The more this goes on, the more I'm not surprised by 'weird moves'. At least on the outside, it seems to be a form of damage control. Economy isn't really doing to hot despite the inflation being...
What in the world is going on in the UK?
The more this goes on, the more I'm not surprised by 'weird moves'. At least on the outside, it seems to be a form of damage control.
Economy isn't really doing to hot despite the inflation being somewhat reduced. So instead, right now it might seem like it eventually goes better. Migrants are probably going to become a problem for the Tories due to boat crossings, so instead, the election was called a bit in advance.
But also, really, what do the Tories stand for? That they're not Labour? Past 14 years hasn't really helped the youth who are now adults. Given how messy the whole Brexit affair is, it's not exactly something that can be campaigned upon as an achievement either.
Anti-woke, gender politics? Really, how much energy can they get from their voters with constantly nagging about that? In the end, people are more concerned about the direction of the economy, paying bills, etc.
This whole election really feels like a rampant form of damage control. And since Sunak needs to campaign on something, and it needs to be conservative, well, this is pretty conservative.Is it stupid? Personally, I think it is. The country needs a direction more than anything. And Brexit has left them just... floating. When the rest of the world is constantly changing and people are (rightfully) afraid of what the future brings.
I might be wrong here, but all I see is a desperate attempt to prevent the Tories from getting knocked out as a party completely. At the very least, I have difficulty in seeing another reason with the moves Sunak has made recently.
This was my assessment as well. It feels like they are announcing policies that they know they won't have to implement. In the hope that it sways a few more voters their way and they retain a...
This was my assessment as well. It feels like they are announcing policies that they know they won't have to implement. In the hope that it sways a few more voters their way and they retain a couple more seats in parliament.
It feels like they've latched onto the idea that conservative voters like the idea of national service and duty etc. It may have been true 40 years ago when Yes Minister was lampooning the idea of...
It feels like they've latched onto the idea that conservative voters like the idea of national service and duty etc.
It may have been true 40 years ago when Yes Minister was lampooning the idea of reintroducing it. But this almost feels like the PM maybe marketing to an outdated stereotype of his voter base rather than the actual reality. Maybe he's relying on a "no such thing as bad publicity" idea. Or maybe the key demographic is the owners of the right wing newspapers who might actually be in the target demographic for this.
But the fact that even reform UK who is challenging them by being even more right wing are able to laugh this policy off suggests that there really isn't a sizable base of supporters.
Apparently, it was based on polling and the target demographic is 65+. https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/46034-do-britons-want-bring-back-national-service
Apparently, it was based on polling and the target demographic is 65+.
Conservative parties always do this when they’re trying to push something unpopular. Same thing with abortion in the US. The idea of getting an abortion used to poll about 50/50, but any specific...
Conservative parties always do this when they’re trying to push something unpopular. Same thing with abortion in the US. The idea of getting an abortion used to poll about 50/50, but any specific penalties levied on women getting abortions polled like dogshit and penalties on doctors performing them didn’t fare much better. So they will hem and haw and fail to elaborate on how they intend to actually put a policy into practice because that suddenly anchors people into the reality of the fact that this is an actual policy and not just vibes.
Then once the policy is enacted (like with Dobbs on abortion), that’s when people wise up and start taking the question seriously. Now if our political journalism class was worth a damn they’d treat serious proposals as serious proposals and not just subjects for horse race coverage theater criticism bullshit they do instead. Then we might actually have a slightly better informed electorate, but instead we’re forced to learn everything the hard way because the media is full of deeply unserious people.
Cleverly responded that we "force people to do things all the time", referring to changes in 2013 requiring 16-to-18-year-olds to stay in further education or training.
"We force teenagers to be educated. No one argues with that, I think we all agree it is an investment in them. This is about maintaining that investment in young people, in the future of our society, in bringing people together, in pushing people sometimes out of their comfort zone and perhaps pump-priming a lifelong habit of volunteering, which is good for the individual and good for society."
Meanwhile schools are struggling to keep the lights on and pay teachers, Sure Start is dead and social care and youth programs barely exist any more. Investment in young people and the future of...
Meanwhile schools are struggling to keep the lights on and pay teachers, Sure Start is dead and social care and youth programs barely exist any more. Investment in young people and the future of society my fucking arse.
This doesn't really make much more sense given the full quote because he talks about forcing teenagers (under 18s) through education. Those being offered up for national service are 18, and thus...
