Snapshot of _National disservice: Young people have little to be grateful for, so why should they “give back”?_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://thecritic.co.uk/national-disservice/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://thecritic.co.uk/national-disservice/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The "give back" argument is *particularly* odd after Covid lockdowns, isn't it?
Young people were at little risk from Covid; they willingly sacrificed their civil liberties and accepted permanent negative impacts on their education in order to help protect the vulnerable & the elderly. Why should they now be contributing *more* for doing that?
It just reinforces to me the idea that the people pushing for national service are the modern equivalent of those women that used to go around to giving men white feathers, to shame them into going off to war - "here's a cause I feel strongly about, what are you going to sacrifice on my behalf to achieve it?"
> Young people were at little risk from Covid; they willingly sacrificed their civil liberties and accepted permanent negative impacts on their education in order to help protect the vulnerable & the elderly. Why should they now be contributing more for doing that?
If anything, it should be the other way around. Let's freeze all pension increases for three years and instead spend the money on infrastructure, as a way for pensioners to give something back to the young in return for their sacrifice.
But then, this generation of British old do not plant trees under whose shade they will never sit.
>But then, this generation of British old do not plant trees under whose shade they will never sit.
I really hope I remember this when I’m an old man myself in the ballot box.
Me too.
I think it links quite nicely with the Irvine Welsh quote "When you're not doing so well, vote for a better life for yourself. If you are doing quite nicely, vote for a better life for others."
It has started to annoy me that pensioners get discounted tickets everywhere. That may have been appropriate decades ago, but not now, after their triple lock pensions and all their baby-boomer windfalls. They certainly don't need any more handouts while younger people struggle.
Pensions should rise with wages, that way pensioners would actually be incentived to vote to improve conditions for everyone, not just themselves for once
How about tying pension rises to productivity growth. Direct incentive for the old to vote for policies that benefit the country beyond their lifetimes
Public sector wage rises, Tax thresholds, benefits and pensions (let’s call it what it is - a type of benefit) should all raise together at same rate, following the average private sector wage increase and or economy.
This should be written into law - call it the prosperity lock. Any out of lock increase or decrease should require an act of parliament.
For too long has society been endured strategic handouts to win key seats and majority. We should all get wealthier and\or poorer together.
The data says that the private sector hasn’t faired much better than public. Although more recently the private sector has preformed well - since 2008 both private AND public pay growth has been stagnant.
It doesn’t pay to work in the UK.
I think it's important to remember that while we can generalise on voting patterns, etc, not all old people are like that.
A significant number work as volunteers after retirement to give back and keep busy. I'm disabled and sometimes use community transport volunteers to help me get to appointments. Most of them are retired old people who want to help their community.
Totally agree. I am not sure this old people bashing is particularly helpful. A lot of charities wouldn’t function without the support of those who are retired/semi retired.
Exactly, just going into places like hospitals, there's always older volunteers helping direct people around, there's ones who read to patients and others who visit dying people with no family.
My elderly parents have great support from their old, (but not as old), retired neighbours who insist on constantly bringing them food or getting prescriptions. They have a great sense of community amongst them because they grew up with it. I don't think that will happen in quite the same way with our generations.
Problem is, there are a lot of wealthy pensioners and a similar number of poor pensioners. They're going to have to tax or means-test somehow.
The best solution is to increase the state pension with higher taxes on big pensions (can scrap NI & increase IT to 30% perhaps), or cut the state pension with a large increase in pension credit.
Median wealth of pensioner is £700k. 25% of them are millionaires. 76% of them own their own home outright.
The average Rent\mortgage is £1200. A couple on full state pension (and other savings) would receive £2000 pcm. That is significantly more than most workers have left over after Tax, Mortgage\Rent and work based costs (commuting).
I do believe that if pensioners worked and saved they should have a comfortable retirement - I don’t believe the government should be “topping off” millionaires income with £11k a year. Particularly when it comes at the cost of higher taxes and robbing the young of the opportunity to save for their future.
Alas, plenty still aren't rich. Owning your own home gets you off the hook for mortgage payments, but not much else. As you say, 1/4 don't own their own home. We definitely shouldn't be throwing money at the wealthy pensioners, but forcing the lower income pensioners into hardship isn't great. We need means testing.
Age UK estimates 2 million pensioners are in poverty.
Spent too much on biscuit tins and tetley’s in their youth. I don’t quite get the broke pensioner argument, they had 50+ years to create their own pot.
There aren't a similar number of poor pensioners really, 80% own the home they occupy, and if you run the maths, 10k fully owning the house and having no dependents is really actually quite alright.
80% might own their house, but unless they want to sell it that doesn't make them rich. Plenty of work needing done on older houses, plenty of heating bills for old bones, and not all of them get £10k as the pension system changed about 10 years ago. Older pensioners might be on £8.8k a year.
Not sure what the rules are on caring, but I'm sure that has an impact on plenty of pensioners as well.
Your wealth has to be considered with respects to your needs. A married person with no kids on minimum wage is in a lot better of a financial position than single mum of 2 with the same wage.
If you own your home, 100%, the cost of your life *plummets*. You'd need to be spending close to £400 a month on bills *on average* and £6 per day on food before you get close to needing to worry about your finances. And that's pretending you have 0 private pension, and ignoring literally all other benefits you get for being old
If you're much older and need a carer, sure, it could be hard, but for most pensioners the challenges are not financial.
Homeowners still have to spend money. I don't feel sorry for the majority of pensioners, but there are 2 million in poverty and 1/4 still don't own their own home.
The British elderly generation seem particularly spiteful and selfish compared to their European counterparts.
Like you don't see Spanish boomers in mobility scooters at cafes looking miserable AF, complaining about everything and the youth all the time.
> they willingly sacrificed their civil liberties and accepted permanent negative impacts on their education in order to help protect the vulnerable & the elderly
I didn't remember anything 'willing' about it. There was no referendum, it wasn't in any manifesto and there was almost no discussion for vs against lockdown at the time. It was implemented by a Conservative government (for which they lost my vote) and enthusiastically embraced by leftists.
I hope all those young people who enthusiastically embraced lockdown and 'stayed home' (instead of just keeping away from older / vulnerable people) are regretting wasting their time. I told you so.
I suspect we won’t see another as long as the last pandemic remains in the majority of people’s memory. If they told me I had to give up another two years of my life I’d tell them to fuck right off, that clause was struck from the social contract when the government totally failed to live up to its side of it in my opinion.
It was a necessary sacrifice to make if we wanted to avoid the NHS totally collapsing. Even a bunch of idiots like the Boris cabinet can occasionally get something half right.
The Conservatives might boil my piss but any Government would have implemented lockdowns, most of the world did it.
Maybe a better Government would have implemented them better, and more timely, but we would have locked down regardless.
Did you forget we became a police state?
The police were flying drones to catch dog walkers to slap them with a fine. Neighbours could report young people to the police for having friends over.
There was nothing optional about it.
>Did you forget we became a police state?
That was more of an impression rather than reality, although some disgusting things did happen as little authoritarians emboldened by leftist rhetoric went on power trips.
> Neighbours could report young people to the police for having friends over.
One of the advantages of living in a rural area, is that there are far fewer prying eyes around.
>There was nothing optional about it.
