of society that need them the most seems very sensible to me. Too many people here seem to like the concept of 'society' in theory but rail against the idea that this requires responsibilities as well as rights.
Sure, but saying this scheme over here that is different from the proposal is good doesn’t seem that relevant. (Compare also Bart on the Rwanda scheme talking about an entirely different scheme done in Australia.)
We have the scheme that has been proposed. People can vote for it or not.
It is entirely relevant given that so many arguments being made on here this morning are about the general concept of National Service being bad. And the ludicrous claims being made to support that assertion - young people are thieves, it is un-British, it is slave labour etc.
The Sunak scheme is unworkable, ill considered and stupid. But that doesn't mean that National and Alternative Service is a bad thing and should not be considered on a more measured basis.
If we were serious about it, would the early retired not be a much better target for volunteering than teenagers?
I mean plenty of National Service soldiers fought (and died) to Korea.
But I can't see the circumstances under which these one year types will be deployed. Or be reliable to manage everything at home while everyone else is deployed.
However, ministers who have watched Sunak’s short-tempered frustration that nothing he has done since last summer has seemed to work see a man who has had enough. A close aide told friends that Sunak had been hit hard by the Tories’ dire polling numbers and was “emotionally finding it hard to struggle with being unpopular”. Those monitoring things in the major polling companies say the Tory position has eroded further in the four days since Sunak’s election announcement....
...All this dissent led to false rumours on Friday night that veterans such as Sir Lynton Crosby, Andy Coulson, Cameron’s communications director, and George Osborne, were set to return to revive the campaign. Crosby is in Australia, while a friend of Osborne said the suggestion was not only untrue but impossible:
“George thinks Rishi is hopeless. He’s always thought he doesn’t have a big political brain and that Rishi has made two big calls in his career — backing Brexit and backing Boris — and that those are the two most catastrophic things to happen to this country in the last decade.”
If I was a Tory who wanted to win the election, I might look more closely at the platform that won a majority of 80 than the Cameron/Osborne/Crosby one that got the slimmest majority in 2015, threw one away in 2010, and lost a Brexit referendum they should have won.
Dave and George started on 198 seats, Boris Johnson started on 317 seats.
Getting a party from 198 seats to 331 seats is a damn sight more impressive than going from 317 seats to 365 seats.
You never really got the concept of low hanging fruit did you.
I do, which is why David Cameron's performance in 2010 was the third best by a LOTO since VE day.
Well his ability to throw away a commanding lead in the polls prior to an election was second only to his successor in 2017.
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.
Its an interesting point with the farmers. Their complaint has been a lack of available labour at almost any sustainable price. So the question is whether the scheme would work better if it was national service but paid by the farmers at the rates being paid to farm workers now?
I am not suggesting this would necessarily work, just asking the question.
But also we have already had posters down thread saying it woudln't work because the youths would steal from old people in care homes. Not exactly a balanced opinion.
Are all those being sent to care homes/domestic care support going to be vetted, DRB'd and supervised?
If not, would you want your granny have them help her get dressed in the morning?
And what are you going to do with all the 18 year olds who do have a criminal record?
Do what they do in other European countries that run have successfully run such schemes for many years. Again. This is not in support of the half arsed proposals from Sunak but the assertion that somehow Alternative Service is a non starter and some of the shameful reasons being advanced to support that assertion are pretty offensive.
If you are starting from a position that the youth of today are dishonest and not to be trusted looking after the elderly (as in your example) then it is no surprise they feel alienated.
1 year of civilian service is very different to 1 weekend a month for a year. It allows time for training and vetting, also it is paid.
I have a number of colleagues who have done their national service, mostly Greeks.
Some enjoyed it. A Consultant colleague of mine quite liked driving a Leopard 2 and firing machine guns, but others hated being frozen on the Albanian border in mountain huts with smelly colleagues. Another was on a coastguard vessel that deliberately swamped migrant boats.
So mixed opinions of its utility.
Which is why all the way through I have emphasized that I think the Sunak Scheme is stupid. But that is not the scheme used in other countries with National and Alternative Service. That is what I am pointing out. A full time scheme with some element of payment but with Governmental direction of manpower into those areas of society that need them the most seems very sensible to me. Too many people here seem to like the concept of 'society' in theory but rail against the idea that this requires responsibilities as well as rights.
Sure, but saying this scheme over here that is different from the proposal is good doesn’t seem that relevant. (Compare also Bart on the Rwanda scheme talking about an entirely different scheme done in Australia.)
We have the scheme that has been proposed. People can vote for it or not.
It is entirely relevant given that so many arguments being made on here this morning are about the general concept of National Service being bad. And the ludicrous claims being made to support that assertion - young people are thieves, it is un-British, it is slave labour etc.
The Sunak scheme is unworkable, ill considered and stupid. But that doesn't mean that National and Alternative Service is a bad thing and should not be considered on a more measured basis.
If we were serious about it, would the early retired not be a much better target for volunteering than teenagers?
Volunteer for 12 months and keep your triple lock for 10 years?
Will be by the time it’s implemented, probably by Starmer.
Fantasies are all well and good in the privacy of your own home, but I’d rather talk here about real stuff.
Watch and wait. If we don’t have something of this ilk inside five years, we’ll be the only serious country in Europe not to.
Considering there is a review as part of the policy anyway the manifesto should say to consider bringing back national service after a thorough review. He could then have announced a bold intention, setting out how it is becoming common again and why that is, without the political impact of slapping people in the face with a wet fish.
However, ministers who have watched Sunak’s short-tempered frustration that nothing he has done since last summer has seemed to work see a man who has had enough. A close aide told friends that Sunak had been hit hard by the Tories’ dire polling numbers and was “emotionally finding it hard to struggle with being unpopular”. Those monitoring things in the major polling companies say the Tory position has eroded further in the four days since Sunak’s election announcement....
...All this dissent led to false rumours on Friday night that veterans such as Sir Lynton Crosby, Andy Coulson, Cameron’s communications director, and George Osborne, were set to return to revive the campaign. Crosby is in Australia, while a friend of Osborne said the suggestion was not only untrue but impossible:
“George thinks Rishi is hopeless. He’s always thought he doesn’t have a big political brain and that Rishi has made two big calls in his career — backing Brexit and backing Boris — and that those are the two most catastrophic things to happen to this country in the last decade.”
If I was a Tory who wanted to win the election, I might look more closely at the platform that won a majority of 80 than the Cameron/Osborne/Crosby one that got the slimmest majority in 2015, threw one away in 2010, and lost a Brexit referendum they should have won.
Dave and George started on 198 seats, Boris Johnson started on 317 seats.
Getting a party from 198 seats to 331 seats is a damn sight more impressive than going from 317 seats to 365 seats.
More importantly, Dave and George were up against Gordon (who was flawed but substantial) whereas Boris was up against the grumpy treacherous version of Jeremy (who was a nitwit who had outstayed his welcome).
What the political pussycat shows is that the nature of the loser is more important than that of the winner.
However, ministers who have watched Sunak’s short-tempered frustration that nothing he has done since last summer has seemed to work see a man who has had enough. A close aide told friends that Sunak had been hit hard by the Tories’ dire polling numbers and was “emotionally finding it hard to struggle with being unpopular”. Those monitoring things in the major polling companies say the Tory position has eroded further in the four days since Sunak’s election announcement....
...All this dissent led to false rumours on Friday night that veterans such as Sir Lynton Crosby, Andy Coulson, Cameron’s communications director, and George Osborne, were set to return to revive the campaign. Crosby is in Australia, while a friend of Osborne said the suggestion was not only untrue but impossible:
“George thinks Rishi is hopeless. He’s always thought he doesn’t have a big political brain and that Rishi has made two big calls in his career — backing Brexit and backing Boris — and that those are the two most catastrophic things to happen to this country in the last decade.”
If I was a Tory who wanted to win the election, I might look more closely at the platform that won a majority of 80 than the Cameron/Osborne/Crosby one that got the slimmest majority in 2015, threw one away in 2010, and lost a Brexit referendum they should have won.
Dave and George started on 198 seats, Boris Johnson started on 317 seats.
Getting a party from 198 seats to 331 seats is a damn sight more impressive than going from 317 seats to 365 seats.
Nah. After 13 years of rule by one party, you can say pretty much say anything and make big gains. And Cameron and Osborne did.
Much harder to win a majority of 80 after nine years in power and from a position where, earlier in 2019, everyone hated the party and they had slipped to third. To do that you have to offer something the public actually want, and engage with them in a way Cameron could never dream of.
Thatcher/Blair achieved similar majorities 8 years after first being elected.
