If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Tories to bring in National Service
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8608807.stm
Now, before I give anyone the wrong impression, it's not compulsory, and you don't get any tax benefits or anything. It's more like a right of passage.
I'm behind it, I've been an advocate of national service before as young people really /need/ some way of getting out of their home and being 'broken in' to grown up living, taking responsiblity for themselves etc. - whether that's by going to University or joining the services or whatever.
I did a one week course with the Army when I was 14 and I loved it, really pushed me further than I'd been pushed before because nobody holds your hand and if you lag behind you're letting everyone down and your NCO shouts at you lots haha (I was less fit than average) - if it was a 2 month opportunity for the summer hols between GCSE and A level I would have jumped at the chance.
Conservative leader David Cameron has announced plans for voluntary "national citizen service" for all 16-year-olds.
Under the proposal, all teenagers of that age would be able to join a two-month summer residential scheme, with outdoor activities and community work.
Mr Cameron told a press conference it would be "in the same spirit" as the old National Service, bringing together people from different backgrounds.
Now, before I give anyone the wrong impression, it's not compulsory, and you don't get any tax benefits or anything. It's more like a right of passage.
I'm behind it, I've been an advocate of national service before as young people really /need/ some way of getting out of their home and being 'broken in' to grown up living, taking responsiblity for themselves etc. - whether that's by going to University or joining the services or whatever.
I did a one week course with the Army when I was 14 and I loved it, really pushed me further than I'd been pushed before because nobody holds your hand and if you lag behind you're letting everyone down and your NCO shouts at you lots haha (I was less fit than average) - if it was a 2 month opportunity for the summer hols between GCSE and A level I would have jumped at the chance.
0
Comments
Shyboy; some of the courses they run for a week at the minute are called "look at life" courses, and they offer a sample of some of the things you can do etc within the different parts and regiments of the forces. There are a lot of people who have definate WTF moments when they are there, but once they finish it, theres so many people who say its one of the best things they have done in their lives.
I would agree with that :yes: I don't know if it was the look at life course or what not, all I know was it was a 1 week course, with the army, in wales, where we got cold, wet and exhausted
nothing more disrupting to 'volunteering' than people who don't want to be there
Sounds like it yeah.
In any case, bringing back national service will do sod all to the country. So youngsters are apparently taking drugs and getting involved in crime, and often the two are linked, are they? In that case, legalise the drugs in question and put the drug dealers out of business immediately in the process. Crime will go down practically overnight.
So youngsters are growing up in families that have been on benefits for centuries, are they? In that case, remove those benefits. If there's no money in it, people will have no choice but to get off their arses and work. Guido Fawkes is currently running a quote also from Michael Caine on his website at the moment. He says "...more money than all our income tax is spent on benefits. Now you tell me there is nothing wrong with that system.". He is absolutely correct, although the shamelessly biased BBC doesn't mention he said this. Is this unpalatable to the Lefties at the Beeb?
Give people an incentive to achieve more for themselves - don't hand yet more power over to the state in the process!
it might be a great incentive for young people to get active but could it just be some dodgy recruitment method for the army? get em while theyre young kinda thing.
Also I should have made clear it's not run by the armed forces, it's like, volunteering and crap. So they'll send you off for a 2 month session to help impoverished and malnutrioned kids in glasgow or something
Good point, but it wasn't the Tories selling off playing fields etc. That started to happen as more and more schools took competitive games off the curriculum in line with the notion that children should not be allowed to "fail".
what about if you're an impoverished glasgow kid helping impoverished glasgow kids
imo it's a good motive wanting people to volunteer more but they'd be better off putting more into scouts/duke of edinburgh etc etc
the thing that makes me cynical is the sheer fact of the name which to most numpties out there will think is conscription, when it's a community volunteer work scheme..... :chin:
this.
10,000 between 1979 and 1997, compared to 200 since then? Seems like it was the Tories to me. Labour haven't done well enough (although I'm not aware how many new playing fields have been created in that period), but it's hardly comparable with the way the Tories treated our schools with their Reagan-inspired neoliberal economic policies throughout their stint in power. They were the ones that actually took pride in selling off community assets to private interests.
This reminds me of something someone mentioned to me earlier. I wonder how many people think of the positive in some of these policies before shooting them down.
Fair enough it might be a gimmick, and theres the question about how its going to be funded.
However; if this policy works, and its funded, purely on that basis would it be a good thing? If so, can we then make it work, before shooting it down without considering the actual policy rather than the problems?
IMO the only people who seriously call for a return to national service are the typical Daily Mailers who only exist in the Letters page of that paper. Not that Dave is going to miss the chance to get a headline.
Not really no. There's no point discussing the intricacies of a policy that appears 5 weeks before an election, that is from a party that has a track record of doing exactly the opposite on this issue, and is promising widespread cuts, under the assumption that it would be well funded. I'm sure nobody would argue with the concept of organised and well funded activities for children, but it's not going to happen. There are certain election policies that are integral, and there are others that are just gimmicks designed to grab headlines, that are essentially a re-branding of existing spending. This is the latter.
But since you mention it, I have no problem with the idea. I'm not a huge fan of the suspected nationalist element it would potentially have, though.
Not costed, not planned, not thought through.
Xx
So what we are saying is, lets not have a government and just have a dictator, after all, all governments go to ratshit before they are elected?
Yes its a shit thought out policy, and it hasnt been costed, but in principle its not a bad idea.
Politicians by their very nature seek power. The best people with power in their hands are those who dont seek it, so by standing for election, it really blurs the lines.
I disagree, because making it a national, comprehensive program that everyone is able to go into makes it recognised and valued by employers and educational establishments for the skills you've developed. Introducing some standards it needs to follow and all that raises the bar from just the hobby volunteering we've all done - it's a period of up to two months where you serve the community wholly from 9 - 5, away from home, with like minded individuals.
You're not wrong, but employers look favourably on anyone who volunteers their time, I don't see the point in making it nationally recognised.
Isn't that a bit unfair on those who can't abandon their jobs, families and other responsibilities for two months? It's completely understandable that some people need to fit volunteering around other commitments, but they should still be recognised for it. A division between 'real' volunteering and 'hobby' volunteering would just make it harder for people from poorer background to get decent jobs.
When has that ever bothered the tories?
What about the countries in Europe that have national service where people of a certain age have to serve the military? What do they do if they have jobs they dont want to leave?