This doesn't really make much more sense given the full quote because he talks about forcing teenagers (under 18s) through education. Those being offered up for national service are 18, and thus legal adults.
It would have made far more sense to talk about how we force people to pay taxes, but he wouldn't do that because 1. It's bad optics for the Tories to be seen talking about people paying tax, and 2. The Tories often don't force (rich) people to pay their taxes.
Also, you can't prime a lifelong habit of volunteering by forcing people to volunteer. That's quite literally not what the word means.
I feel I should point out that any whiff of this being implemented in northern Ireland risks some serious "things being on fire" levels of backlash. Irish nationalists have a history with...
I feel I should point out that any whiff of this being implemented in northern Ireland risks some serious "things being on fire" levels of backlash. Irish nationalists have a history with conscription, for reasons that you can easily imagine.
At this point I think British politicians don't really think Northern Ireland exists, and those who do just don't care? I read the Irish Times every now and again, and a while ago I saw someone...
At this point I think British politicians don't really think Northern Ireland exists, and those who do just don't care? I read the Irish Times every now and again, and a while ago I saw someone complaining that British polticians treat Ireland with contempt. It's hard to deny that this is true to some degree, but I think British foreign policy positions on Ireland are better explained by people in the UK not really caring about Ireland. One anecdote which illustrates this is that in my experience Irish people tend to have a reasonably good grasp of British-Irish history – British people, not so much.
I actually think Britain not caring about Ireland that much is fair enough, in the same way that France isn't that fussed about Luxembourg when it comes to government policy making. It's probably for the best for Northern Ireland to join up with the Republic, given that the Republic has a really large fiscal surplus (so it is probably better able to pay the £15 billion a year direct grant the UK gives to Northern Ireland) and it's a pain for the UK to handle the security threats (both internally and from Russia).
My tongue-in-cheek take is that the reason Ireland has had a rebellion or political crisis every 50ish years since the Norman invasion is that once per generation a new crop of British leaders...
My tongue-in-cheek take is that the reason Ireland has had a rebellion or political crisis every 50ish years since the Norman invasion is that once per generation a new crop of British leaders take over and ignite complete chaos in some preventable way because they don't know any better and never really cared to until it was too late. Once all the bodies are buried they know not to do that again until they retire and the next one takes over.
The death rattle of the Tory Government. Attempting to woo the elderly and Express/Daily Mail vote away from Reform by allowing them the opportunity to punish the young for no reason other than...
The death rattle of the Tory Government. Attempting to woo the elderly and Express/Daily Mail vote away from Reform by allowing them the opportunity to punish the young for no reason other than the fact that they're young, with one minister wanting to get kids out of their "woke" bubbles. Thing is its likely it wouldn't involve people turning 18 now as they don't expect to introduce it in full until 2029 so the people that would be compelled by law to do this don't even have a choice in the matter.
I'd have hated national service when I was 18. I'd just finished school and I wanted to focus on university studies where I worked most weekends part time to make money. If I suddenly had to become inactive educationally for a year by joining the military or significantly reducing the little money I made by volunteering one weekend a month I'd have been pissed. I also have a 2 year old now and I'd rather she didn't have to do this sort of bullshit either.
We haven't had national service in the UK since 1962 or 1963 I believe and the military don't want it back, a number of ex-army chiefs have already said so. Our armed forces minister even said just a few days before this was announced that there were no plans to reintroduce national service "in any form" because it could "damage morale... motivation and discipline".
Our army is small but highly trained and what they want is more funding not uncaring teenage volunteers who'll drain not only resources but morale. It's the same with our NHS, Fire, Police, and public services which are on their knees, since they've also been suggested as avenues for national service. Never mind the £2.5 billion the scheme would cost, money I'd rather see go into these services directly. I can only imagine how stressed these services will become if they have to manage young adults being forced to volunteer one weekend out of four.
That's not to mention it's quite obviously been thrown at the wall with zero planning and as a way of creating free or incredibly cheap volunteer labour to do the jobs no one else wants to do. We've had ministers saying that they could pick fruit and vegetables as part of national service, that they might even have 15 and 16 year olds do it, that they won't rule out criminally prosecuting parents if their children (who are 18 years old and legally adults) decide they're not doing it, to even limiting jobs in the public sector or the civil service (which are already suffering from workforce issues and pressures) to those who complete national service. Wouldn't surprise me if they suggest removing the vote from those who don't complete it, I expect nothing less from the Nasty Party.