Why had the Tories slipped to third? Because of the actions of Boris Johnson and some of the Brexiteers.
Dave's performance as LOTO was the third most impressive since VE Day and the system was stacked against the Tories.
2% lead for Labour in 2005 = 66 seat majority
6% lead for the Tories in 2010 - Just short of a majority.
I bet you're one of those idiots who think Graham Gooch's best test innings was the 333 he hit against India's dibbly dobbly seamers in a hot July at Lord's as opposed to his 154 against the peak Windies at a cloudy Leeds.
Straight to calling me an idiot. Typical of you.
Goochies 154 against a fearsome west indies attack, with the ball moving everywhere, is still one of the best test match innings ever, batting with Devon Malcolm at the end must have been fun
Let me count the ways...12 months military service for 18-yr olds.
13 weeks at ATR (I would note that it is 44 weeks at RMAS but I can't see any ABC1sprog being allowed to get close to this) unleashes nine months of some kind of activity for the crows to undertake. Let's give them a month or two special to arms training (not sure if today's CVR(T)s are self-driving). So 6-7 months of doing something useful. Now let's see. Are they going to be sent to Estonia as part of Cabrit? Unlikely. Are they going as trainers to ANSF? I would say no. Is HMF going to invest in training for some specialist discipline (likely three months training course)? Unlikely. Will they be trained on "interesting" elements (cyber, etc)? Perhaps, but these are 12-month soldiers and investment in training would like to see a return over subsequent years. Could they spend a few weeks on Salisbury Plain or indeed Kenya or Belize? For sure. Could they mount Kings (foot) Guard at Buckingham Palace? Yep. If the balloon goes up will they be sent out on ops into the thick of it? Oh yes.
So in total they will be providing bodies in case things go tits up in the East.
There is a group of senior or retired officers that believe the UK has slipped down the ladder of importance these past few decades. They want to put us on a "war footing". This, they believe, will help to repair the UK's global standing and make us ready to undertake operations that even with this influx of bodies, we are manifestly unprepared to undertake.
It is a vanity project for those senior officers, for the government (who ofc don't understand it), and will be in the world we live in, of no practical use to our armed forces. If the govt really wants to make us more battle ready they should invest in recruiting more soldiers. Not telling spotty 18-yr olds that they are going to be attached to HMF for a year.
Get rid.
How about 2 years, stick them all in REME. Teach them to build houses.
How about have a national house building program and better fund apprenticeships ?
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.
Its an interesting point with the farmers. Their complaint has been a lack of available labour at almost any sustainable price. So the question is whether the scheme would work better if it was national service but paid by the farmers at the rates being paid to farm workers now?
I am not suggesting this would necessarily work, just asking the question.
But also we have already had posters down thread saying it woudln't work because the youths would steal from old people in care homes. Not exactly a balanced opinion.
Are all those being sent to care homes/domestic care support going to be vetted, DRB'd and supervised?
If not, would you want your granny have them help her get dressed in the morning?
And what are you going to do with all the 18 year olds who do have a criminal record?
Do what they do in other European countries that run have successfully run such schemes for many years. Again. This is not in support of the half arsed proposals from Sunak but the assertion that somehow Alternative Service is a non starter and some of the shameful reasons being advanced to support that assertion are pretty offensive.
If you are starting from a position that the youth of today are dishonest and not to be trusted looking after the elderly (as in your example) then it is no surprise they feel alienated.
1 year of civilian service is very different to 1 weekend a month for a year. It allows time for training and vetting, also it is paid.
I have a number of colleagues who have done their national service, mostly Greeks.
Some enjoyed it. A Consultant colleague of mine quite liked driving a Leopard 2 and firing machine guns, but others hated being frozen on the Albanian border in mountain huts with smelly colleagues. Another was on a coastguard vessel that deliberately swamped migrant boats.
So mixed opinions of its utility.
Which is why all the way through I have emphasized that I think the Sunak Scheme is stupid. But that is not the scheme used in other countries with National and Alternative Service. That is what I am pointing out. A full time scheme with some element of payment but with Governmental direction of manpower into those areas of society that need them the most seems very sensible to me. Too many people here seem to like the concept of 'society' in theory but rail against the idea that this requires responsibilities as well as rights.
Sure, but saying this scheme over here that is different from the proposal is good doesn’t seem that relevant. (Compare also Bart on the Rwanda scheme talking about an entirely different scheme done in Australia.)
We have the scheme that has been proposed. People can vote for it or not.
It is entirely relevant given that so many arguments being made on here this morning are about the general concept of National Service being bad. And the ludicrous claims being made to support that assertion - young people are thieves, it is un-British, it is slave labour etc.
The Sunak scheme is unworkable, ill considered and stupid. But that doesn't mean that National and Alternative Service is a bad thing and should not be considered on a more measured basis.
It's relevant to the point of national service as a concept, which can be made to sound positive, but not electorally relevant to this campaign.
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.
Its an interesting point with the farmers. Their complaint has been a lack of available labour at almost any sustainable price. So the question is whether the scheme would work better if it was national service but paid by the farmers at the rates being paid to farm workers now?
I am not suggesting this would necessarily work, just asking the question.
But also we have already had posters down thread saying it woudln't work because the youths would steal from old people in care homes. Not exactly a balanced opinion.
Are all those being sent to care homes/domestic care support going to be vetted, DRB'd and supervised?
If not, would you want your granny have them help her get dressed in the morning?
And what are you going to do with all the 18 year olds who do have a criminal record?
Do what they do in other European countries that run have successfully run such schemes for many years. Again. This is not in support of the half arsed proposals from Sunak but the assertion that somehow Alternative Service is a non starter and some of the shameful reasons being advanced to support that assertion are pretty offensive.
If you are starting from a position that the youth of today are dishonest and not to be trusted looking after the elderly (as in your example) then it is no surprise they feel alienated.
1 year of civilian service is very different to 1 weekend a month for a year. It allows time for training and vetting, also it is paid.
I have a number of colleagues who have done their national service, mostly Greeks.
Some enjoyed it. A Consultant colleague of mine quite liked driving a Leopard 2 and firing machine guns, but others hated being frozen on the Albanian border in mountain huts with smelly colleagues. Another was on a coastguard vessel that deliberately swamped migrant boats.
So mixed opinions of its utility.
Which is why all the way through I have emphasized that I think the Sunak Scheme is stupid. But that is not the scheme used in other countries with National and Alternative Service. That is what I am pointing out. A full time scheme with some element of payment but with Governmental direction of manpower into those areas of society that need them the most seems very sensible to me. Too many people here seem to like the concept of 'society' in theory but rail against the idea that this requires responsibilities as well as rights.
Sure, but saying this scheme over here that is different from the proposal is good doesn’t seem that relevant. (Compare also Bart on the Rwanda scheme talking about an entirely different scheme done in Australia.)
We have the scheme that has been proposed. People can vote for it or not.
It is entirely relevant given that so many arguments being made on here this morning are about the general concept of National Service being bad. And the ludicrous claims being made to support that assertion - young people are thieves, it is un-British, it is slave labour etc.
The Sunak scheme is unworkable, ill considered and stupid. But that doesn't mean that National and Alternative Service is a bad thing and should not be considered on a more measured basis.
If we were serious about it, would the early retired not be a much better target for volunteering than teenagers?
Probably not for reasons of physical ability/health.
Let me count the ways...12 months military service for 18-yr olds.
13 weeks at ATR (I would note that it is 44 weeks at RMAS but I can't see any ABC1sprog being allowed to get close to this) unleashes nine months of some kind of activity for the crows to undertake. Let's give them a month or two special to arms training (not sure if today's CVR(T)s are self-driving). So 6-7 months of doing something useful. Now let's see. Are they going to be sent to Estonia as part of Cabrit? Unlikely. Are they going as trainers to ANSF? I would say no. Is HMF going to invest in training for some specialist discipline (likely three months training course)? Unlikely. Will they be trained on "interesting" elements (cyber, etc)? Perhaps, but these are 12-month soldiers and investment in training would like to see a return over subsequent years. Could they spend a few weeks on Salisbury Plain or indeed Kenya or Belize? For sure. Could they mount Kings (foot) Guard at Buckingham Palace? Yep. If the balloon goes up will they be sent out on ops into the thick of it? Oh yes.
So in total they will be providing bodies in case things go tits up in the East.
There is a group of senior or retired officers that believe the UK has slipped down the ladder of importance these past few decades. They want to put us on a "war footing". This, they believe, will help to repair the UK's global standing and make us ready to undertake operations that even with this influx of bodies, we are manifestly unprepared to undertake.
