Home Politics & Debate

National Service Bill in the UK

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
Do people know that one MP, Philip Hollobone, is proposing a bill that requires all 18 to 26 year olds to do some form of national service, for 1 year whole?

It's here http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14/nationalservice.html. It means having to spend one year doing some government sponsored program, involving discipline, possibly in a military-like environment, on a minimum wage.

Quite honestly I'm appalled by this, as a freedom loving individual. I've even emailed him twice, and he did reply.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It won't get through, but actually, I think it's not a bad idea.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Many countries in the world that do a lot better than the UK at certain things have something like this. I wouldn't worry too much about it, this is something that comes around with great regularity in Parliament and is still at a very early stage as it is.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's better than them sitting at home on benefits doing nothing, surely?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I oppose this bill because I object to anyone imposing a rule saying 'you must do ome government accredited service' if society can function fine without it. I say if someone wants to just do nothing all day the state shouldn't stop them if they're not causing harm or loss to anyone. Here's part of my letter to Philip Hollobone.


    Why should capable young adults should be forced to take one year out of their chosen career path, delay the fulfilling of their ambitions, and be forced to work for a government sponsored program which only offers the minimum wage, as stated in the bill? Why should the young businessman or woman be hindered in going about their trade and having to take a year out to do a government accredited, minimum wage program? Also, I noticed that the scheme must include "coaching and instruction to attain basic levels of physical fitness, personal discipline, smart appearance, self respect and respect for others." Why should be government be allowed to dictate what physical exercise or appearance a British subject should adopt, instead of allowing individuals to decide whether they wish to exercise or be 'disciplined'? If one wishes to live their life, overeating, doing no exercise, and looking scruffy, then why can't they have the freedom to live that way if their not causing harm to anyone? The word 'discipline concerns me as it sounds like imposing on those in this scheme an authoritarian code upon participants, such as dictating when one wakes up, eats, exercises, and imposing other rules that are quite frankly not necessary for society to function.

    It appears, that the spirit of this bill, is to demonize all young adults, as disrespectful, lazy, undisciplined, liable to crime etc. Why should the law abiding, responsible, young British subject have to face an insult to their intelligence by being forced to go on a program that sounds like its about telling people how to live their lives in a certain fashion?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I oppose this bill because I object to anyone imposing a rule saying 'you must do some government accredited service' if society can function fine without it. I say if someone wants to just do nothing all day the state shouldn't stop them if they're not causing harm or loss to anyone. Here's part of my letter to Philip Hollobone.


    Why should capable young adults should be forced to take one year out of their chosen career path, delay the fulfilling of their ambitions, and be forced to work for a government sponsored program which only offers the minimum wage, as stated in the bill? Why should the young businessman or woman be hindered in going about their trade and having to take a year out to do a government accredited, minimum wage program? Also, I noticed that the scheme must include "coaching and instruction to attain basic levels of physical fitness, personal discipline, smart appearance, self respect and respect for others." Why should be government be allowed to dictate what physical exercise or appearance a British subject should adopt, instead of allowing individuals to decide whether they wish to exercise or be 'disciplined'? If one wishes to live their life, overeating, doing no exercise, and looking scruffy, then why can't they have the freedom to live that way if their not causing harm to anyone? The word 'discipline concerns me as it sounds like imposing on those in this scheme an authoritarian code upon participants, such as dictating when one wakes up, eats, exercises, and imposing other rules that are quite frankly not necessary for society to function.

    It appears, that the spirit of this bill, is to demonize all young adults, as disrespectful, lazy, undisciplined, liable to crime etc. Why should the law abiding, responsible, young British subject have to face an insult to their intelligence by being forced to go on a program that sounds like its about telling people how to live their lives in a certain fashion?

    What if that person is sitting around doing nothing costing the taxpayer money?

    Whilst I agree with you in terms of this bill shouldnt pass, ever, I think you have totally missed the point and got a little too emotional over this. How is doing service such as is detailed in the bill, be insulting to the intelligence of a young British subject? Perhaps that is why society is going down the pan in my eyes, everyone just thinks about themselves these days. I also disagree about the program being about telling people how to live their lives, if it was I would agree with your point, but people wouldnt have to live like that if they didnt want to.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It should be amended to something like "Every person reaching the age of 18 must be in some form of education, employment or training until age 19. Any person not in the above will be compelled to carry out national service".

    Gets the jobless off the streets doing something productive for a year, leaves those already doing something productive alone.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why is this just aimed at people between 18 and 25 and not someone older who has never worked?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Melian wrote: »
    Why is this just aimed at people between 18 and 25 and not someone older who has never worked?