If the Tories are that worried about our military they should be funding it properly and removing the army recruitment contract from Crapita where 70% of recruits give up on the recruitment process because it's so convoluted and takes months, sometimes up to a year to complete.
Either way, it's not worth taking the time to imagine this at the moment because it's highly unlikely the Conservatives will be in power on 5th July. My main worry is that they go away after the election, and come back in 10-15 years when people are inevitably tired of Labour and introduce it then.
I've thought for a long time that something like a year or two of mandatory public service could be really good for kids and for the country, if done correctly. I wouldn't want it to be primarily...
I've thought for a long time that something like a year or two of mandatory public service could be really good for kids and for the country, if done correctly. I wouldn't want it to be primarily military/defense focused, but if done well I think it could have a positive impact both on communities and the people serving.
I also think a national civil service program here in the US would be pretty great. Something like constructing civil infrastructure or helping elderly. Young people would get to travel all over...
I also think a national civil service program here in the US would be pretty great. Something like constructing civil infrastructure or helping elderly. Young people would get to travel all over the country and meet other young people and realize that we aren't so different after all despite our geographic and cultural diversity. And I think there's something to be said for knowing that you built a part of this country with your own two hands.
I wouldn't want it to be mandatory though; that starts to resemble fascism a bit too much for my liking. But if you were paid well and there was a whole culture around it I don't see why it wouldn't be popular.
I think it would be great if you could get something akin to the GI bill from a civil service program. Not mandatory, but provides a good experience that can help you through school after.
I think it would be great if you could get something akin to the GI bill from a civil service program. Not mandatory, but provides a good experience that can help you through school after.
Americorps NCCC Americorps State/Federal (there are more programs too) The benefits aren't at the level of the GI bill but they helped me get through college while working with preschool kids.
Americorps NCCC Americorps State/Federal (there are more programs too)
The benefits aren't at the level of the GI bill but they helped me get through college while working with preschool kids.
We already make schooling mandatory for youths; why not national civil service? We know that travel—and the resulting exposure to people outside our bubbles—is a cure for prejudice. God knows that...
We already make schooling mandatory for youths; why not national civil service?
We know that travel—and the resulting exposure to people outside our bubbles—is a cure for prejudice. God knows that the continual survival of our democracy depends on us building and maintaining social trust, and its current peril arose from decades-long erosion of trust.
Our future depends on hundreds of millions of Americans believing in the best of each other — white and Black, straight and queer, men and women, rich and poor, liberal and conservative, and so on.
If we make national civil service voluntary, then the people who are comfortable with their bubbles and don't want to leave them to explore will just remain blissfully disconnected — but there are hundreds of millions of them, and we need them to build a society.
Our present state of political dysfunction and imminent catastrophe likely stems from the fact that we haven't had a collective national experience in decades. There is no more existential challenge to bind us and help us overcome our divisions and differences.
Britain’s Conservative Party will introduce mandatory national service for 18-year-olds if it wins the national election on July 4, comprising military or community participation, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said on Sunday.
Young adults will be able to choose between spending one weekend a month volunteering over the course of a year, or take up one of 30,000 spaces to spend a year in the armed forces, Sunak said.
Sunak’s Conservatives lag Labour by a wide margin in opinion polls, which have shown little change in fortunes for the prime minister since his surprise election call last Wednesday.
I wonder what effect compulsory military service has on one's views of foreign policy. Does it make people less hawkish, putting them in touch with the human element and making those who may...
I wonder what effect compulsory military service has on one's views of foreign policy. Does it make people less hawkish, putting them in touch with the human element and making those who may potentially die in war more human? Or does it make them more hawkish, having spent formative years of their life embedded in military culture?
I spent an enlistment in the military (was poor and needed cash) and have found myself far less hawkish than most as I age, but I don't think there's any causal relationship between the two one way or the other.
What's so terrible about allowing 16 & 17 year olds the vote? Currently, policies they have no say on are being debated for the general election. The only people who will be affected by Rishi's...