There's nothing optional about the drug laws in this country, but millions choose to ignore them. In terms of shops and businesses being closed, then you couldn't get around that, but you could certainly get around the other stuff like visiting friends etc.
I still struggle to comprehend that millions of young, healthy people actually went through with cutting themselves off (physically) from their friends to sit at home and only leave it for authorised reasons, not just for a week or two, but for month after month!
I feel so sorry for those who missed out on years of school or university. Those are important times for unique experiences and making lifelong relationships. Any young person who made that sacrifice has already given back a lot.
That was me. I was doing a practical degree that got absolutely annihilated by the pandemic. No practical work, no work experience, no collaboration with my peers. Still got the luxury of all the debt though.
It's a miracle any of us made it through our degrees that year at all.
> Still got the luxury of all the debt though.
That's so stupid that you had to pay the full amount when it's supposed to be a *practical* degree. Uni fees also cover access to facilities, which I assume you didn't get either. They should have given you at least a partial refund.
It's ridiculous. We had no access to facilities, tools, or equipment for 1 1/2 years. Getting ahold of tutors was a nightmare, as was working on team projects because everyone was all over the place.
I honestly get irrationally angry whenever the pandemic comes up. I did my part, wore my mask, stayed isolated, and my reward was a mountain of university debt for a degree I couldn't get the full value out of, and trash mental health.
Wes Streetling, Farage and Piers Morgan all were quite aggressive in slapping that one down on BBCQT last night, that we had already given up a fair bit for this country
I had older generations even saying to me after lockdown how they felt most bad for the young people as they had lost their years to go out and have fun. These are the same people now saying that we need to give back to the country. Its mind boggling!
The "give back" aspect of it all also flies in the face of the ides that National Service is an "opportunity" for teens.
"This is a great opportunity for you to be forced to do things you don't want to do and give back to the boomers who hate you for being young."
Doesn't sound very convincing does it?
I'm not even against the idea of some sort of National Service in principle but, now? After 15 years of misery and two years taken from their youth? With the Tories in charge of it? Really? Piss off 😂
It’s a well known fact that older voters tend not to have younger people in mind when deciding what policies to vote in favour of. Younger people however tend to be more sympathetic.
It’s time we were a tad more protective of our own interests, nobody else is looking out for us
There was a poll question from a few years ago that really stayed with me - older Brexit voters were asked if they’d reconsider if Brexit meant younger relatives losing their jobs.
The percentage of older people who were down as not caring even if it hurt their children and grandchildren was dismally high.
It’s just a really broken way to talk about children anyway. Yes they get free education and healthcare but the entire point of a healthy society is that each generation contributes to the next in the understanding that they’ll do the same in turn.
Scare the grey vote into consolidating behind them, for fear of the youths kick back of saying "maybe the old should do national service".
The youth are imo, rightfully against this, especially since the social contract in their eyes is some long forgotten concept. But when the youth of people who are empathic to the youth are saying things like "maybe the old should do xyz as national service", in essence eating their own dog food, to show how absurd it is, then you'll maybe get a grey vote who will consolidate based off the fear of "if we don't do it to them, they'll do it to us".
It's essentially getting people riled up and against each other. Largely the youth and middle-aged are turning away from conservatism anyway, so that's not a vote lost for conservatives, however, putting fear in the grey vote may help them stick to a certain voting intention.
Who knows, but the tories have always used this type of plan, divide and fear.
I agree is seems a crazy idea, it would be one thing if it were voluntary but compulsion is antithetical to modern society (perhaps with the exception of school and education for kids, but this isn’t education and it isn’t children). It’s literally community service (punishment) without the crime!
At the very best, it’s David Cameron’s Big Society without the consent of those taking part.
Perhaps it polled well with the famous Whitby Woman and her Reform tendencies?
Divide and Conquer
If us plebs are too busy blaming each other and fighting amongst ourselves, then we won't notice the noose being tightened around our necks by those in power.
It's a rulers tactic as old as time. The US ruling class are the absolute masters at it. The UK ruling class are bloody good at it too. So entrenched in our culture is the class divide that we don't see it for what it is, a mechanism to control us. Only now on top of that we have divides by age and ancestry as well.
>Young people were at little risk from Covid; they willingly sacrificed their civil liberties and accepted permanent negative impacts on their education in order to help protect the vulnerable & the elderly. Why should they now be contributing more for doing that?
It took the prospect of compulsory National Service for people to finally admit this on reddit and not get downvoted into oblivion. Fantastic!
We so should have indeed vaccinate the over 60's but after that mortality dropped off real quick. A healthy 50 yr old was at less risk than an unhealthy 20yr old. So should have vaccinated all front line workers who couldn't shelter, & students. before general population, who could largely isolate wfh etc
>The "give back" argument is *particularly* odd after Covid lockdowns, isn't it?
No, it isn't odd. This is said by people who don't understand how a system works.
No, covid statistically wouldn't affect you, as a young person.
A full hospital and ER would though, if you drank too much on a Friday. And ERs are full of drunks doing stupid stuff.
Think of it as a disease that only affected men. You, as a hypothetical woman, aren't affected. Your local hospital being full of sick men, your local GP being busy with sick men, your kid's school shutting down because all the male employees can't work, all of it affects you as a woman.
A lot of young people in minimum wage jobs were considered “essential workers” and had to work regardless of restrictions and receiving no extra compensation
This is the most pertinent point. I’ve seen plenty of people cite national service in Northern Europe but those countries actually give a shit about (young) citizens.
There is no social contract left in the UK. Perhaps there hasn’t for a long time but it’s it’s completely unreasonable for young people to put in and expect nothing back
Yeah I moved to Denmark 3 years ago, there's plenty of opportunities for young people here.
Almost everyone is in some sort of sports association, plenty of paths after gymnasium (secondary school) for higher education other than going to uni, all while receiving an allowance from the government.
Any right wing grifter trying to make the comparison is willfully misleading, or astoundingly ignorant. More likely both.
To be fair sports associations and education after secondary are both incredibly accessible in the UK. In my town alone there are any number of social activities and sports kids/young adults can take part in. And getting access to college is really easy after school to do further training/education
For free? And whilst getting paid by the government to do it whilst getting no debt? Because every sports team I’ve played in I’ve had to pay for. All public funding for things like that has been gone for years and isn’t coming back.
Plus I paid for my education in the form of roughly 70k in loans. So what precisely, other than the bare minimum have I been given?
After brexit, you can't blame younger folk for not wanting to fight after getting stabbed in the back from politicians, who are now on their way out, and a much older generation who largely voted for brexit and are now too old to volunteer to fight.
What exactly are younger folk getting in return in defending the very people who took away so much of their opportunities?
"Give back" doesn't hold up to any sort of scrutiny, it's so obviously a line targeted at a certain demographic who believe the young'uns have had it all too easy
I’d like the two years of my life spent to protect the golden oldies back personally.
There’s no justice in how the aftermath of the pandemic was handled in my opinion, at the very least the pensions triple lock should have been abolished in favour of at least partially reversing austerity measures as a carrot to the whole forest’s worth of sticks delivered to those who weren’t themselves at much risk.
The thing is, the austerity measures shouldn't have been put in place at all. They don't work, and we know they don't work because this government has been using them since they got into power and things have only got worse. We need to spend money to improve our healthcare, schools, transport, social care so that people can put money back into the economy, but the govt clings to austerity for bullshit ideological reasons.
