General Election '24

[IvanV]

... but think the youth are too soft...

...but fail to see that is their own fault for not giving their children the freedoms they had, but instead wrapped them cotton wool, precisely to avoid them experiencing hard knocks.

Most people I have spoken to who did National Service in the 50s hated it and thought it an utter waste of time. My father got out of it by working at a nuclear reactor that made plutonium for bombs.

We do have voluntary alternatives these days, that seem to give more positive experiences, if you bother to take advantage of them.

The Duke of Edinburgh Award kind of gives teenagers some of the more positive opportunities that national service might provide, but without those military features that might make them hate it. And is voluntary. And there are cadet corps you can join if you really want the teenage military experience. And the Sprouts and Guides, etc, for paramilitary-lite. My wife is a Guides leader, and it interesting that the people who are keenest for their children to join are predominantly recent immigrants, the same people who moved to this area to get their children into the grammar schools.

[Grumble]

My dad is 80, national service stopped a year or two before he was due to do it. Those people are not the ones advocating for it back, by and large. It’s the ones who missed it by more than 10 years.

[JQH]

What we need is to bring back national service

No, seriously

Hmm. Teaching a pissed off and marginalised generation the arts of armed conflict. What could possibly go wrong?

[Martin Y]

My dad is 80, national service stopped a year or two before he was due to do it. Those people are not the ones advocating for it back, by and large. It’s the ones who missed it by more than 10 years.

Just like the gammons blaring on about WW2 in the Brexit debate were not the generation who fought that war, they were the generation who grew up with flagwaving WW2 movies.

The best reaction to this throwaway National Service nonsense is to lean into it as noggins suggests, and insist that everyone who hasn't done it yet needs to do so. Exempt people who're already pensioners but everyone else, form an orderly queue.

[tenchboy]

My dad is 80, national service stopped a year or two before he was due to do it. Those people are not the ones advocating for it back, by and large. It’s the ones who missed it by more than 10 years.

Just like the gammons blaring on about WW2 in the Brexit debate were not the generation who fought that war, they were the generation who grew up with flagwaving WW2 movies.

The best reaction to this throwaway National Service nonsense is to lean into it as noggins suggests, and insist that everyone who hasn't done it yet needs to do so. Exempt people who're already pensioners but everyone else, form an orderly queue.

Should be done in your forties cos by then you are likely to be at the top of your game and have an awful lot of experience to offer.

[Gfamily]

This seems a reasonable assessment

best pr.jpg (16.06 KiB) Viewed 1090 times

[jimbob]

This seems a reasonable assessmentbest pr.jpg

Don't know what you mean

https://x.com/RishiSunak/status/1794814620571513175

Watch this video tweeted by the PM and try not to think about "int milk brilliant"

[tenchboy]

This seems a reasonable assessmentbest pr.jpg

Don't know what you mean

https://x.com/RishiSunak/status/1794814620571513175

Watch this video tweeted by the PM and try not to think about "int milk brilliant"

Spoiler:

Cant'be done

BRILLIAAAANT!!!!

[Woodchopper]

What we need is to bring back national service

No, seriously

Because the armed forces really need to have 700,000 poorly motivated 18 year olds who wouldn't be politically able to be sent on active service unless there's WWIII. That would improve their capabilities and wouldn't use up a massive chunk of the defence budget.

Yes, conscripting a whole age group doesn't help the armed forces.

National service works well in Scandinavia and the Baltic countries, but at least in the countries that I know that's because its highly selective. For example, only about 5-10% of an age cohort are selected, and usually all of them are volunteers. The armed forces get motivated and capable men and women for a year and they go on to be in the reserves. In general, having served has positive outcomes as employers tend to view it positively.

[bob sterman]

Don't know what you mean

https://x.com/RishiSunak/status/1794814620571513175

Watch this video tweeted by the PM and try not to think about "int milk brilliant"

I like the irony free claim to be talking about the future while being fixated on the past.

Without pausing for breath...

"This election is about one thing . . . the future. COVID shut down our economy . . ."

[jimbob]

What we need is to bring back national service

No, seriously

Because the armed forces really need to have 700,000 poorly motivated 18 year olds who wouldn't be politically able to be sent on active service unless there's WWIII. That would improve their capabilities and wouldn't use up a massive chunk of the defence budget.

Yes, conscripting a whole age group doesn't help the armed forces.