What's so terrible about allowing 16 & 17 year olds the vote? Currently, policies they have no say on are being debated for the general election. The only people who will be affected by Rishi's National Service don't get to vote on it. As Keir pointed out, 16 and 17 year olds can work, pay tax, join the military, drink*, drive**, start families, consent to medical treatment (including to not have treatment), and consent to sex. They may not be at the height of intellectual or emotional maturity (for that matter neither are the 80+ voting population), but we should afford them the right to vote because functioning members of society deserve a say in how society runs, and how they're treated in that society.
As an example, young people are still facing the consequences of Brexit, a vote they had no say in over 8 years later. Granted, I'm not saying 8 year olds should be allowed to vote, although I think it's more than clear that the arbitrary line of 18 can and should be moved earlier, not least because unlike the older population, issues that young people can't vote on will affect them for the next 70+ years.
*In public at a restaurant sometimes, at home or on other private premises always
** When you're 17
I'm all for the vote at 16, but that might mainly be due to the Brexit vote occurring when I was 16 and feeling like I wasn't getting a say despite the fact I was going to on average spend more...
I'm all for the vote at 16, but that might mainly be due to the Brexit vote occurring when I was 16 and feeling like I wasn't getting a say despite the fact I was going to on average spend more time in the post-Brexit UK than most of the people pushing and voting for it.
I'm not sure the age the vote should be brought forward to but 16 is definitely where I'd start it out at.
Sorry, why is it a terrible idea? 16 year olds can do a ton of things in the UK such as join the military, or leave school for apprenticeships and jobs. These things can end up with 16 year olds...
Sorry, why is it a terrible idea? 16 year olds can do a ton of things in the UK such as join the military, or leave school for apprenticeships and jobs. These things can end up with 16 year olds paying taxes but they still don't get to vote. The vote is also given to those 16+ in Scottish elections and it seems to have worked out fine.
You've also got to remember that elections only happen once every 5 years, all going well of course. There's probably thousands of instances across the UK where young people find themselves turning 18 a couple of weeks or a month or two after an election takes place. By the time the next election rolls around they'd be nearly 23 years old, that's getting out of your early-20's, potentially building a business, career or a family before you even get the chance to vote in a national election! This reduction limits that potential scenario to nearly 21 years old instead.
In Greece as well, but it's still considered a massive waste of time that almost nobody wants to do anymore. Not to say that you actually do anything useful; the government just wastes public...
In Greece as well, but it's still considered a massive waste of time that almost nobody wants to do anymore. Not to say that you actually do anything useful; the government just wastes public funds to artificially inflate its number of "active and reserve soldiers". Even though you'll only receive actual training only a few times, whereas the entire military service lasts one year. The rest of the time, you just do chores.
They're planning to adopt the "Finnish model" right now, but, honestly, I don't think that much will actually change...
They won't, here in the Netherlands you hear this mandatory service things every election year and never again after that. Why? It costs money(wages and supplies) and there is already a shortage...
They won't, here in the Netherlands you hear this mandatory service things every election year and never again after that. Why? It costs money(wages and supplies) and there is already a shortage in a lot of sectors. Why on earth waste people working or studying to have them do what? Shovel a park? Guard the border with Belgium? It's laughable.
I think the much bigger scandal is the fact that the Conservative government has run down the Armed Forces and created a massive recruiting crisis by treating soldiers with contempt. I think...
I think the much bigger scandal is the fact that the Conservative government has run down the Armed Forces and created a massive recruiting crisis by treating soldiers with contempt. I think there's also an issue in a lot of UK military deployments (e.g. Iraq, yes I know this was under Labour) not really being in the UK's strategic interest which makes it harder to play on people's sense of patriotic duty.
Offtopic, but also somewhat related, and a pretty weird coincidence. The 영국남자 Korean Englishman YouTube channel is currently in the middle of a new series where they took a bunch of British...
Offtopic, but also somewhat related, and a pretty weird coincidence. The 영국남자 Korean Englishman YouTube channel is currently in the middle of a new series where they took a bunch of British students to Korea to participate in Korean Navy boot camp. It's been fascinating to watch, especially since the boot camp is no joke, insanely intense, and they threw the Brits directly into the deep end (literally and figuratively).
The more this goes on, the more I'm not surprised by 'weird moves'. At least on the outside, it seems to be a form of damage control.
Economy isn't really doing to hot despite the inflation being somewhat reduced. So instead, right now it might seem like it eventually goes better. Migrants are probably going to become a problem for the Tories due to boat crossings, so instead, the election was called a bit in advance.