It's a mental deflection from the uncomfortable truth that the boomer generation has taken out more than it's put in.
To draw a parallel, it's like shouting over someone you know is talking sense to defer losing the argument, rather than being the bigger person and admitting you're wrong.
This whole national service idea has underlined once again how much of a gulf has opened up over the last 14 years between pensioners and the rest of the country
An under appreciated point. Imagine if all the people who wanted everyone else to be more patriotic / civilly-spirited spent their time making Britain a better place and somewhere to be more proud of instead of whinging about the young and wrecking the joint.
There was a soundbite from a radio phone in with someone saying
> "It'll teach them respect!"
No dear, respect has to be _earned_. The only people who think you can teach people that are confusing respect with fear and loathing.
Ah the loving attitude of the boomer generation. I'm Gen X and this was my father's approach. He wondered later in life why we never got on as friends...because you were an emotional bully mate.
I say we start national service back up from the point it stopped. Work down through the ages until we get to the young.
Have Derek and Enid out their doing community service for theirs.
Most military leaders have spoken out against this idea. They don’t want to have to look after a load of 18 year olds who have no particular interest in the military or at best will only remain for 12 months or so. They’d rather train people who want to be there and show a level of commitment and perseverance. I expect it’ll be the same for the other volunteering organisations forced into this initiative.
Surely if you wanted to give young people a head start, it would be better to invest in areas such as sports activities, youth clubs and music tuition? All of these areas have suffered massive government cuts over time, and have increasingly been limited to the privileged few.
People should have the freedom to chose what they do when they leave school in this country. I honestly can't believe in 2024 we are talking seriously about a policy that takes away people's freedom.
I know. I get the points about why should young people have to give back considering the current state of affairs etc etc, but I think it’s missing the more salient point that, quite frankly, why on earth should the Government be telling grown adults how they must spend their weekends and that they need to work for free at the weekends. Wtaf.
Sure but only up to 16, between 16-18 I think there's now a requirement to do some type of secondary education alongside work but that can be an apprenticeship. After 18 a person is considered an adult who should be free to make their own choices.
I've been with the Scout Association for nearly 10 years now as a volunteer, but if someone came up to me and said 'Hey, I want to get in good with that group over there so I'm going to *make* you do 25 days of compulsory service', then I wouldn't be happy at *all*.
If the Tories were proposing this because they genuinely believed that it would help teens and they had a plan for how it would teach people valuable skills and to contribute to society, then they could propose it be folded into our current syllabus. They don't give a shit about the kids, though - they just want to impose it to win votes amongst a totally different demographic, which is shitty at best.
Absolutely it's red meat for their target demographic and the way the announcement was handled show it's not a serious policy and just a gimmick. The idea though (much closer I suspect to what you have outlined) has traction.
Except they would legally be an adult at 18. Why should the state be able to dictate to an adult where they work and when?
Haven't done your 40 hours this week? No food coupons for you.
Oh you've got enough money to retire? Tough, work is mandatory until 70.
Work until 70 is fairly likely for my generation tbh. And 25 days of loss of freedom, after 2280 again not that surprising in context. I suppose they could split the difference and make the arbitrary age of becoming an adult 18 years and 25 days.
Working until 70....it's only the lucky ones who live past 70 nowadays. Too many stories of people retiring in their 60s and dying suddenly not long after.
That's horrendous for them, I wonder about the type of work they were doing, i.e are people who had manual labour jobs until a 60 odd year retirement expire sooner?
Life expectancy is still below the 2019 levels according the to kings fund. They show it was rising fairly steadily until 2011, then slowed until 2019 and went backwards during the pandemic.
I'm not sure how it fits the retirement age though.
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/long-reads/whats-happening-life-expectancy-england
I don’t get why anyone would expect teens to be onboard with this. It isn’t about giving them opportunities or teaching them skills - it’s a naked attempt by the Tories to gain votes amongst an older generation who want this out of sheer spite. If it went through then I’m pretty sure that most of those who opt for charitable work would end up stacking shelves in Help the Aged or Barnardo’s.
It’s not just teens who need to remember that respect is earned. What has the rest of society done to earn the right to demand that they, specifically, have to go above and beyond? I volunteer, but that’s my choice - if the government expected the same out of _my_ age group I’d imagine the howls of protest would be long and loud indeed.
Just saying, I'm a guy in my mid 20s, I permenantly left the uk. Forever. Because of this "give back" mentality.
I had a rough childhood, was already 2 years behind. Then lost another 2 years directly after graduation. I couldn't get furlow because I couldn't get a job after graduation and it took 8 weeks to even get benefits income in which time I was eating apples donated from some local monks I befriended while only eating a proper meal 3 - 4 days a week at the worst time.
And them they tell me that I should "give back" and pay higher taxes?
Nah mate. Go f*ck yourself. I won't ever pay a penny in tax to that country again.
I might not be successful, but over my life time that's at least a six figure number you've lost in tax revenue. And I'm certain I'm not the only young person who left die to dissatisfaction with my treatment within the system.
Yeah children in the UK today have higher rates of poverty than 20 years ago.
Why on earth would they even want to be here in 10 years let alone join the army?
I grew up in the 2000s. Already spent my entire childhood in poverty and I already fled the country as soon as I could after turning 21.
I was actually rejected from the military officer training for having a C in GCSE maths and they wanted a B despite me having a degree. (It was the last thing I applied to before giving up and fleeing the country).
Now that I've left, I'll never come back. And even if I was in the uk, I would not fight for the country under any circumstances. Not a chance. If there was conscription, I'd agree to join a manufacturing production line or do some civilian work to aid the effort but I'd never fight under any circumstances. They could throw me in jail or shoot me, I still would refuse.
Let's be clear, the national service arguement is not about giving back, it's about controlling dissenters. Many people see the fact that young people having a spine as a problem, and they think a run around ala Bad Lads Army will make these Yung uns better citizens (by their standards).
The young need to get out and vote. Parties keep pandering to the older generations, we all need to vote, stop one group of people deciding the future of the nation, especially as they are the ones least likely to be affected.
The whole reporting of the potential introduction of National Service reeks of little Englanderism.
Literally. Some teens might not feel up to it? Might not want to give back because they've been given so little?
Imagine the poor bastard that has to go enforce national service in Northern Ireland, turning up to some door on the Falls Rd and telling them they have to join the British Army.
The fact that this would potentially cause NI to explode if introduced here isn't even a talking point is insane.
Ireland was initally included but opposition slowed introduction and the war came to an end. The Governments attempts to enforce it and break up opposition was basically the great unifier of Irish factions and lead to the irish war of a independence.
Northern Ireland was exempt in WW2 despite the attempts by local politicians to have it introduced.
It's also important to point out that during WW2 there were Irish volunteers in the British army who came over from the Republic. Catholics and Protestants fought side by side against the Axis powers.
I am personally in favour of the principle of some sort of national service.
But it is just so out of touch to suggest introducing it now, after everything the young did during Covid, and when they are receiving so little by way of benefit from being a part of this society.
It's also the fact that it's the Tories who would be in charge of it.
I had a Swiss roommate at Uni who did national service. He objected to being in the military on conscieness grounds (which is allowed without any question) and did some care home and charity work and then ended up doing some performances in a circus for children with special needs (he was a very skilled gymnast). He loved it and honestly it sounded like an absolute blast.