It is a vanity project for those senior officers, for the government (who ofc don't understand it), and will be in the world we live in, of no practical use to our armed forces. If the govt really wants to make us more battle ready they should invest in recruiting more soldiers. Not telling spotty 18-yr olds that they are going to be attached to HMF for a year.
Get rid.
How about 2 years, stick them all in REME. Teach them to build houses.
The public don't want people to build houses either.
Or at least it is confused about wanting houses, but not in any practical sense.
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.
Its an interesting point with the farmers. Their complaint has been a lack of available labour at almost any sustainable price. So the question is whether the scheme would work better if it was national service but paid by the farmers at the rates being paid to farm workers now?
I am not suggesting this would necessarily work, just asking the question.
But also we have already had posters down thread saying it woudln't work because the youths would steal from old people in care homes. Not exactly a balanced opinion.
Are all those being sent to care homes/domestic care support going to be vetted, DRB'd and supervised?
If not, would you want your granny have them help her get dressed in the morning?
And what are you going to do with all the 18 year olds who do have a criminal record?
Do what they do in other European countries that run have successfully run such schemes for many years. Again. This is not in support of the half arsed proposals from Sunak but the assertion that somehow Alternative Service is a non starter and some of the shameful reasons being advanced to support that assertion are pretty offensive.
If you are starting from a position that the youth of today are dishonest and not to be trusted looking after the elderly (as in your example) then it is no surprise they feel alienated.
1 year of civilian service is very different to 1 weekend a month for a year. It allows time for training and vetting, also it is paid.
I have a number of colleagues who have done their national service, mostly Greeks.
Some enjoyed it. A Consultant colleague of mine quite liked driving a Leopard 2 and firing machine guns, but others hated being frozen on the Albanian border in mountain huts with smelly colleagues. Another was on a coastguard vessel that deliberately swamped migrant boats.
So mixed opinions of its utility.
Which is why all the way through I have emphasized that I think the Sunak Scheme is stupid. But that is not the scheme used in other countries with National and Alternative Service. That is what I am pointing out. A full time scheme with some element of payment but with Governmental direction of manpower into those areas of society that need them the most seems very sensible to me. Too many people here seem to like the concept of 'society' in theory but rail against the idea that this requires responsibilities as well as rights.
Sure, but saying this scheme over here that is different from the proposal is good doesn’t seem that relevant. (Compare also Bart on the Rwanda scheme talking about an entirely different scheme done in Australia.)
We have the scheme that has been proposed. People can vote for it or not.
It is entirely relevant given that so many arguments being made on here this morning are about the general concept of National Service being bad. And the ludicrous claims being made to support that assertion - young people are thieves, it is un-British, it is slave labour etc.
The Sunak scheme is unworkable, ill considered and stupid. But that doesn't mean that National and Alternative Service is a bad thing and should not be considered on a more measured basis.
I agree.
But it is is slave labour if it used to provide labour for things like fruit picking or social care. Any Conservative who believes in free markets (and freedom in general) should be aghast.
Military service is a rare exception to this principle, and even then not something we have seen in the UK since 1960.
Let me count the ways...12 months military service for 18-yr olds.
13 weeks at ATR (I would note that it is 44 weeks at RMAS but I can't see any ABC1sprog being allowed to get close to this) unleashes nine months of some kind of activity for the crows to undertake. Let's give them a month or two special to arms training (not sure if today's CVR(T)s are self-driving). So 6-7 months of doing something useful. Now let's see. Are they going to be sent to Estonia as part of Cabrit? Unlikely. Are they going as trainers to ANSF? I would say no. Is HMF going to invest in training for some specialist discipline (likely three months training course)? Unlikely. Will they be trained on "interesting" elements (cyber, etc)? Perhaps, but these are 12-month soldiers and investment in training would like to see a return over subsequent years. Could they spend a few weeks on Salisbury Plain or indeed Kenya or Belize? For sure. Could they mount Kings (foot) Guard at Buckingham Palace? Yep. If the balloon goes up will they be sent out on ops into the thick of it? Oh yes.
So in total they will be providing bodies in case things go tits up in the East.
There is a group of senior or retired officers that believe the UK has slipped down the ladder of importance these past few decades. They want to put us on a "war footing". This, they believe, will help to repair the UK's global standing and make us ready to undertake operations that even with this influx of bodies, we are manifestly unprepared to undertake.
It is a vanity project for those senior officers, for the government (who ofc don't understand it), and will be in the world we live in, of no practical use to our armed forces. If the govt really wants to make us more battle ready they should invest in recruiting more soldiers. Not telling spotty 18-yr olds that they are going to be attached to HMF for a year.
Get rid.
How about 2 years, stick them all in REME. Teach them to build houses.
The public don't want people to build houses either.
Or at least it is confused about wanting houses, but not in any practical sense.
That probably explains why Starmer is back pedalling on his one decent policy to date.
However, ministers who have watched Sunak’s short-tempered frustration that nothing he has done since last summer has seemed to work see a man who has had enough. A close aide told friends that Sunak had been hit hard by the Tories’ dire polling numbers and was “emotionally finding it hard to struggle with being unpopular”. Those monitoring things in the major polling companies say the Tory position has eroded further in the four days since Sunak’s election announcement....
...All this dissent led to false rumours on Friday night that veterans such as Sir Lynton Crosby, Andy Coulson, Cameron’s communications director, and George Osborne, were set to return to revive the campaign. Crosby is in Australia, while a friend of Osborne said the suggestion was not only untrue but impossible:
“George thinks Rishi is hopeless. He’s always thought he doesn’t have a big political brain and that Rishi has made two big calls in his career — backing Brexit and backing Boris — and that those are the two most catastrophic things to happen to this country in the last decade.”
If I was a Tory who wanted to win the election, I might look more closely at the platform that won a majority of 80 than the Cameron/Osborne/Crosby one that got the slimmest majority in 2015, threw one away in 2010, and lost a Brexit referendum they should have won.
So re-reversing the calls over 0.7% GDP for overseas aid and for HS2?
Will be by the time it’s implemented, probably by Starmer.
Fantasies are all well and good in the privacy of your own home, but I’d rather talk here about real stuff.
Watch and wait. If we don’t have something of this ilk inside five years, we’ll be the only serious country in Europe not to.
Not to have 18yos In care homes? Or do you mean conscription for a European ground war? Because in the latter case, I am pretty sure 19 year olds will also be covered, and a few other ages too...
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.
Its an interesting point with the farmers. Their complaint has been a lack of available labour at almost any sustainable price. So the question is whether the scheme would work better if it was national service but paid by the farmers at the rates being paid to farm workers now?
I am not suggesting this would necessarily work, just asking the question.
But also we have already had posters down thread saying it woudln't work because the youths would steal from old people in care homes. Not exactly a balanced opinion.
Are all those being sent to care homes/domestic care support going to be vetted, DRB'd and supervised?
If not, would you want your granny have them help her get dressed in the morning?
And what are you going to do with all the 18 year olds who do have a criminal record?
Do what they do in other European countries that run have successfully run such schemes for many years. Again. This is not in support of the half arsed proposals from Sunak but the assertion that somehow Alternative Service is a non starter and some of the shameful reasons being advanced to support that assertion are pretty offensive.
If you are starting from a position that the youth of today are dishonest and not to be trusted looking after the elderly (as in your example) then it is no surprise they feel alienated.
1 year of civilian service is very different to 1 weekend a month for a year. It allows time for training and vetting, also it is paid.
I have a number of colleagues who have done their national service, mostly Greeks.
Some enjoyed it. A Consultant colleague of mine quite liked driving a Leopard 2 and firing machine guns, but others hated being frozen on the Albanian border in mountain huts with smelly colleagues. Another was on a coastguard vessel that deliberately swamped migrant boats.
So mixed opinions of its utility.
Which is why all the way through I have emphasized that I think the Sunak Scheme is stupid. But that is not the scheme used in other countries with National and Alternative Service. That is what I am pointing out. A full time scheme with some element of payment but with Governmental direction of manpower into those areas of society that need them the most seems very sensible to me. Too many people here seem to like the concept of 'society' in theory but rail against the idea that this requires responsibilities as well as rights.
Sure, but saying this scheme over here that is different from the proposal is good doesn’t seem that relevant. (Compare also Bart on the Rwanda scheme talking about an entirely different scheme done in Australia.)
We have the scheme that has been proposed. People can vote for it or not.
It is entirely relevant given that so many arguments being made on here this morning are about the general concept of National Service being bad. And the ludicrous claims being made to support that assertion - young people are thieves, it is un-British, it is slave labour etc.