But also, really, what do the Tories stand for? That they're not Labour? Past 14 years hasn't really helped the youth who are now adults. Given how messy the whole Brexit affair is, it's not exactly something that can be campaigned upon as an achievement either.
Anti-woke, gender politics? Really, how much energy can they get from their voters with constantly nagging about that? In the end, people are more concerned about the direction of the economy, paying bills, etc.
This whole election really feels like a rampant form of damage control. And since Sunak needs to campaign on something, and it needs to be conservative, well, this is pretty conservative.Is it stupid? Personally, I think it is. The country needs a direction more than anything. And Brexit has left them just... floating. When the rest of the world is constantly changing and people are (rightfully) afraid of what the future brings.
I might be wrong here, but all I see is a desperate attempt to prevent the Tories from getting knocked out as a party completely. At the very least, I have difficulty in seeing another reason with the moves Sunak has made recently.
This was my assessment as well. It feels like they are announcing policies that they know they won't have to implement. In the hope that it sways a few more voters their way and they retain a couple more seats in parliament.
It feels like they've latched onto the idea that conservative voters like the idea of national service and duty etc.
It may have been true 40 years ago when Yes Minister was lampooning the idea of reintroducing it. But this almost feels like the PM maybe marketing to an outdated stereotype of his voter base rather than the actual reality. Maybe he's relying on a "no such thing as bad publicity" idea. Or maybe the key demographic is the owners of the right wing newspapers who might actually be in the target demographic for this.
But the fact that even reform UK who is challenging them by being even more right wing are able to laugh this policy off suggests that there really isn't a sizable base of supporters.
Apparently, it was based on polling and the target demographic is 65+.
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/46034-do-britons-want-bring-back-national-service
Surely it's just an attempt to get the older voters. We are in the run up to a general election after all.
Conservative parties always do this when they’re trying to push something unpopular. Same thing with abortion in the US. The idea of getting an abortion used to poll about 50/50, but any specific penalties levied on women getting abortions polled like dogshit and penalties on doctors performing them didn’t fare much better. So they will hem and haw and fail to elaborate on how they intend to actually put a policy into practice because that suddenly anchors people into the reality of the fact that this is an actual policy and not just vibes.
Then once the policy is enacted (like with Dobbs on abortion), that’s when people wise up and start taking the question seriously. Now if our political journalism class was worth a damn they’d treat serious proposals as serious proposals and not just subjects for horse race coverage theater criticism bullshit they do instead. Then we might actually have a slightly better informed electorate, but instead we’re forced to learn everything the hard way because the media is full of deeply unserious people.
The full context:
Meanwhile schools are struggling to keep the lights on and pay teachers, Sure Start is dead and social care and youth programs barely exist any more. Investment in young people and the future of society my fucking arse.
This doesn't really make much more sense given the full quote because he talks about forcing teenagers (under 18s) through education. Those being offered up for national service are 18, and thus legal adults.
It would have made far more sense to talk about how we force people to pay taxes, but he wouldn't do that because 1. It's bad optics for the Tories to be seen talking about people paying tax, and 2. The Tories often don't force (rich) people to pay their taxes.
Also, you can't prime a lifelong habit of volunteering by forcing people to volunteer. That's quite literally not what the word means.
I feel I should point out that any whiff of this being implemented in northern Ireland risks some serious "things being on fire" levels of backlash. Irish nationalists have a history with conscription, for reasons that you can easily imagine.
At this point I think British politicians don't really think Northern Ireland exists, and those who do just don't care? I read the Irish Times every now and again, and a while ago I saw someone complaining that British polticians treat Ireland with contempt. It's hard to deny that this is true to some degree, but I think British foreign policy positions on Ireland are better explained by people in the UK not really caring about Ireland. One anecdote which illustrates this is that in my experience Irish people tend to have a reasonably good grasp of British-Irish history – British people, not so much.
I actually think Britain not caring about Ireland that much is fair enough, in the same way that France isn't that fussed about Luxembourg when it comes to government policy making. It's probably for the best for Northern Ireland to join up with the Republic, given that the Republic has a really large fiscal surplus (so it is probably better able to pay the £15 billion a year direct grant the UK gives to Northern Ireland) and it's a pain for the UK to handle the security threats (both internally and from Russia).