    Good poinr Melian. I would oppose it regardless of what age it was aimed at, but there is a strong undertone in this bill that wants to demonise the young, just because of the actions of a minority.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Where is it demonizing the young though? I can see how many would look at it that way, but I'm not that sure it demonizes or demeans people.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    By introducing legislation that says national service must 'teach discipline etc, physical excersize' etc (that's what it says in the bill) it implies that young people are somehow not good enough for society. So many people say we need national service to get the yobs of the street etc. But national service would be for everyone (except those exempt) and not every young adult is a yob, most aren't. It's a one-size-fits-all straight-jacket - the good guys have to do it for the sake of the bad guys.

    I've often been in the minority, been the one who is not suited to a one-size-fits all approach. Hope you get what i'm saying. It's Friday night, a bit tired and not really explaining myself cohearentlY (or speling lol)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I can see where you are coming from and your argument is quite clear, but whilst I dont think the bill is either needed or wanted, I cant see where saying teaching discipline and physical exercise suggests people are not good enough for society?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Take the budget for national service and put it into better education, especially for those over 19.

    I'd like to see his reasons for it, just like he has done here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10612670
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's not a bad idea really is it? Many people leave school at 16 with no work ethic, dos about for years eventually try to get a job in their 20s but find it very difficult with no work experience.

    The national service wouldn't have to be strictly a military thing, just something where they have a work routine and discipline.

    There could be benefits to having done your service, free university for example.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Mmmm... I'm kind of divided on this.

    For some it would be a good idea but as one of these 'young people' I can understand not wanting to be forced into something I don't want to do.
    As well, the physical education thing. True exercise is good but some people (such as myself) aren't naturally talented at such exercise as a military experience provides. I know someone's probably thinking "isn't that the point, to make someone into someone who is?" but... I've always been of the mind that if you're not naturally very fitness or exercise inclined, you really shouldn't be FORCED into being. :/

    All in all... my feelings are mostly negative towards this.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Do what Germany does and add voluntary, civil services and uniformed services (including ambulance, police, fire, coastguard as well as armed services - I'd almost like those actually discounted because I wouldn't like the thought of almost anyone potentially getting trained in how shoot a gun). You don't need weapons involved to teach respect and disipline. If armed services were taken out of the equation then I'd really advocate it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    G-Raffe wrote: »
    Where is it demonizing the young though? I can see how many would look at it that way, but I'm not that sure it demonizes or demeans people.

    Of course it demonises the young. Youth of today, teach 'em some manners, all that shite. Typical Tory Bastard.

    As for "voluntary service" if you happen to be unemployed, my view has always been that if the job needs doing it should be paid. If it doesn't need doing then you shouldn't be forcing people to do it. Either way, "voluntary service"- workfare by any other name- is humiliating and demeaning to everyone.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I agree with you on forcing the unemployed to do voluntary work for free - but with national service everyone would have to be paid a living wage whilst doing it. It would essentially be enforced work experience which would look good on everyone's CV and would prove to people they can do something.

    Let's just leave the armed forces out of it!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It doesn't say anything about being exempt if you're working/in education etc? So if this were to be passed wouldn't it make employers even less willing to hire young people if they're going to have to go off for a year to do national service? Also what about young parents? I didn't have time to read through it properly so excuse me if I've missed something.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Miss_Riot wrote: »
    It would essentially be enforced work experience which would look good on everyone's CV and would prove to people they can do something.
    Something that's on everyone's CV doesn't look good on anyone's CV, surely? Might as well put "speak fluent English" on it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How is enforced work experience ok? It's essentially slave labour.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If the argument is coming down to making someone do something they dont like doing, then I think the bill has been badly written. Why should I need to pass a driving test before driving, why should I have to get insurance if I dont want to, why why why. There are plenty things in life that plenty of people disagree with, if only it was as simple as being able to say something is outrageous because people just dont like it, rather than addressing points in more detail. Afterall, what is volunteering if not willing slave Labour?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    G-Raffe wrote: »
    Afterall, what is volunteering if not willing slave Labour?

    Unpaid work. Slavery, by definition, is forced labour.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If you volunteer, you choose to do it. And most of the time, it's for charity and not companies making millions of pounds.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Melian wrote: »
    If you volunteer, you choose to do it. And most of the time, it's for charity and not companies making millions of pounds.

    The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive #cynical
Sign In or Register to comment.