The Sunak scheme is unworkable, ill considered and stupid. But that doesn't mean that National and Alternative Service is a bad thing and should not be considered on a more measured basis.
If we were serious about it, would the early retired not be a much better target for volunteering than teenagers?
Probably not for reasons of physical ability/health.
I am talking early retired so 50-65 ish. We are not all completely infirm yet.
Let me count the ways...12 months military service for 18-yr olds.
13 weeks at ATR (I would note that it is 44 weeks at RMAS but I can't see any ABC1sprog being allowed to get close to this) unleashes nine months of some kind of activity for the crows to undertake. Let's give them a month or two special to arms training (not sure if today's CVR(T)s are self-driving). So 6-7 months of doing something useful. Now let's see. Are they going to be sent to Estonia as part of Cabrit? Unlikely. Are they going as trainers to ANSF? I would say no. Is HMF going to invest in training for some specialist discipline (likely three months training course)? Unlikely. Will they be trained on "interesting" elements (cyber, etc)? Perhaps, but these are 12-month soldiers and investment in training would like to see a return over subsequent years. Could they spend a few weeks on Salisbury Plain or indeed Kenya or Belize? For sure. Could they mount Kings (foot) Guard at Buckingham Palace? Yep. If the balloon goes up will they be sent out on ops into the thick of it? Oh yes.
So in total they will be providing bodies in case things go tits up in the East.
There is a group of senior or retired officers that believe the UK has slipped down the ladder of importance these past few decades. They want to put us on a "war footing". This, they believe, will help to repair the UK's global standing and make us ready to undertake operations that even with this influx of bodies, we are manifestly unprepared to undertake.
It is a vanity project for those senior officers, for the government (who ofc don't understand it), and will be in the world we live in, of no practical use to our armed forces. If the govt really wants to make us more battle ready they should invest in recruiting more soldiers. Not telling spotty 18-yr olds that they are going to be attached to HMF for a year.
Get rid.
How about 2 years, stick them all in REME. Teach them to build houses.
How about have a national house building program and better fund apprenticeships ?
How many houses has the REME built recently ?
I agree on building more houses, but nobody's offering that.
Let me count the ways...12 months military service for 18-yr olds.
13 weeks at ATR (I would note that it is 44 weeks at RMAS but I can't see any ABC1sprog being allowed to get close to this) unleashes nine months of some kind of activity for the crows to undertake. Let's give them a month or two special to arms training (not sure if today's CVR(T)s are self-driving). So 6-7 months of doing something useful. Now let's see. Are they going to be sent to Estonia as part of Cabrit? Unlikely. Are they going as trainers to ANSF? I would say no. Is HMF going to invest in training for some specialist discipline (likely three months training course)? Unlikely. Will they be trained on "interesting" elements (cyber, etc)? Perhaps, but these are 12-month soldiers and investment in training would like to see a return over subsequent years. Could they spend a few weeks on Salisbury Plain or indeed Kenya or Belize? For sure. Could they mount Kings (foot) Guard at Buckingham Palace? Yep. If the balloon goes up will they be sent out on ops into the thick of it? Oh yes.
So in total they will be providing bodies in case things go tits up in the East.
There is a group of senior or retired officers that believe the UK has slipped down the ladder of importance these past few decades. They want to put us on a "war footing". This, they believe, will help to repair the UK's global standing and make us ready to undertake operations that even with this influx of bodies, we are manifestly unprepared to undertake.
It is a vanity project for those senior officers, for the government (who ofc don't understand it), and will be in the world we live in, of no practical use to our armed forces. If the govt really wants to make us more battle ready they should invest in recruiting more soldiers. Not telling spotty 18-yr olds that they are going to be attached to HMF for a year.
Get rid.
How about 2 years, stick them all in REME. Teach them to build houses.
Er, REME are the spanner and grease monkeys. It's the REs who build things.
How many houses have they built since the nineteenth century (when they were seriously into civil construction) ?
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
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.
Its an interesting point with the farmers. Their complaint has been a lack of available labour at almost any sustainable price. So the question is whether the scheme would work better if it was national service but paid by the farmers at the rates being paid to farm workers now?
I am not suggesting this would necessarily work, just asking the question.
But also we have already had posters down thread saying it woudln't work because the youths would steal from old people in care homes. Not exactly a balanced opinion.
Are all those being sent to care homes/domestic care support going to be vetted, DRB'd and supervised?
If not, would you want your granny have them help her get dressed in the morning?
And what are you going to do with all the 18 year olds who do have a criminal record?
Do what they do in other European countries that run have successfully run such schemes for many years. Again. This is not in support of the half arsed proposals from Sunak but the assertion that somehow Alternative Service is a non starter and some of the shameful reasons being advanced to support that assertion are pretty offensive.
If you are starting from a position that the youth of today are dishonest and not to be trusted looking after the elderly (as in your example) then it is no surprise they feel alienated.
1 year of civilian service is very different to 1 weekend a month for a year. It allows time for training and vetting, also it is paid.
I have a number of colleagues who have done their national service, mostly Greeks.
Some enjoyed it. A Consultant colleague of mine quite liked driving a Leopard 2 and firing machine guns, but others hated being frozen on the Albanian border in mountain huts with smelly colleagues. Another was on a coastguard vessel that deliberately swamped migrant boats.
So mixed opinions of its utility.
Which is why all the way through I have emphasized that I think the Sunak Scheme is stupid. But that is not the scheme used in other countries with National and Alternative Service. That is what I am pointing out. A full time scheme with some element of payment but with Governmental direction of manpower into those areas of society that need them the most seems very sensible to me. Too many people here seem to like the concept of 'society' in theory but rail against the idea that this requires responsibilities as well as rights.
Sure, but saying this scheme over here that is different from the proposal is good doesn’t seem that relevant. (Compare also Bart on the Rwanda scheme talking about an entirely different scheme done in Australia.)
We have the scheme that has been proposed. People can vote for it or not.
It is entirely relevant given that so many arguments being made on here this morning are about the general concept of National Service being bad. And the ludicrous claims being made to support that assertion - young people are thieves, it is un-British, it is slave labour etc.
The Sunak scheme is unworkable, ill considered and stupid. But that doesn't mean that National and Alternative Service is a bad thing and should not be considered on a more measured basis.
I agree.
But it is is slave labour if it used to provide labour for things like fruit picking or social care. Any Conservative who believes in free markets (and freedom in general) should be aghast.
Military service is a rare exception to this principle, and even then not something we have seen in the UK since 1960.
I think the big philosophical difference for me would be whether it was a for profit organisation or not. So. Fruit picking, no.
I mean plenty of National Service soldiers fought (and died) to Korea.
But I can't see the circumstances under which these one year types will be deployed. Or be reliable to manage everything at home while everyone else is deployed.
I do get your point but of course that is exactly what we have done in every other major conflict of the 20th century. In WW2 the basic training before deloyment was initially 12 weeks but was later reduced to 6 weeks.
I am not saying this in support of any scheme, more a a matter of historical interest.
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.
Its an interesting point with the farmers. Their complaint has been a lack of available labour at almost any sustainable price. So the question is whether the scheme would work better if it was national service but paid by the farmers at the rates being paid to farm workers now?
I am not suggesting this would necessarily work, just asking the question.
But also we have already had posters down thread saying it woudln't work because the youths would steal from old people in care homes. Not exactly a balanced opinion.
Are all those being sent to care homes/domestic care support going to be vetted, DRB'd and supervised?
If not, would you want your granny have them help her get dressed in the morning?
And what are you going to do with all the 18 year olds who do have a criminal record?
Do what they do in other European countries that run have successfully run such schemes for many years. Again. This is not in support of the half arsed proposals from Sunak but the assertion that somehow Alternative Service is a non starter and some of the shameful reasons being advanced to support that assertion are pretty offensive.
If you are starting from a position that the youth of today are dishonest and not to be trusted looking after the elderly (as in your example) then it is no surprise they feel alienated.
1 year of civilian service is very different to 1 weekend a month for a year. It allows time for training and vetting, also it is paid.
I have a number of colleagues who have done their national service, mostly Greeks.
Some enjoyed it. A Consultant colleague of mine quite liked driving a Leopard 2 and firing machine guns, but others hated being frozen on the Albanian border in mountain huts with smelly colleagues. Another was on a coastguard vessel that deliberately swamped migrant boats.
So mixed opinions of its utility.