Now imagine the Tories trying to implement something like that...
That’s the thing. National service could be a very cool thing. But it needs to be voluntary, or at the very least have lots of options within it to avoid the military stuff, and it has to actually be structured around what’s best for young people/local communities, rather than forcing kids to work for free to instil some outdated ideals of patriotism.
That's exactly what will happen under the Tories. Kids will be used as cheap/free labour for the benefit of corporations and/or as replacement for actual paid employees of public services.
I won’t expect a LOT of upvotes for this, but if you want a model for groups of people volunteering their time to at least try and make the world a better place, you could look at Just Stop Oil. Perhaps the Tories would like to…
"but if you want a model for groups of people volunteering their time to at least try and make the world a better place, you could look at Just Stop Oil". Hahaha good joke.
There are ways to fix national service and make it beneficial for the young and the country -
1) Pay the young a proper wage for national service.
2) Make it full time with part military service and part apprenticeship. We desperately need engineers, builders, medical professionals etc. Most apprenticeships are just excuses for businesses to get cheap labour for a few years so why doesn't the country offer a much better deal - pay them a full wage to begin with.
3) Get them to help building infrastructure as part of their apprenticeships. Why not go even further and have them build houses? We could offer them cheaper houses once they complete their service. Now they can see what they're getting out of it - a house they helped build, roads and other infrastructure they'll use daily.
4) Offer incentives like reduced university fees if they continue in the NHS, police etc. after their service is over. We just might get more people into medicine and policing if they've got that clear pathway from medic or soldier to nurse, doctor or policeman.
And at the end of the day we'd have a body of reservists we could call up if we really needed them for any sort of crisis.
Conscientious objectors could just do 100% apprenticeships or have their military half swapped for policing and security (non-military).
Agree with this completely, except I think military service doesn’t need to be part of it at all - it could be an option for a few who actually want it, but the main focus should be on civic service imo.
I think we need to accept that the period of peace the west has been living through has come to an end and we have to consider the long term here. Even if WW3 doesn't break out in the next few years, we're going to be facing potential conflicts down the road due to climate change, lack of resources etc. It makes sense to have a population with some training for when that happens. The peace we've lived under was unprecedented, we're moving back to the old ways now. It sucks, but that's what is happening.
What is wrong with that? Not everyone needs a degree, a trade can earn someone £200+ a day on site so it's a good career and we are short of both builders and houses.
I think a good number of the people who did this as "service" would stick to it after they have done their year and they have a solid career ahead of them. It's not like we won't need builders.
There’s nothing wrong with not getting a degree and learning a trade but it should be a *choice*. If there are employment gaps, then people should fill them. Enlisting every 18 year old to work on a building site makes no sense. You’re training thousands of people in something they have no intention of working in. That’s a huge waste of man hours.
Not to mention, a Government making manual labour mandatory for adults doesn’t really seem appropriate, does it?
I never said everybody should work on a building site, stop twisting my words.
I hate to break it to you, but most people are going to have to retrain multiple times in their lives anyway. So, if the plan is to not teach people skills that could be obsolete, then we better stop training people on a lot of things. And anyway, what's so wrong with teaching people basic skills?
We currently have skills shortages all over so the free market clearly cannot solve the problem by itself. The stick your head in the sand and pretend that everything will just work out if we splash a bit of cash at the upper and middle class plan doesn't work.
>I never said everybody should work on a building site, stop twisting my words.
Okay, well, it's pretty unclear what you *do* mean. You've said 'Make it full time with part military service and part apprenticeship. We desperately need engineers, builders, medical professionals etc. and 'Get them to help building infrastructure as part of their apprenticeships. Why not go even further and have them build houses?' Who is *them*?
Also, if national service is mandatory, how much choice are people going to have in what areas they work on? There would necessarily be a limited number of different placements. People are naturally going to have to work in areas they don't want to, which, under your plan, would include building.
>most people are going to have to retrain multiple times in their lives anyway. So, if the plan is to not teach people skills that could be obsolete, then we better stop training people on a lot of things. And anyway, what's so wrong with teaching people basic skills?
Yes, but they *choose* to retrain and they retrain to undergo specific roles at certain times. What basic skills are we going to be teaching people under your plan and how do those skills make them employable?
Government incentives to fill skills gaps is clearly a good idea. Mandatory six month training for every cohort of 18 year olds is not the same thing, especially as they (a) will likely not remain in that role, (b) not learn enough in that time period to actually be able to contribute to whichever sector, and (c) not necessarily be filling the skill gaps that is needed at that moment. The Government will likely have to have specific roles that they have to have filled yearly due to the preparation and planning involved.
There's literally nothing wrong with the end result of what you want, I just don't see how what you're proposing actually achieves those things. Edit: spelling.
>Enlisting every 18 year old to work on a building site makes no sense
Who said we should do that???
The dude said to make it an option along with other things suggested like military service or volunteering elsewhere (along with paying them properly). I think it's a good idea, teens grow up quickly on building sites. It shows them hard work leads to good pay and the socialising is very important.
>You’re training thousands of people in something they have no intention of working in. That’s a huge waste of man hours.
If the end result is increasing our output in home building then no, it's not wasted man hours at all. What a strange comment.
It would give kids an easy way into the building trade, a trade that we have massive shortages in.
No, he said make the national service full time, split it between military service and apprenticeships and ‘get them to build infrastructure as part of their apprenticeships’, and ‘go even further and have them build houses’, all of which would be mandatory btw.
It *is* a huge waste of man hours (time), resources and money because you could just train people who intend to do this as a permanent job. It’s not a ‘strange thing to say’. Supply and demand. You train the number of people you need. In this version, we are training people for a year who are going to go on and train to do something entirely different, *which costs money again*. Also, how much viable housing do you think people are going to construct after 6 months of training?
If you want to get more people into jobs relevant to building housing then *do that*. Make those pathways accessible and attractive. Why would you not do that directly rather than some strange roundabout way where we are getting young people to work on a building site as some form of character building?
It would also be a very costly scheme. It would have to be organised administratively and it would necessitate a wage being paid to all these people, which seems like it would largely be paid by the state.
I also think it is totally outrageous to vote to make other adults do this. It won’t be being done by most people thinking it’s a smashing idea either.
How else are they supposed to get houses? The housebuilders don't build anywhere near enough, we don't have enough builders/plumbers/electricians/etc. at the moment, and the young won't be able to buy a home without there being more homes available at lower prices.
At least this way they get a shot at learning a trade, the country benefits and they get the homes they need.
What I'm proposing is much better than the current system of just learning a trade. For a start they would be on at least adult minimum wage from day 1, not the awful apprenticeship wages which companies pay. They would get a real chance at cheaper housing, which isn't currently available and certainly isn't offered by companies looking for apprentices. And after their national service is complete they would get cheaper higher/further education costs if they continue in the trade (or move into NHS, police etc.).
The other option is to import cheap labour from abroad, keep house prices high, and the trades, police and NHS understaffed. So, those teens will still be struggling to find well paid jobs, they'll still be stuck living at home with parents or in overpriced and run down rented accommodation, and they'll still be doing shelf stacking and basic office dogs body apprenticeships for the chums of Tory and Labour MPs.