National service works well in Scandinavia and the Baltic countries, but at least in the countries that I know that's because its highly selective. For example, only about 5-10% of an age cohort are selected, and usually all of them are volunteers. The armed forces get motivated and capable men and women for a year and they go on to be in the reserves. In general, having served has positive outcomes as employers tend to view it positively.

It looks like the current iteration is for "only" 30,000 conscripts (still leaving a massive accommodation and training bill) and the rest have mandatory unpaid work.

I love the right wing commentators who are saying that they can't see the problem with voluntary work and that their kids did volunteering. Missing the fact that it's not volunteering if it's mandatory.

[dyqik]

Today, the Tories supporting this policy are trying to extend the definition of childhood to older ages, by making parents responsible for the life choices of their adult children. Which is in itself an entirely novel legal principle - parents aren't even legally responsible for criminal activities of underage children.

[lpm]

There is no sense in discussing this National Service proposal like it’s a real proposal.

The Conservatives won’t win, know they won’t win and are not putting this forward as an actual thing that would ever happen.

The two lenses through which to view this are:

1. Intra-party civil war. The MPs desperately clinging on in the Blue Wall are hurt by this, it is horribly unpopular in the prosperous LibDem targets. But for other desperate MPs where their fear is Reform splitting the right-wing vote it’s good news. National Service only plays well with morons and Reform voters. These MPs have been victorious in this battle and managed to convince Sunak to announce it. The outcome will be to lose a handful of Blue Wall Tories and save a handful of Red Wall Tories.

2. The squabbling over the remnants after the election wipeout. Certain think tanks and a faction of the party wants to become the Reform Party. They’ve won an initial victory by getting this silliness as a policy now and hope to build on it with more extreme right-wing policy while in opposition.

[Tristan]

And now they’re promising a quadruple pension lock! Ffs.

[jimbob]

https://vimeo.com/950085130

Sunak assesses his campaign launch

[JQH]

And now they’re promising a quadruple pension lock! Ffs.

I'm not sure how this is meant to work. I qualify for the State pension next year which will take my income over the tax threshold. So I will be rightly paying tax on my State pension. The only people who will benefit from this proposal are those with no (or very small) occupational or private pension but they wouldn't pay tax anyway because their income is well below the threshold. I suppose you can promise what you like when you know you aren't going to win.

As far as I can see the only purpose of this proposal is to put Labour (and other parties) on the spot. If they say they will adopt it too, they will piss off young and middle-aged voters. If they say they won't, we can expect the right wing tabloids saying Starmer wants to starve/freeze your granny.

[El Pollo Diablo]

There is no sense in discussing this National Service proposal like it’s a real proposal.

The Conservatives won’t win, know they won’t win and are not putting this forward as an actual thing that would ever happen.

Unfortunately they've proposed previous policies when they've thought this and they've then actually won - rail nationalisation, Brexit, etc.

[lpm]

There is no sense in discussing this National Service proposal like it’s a real proposal.

The Conservatives won’t win, know they won’t win and are not putting this forward as an actual thing that would ever happen.

Unfortunately they've proposed previous policies when they've thought this and they've then actually won - rail nationalisation, Brexit, etc.

Some bloke did a fab bit of analysis showing how hard it is for the Tories to limit the Labour to just a modest victory. He didn't even bother doing a scenario where they actually win. See here:
viewtopic.php?p=159925#p159925

[El Pollo Diablo]

Ha, yeah, still though, wanting Labour to win is like being an England cricket fan, you never quite believe winning is an option until about three minutes before victory is guaranteed.

[Woodchopper]

Because the armed forces really need to have 700,000 poorly motivated 18 year olds who wouldn't be politically able to be sent on active service unless there's WWIII. That would improve their capabilities and wouldn't use up a massive chunk of the defence budget.

Yes, conscripting a whole age group doesn't help the armed forces.

National service works well in Scandinavia and the Baltic countries, but at least in the countries that I know that's because its highly selective. For example, only about 5-10% of an age cohort are selected, and usually all of them are volunteers. The armed forces get motivated and capable men and women for a year and they go on to be in the reserves. In general, having served has positive outcomes as employers tend to view it positively.

It looks like the current iteration is for "only" 30,000 conscripts (still leaving a massive accommodation and training bill) and the rest have mandatory unpaid work.

I love the right wing commentators who are saying that they can't see the problem with voluntary work and that their kids did volunteering. Missing the fact that it's not volunteering if it's mandatory.

Fair enough. If the 30 000 is a bit less then 10% of the cohort then national service might be a good idea. So long as it would be voluntary.