Which is why all the way through I have emphasized that I think the Sunak Scheme is stupid. But that is not the scheme used in other countries with National and Alternative Service. That is what I am pointing out. A full time scheme with some element of payment but with Governmental direction of manpower into those areas of society that need them the most seems very sensible to me. Too many people here seem to like the concept of 'society' in theory but rail against the idea that this requires responsibilities as well as rights.
Sure, but saying this scheme over here that is different from the proposal is good doesn’t seem that relevant. (Compare also Bart on the Rwanda scheme talking about an entirely different scheme done in Australia.)
We have the scheme that has been proposed. People can vote for it or not.
It is entirely relevant given that so many arguments being made on here this morning are about the general concept of National Service being bad. And the ludicrous claims being made to support that assertion - young people are thieves, it is un-British, it is slave labour etc.
The Sunak scheme is unworkable, ill considered and stupid. But that doesn't mean that National and Alternative Service is a bad thing and should not be considered on a more measured basis.
I would suggest 'compulsory volunteering' is rather un-British. Smacks of soviet-era Russia to me.
This isn't intended as a gotcha, but did Sunak do any volunteering as a youth? He's a high achieving sort so I'd not be surprised if he did, but I'm curious if his attempt to sell the plan would be to draw on positive experiences he had.
On reflection, the scheme is wrongly targeted. It's idle 63 year olds like me who should be told Community Service or Army. I'd moan but it'd be good for me.
On reflection, the scheme is wrongly targeted. It's idle 63 year olds like me who should be told Community Service or Army. I'd moan but it'd be good for me.
Perhaps the State Pension should be conditional on 6 months work in social care at age 60?
WhatsApp update: conversation has now moved on from hysteria and derision at the policy to recognising it's probably not as awful as advertised, but it's just not costed, and has pivoted to debating wider UK security and defence policy, and how the UK needs to up its spend and skills in this area.
So, now, everyone's talking about security and defence. Not Labour's preferred 'cost of living' line on their grid for this weekend.
That'll do them nicely.
Genius. Except who hollowed out the armed forces over the last 14 years?
That's the Tory's problem in a nutshell - public reaction to any "brilliant" new idea is why the fuck didn't you do it during the last 14 years then.
The level of consternation Rishi's latest proposal has caused is hilarious.
Here's the thing though.
We all know, deep down, that Rishi isn't going to get the chance to do this.
For the next five years or so, saying stuff is the only pleasure the Conservatives will get. And until they realise how hollow that is compared with the pleasure of doing stuff, they are unlikely to get a sniff of office.
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.
Its an interesting point with the farmers. Their complaint has been a lack of available labour at almost any sustainable price. So the question is whether the scheme would work better if it was national service but paid by the farmers at the rates being paid to farm workers now?
I am not suggesting this would necessarily work, just asking the question.
But also we have already had posters down thread saying it woudln't work because the youths would steal from old people in care homes. Not exactly a balanced opinion.
Are all those being sent to care homes/domestic care support going to be vetted, DRB'd and supervised?
If not, would you want your granny have them help her get dressed in the morning?
And what are you going to do with all the 18 year olds who do have a criminal record?
Do what they do in other European countries that run have successfully run such schemes for many years. Again. This is not in support of the half arsed proposals from Sunak but the assertion that somehow Alternative Service is a non starter and some of the shameful reasons being advanced to support that assertion are pretty offensive.
If you are starting from a position that the youth of today are dishonest and not to be trusted looking after the elderly (as in your example) then it is no surprise they feel alienated.
1 year of civilian service is very different to 1 weekend a month for a year. It allows time for training and vetting, also it is paid.
I have a number of colleagues who have done their national service, mostly Greeks.
Some enjoyed it. A Consultant colleague of mine quite liked driving a Leopard 2 and firing machine guns, but others hated being frozen on the Albanian border in mountain huts with smelly colleagues. Another was on a coastguard vessel that deliberately swamped migrant boats.
So mixed opinions of its utility.
Which is why all the way through I have emphasized that I think the Sunak Scheme is stupid. But that is not the scheme used in other countries with National and Alternative Service. That is what I am pointing out. A full time scheme with some element of payment but with Governmental direction of manpower into those areas of society that need them the most seems very sensible to me. Too many people here seem to like the concept of 'society' in theory but rail against the idea that this requires responsibilities as well as rights.
Sure, but saying this scheme over here that is different from the proposal is good doesn’t seem that relevant. (Compare also Bart on the Rwanda scheme talking about an entirely different scheme done in Australia.)
We have the scheme that has been proposed. People can vote for it or not.
It is entirely relevant given that so many arguments being made on here this morning are about the general concept of National Service being bad. And the ludicrous claims being made to support that assertion - young people are thieves, it is un-British, it is slave labour etc.
The Sunak scheme is unworkable, ill considered and stupid. But that doesn't mean that National and Alternative Service is a bad thing and should not be considered on a more measured basis.
Inasmuch as there's anything useful human beings can do better than machines in 10 or 20 years' time, it would be an excellent idea to consider. As part of an overall strategy to work out how we cope with a situation in which the overall abilities of machines are beginning to transcend those of humans. And to find an ongoing role for humans that the transcendent machines will be willing to accept.
As yet another nonsensical Tory dog-whistle gimmick conceived by this bunch of hopeless incompetents, in an attempt to stave off inevitable electoral annihilation, it's best forgotten. Or if it can't be forgotten, ridiculed.
On reflection, the scheme is wrongly targeted. It's idle 63 year olds like me who should be told Community Service or Army. I'd moan but it'd be good for me.
Snap. (Though could I offset my CAB volunteering, maybe?)
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.
Its an interesting point with the farmers. Their complaint has been a lack of available labour at almost any sustainable price. So the question is whether the scheme would work better if it was national service but paid by the farmers at the rates being paid to farm workers now?
I am not suggesting this would necessarily work, just asking the question.
But also we have already had posters down thread saying it woudln't work because the youths would steal from old people in care homes. Not exactly a balanced opinion.
Are all those being sent to care homes/domestic care support going to be vetted, DRB'd and supervised?
If not, would you want your granny have them help her get dressed in the morning?
And what are you going to do with all the 18 year olds who do have a criminal record?
Do what they do in other European countries that run have successfully run such schemes for many years. Again. This is not in support of the half arsed proposals from Sunak but the assertion that somehow Alternative Service is a non starter and some of the shameful reasons being advanced to support that assertion are pretty offensive.
If you are starting from a position that the youth of today are dishonest and not to be trusted looking after the elderly (as in your example) then it is no surprise they feel alienated.
1 year of civilian service is very different to 1 weekend a month for a year. It allows time for training and vetting, also it is paid.
I have a number of colleagues who have done their national service, mostly Greeks.
Some enjoyed it. A Consultant colleague of mine quite liked driving a Leopard 2 and firing machine guns, but others hated being frozen on the Albanian border in mountain huts with smelly colleagues. Another was on a coastguard vessel that deliberately swamped migrant boats.
So mixed opinions of its utility.
Which is why all the way through I have emphasized that I think the Sunak Scheme is stupid. But that is not the scheme used in other countries with National and Alternative Service. That is what I am pointing out. A full time scheme with some element of payment but with Governmental direction of manpower into those areas of society that need them the most seems very sensible to me. Too many people here seem to like the concept of 'society' in theory but rail against the idea that this requires responsibilities as well as rights.
Sure, but saying this scheme over here that is different from the proposal is good doesn’t seem that relevant. (Compare also Bart on the Rwanda scheme talking about an entirely different scheme done in Australia.)
We have the scheme that has been proposed. People can vote for it or not.
It is entirely relevant given that so many arguments being made on here this morning are about the general concept of National Service being bad. And the ludicrous claims being made to support that assertion - young people are thieves, it is un-British, it is slave labour etc.
The Sunak scheme is unworkable, ill considered and stupid. But that doesn't mean that National and Alternative Service is a bad thing and should not be considered on a more measured basis.
If we were serious about it, would the early retired not be a much better target for volunteering than teenagers?
Probably not for reasons of physical ability/health.
I am talking early retired so 50-65 ish. We are not all completely infirm yet.
Could you safely lift a deadweight person from the floor? (even a pensioner). I have helped out in old peoples homes making sure they get fed (which is another story entirely and a separate scandal) and there are plenty of times when they end up on the floor and have to be lifted. I am not sure I could still do it now at the age of 58.
It will be amusing (and astounding) if in fact Sunak has pitched this just right and there is a marked swing to the Tories from this plan. That would be against the face of some brutal media and punditry takes, but is not impossible, though I do not expect it.
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.
It no longer strikes me as rational to vote Con to keep state spending or immigration or woke down, because they transparently can't.