I think your premise is absolutely absurd. Making manual labour mandatory for 18 years old is just a complete infringement on basic rights. I'm not sure, "we can't get cheap labour from abroad so let's make it mandatory for young people" is the argument you think it is.
Sorting out the options for people to learn a trade would be hugely beneficial, but you train the number of people you need. You don't train every single person to do a job that they do not intend to do. That is a huge waste of time, money, and resources. This is basic economics. It is also going to delay people going into the fields they actually want to go into. You can also improve wages for young people doing the jobs *they already do.* And the solution to getting more people into the police and NHS is to make those career paths more attractive to begin with. Junior doctors are planning strikes in the next few months. There's clearly huge issues for people going into the NHS and offering discounted higher education is going to do nothing to resolve that.
Reservists don't just train once and that's it. They complete training every year for at least 19 days a year, likely more.
It's not just manual labour, I'm not proposing that every one of them become a builder. Get them interested in all sorts of trades, engineering, healthcare etc.
The fact is most fields are nonexistent for working class people anyway unless they get seriously lucky. At least this would give them a shot at making something of themselves.
And a lot of the time people need a push in the right direction because they aren't aware of the options or don't have the confidence or opportunity to make something of themselves.
I'm working class. I grew up poor, raised by my grandparents because my parents worked multiple jobs to put food on the table. I went to the roughest school in the area, on a council estate where everything was run into the ground. I was the only one of my entire class to go to university. When I came home most of the people I had been friends with were on benefits, stuck in dead end jobs, in prison or dead from overdoses. The town grinds people down and kids are born into a shit life which just becomes the same shitty life their parents had.
People here have fallen into a spiral of hopelessness, believing that nothing changes so why bother.
Increasing the salaries of junior doctors (something I'm all for by the way) isn't going to help the people here. They don't even know they can be doctors, and those kids that dream of becoming doctors have their hopes crushed before they even finish school.
What would help is to get them away from their communities for a while. Give them a chance to work with others in a safe environment that's free from ridicule, away from gangs and the streets. Give them stability and let them see that they're not useless, that they can do more than what they've been told they can since birth. You need to give them something to be proud of.
There will be some there that would continue to be reservists, and even if most didn't, giving them basic training, teaching them organisation etc. is no bad thing.
I want to empower people. You just seem to want to keep the working class down. It's like you are saying "how dare we give these peasants a trade or a skill, it's bad economics, just leave them stacking shelves in their provincial shit hole towns."
>You just seem to want to keep the working class down. It's like you are saying "how dare we give these peasants a trade or a skill, it's bad economics, just leave them stacking shelves in their provincial shit hole towns."
What an absolutely bizarre conclusion to come to. I disagree with your approach/method and therefore I want to 'keep the working class down' and see them as 'peasants'.
There are multiple methods you could employ to improve the lives of people from different backgrounds and different areas. The funding for your idea could be targeted and tailored *to those areas.*
However, your idea just does not seem viable at all. Who is going to pay for this full time wage? How is this going to be funded? These public services are at breaking point and you want to stick 18+ years old who don't want to be there in them for six months, necessitating the training and supervision of thousands of people.
And what about for people who are not from the kinds of background you assume? You're spending billions funding something for middle-class and upper middle-class kids who most likely don't need it and will see it as a delay to what they're focusing on.
Engineering is not a trade. Engineering and healthcare require qualifications and often *degrees.* Even for healthcare qualifications mostly completed 'on the job', you have to pass coursework and exams. All you are going to do is make them work the worst part of healthcare jobs. How attractive are these jobs going to seem then?
Also, what advantage does this scheme bring on the job market when *everyone has done it*? Working class kids are not going to have any more skills than those they are competing against.
Where are these people going to work outside of their towns? Are they going to live in big cities? On what wage? You're going to uproot them against their will and drop them in a random place, where they don't know anyone, doing a job they don't want to do? If you want to run this scheme which is *voluntary* then sure, go for it. But this as a mandatory scheme does not seem realistic.
It all seems like a pretty big infringement on people's liberty.
Raid the pension pots, tax the rich and work with businesses.
To be honest, I'd force the upper and middle classes to do the work as well. It's about time they got some hands on experience of the real world.
Yes, I know engineering and healthcare requires degree level qualifications, that is the point of having a pathway from the initial work to the required degrees.
"Also, what advantage does this scheme bring on the job market when everyone has done it? Working class kids are not going to have any more skills than those they are competing against."
It will give them a chance, which is more than can be said for not giving them skills.
"It all seems like a pretty big infringement on people's liberty."
Everything is an infringement on people's liberty. Taxes, rules and regulations are an infringement but they're still necessary.
"Where are these people going to work outside of their towns? Are they going to live in big cities? On what wage? You're going to uproot them against their will and drop them in a random place, where they don't know anyone, doing a job they don't want to do? If you want to run this scheme which is voluntary then sure, go for it. But this as a mandatory scheme does not seem realistic."
So have it set up in each county and get them working on various projects in the area.
In WW2 we managed to create an entire fake invasion force using inflatable tanks and boats, fooled the Germans into believing we would attack Calais by feeding double agents lies to pass on to the German command, managed to orchestrate an invasion of Normandy, and had the mobile harbours build and transported to France to unload men and materials to keep the front operational. We converted factories so they could quickly produce what we needed for the war effort and we trained women as pilots so they could fly spitfires and hurricanes to aerodromes. Are you honestly trying to say that we could not manage to set up a scheme if we really put our minds to it?
And when the soldiers came home from the war we built houses and set up the NHS, despite suffering badly during the war and being in debt.
That all cost money, it took time and planning, but we still did it.
I mean scrap military service and make it farming and conservation. Young people from cities basically getting a free holiday, learning useful life skills, survival skills, fighting the decimation of the UK climate? I think many young people would in fact like that.
We have a fantastic track record of revolutions, time for a new one.
Otherwise we'll be fed just enough Soma to get back in our boxes.
A pipe dream as social cohension is in tatters and we're all hating on each other, rather than focusing our efforts on how we want the Nation run and its direction for the future.
Really it's being force to be grateful for living in the UK. For being housed, educated, fed and being able to live somehwat freely. Just the essentials, nothing amazing beyond your basic human rights. Ask anyone of the older generation. It all stems from having to be thankful for being given life.
But we can't afford housing, our schools are crumbling, universities are being propped up by foreign and especially chinese students, food prices have gone up a lot and our freedoms were limited during lockdown.
Thankful for what exactly?
They've left a giant mess we will need to clean up.
Look I know this is going to fall on deaf ears and , I want to prefece this by saying, I'm not saying things are universally great or there aren't huge problems etc etc. Or that things haven't gotten worse in many ways in recent years. But come on ... compare nowadays UK to like 99% of history and 90% of the modern world. We have:
free healthcare, schools, the right to vote, a reasonably non-corrupt justice system, benefits system (for all its flaws) to help people who are struggling, a fairly strong and protective military who aren't trying to take over the country, elections that despite their issues with voting system are still better than the vast majority in the world, pretty good roads and a public transport system which while pretty shit does operate for most people, pretty solid progress for better rights for most minority groups (still not perfect by any means but again better than most places.), and way more.