My tongue-in-cheek take is that the reason Ireland has had a rebellion or political crisis every 50ish years since the Norman invasion is that once per generation a new crop of British leaders take over and ignite complete chaos in some preventable way because they don't know any better and never really cared to until it was too late. Once all the bodies are buried they know not to do that again until they retire and the next one takes over.
"We've invaded a lot of countries, it's hard to pack them all in the textbook."
The death rattle of the Tory Government. Attempting to woo the elderly and Express/Daily Mail vote away from Reform by allowing them the opportunity to punish the young for no reason other than the fact that they're young, with one minister wanting to get kids out of their "woke" bubbles. Thing is its likely it wouldn't involve people turning 18 now as they don't expect to introduce it in full until 2029 so the people that would be compelled by law to do this don't even have a choice in the matter.
I'd have hated national service when I was 18. I'd just finished school and I wanted to focus on university studies where I worked most weekends part time to make money. If I suddenly had to become inactive educationally for a year by joining the military or significantly reducing the little money I made by volunteering one weekend a month I'd have been pissed. I also have a 2 year old now and I'd rather she didn't have to do this sort of bullshit either.
We haven't had national service in the UK since 1962 or 1963 I believe and the military don't want it back, a number of ex-army chiefs have already said so. Our armed forces minister even said just a few days before this was announced that there were no plans to reintroduce national service "in any form" because it could "damage morale... motivation and discipline".
Our army is small but highly trained and what they want is more funding not uncaring teenage volunteers who'll drain not only resources but morale. It's the same with our NHS, Fire, Police, and public services which are on their knees, since they've also been suggested as avenues for national service. Never mind the £2.5 billion the scheme would cost, money I'd rather see go into these services directly. I can only imagine how stressed these services will become if they have to manage young adults being forced to volunteer one weekend out of four.
That's not to mention it's quite obviously been thrown at the wall with zero planning and as a way of creating free or incredibly cheap volunteer labour to do the jobs no one else wants to do. We've had ministers saying that they could pick fruit and vegetables as part of national service, that they might even have 15 and 16 year olds do it, that they won't rule out criminally prosecuting parents if their children (who are 18 years old and legally adults) decide they're not doing it, to even limiting jobs in the public sector or the civil service (which are already suffering from workforce issues and pressures) to those who complete national service. Wouldn't surprise me if they suggest removing the vote from those who don't complete it, I expect nothing less from the Nasty Party.
If the Tories are that worried about our military they should be funding it properly and removing the army recruitment contract from Crapita where 70% of recruits give up on the recruitment process because it's so convoluted and takes months, sometimes up to a year to complete.
Either way, it's not worth taking the time to imagine this at the moment because it's highly unlikely the Conservatives will be in power on 5th July. My main worry is that they go away after the election, and come back in 10-15 years when people are inevitably tired of Labour and introduce it then.
Fuckin' Tories man, never trust a Tory.
This whole saga as well as "Triple Lock Plus" lays it all out so plainly.
I've thought for a long time that something like a year or two of mandatory public service could be really good for kids and for the country, if done correctly. I wouldn't want it to be primarily military/defense focused, but if done well I think it could have a positive impact both on communities and the people serving.
I also think a national civil service program here in the US would be pretty great. Something like constructing civil infrastructure or helping elderly. Young people would get to travel all over the country and meet other young people and realize that we aren't so different after all despite our geographic and cultural diversity. And I think there's something to be said for knowing that you built a part of this country with your own two hands.
I wouldn't want it to be mandatory though; that starts to resemble fascism a bit too much for my liking. But if you were paid well and there was a whole culture around it I don't see why it wouldn't be popular.
I think it would be great if you could get something akin to the GI bill from a civil service program. Not mandatory, but provides a good experience that can help you through school after.
Americorps NCCC
Americorps State/Federal (there are more programs too)
The benefits aren't at the level of the GI bill but they helped me get through college while working with preschool kids.
We already make schooling mandatory for youths; why not national civil service?
We know that travel—and the resulting exposure to people outside our bubbles—is a cure for prejudice. God knows that the continual survival of our democracy depends on us building and maintaining social trust, and its current peril arose from decades-long erosion of trust.
Our future depends on hundreds of millions of Americans believing in the best of each other — white and Black, straight and queer, men and women, rich and poor, liberal and conservative, and so on.