And this is being trumpeted as 'national service'. We all know what that means because it existed in the 1950s. If it actually isn't this but giving all 18 and 19 year olds a lovely slice of cake, why don't they say that? It's because implausibly, they think there is yet more mileage in shafting the young, of extracting a bit more from they young to give to the old.
I'm not a flakey Tory. I'm not a Tory at all. I'm just a voter for whom up until now the Conservative Party has been the best way of keeping the lunacy of the left at bay. But the Conservative Party is a) clearly not keeping the left at bay (i.e. state spending, immigration and wokery are rising anf rising) and b) introducing all sorts of unnecessary bloody awful of their own. I also felt this way over the cancellation of HS2, but then Labour confirmed they'd do it too.
You're not voting for 2024, you're voting for 2029.
The Conservatives are going to lose, badly, but if there's a decent cadre of parliamentary representation they have a chance of coming back in 5 years, after what will be a deeply unpopular Starmer Government that makes all of those things you describe much worse.
Please don't be goaded by those saying you must vote Labour to be sure they win; they are simply trying to co-opt you to wipe out the centre-right as a political force in this country.
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.
Its an interesting point with the farmers. Their complaint has been a lack of available labour at almost any sustainable price. So the question is whether the scheme would work better if it was national service but paid by the farmers at the rates being paid to farm workers now?
I am not suggesting this would necessarily work, just asking the question.
But also we have already had posters down thread saying it woudln't work because the youths would steal from old people in care homes. Not exactly a balanced opinion.
Are all those being sent to care homes/domestic care support going to be vetted, DRB'd and supervised?
If not, would you want your granny have them help her get dressed in the morning?
And what are you going to do with all the 18 year olds who do have a criminal record?
Do what they do in other European countries that run have successfully run such schemes for many years. Again. This is not in support of the half arsed proposals from Sunak but the assertion that somehow Alternative Service is a non starter and some of the shameful reasons being advanced to support that assertion are pretty offensive.
If you are starting from a position that the youth of today are dishonest and not to be trusted looking after the elderly (as in your example) then it is no surprise they feel alienated.
1 year of civilian service is very different to 1 weekend a month for a year. It allows time for training and vetting, also it is paid.
I have a number of colleagues who have done their national service, mostly Greeks.
Some enjoyed it. A Consultant colleague of mine quite liked driving a Leopard 2 and firing machine guns, but others hated being frozen on the Albanian border in mountain huts with smelly colleagues. Another was on a coastguard vessel that deliberately swamped migrant boats.
So mixed opinions of its utility.
Which is why all the way through I have emphasized that I think the Sunak Scheme is stupid. But that is not the scheme used in other countries with National and Alternative Service. That is what I am pointing out. A full time scheme with some element of payment but with Governmental direction of manpower into those areas of society that need them the most seems very sensible to me. Too many people here seem to like the concept of 'society' in theory but rail against the idea that this requires responsibilities as well as rights.
Sure, but saying this scheme over here that is different from the proposal is good doesn’t seem that relevant. (Compare also Bart on the Rwanda scheme talking about an entirely different scheme done in Australia.)
We have the scheme that has been proposed. People can vote for it or not.
It is entirely relevant given that so many arguments being made on here this morning are about the general concept of National Service being bad. And the ludicrous claims being made to support that assertion - young people are thieves, it is un-British, it is slave labour etc.
The Sunak scheme is unworkable, ill considered and stupid. But that doesn't mean that National and Alternative Service is a bad thing and should not be considered on a more measured basis.
I would suggest 'compulsory volunteering' is rather un-British. Smacks of soviet-era Russia to me.
Let me count the ways...12 months military service for 18-yr olds.
13 weeks at ATR (I would note that it is 44 weeks at RMAS but I can't see any ABC1sprog being allowed to get close to this) unleashes nine months of some kind of activity for the crows to undertake. Let's give them a month or two special to arms training (not sure if today's CVR(T)s are self-driving). So 6-7 months of doing something useful. Now let's see. Are they going to be sent to Estonia as part of Cabrit? Unlikely. Are they going as trainers to ANSF? I would say no. Is HMF going to invest in training for some specialist discipline (likely three months training course)? Unlikely. Will they be trained on "interesting" elements (cyber, etc)? Perhaps, but these are 12-month soldiers and investment in training would like to see a return over subsequent years. Could they spend a few weeks on Salisbury Plain or indeed Kenya or Belize? For sure. Could they mount Kings (foot) Guard at Buckingham Palace? Yep. If the balloon goes up will they be sent out on ops into the thick of it? Oh yes.
So in total they will be providing bodies in case things go tits up in the East.
There is a group of senior or retired officers that believe the UK has slipped down the ladder of importance these past few decades. They want to put us on a "war footing". This, they believe, will help to repair the UK's global standing and make us ready to undertake operations that even with this influx of bodies, we are manifestly unprepared to undertake.
It is a vanity project for those senior officers, for the government (who ofc don't understand it), and will be in the world we live in, of no practical use to our armed forces. If the govt really wants to make us more battle ready they should invest in recruiting more soldiers. Not telling spotty 18-yr olds that they are going to be attached to HMF for a year.
Get rid.
How about 2 years, stick them all in REME. Teach them to build houses.
How about have a national house building program and better fund apprenticeships ?
How many houses has the REME built recently ?
Rough Engineering Made Easy fix AH-64s and waggle forks around in broken toasters. The 'Flying Bricklayers' of the CRE do civil works.
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.
Its an interesting point with the farmers. Their complaint has been a lack of available labour at almost any sustainable price. So the question is whether the scheme would work better if it was national service but paid by the farmers at the rates being paid to farm workers now?
I am not suggesting this would necessarily work, just asking the question.
But also we have already had posters down thread saying it woudln't work because the youths would steal from old people in care homes. Not exactly a balanced opinion.
Are all those being sent to care homes/domestic care support going to be vetted, DRB'd and supervised?
If not, would you want your granny have them help her get dressed in the morning?
And what are you going to do with all the 18 year olds who do have a criminal record?
Do what they do in other European countries that run have successfully run such schemes for many years. Again. This is not in support of the half arsed proposals from Sunak but the assertion that somehow Alternative Service is a non starter and some of the shameful reasons being advanced to support that assertion are pretty offensive.
If you are starting from a position that the youth of today are dishonest and not to be trusted looking after the elderly (as in your example) then it is no surprise they feel alienated.
1 year of civilian service is very different to 1 weekend a month for a year. It allows time for training and vetting, also it is paid.
I have a number of colleagues who have done their national service, mostly Greeks.
Some enjoyed it. A Consultant colleague of mine quite liked driving a Leopard 2 and firing machine guns, but others hated being frozen on the Albanian border in mountain huts with smelly colleagues. Another was on a coastguard vessel that deliberately swamped migrant boats.
So mixed opinions of its utility.
Which is why all the way through I have emphasized that I think the Sunak Scheme is stupid. But that is not the scheme used in other countries with National and Alternative Service. That is what I am pointing out. A full time scheme with some element of payment but with Governmental direction of manpower into those areas of society that need them the most seems very sensible to me. Too many people here seem to like the concept of 'society' in theory but rail against the idea that this requires responsibilities as well as rights.
Sure, but saying this scheme over here that is different from the proposal is good doesn’t seem that relevant. (Compare also Bart on the Rwanda scheme talking about an entirely different scheme done in Australia.)
We have the scheme that has been proposed. People can vote for it or not.
It is entirely relevant given that so many arguments being made on here this morning are about the general concept of National Service being bad. And the ludicrous claims being made to support that assertion - young people are thieves, it is un-British, it is slave labour etc.
The Sunak scheme is unworkable, ill considered and stupid. But that doesn't mean that National and Alternative Service is a bad thing and should not be considered on a more measured basis.
If we were serious about it, would the early retired not be a much better target for volunteering than teenagers?
Probably not for reasons of physical ability/health.
I am talking early retired so 50-65 ish. We are not all completely infirm yet.
Could you safely lift a deadweight person from the floor? (even a pensioner). I have helped out in old peoples homes making sure they get fed (which is another story entirely and a separate scandal) and there are plenty of times when they end up on the floor and have to be lifted. I am not sure I could still do it now at the age of 58.
I couldn't do it now at 37. My brother works in care and he's shorter and slighter than me and couldn't do it either, and most of his work is in the community on his own.
I see Rishi has really got under the skin of his opponents with his National Service policy.
Perhaps they doth protest too much.
?
You mean people secretly support the idea and are just pretending the opposite?
Dozens and dozens of political opponents come out within minutes nervously trying to pepper it with bullets, both on here on Twitter, and generate hundreds and hundreds of comments as a result.