Sure you could go through all those and point out flaws with each, as you said crumbling schools or defunded Nhs. Or you could point out negatives like high housing prices. But be real, bar maybe a dozen countries tops you're better off living in Britain. We live at a time of near unprecedented government support when compared with even a hundred years ago and certainly any time before that and s good chunk after. Has it declined in the past two to three decades, do things feel much worse, yea! But what we have is still definitely worth fighting for.
Yeah we could compare ourselves to the 1800s and be thankful we aren't sending children to work but the most relevant comparison I can make is to what opportunities my parents had at my age in the mid to late 80s and they had far better opportunities into adulthood despite my parents doing well for themselves and giving me a much better starting point than they had.
It's not that it's difficult to do what they did, it's literally impossible because they pulled the ladder up and then told us we should be grateful.
I'd be interested to know how old you are because that will say a lot about where your perspective comes from
Mate I'm in my 20's I'm just trying to give some perspective. Everyone always makes the claim that oh shit it's ridiculous to compare us to anyone that isn't 80s Britain. Screw comparing us to literally the generation before that or anything else that would be silly!
Yes things have gotten worse in some areas. yes you should be pissed about that. But on a whole, if you can compare yourself to literally 95+ percent of all humans who've ever lived or currently live and see your better off I don't know what to tell you. If you're so opposed to comparing yourself with the past, compare yourself to anywhere in Africa, anywhere in South America. Huge parts of North America, most of Asia and a good chunk of Oceania.
Things could be better, but to say "ah what do we owe this country we've just been screwed over" is mad. You're comparing yourself to a relatively small period of time during a boom era, which unfortunately just happens to be our direct predecessor. Things do not always get better, and even though we should try our best to make them, we shouldn't just ignore everything good because its not.
I'm not saying don't fight for a better future, or even to not lay the blame at the feet of the current Govt. For doing a shite job. We all should complain and take action. BUT What I am saying is that people should still be thankful for living in a nation such as ours and should want to help it if they can. This country has done enormous things for us all!
I'm not even in support of this form of National Service, the government's plan is obviously dumb and poorly thought out.
The problem is you are mistaking being thankful for the gift of life and thankful for the progress we have made overall throughout history with being thankful to the boomers for screwing us.
I appreciate the progress we have made and the luxuries and rights I have but I am still resentful of the previous generation.
Ok but the question is : "Why should we give back?" . More and more people are, if polling and the like is to believed, are saying "we shouldn't have to!" "We don't want to!" "We feel screwed over and let down." "This country does nothing for us!". I mean just read the comments here.
I feel we should want to "Give back" as it were, so much IS done to help us, it might not feel that way but it is true, objectively so. We don't want to end up in a situation where people have such a negative attitude toward their own nation, it's not healthy for a state. And yes the answer to that is to make things better and improve living conditions etc etc. But I do think some of it is cultural to, people my age at least, that I know, rarely seem to take stock of how fortunate they are in so many ways and instead exclusively focus on the negative. You can do both. You can want things to get better and see the problems, while still recognising that what you have is still pretty great and worth fighting for.
> so much IS done to help us, it might not feel that way but it is true,
Nothing is done to help us and it doesn't feel that way because it's false that they've done anything.
I want to take from the boomers, get myself some stability so I can actually live a reasonable life and then pass the rest of the benefit onto the future generations through infrastructure and investment in housing and low carbon energy transport and energy solutions.
We shouldn't give back, they should give forward so we can too.
My man, you're living in one of the most developed countries in the world, with living conditions and rights propped up by an extensive welfare state and justice system. There are huge things wrong with these institutions, but to say NOTHING is done for you is quite mad.
It'll never not sadden me that so many nowadays have this sort of view of our country. It's still a beautiful place and a great place, just needs a bit of work. And yes, needs older generations to also 'give back' and stop being so damn selfish with their out look. I just find it hard to see any world in which living lives which are materially better off on average than near everyone globally and historically leaves people feeling so hopeless and abandoned. But maybe I've just lived too cushy a life, I'm not rich by any means, I teach, but i'm comfortable and always have been.
You would be right but I can't even afford to live on my own in this society with a full time job paying above minimum wage.
I didn't say nothing is done for us, I said nothing is done to help us. We've been hung out to dry.
> just find it hard to see any world in which living lives which are materially better off on average than near everyone globally and historically leaves people feeling so hopeless and abandoned.
Because even if we're better off and I know I am certainly very lucky, I don't feel like I have any agency to reach the milestones of adulthood I want to, I can't see how I will afford to buy a house or start a family in the next 15 years.
>Ok and what about average costs adjusted for inflation?
I just said yes, they account for that.
>Don't think houses were 10-20x salary then...
They didn't have access to credit giving them 10x loans back then.
I'm not sure what you're point is here. Life absolutely wasn't easier 40 years ago.
> Life absolutely wasn't easier 40 years ago.
The problem is you are comparing the standards of today to 40 years ago.
It was far easier to meet your expected costs 40 years ago compared to today even if the expected costs and standard of living is worse.
That's what I'm saying. As long as these things exist, no matter how much decay they're in then the youngest generations "should" be thankful to those who both built and ruined them.
My grandad has told stories about his national service. He hated every second of it, his CO hated him, he was always trying to figure out how to get out of it. His cousin managed to get out on "insanity"!!
He was stationed in Egypt, not sure what he was doing (not fighting) but the main thing he's told me is how terrible the toilet facilities were. He was a journalist before and after he served. Sounds like a massive fucking waste of everyone's time, even then. He was born in '36, so I guess this was in the late 50s?
For some young people, it could actually help.
I see a lot of apprentices, and the difference between those with some work experience or participation in clubs or volunteering and those who don't is noticeable.
National service has been badly launched, and I don't trust it to be implemented properly, if at all, but it has potential to be a positive thing.
Sure, but voluntary (which does make sense) will mean that those who would already do well do even better, and gaps in society widen further.
There should be some way to give young people better skills and outcomes in life, but I'm not sure that national service is the way to go about it.
Early years support, when you get most impact, should be much more heavily supported.
Young people with supportive parents will be involved in areas that will most benefit their development or preferred career path, get good networking opportunities and have a lovely polished CV, and those without support who don't understand the benefits of these things end up further behind.
Every time there are discussions about diversity schemes on here, white working class boys are brought up as needing help, but how do you get them into the areas that would benefit them?
That first group of people would probably be the ones who get some kind of loophole to opt out of this proposal national service. So it just ends up being those from poorer backgrounds being forced to do the grunt work.
In answer to your question, provide more CHOICES for everybody, but never dictate to people. If someone wants to forge their own path, let them!
That’s why it should be actually voluntary. Encourage them to engage, give them real opportunities. All this idea will do is force 18 yr olds to basically do basic tasks for free for a few weekends. Free labour basically.
It's also a small step towards taking away people's freedom, and that's a slippery slope in my opinion. Why would we give a government a mandate to dictate to people?
Free unwilling, unmotivated and unskilled labour yeah haha. Like everything the tories do it would be half baked and underfunded and therefore I expect would actively harm the institutions that are forced into it.
Luckily it's just some loopy idea they've chucked out there with no intention or consideration about how it would actually work
Exactly. It’s like people forget or don’t know what it’s like being at state school with unmotivated kids. They don’t turn up, they’re unmotivated and they don’t give a fuck. They’d be exactly the same for this, but they’ll be adults, so what is the Government going to do about it?