The UK armed forces are severely short of personnel and the need for them is likely to increase in the near future. Other similar countries use national service to need personnel shortages.

Getting, say, 5% of people aged 18 to volunteer doesn't seem implausible. The armed forces could send an initial invitation based upon exam results and fitness, which could then be be declined. Recruits could also be given incentives like reduced tuition fees for higher education, they may also value being seen as being the best qualified of their peers.

[El Pollo Diablo]

Interesting note here on why pollsters differ so much, and what a more accurate approach to polling "Don't Knows" looks like. The overall sense is the polls that show a lower Labour lead are the ones to pay more attention to. I might weight them higher in my tracker as a result.

https://www.focaldata.com/blog/why-do-p ... bours-lead

The cheat sheet here is the thing to note

https://x.com/patrickjfl/status/1795416143521255429

[dyqik]

Yes, conscripting a whole age group doesn't help the armed forces.

National service works well in Scandinavia and the Baltic countries, but at least in the countries that I know that's because its highly selective. For example, only about 5-10% of an age cohort are selected, and usually all of them are volunteers. The armed forces get motivated and capable men and women for a year and they go on to be in the reserves. In general, having served has positive outcomes as employers tend to view it positively.

It looks like the current iteration is for "only" 30,000 conscripts (still leaving a massive accommodation and training bill) and the rest have mandatory unpaid work.

I love the right wing commentators who are saying that they can't see the problem with voluntary work and that their kids did volunteering. Missing the fact that it's not volunteering if it's mandatory.

Fair enough. If the 30 000 is a bit less then 10% of the cohort then national service might be a good idea. So long as it would be voluntary.

The UK armed forces are severely short of personnel and the need for them is likely to increase in the near future. Other similar countries use national service to need personnel shortages.

18 year olds can already volunteer for the military. The numbers who actually want to do so are why the UK armed services are severely short of personnel.

[jimbob]

It looks like the current iteration is for "only" 30,000 conscripts (still leaving a massive accommodation and training bill) and the rest have mandatory unpaid work.

I love the right wing commentators who are saying that they can't see the problem with voluntary work and that their kids did volunteering. Missing the fact that it's not volunteering if it's mandatory.

Fair enough. If the 30 000 is a bit less then 10% of the cohort then national service might be a good idea. So long as it would be voluntary.

The UK armed forces are severely short of personnel and the need for them is likely to increase in the near future. Other similar countries use national service to need personnel shortages.

18 year olds can already volunteer for the military. The numbers who actually want to do so are why the UK armed services are severely short of personnel.

Interesting column from Ian Birrell in the I yesterday.

He made this point

Yet the general’s key point was to highlight how Westminster has shrunk the military so drastically, although applications were at their highest level in six years. There are only 73,000 full-time troops, down from 108,000 when the Tories came to power in 2010. Defence spending was cut every year under David Cameron while he was cuddling up to China, his party taking donations from Putin-linked figures and our country earning global infamy for laundering dirty money.

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/sunak-natio ... nt-3076109

@woodchopper. I disagree that if they are only taking 5% of the cohort, it makes it a better idea.

That still leaves 95% who are expected to do the equivalent of 5 weeks unpaid work.

[Grumble]

It looks like the current iteration is for "only" 30,000 conscripts (still leaving a massive accommodation and training bill) and the rest have mandatory unpaid work.

I love the right wing commentators who are saying that they can't see the problem with voluntary work and that their kids did volunteering. Missing the fact that it's not volunteering if it's mandatory.

Fair enough. If the 30 000 is a bit less then 10% of the cohort then national service might be a good idea. So long as it would be voluntary.

The UK armed forces are severely short of personnel and the need for them is likely to increase in the near future. Other similar countries use national service to need personnel shortages.

18 year olds can already volunteer for the military. The numbers who actually want to do so are why the UK armed services are severely short of personnel.

Taking a year for the army to process an application is a big factor in putting off those who have volunteered

[nezumi]

Fair enough. If the 30 000 is a bit less then 10% of the cohort then national service might be a good idea. So long as it would be voluntary.

The UK armed forces are severely short of personnel and the need for them is likely to increase in the near future. Other similar countries use national service to need personnel shortages.

18 year olds can already volunteer for the military. The numbers who actually want to do so are why the UK armed services are severely short of personnel.

Taking a year for the army to process an application is a big factor in putting off those who have volunteered

From what I gather elsewhere, the problem is (and isn't it always) Capita f.cking up the contract as per usual.