It's caught them off-guard, they're not really sure how to respond, and worry it will cut through.
It might very well cut through - and motivate less enthusiastic younger voters to go to the polling stations and help to turf Sunak out.
It's yet another instance of policies crafted to punish the young, in order to please the elderly. Like the eternal triple lock, morally bankrupt but very good politics for a party with an ancient membership and core vote.
That said, the manner in which the Opposition is reported to have dismissed the plan is instructive: both Labour and the Liberal Democrats have declined to point out that forcing the young into the army or unpaid donkey work might be bad for the victims of this hare brained scheme, instead choosing to attack it for being unfunded, on value for money grounds, or by suggesting that conscription is being used to plug gaps in the numbers of military personnel which wouldn't exist had the Tories not neglected defence. They've taken against this initiative, on the basis of political calculation, but they care no more for the welfare of the poor bloody conscripts than Sunak does.
In short, it's yet more evidence that Britain despises its youth.
They won't vote because they will be too busy on Tik-Tok.
We hear this every time, and it never changes.
(FWIW, I agree that Brits don't like young people, or kids, very much; they far prefer dogs. The RSPCA was founded decades and decades before the NSPCC and still gets much more money than the latter. It's quite weird because in most other countries, it's absolutely not like that; we are misanthropic.)
True. I always remember how awfully a small but significant percentage of adults used to regard children when I was growing up, and how the atmosphere was different when you went to other countries.
On reflection, the scheme is wrongly targeted. It's idle 63 year olds like me who should be told Community Service or Army. I'd moan but it'd be good for me.
Snap. (Though could I offset my CAB volunteering, maybe?)
Definitely. That's valuable work. Kuntibula take note.
This isn't intended as a gotcha, but did Sunak do any volunteering as a youth? He's a high achieving sort so I'd not be surprised if he did, but I'm curious if his attempt to sell the plan would be to draw on positive experiences he had.
He did. During his time at university, he undertook an internship at Conservative Campaign Headquarters - social care for the out of touch.
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.
Its an interesting point with the farmers. Their complaint has been a lack of available labour at almost any sustainable price. So the question is whether the scheme would work better if it was national service but paid by the farmers at the rates being paid to farm workers now?
I am not suggesting this would necessarily work, just asking the question.
But also we have already had posters down thread saying it woudln't work because the youths would steal from old people in care homes. Not exactly a balanced opinion.
Are all those being sent to care homes/domestic care support going to be vetted, DRB'd and supervised?
If not, would you want your granny have them help her get dressed in the morning?
And what are you going to do with all the 18 year olds who do have a criminal record?
Do what they do in other European countries that run have successfully run such schemes for many years. Again. This is not in support of the half arsed proposals from Sunak but the assertion that somehow Alternative Service is a non starter and some of the shameful reasons being advanced to support that assertion are pretty offensive.
If you are starting from a position that the youth of today are dishonest and not to be trusted looking after the elderly (as in your example) then it is no surprise they feel alienated.
1 year of civilian service is very different to 1 weekend a month for a year. It allows time for training and vetting, also it is paid.
I have a number of colleagues who have done their national service, mostly Greeks.
Some enjoyed it. A Consultant colleague of mine quite liked driving a Leopard 2 and firing machine guns, but others hated being frozen on the Albanian border in mountain huts with smelly colleagues. Another was on a coastguard vessel that deliberately swamped migrant boats.
So mixed opinions of its utility.
Which is why all the way through I have emphasized that I think the Sunak Scheme is stupid. But that is not the scheme used in other countries with National and Alternative Service. That is what I am pointing out. A full time scheme with some element of payment but with Governmental direction of manpower into those areas of society that need them the most seems very sensible to me. Too many people here seem to like the concept of 'society' in theory but rail against the idea that this requires responsibilities as well as rights.
Sure, but saying this scheme over here that is different from the proposal is good doesn’t seem that relevant. (Compare also Bart on the Rwanda scheme talking about an entirely different scheme done in Australia.)
We have the scheme that has been proposed. People can vote for it or not.
It is entirely relevant given that so many arguments being made on here this morning are about the general concept of National Service being bad. And the ludicrous claims being made to support that assertion - young people are thieves, it is un-British, it is slave labour etc.
The Sunak scheme is unworkable, ill considered and stupid. But that doesn't mean that National and Alternative Service is a bad thing and should not be considered on a more measured basis.
I agree.
But it is is slave labour if it used to provide labour for things like fruit picking or social care. Any Conservative who believes in free markets (and freedom in general) should be aghast.
Military service is a rare exception to this principle, and even then not something we have seen in the UK since 1960.
I think the big philosophical difference for me would be whether it was a for profit organisation or not. So. Fruit picking, no.
Perhaps. But that does remind me of people getting upset at doctors and nurses demanding better wages, as if public sector workers don't operate in the same labour market as everyone else. Why shouldn't you be paid a good wage to work in social care?
And doing it through charities is open to abuse. There is a grey area where volunteers litter pick, clean the streets and so on - tasks that would normally be done by the council if they were better funded. Relying on free volunteer labour is already becoming the norm. If it were compulsory...
On reflection, the scheme is wrongly targeted. It's idle 63 year olds like me who should be told Community Service or Army. I'd moan but it'd be good for me.
Doing something useful, fair enough - but what army in its right mind has wanted 63-year-old recruits????
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.
Its an interesting point with the farmers. Their complaint has been a lack of available labour at almost any sustainable price. So the question is whether the scheme would work better if it was national service but paid by the farmers at the rates being paid to farm workers now?
I am not suggesting this would necessarily work, just asking the question.
But also we have already had posters down thread saying it woudln't work because the youths would steal from old people in care homes. Not exactly a balanced opinion.
Are all those being sent to care homes/domestic care support going to be vetted, DRB'd and supervised?
If not, would you want your granny have them help her get dressed in the morning?
And what are you going to do with all the 18 year olds who do have a criminal record?
Do what they do in other European countries that run have successfully run such schemes for many years. Again. This is not in support of the half arsed proposals from Sunak but the assertion that somehow Alternative Service is a non starter and some of the shameful reasons being advanced to support that assertion are pretty offensive.
If you are starting from a position that the youth of today are dishonest and not to be trusted looking after the elderly (as in your example) then it is no surprise they feel alienated.
1 year of civilian service is very different to 1 weekend a month for a year. It allows time for training and vetting, also it is paid.
I have a number of colleagues who have done their national service, mostly Greeks.
Some enjoyed it. A Consultant colleague of mine quite liked driving a Leopard 2 and firing machine guns, but others hated being frozen on the Albanian border in mountain huts with smelly colleagues. Another was on a coastguard vessel that deliberately swamped migrant boats.
So mixed opinions of its utility.
Which is why all the way through I have emphasized that I think the Sunak Scheme is stupid. But that is not the scheme used in other countries with National and Alternative Service. That is what I am pointing out. A full time scheme with some element of payment but with Governmental direction of manpower into those areas of society that need them the most seems very sensible to me. Too many people here seem to like the concept of 'society' in theory but rail against the idea that this requires responsibilities as well as rights.
Sure, but saying this scheme over here that is different from the proposal is good doesn’t seem that relevant. (Compare also Bart on the Rwanda scheme talking about an entirely different scheme done in Australia.)
We have the scheme that has been proposed. People can vote for it or not.
It is entirely relevant given that so many arguments being made on here this morning are about the general concept of National Service being bad. And the ludicrous claims being made to support that assertion - young people are thieves, it is un-British, it is slave labour etc.
The Sunak scheme is unworkable, ill considered and stupid. But that doesn't mean that National and Alternative Service is a bad thing and should not be considered on a more measured basis.
I would suggest 'compulsory volunteering' is rather un-British. Smacks of soviet-era Russia to me.
Or 1950s Britain?
National Service was straightforwardly compulsory - no attempt to dress it up as in any way 'voluntary'.
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.
Its an interesting point with the farmers. Their complaint has been a lack of available labour at almost any sustainable price. So the question is whether the scheme would work better if it was national service but paid by the farmers at the rates being paid to farm workers now?
I am not suggesting this would necessarily work, just asking the question.
But also we have already had posters down thread saying it woudln't work because the youths would steal from old people in care homes. Not exactly a balanced opinion.
Are all those being sent to care homes/domestic care support going to be vetted, DRB'd and supervised?
If not, would you want your granny have them help her get dressed in the morning?
And what are you going to do with all the 18 year olds who do have a criminal record?