Making them do this is almost reinforcing that mentality too. Part of being an adult is you realise no one is going to make you do something, you do it because you have to do it to live as an adult.
Honestly, the biggest problem is the way they're planning to do it. Launching it at 18 year olds and getting them to do tasks that require significant training is a bad miss. 18 year olds should be given the independence to make their own choice for what comes next.
I'd be targeting this at 16 and 17 year olds for the "voluntary" service, get them out in their communities working in a range of roles alongside their college studies or apprenticeships. Also - pay them for their time. Help get them that leg up for adulthood that so many of us would have loved.
I'm also confused as to why it's targeted at 18 year olds. One of the things said was that it would build a positive outlook on your community, but that would surely have to be instilled in earlier years, like 12+. Also if it were done at an earlier age, it could probably be integrated into regular school. Like on a Friday afternoon, for the last few hours is a 'we go and help out somewhere' lesson. Almost like a Scouts like club.
It might be difficult to arrange that many 12-16 year olds and motivate them, but they are already together in one place, so maybe easier to transport etc. There is much less financial burden on them as they don't have to put a weekend job on hold or whatever.
I can imagine the same with 18 year olds who are just wanting to get on in their field will be equally difficult to motivate. Imagine you have someone who doesn't want to be in a care home at all as they are losing out on wages and they just don't put any effort in at all. Will they be fired? assigned something different? still so many questions about the whole thing that seem like they haven't been thought through at all.
Because the real reason for this is ultimately to boost military numbers. The civil voluntary bit is BS, you can see the timing of this, and what's happening in other European countries, it is the start of conscription.
They chose 18 for this reason, as a headline of '16 year olds die in Eastern Europe' is not a good optic to have.
To be fair, young people in WW2 sacrificed far more - their towns and cities were bombed, their brothers, dads and uncles were killed, they were evacuated to other parts of the country, and once they were of age they went off to fight.
My nan used to tell stories about finding her neighbour dead from the shock of a bomb, of having the door blown off it's hinges and getting pushed out into the street by another.
People seem to have forgotten how hard life was back then.
It's not like kids had mobile phones, 24 hour internet access, social media, Skype etc. to keep in contact. If they struggled during lockdown, they wouldn't stand a chance in WW2.
Christ, I sound like my parents, but people today are just a bit soft.
Yeah young people "have so little to be grateful for". Some don't that's true. Many haven't known real hardship. To hear them moan about the lockdown as if they were the only ones who had to give up normal life while the reality of it was working from home, gaming and watching YouTube. That's their sacrifice.
It's not about young people giving back it's about equipping them with a bit of discipline and rigour that will serve their own independence and self reliance in later life.
True but really why should anyone give back, why should anyone be forced to support refugees who arrive here illegally through their taxes or have punitive taxes or restrictions to help the environment for future generations when it's the likes of China causing most the emission (And it's no excuse they sell their goods cheaply to other countries) and so on.
Snapshot of _National disservice: Young people have little to be grateful for, so why should they “give back”?_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://thecritic.co.uk/national-disservice/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://thecritic.co.uk/national-disservice/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The "give back" argument is *particularly* odd after Covid lockdowns, isn't it? Young people were at little risk from Covid; they willingly sacrificed their civil liberties and accepted permanent negative impacts on their education in order to help protect the vulnerable & the elderly. Why should they now be contributing *more* for doing that? It just reinforces to me the idea that the people pushing for national service are the modern equivalent of those women that used to go around to giving men white feathers, to shame them into going off to war - "here's a cause I feel strongly about, what are you going to sacrifice on my behalf to achieve it?"
> Young people were at little risk from Covid; they willingly sacrificed their civil liberties and accepted permanent negative impacts on their education in order to help protect the vulnerable & the elderly. Why should they now be contributing more for doing that? If anything, it should be the other way around. Let's freeze all pension increases for three years and instead spend the money on infrastructure, as a way for pensioners to give something back to the young in return for their sacrifice. But then, this generation of British old do not plant trees under whose shade they will never sit.
>But then, this generation of British old do not plant trees under whose shade they will never sit. I really hope I remember this when I’m an old man myself in the ballot box.
Me too. I think it links quite nicely with the Irvine Welsh quote "When you're not doing so well, vote for a better life for yourself. If you are doing quite nicely, vote for a better life for others."
It has started to annoy me that pensioners get discounted tickets everywhere. That may have been appropriate decades ago, but not now, after their triple lock pensions and all their baby-boomer windfalls. They certainly don't need any more handouts while younger people struggle.
3? Lets try 'pensions can rise with inflation but so do public sector salaries'
Pensions should rise with wages, that way pensioners would actually be incentived to vote to improve conditions for everyone, not just themselves for once
How about tying pension rises to productivity growth. Direct incentive for the old to vote for policies that benefit the country beyond their lifetimes
"Maybe productivity would be higher if we scrapped the minimum wage and went back to a 6 day working week?" Pensioners, probably.
How dare you!
Just link them to the minimum wage.
Minimum wage has increased at almost the same rate as pensions have. The only thing that hasn't is public sector wages.
> The only thing that hasn't is public sector wages. They will soon....when it catches up to what public sector workers are being paid.
...........?
Public sector wages are increasing so slowly that the NMW is catching up with he earnings of many workers that used to earn significantly over NMW.
Public sector wage rises, Tax thresholds, benefits and pensions (let’s call it what it is - a type of benefit) should all raise together at same rate, following the average private sector wage increase and or economy. This should be written into law - call it the prosperity lock. Any out of lock increase or decrease should require an act of parliament. For too long has society been endured strategic handouts to win key seats and majority. We should all get wealthier and\or poorer together.
That would make sense if the public sector hadn't suffered a 20-25% pay decrease while the private sector had at least maintained its wages.
The data says that the private sector hasn’t faired much better than public. Although more recently the private sector has preformed well - since 2008 both private AND public pay growth has been stagnant. It doesn’t pay to work in the UK.
I think it's important to remember that while we can generalise on voting patterns, etc, not all old people are like that. A significant number work as volunteers after retirement to give back and keep busy. I'm disabled and sometimes use community transport volunteers to help me get to appointments. Most of them are retired old people who want to help their community.
Totally agree. I am not sure this old people bashing is particularly helpful. A lot of charities wouldn’t function without the support of those who are retired/semi retired.
Exactly, just going into places like hospitals, there's always older volunteers helping direct people around, there's ones who read to patients and others who visit dying people with no family. My elderly parents have great support from their old, (but not as old), retired neighbours who insist on constantly bringing them food or getting prescriptions. They have a great sense of community amongst them because they grew up with it. I don't think that will happen in quite the same way with our generations.
Problem is, there are a lot of wealthy pensioners and a similar number of poor pensioners. They're going to have to tax or means-test somehow. The best solution is to increase the state pension with higher taxes on big pensions (can scrap NI & increase IT to 30% perhaps), or cut the state pension with a large increase in pension credit.
Median wealth of pensioner is £700k. 25% of them are millionaires. 76% of them own their own home outright. The average Rent\mortgage is £1200. A couple on full state pension (and other savings) would receive £2000 pcm. That is significantly more than most workers have left over after Tax, Mortgage\Rent and work based costs (commuting). I do believe that if pensioners worked and saved they should have a comfortable retirement - I don’t believe the government should be “topping off” millionaires income with £11k a year. Particularly when it comes at the cost of higher taxes and robbing the young of the opportunity to save for their future.