If we make national civil service voluntary, then the people who are comfortable with their bubbles and don't want to leave them to explore will just remain blissfully disconnected — but there are hundreds of millions of them, and we need them to build a society.
Our present state of political dysfunction and imminent catastrophe likely stems from the fact that we haven't had a collective national experience in decades. There is no more existential challenge to bind us and help us overcome our divisions and differences.
I wonder what effect compulsory military service has on one's views of foreign policy. Does it make people less hawkish, putting them in touch with the human element and making those who may potentially die in war more human? Or does it make them more hawkish, having spent formative years of their life embedded in military culture?
I spent an enlistment in the military (was poor and needed cash) and have found myself far less hawkish than most as I age, but I don't think there's any causal relationship between the two one way or the other.
I don't understand why they felt like countering an absolutely terrible idea with a just as terrible one
What's so terrible about allowing 16 & 17 year olds the vote? Currently, policies they have no say on are being debated for the general election. The only people who will be affected by Rishi's National Service don't get to vote on it. As Keir pointed out, 16 and 17 year olds can work, pay tax, join the military, drink*, drive**, start families, consent to medical treatment (including to not have treatment), and consent to sex. They may not be at the height of intellectual or emotional maturity (for that matter neither are the 80+ voting population), but we should afford them the right to vote because functioning members of society deserve a say in how society runs, and how they're treated in that society.
As an example, young people are still facing the consequences of Brexit, a vote they had no say in over 8 years later. Granted, I'm not saying 8 year olds should be allowed to vote, although I think it's more than clear that the arbitrary line of 18 can and should be moved earlier, not least because unlike the older population, issues that young people can't vote on will affect them for the next 70+ years.
*In public at a restaurant sometimes, at home or on other private premises always
** When you're 17
I'm all for the vote at 16, but that might mainly be due to the Brexit vote occurring when I was 16 and feeling like I wasn't getting a say despite the fact I was going to on average spend more time in the post-Brexit UK than most of the people pushing and voting for it.
I'm not sure the age the vote should be brought forward to but 16 is definitely where I'd start it out at.
Sorry, why is it a terrible idea? 16 year olds can do a ton of things in the UK such as join the military, or leave school for apprenticeships and jobs. These things can end up with 16 year olds paying taxes but they still don't get to vote. The vote is also given to those 16+ in Scottish elections and it seems to have worked out fine.
You've also got to remember that elections only happen once every 5 years, all going well of course. There's probably thousands of instances across the UK where young people find themselves turning 18 a couple of weeks or a month or two after an election takes place. By the time the next election rolls around they'd be nearly 23 years old, that's getting out of your early-20's, potentially building a business, career or a family before you even get the chance to vote in a national election! This reduction limits that potential scenario to nearly 21 years old instead.
It’s not a completely insane idea. Multiple countries - including Norway and Finland - have mandatory national service.
In Greece as well, but it's still considered a massive waste of time that almost nobody wants to do anymore. Not to say that you actually do anything useful; the government just wastes public funds to artificially inflate its number of "active and reserve soldiers". Even though you'll only receive actual training only a few times, whereas the entire military service lasts one year. The rest of the time, you just do chores.
They're planning to adopt the "Finnish model" right now, but, honestly, I don't think that much will actually change...
They won't, here in the Netherlands you hear this mandatory service things every election year and never again after that. Why? It costs money(wages and supplies) and there is already a shortage in a lot of sectors. Why on earth waste people working or studying to have them do what? Shovel a park? Guard the border with Belgium? It's laughable.
I think the much bigger scandal is the fact that the Conservative government has run down the Armed Forces and created a massive recruiting crisis by treating soldiers with contempt. I think there's also an issue in a lot of UK military deployments (e.g. Iraq, yes I know this was under Labour) not really being in the UK's strategic interest which makes it harder to play on people's sense of patriotic duty.
Offtopic, but also somewhat related, and a pretty weird coincidence. The 영국남자 Korean Englishman YouTube channel is currently in the middle of a new series where they took a bunch of British students to Korea to participate in Korean Navy boot camp. It's been fascinating to watch, especially since the boot camp is no joke, insanely intense, and they threw the Brits directly into the deep end (literally and figuratively).
British Students join Korean Navy: Boot Camp Day 1
Korean Navy Boot Camp Day 2: “The hardest thing I’ve ever done”
British Uni Students Destroyed by Combat Training at Korean Navy Boot Camp!!