Do what they do in other European countries that run have successfully run such schemes for many years. Again. This is not in support of the half arsed proposals from Sunak but the assertion that somehow Alternative Service is a non starter and some of the shameful reasons being advanced to support that assertion are pretty offensive.
If you are starting from a position that the youth of today are dishonest and not to be trusted looking after the elderly (as in your example) then it is no surprise they feel alienated.
1 year of civilian service is very different to 1 weekend a month for a year. It allows time for training and vetting, also it is paid.
I have a number of colleagues who have done their national service, mostly Greeks.
Some enjoyed it. A Consultant colleague of mine quite liked driving a Leopard 2 and firing machine guns, but others hated being frozen on the Albanian border in mountain huts with smelly colleagues. Another was on a coastguard vessel that deliberately swamped migrant boats.
So mixed opinions of its utility.
Which is why all the way through I have emphasized that I think the Sunak Scheme is stupid. But that is not the scheme used in other countries with National and Alternative Service. That is what I am pointing out. A full time scheme with some element of payment but with Governmental direction of manpower into those areas of society that need them the most seems very sensible to me. Too many people here seem to like the concept of 'society' in theory but rail against the idea that this requires responsibilities as well as rights.
Sure, but saying this scheme over here that is different from the proposal is good doesn’t seem that relevant. (Compare also Bart on the Rwanda scheme talking about an entirely different scheme done in Australia.)
We have the scheme that has been proposed. People can vote for it or not.
It is entirely relevant given that so many arguments being made on here this morning are about the general concept of National Service being bad. And the ludicrous claims being made to support that assertion - young people are thieves, it is un-British, it is slave labour etc.
The Sunak scheme is unworkable, ill considered and stupid. But that doesn't mean that National and Alternative Service is a bad thing and should not be considered on a more measured basis.
If we were serious about it, would the early retired not be a much better target for volunteering than teenagers?
Probably not for reasons of physical ability/health.
I am talking early retired so 50-65 ish. We are not all completely infirm yet.
Could you safely lift a deadweight person from the floor? (even a pensioner). I have helped out in old peoples homes making sure they get fed (which is another story entirely and a separate scandal) and there are plenty of times when they end up on the floor and have to be lifted. I am not sure I could still do it now at the age of 58.
I am a touch fitter early fifties than I was when I was a teenager (neither great but put more work into it now). Away from individuals plenty of teenagers won't be able to do that kind of lifting either and lots of 50-somethings can. Volunteering exists in many forms, not all need a lot of strength.
I'd certainly be a better volunteer now or in 10 years time than I would have been as a typical sulky teenager who just wanted to hang out with friends doing little.
Comments
The 2019 platform was about getting Brexit done and taking back control of immigration. Immigration is now at record high levels.
The 2019 platform was about keeping out Corbyn, which has now become Labour Party policy.
Much harder to win a majority of 80 after nine years in power and from a position where, earlier in 2019, everyone hated the party and they had slipped to third. To do that you have to offer something the public actually want, and engage with them in a way Cameron could never dream of.
https://x.com/Conservatives/status/1794644628748345355
It's not due to experience, as Sunak has been an MP just as long as Cameron had back then, and is a lot more politically experienced than Cameron was in 2010, with years as a senior minister behind him.
Why had the Tories slipped to third? Because of the actions of Boris Johnson and some of the Brexiteers.
Dave's performance as LOTO was the third most impressive since VE Day and the system was stacked against the Tories.
2% lead for Labour in 2005 = 66 seat majority
6% lead for the Tories in 2010 - Just short of a majority.
I bet you're one of those idiots who think Graham Gooch's best test innings was the 333 he hit against India's dibbly dobbly seamers in a hot July at Lord's as opposed to his 154 against the peak Windies at a cloudy Leeds.
Over time, you could have a statistically significant change over the course of several consecutive polls obscured by this. There is a higher risk than normal given the high frequency of polling over the next few weeks.
https://x.com/LiveFromBrexit/status/1794644861846769955?t=QmodiOiAmQLbTG-3K4vDoQ&s=19
I expected them to run a sh*t campaign. But I just could not conceive that it would be as sh*t as this.
And I’ve been digging my heels in and saying I just can’t see them falling below 150 seats…. I am starting to waiver.
We have the scheme that has been proposed. People can vote for it or not.
13 weeks at ATR (I would note that it is 44 weeks at RMAS but I can't see any ABC1sprog being allowed to get close to this) unleashes nine months of some kind of activity for the crows to undertake. Let's give them a month or two special to arms training (not sure if today's CVR(T)s are self-driving). So 6-7 months of doing something useful. Now let's see. Are they going to be sent to Estonia as part of Cabrit? Unlikely. Are they going as trainers to ANSF? I would say no. Is HMF going to invest in training for some specialist discipline (likely three months training course)? Unlikely. Will they be trained on "interesting" elements (cyber, etc)? Perhaps, but these are 12-month soldiers and investment in training would like to see a return over subsequent years. Could they spend a few weeks on Salisbury Plain or indeed Kenya or Belize? For sure. Could they mount Kings (foot) Guard at Buckingham Palace? Yep. If the balloon goes up will they be sent out on ops into the thick of it? Oh yes.
So in total they will be providing bodies in case things go tits up in the East.
There is a group of senior or retired officers that believe the UK has slipped down the ladder of importance these past few decades. They want to put us on a "war footing". This, they believe, will help to repair the UK's global standing and make us ready to undertake operations that even with this influx of bodies, we are manifestly unprepared to undertake.
It is a vanity project for those senior officers, for the government (who ofc don't understand it), and will be in the world we live in, of no practical use to our armed forces. If the govt really wants to make us more battle ready they should invest in recruiting more soldiers. Not telling spotty 18-yr olds that they are going to be attached to HMF for a year.
Get rid.
I assume even the Tories grasp this and the real campaign is to try and get over 30%, reduce or (in a perfect world for them) avoid a Labour majority, and bounce back soon. I’m sure they would like to win but they know they won’t.
The point I was making, however, was that the 2019 campaign was objectively harder to win, and the campaign more successful.
If so, surely it won't be legal under the Human Rights Act and Modern Slavery Act? And, if not, why have they not included this in their costings?
https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1794641729242472632
Great.
I do actually think Sunak has also suffered from what seems to be a paucity of good advisors. I did think bringing Cameron back might be a way to try and fix that - his Mandelson moment if you will - but it seems not.
I think there were more votes available on the right, I think the centre was already lost by the Boris-Truss-Sunak debacle, so the campaign going that way is not a surprise, but undercut by things like bringing back Cameron.
No understanding of how the Austro-Hungarian Empire did things.
Scratch that, they wouldn't get planning permission to build the damn things.
The Sunak scheme is unworkable, ill considered and stupid. But that doesn't mean that National and Alternative Service is a bad thing and should not be considered on a more measured basis.
But I can't see the circumstances under which these one year types will be deployed. Or be reliable to manage everything at home while everyone else is deployed.
What the political pussycat shows is that the nature of the loser is more important than that of the winner.
How many houses has the REME built recently ?
Or at least it is confused about wanting houses, but not in any practical sense.
But it is is slave labour if it used to provide labour for things like fruit picking or social care. Any Conservative who believes in free markets (and freedom in general) should be aghast.
Military service is a rare exception to this principle, and even then not something we have seen in the UK since 1960.
So. Fruit picking, no.
I am not saying this in support of any scheme, more a a matter of historical interest.
It's perfectly possibly to power-dress in a way that makes you shine, not buries you.
We all know, deep down, that Rishi isn't going to get the chance to do this.
For the next five years or so, saying stuff is the only pleasure the Conservatives will get. And until they realise how hollow that is compared with the pleasure of doing stuff, they are unlikely to get a sniff of office.
As yet another nonsensical Tory dog-whistle gimmick conceived by this bunch of hopeless incompetents, in an attempt to stave off inevitable electoral annihilation, it's best forgotten. Or if it can't be forgotten, ridiculed.
The Conservatives are going to lose, badly, but if there's a decent cadre of parliamentary representation they have a chance of coming back in 5 years, after what will be a deeply unpopular Starmer Government that makes all of those things you describe much worse.
Please don't be goaded by those saying you must vote Labour to be sure they win; they are simply trying to co-opt you to wipe out the centre-right as a political force in this country.
Don't play their game.
And doing it through charities is open to abuse. There is a grey area where volunteers litter pick, clean the streets and so on - tasks that would normally be done by the council if they were better funded. Relying on free volunteer labour is already becoming the norm. If it were compulsory...
I'd certainly be a better volunteer now or in 10 years time than I would have been as a typical sulky teenager who just wanted to hang out with friends doing little.