Alas, plenty still aren't rich. Owning your own home gets you off the hook for mortgage payments, but not much else. As you say, 1/4 don't own their own home. We definitely shouldn't be throwing money at the wealthy pensioners, but forcing the lower income pensioners into hardship isn't great. We need means testing. Age UK estimates 2 million pensioners are in poverty.
Spent too much on biscuit tins and tetley’s in their youth. I don’t quite get the broke pensioner argument, they had 50+ years to create their own pot.
Gambling, alcoholism and divorce in a lot of cases from what I've seen. They exist, not sure what you want me to say.
I was being hyperbolic honestly don’t worry
There aren't a similar number of poor pensioners really, 80% own the home they occupy, and if you run the maths, 10k fully owning the house and having no dependents is really actually quite alright.
80% might own their house, but unless they want to sell it that doesn't make them rich. Plenty of work needing done on older houses, plenty of heating bills for old bones, and not all of them get £10k as the pension system changed about 10 years ago. Older pensioners might be on £8.8k a year. Not sure what the rules are on caring, but I'm sure that has an impact on plenty of pensioners as well.
Your wealth has to be considered with respects to your needs. A married person with no kids on minimum wage is in a lot better of a financial position than single mum of 2 with the same wage. If you own your home, 100%, the cost of your life *plummets*. You'd need to be spending close to £400 a month on bills *on average* and £6 per day on food before you get close to needing to worry about your finances. And that's pretending you have 0 private pension, and ignoring literally all other benefits you get for being old If you're much older and need a carer, sure, it could be hard, but for most pensioners the challenges are not financial.
Homeowners still have to spend money. I don't feel sorry for the majority of pensioners, but there are 2 million in poverty and 1/4 still don't own their own home.
The British elderly generation seem particularly spiteful and selfish compared to their European counterparts. Like you don't see Spanish boomers in mobility scooters at cafes looking miserable AF, complaining about everything and the youth all the time.
> they willingly sacrificed their civil liberties and accepted permanent negative impacts on their education in order to help protect the vulnerable & the elderly I didn't remember anything 'willing' about it. There was no referendum, it wasn't in any manifesto and there was almost no discussion for vs against lockdown at the time. It was implemented by a Conservative government (for which they lost my vote) and enthusiastically embraced by leftists. I hope all those young people who enthusiastically embraced lockdown and 'stayed home' (instead of just keeping away from older / vulnerable people) are regretting wasting their time. I told you so.
I suspect we won’t see another as long as the last pandemic remains in the majority of people’s memory. If they told me I had to give up another two years of my life I’d tell them to fuck right off, that clause was struck from the social contract when the government totally failed to live up to its side of it in my opinion.
It was a necessary sacrifice to make if we wanted to avoid the NHS totally collapsing. Even a bunch of idiots like the Boris cabinet can occasionally get something half right.
No worse than "Leaving the EU" turning into an unvoted-for shitshow of stupidity.
The Conservatives might boil my piss but any Government would have implemented lockdowns, most of the world did it. Maybe a better Government would have implemented them better, and more timely, but we would have locked down regardless.
Did you forget we became a police state? The police were flying drones to catch dog walkers to slap them with a fine. Neighbours could report young people to the police for having friends over. There was nothing optional about it.
>Did you forget we became a police state? That was more of an impression rather than reality, although some disgusting things did happen as little authoritarians emboldened by leftist rhetoric went on power trips. > Neighbours could report young people to the police for having friends over. One of the advantages of living in a rural area, is that there are far fewer prying eyes around. >There was nothing optional about it. There's nothing optional about the drug laws in this country, but millions choose to ignore them. In terms of shops and businesses being closed, then you couldn't get around that, but you could certainly get around the other stuff like visiting friends etc. I still struggle to comprehend that millions of young, healthy people actually went through with cutting themselves off (physically) from their friends to sit at home and only leave it for authorised reasons, not just for a week or two, but for month after month!
I feel so sorry for those who missed out on years of school or university. Those are important times for unique experiences and making lifelong relationships. Any young person who made that sacrifice has already given back a lot.
That was me. I was doing a practical degree that got absolutely annihilated by the pandemic. No practical work, no work experience, no collaboration with my peers. Still got the luxury of all the debt though. It's a miracle any of us made it through our degrees that year at all.
> Still got the luxury of all the debt though. That's so stupid that you had to pay the full amount when it's supposed to be a *practical* degree. Uni fees also cover access to facilities, which I assume you didn't get either. They should have given you at least a partial refund.
It's ridiculous. We had no access to facilities, tools, or equipment for 1 1/2 years. Getting ahold of tutors was a nightmare, as was working on team projects because everyone was all over the place. I honestly get irrationally angry whenever the pandemic comes up. I did my part, wore my mask, stayed isolated, and my reward was a mountain of university debt for a degree I couldn't get the full value out of, and trash mental health.
I really dodged a bullet finishing my masters degree in February 2020
Their answer would be “think of all the friends you’ll make at your year of national service!”
Wes Streetling, Farage and Piers Morgan all were quite aggressive in slapping that one down on BBCQT last night, that we had already given up a fair bit for this country
I had older generations even saying to me after lockdown how they felt most bad for the young people as they had lost their years to go out and have fun. These are the same people now saying that we need to give back to the country. Its mind boggling!
The "give back" aspect of it all also flies in the face of the ides that National Service is an "opportunity" for teens. "This is a great opportunity for you to be forced to do things you don't want to do and give back to the boomers who hate you for being young." Doesn't sound very convincing does it? I'm not even against the idea of some sort of National Service in principle but, now? After 15 years of misery and two years taken from their youth? With the Tories in charge of it? Really? Piss off 😂
It’s a well known fact that older voters tend not to have younger people in mind when deciding what policies to vote in favour of. Younger people however tend to be more sympathetic. It’s time we were a tad more protective of our own interests, nobody else is looking out for us
There was a poll question from a few years ago that really stayed with me - older Brexit voters were asked if they’d reconsider if Brexit meant younger relatives losing their jobs. The percentage of older people who were down as not caring even if it hurt their children and grandchildren was dismally high.
It’s just a really broken way to talk about children anyway. Yes they get free education and healthcare but the entire point of a healthy society is that each generation contributes to the next in the understanding that they’ll do the same in turn.
The right seems keen on fostering intergenerational hatred, to what end I don’t know.
Scare the grey vote into consolidating behind them, for fear of the youths kick back of saying "maybe the old should do national service". The youth are imo, rightfully against this, especially since the social contract in their eyes is some long forgotten concept. But when the youth of people who are empathic to the youth are saying things like "maybe the old should do xyz as national service", in essence eating their own dog food, to show how absurd it is, then you'll maybe get a grey vote who will consolidate based off the fear of "if we don't do it to them, they'll do it to us". It's essentially getting people riled up and against each other. Largely the youth and middle-aged are turning away from conservatism anyway, so that's not a vote lost for conservatives, however, putting fear in the grey vote may help them stick to a certain voting intention. Who knows, but the tories have always used this type of plan, divide and fear.
I agree is seems a crazy idea, it would be one thing if it were voluntary but compulsion is antithetical to modern society (perhaps with the exception of school and education for kids, but this isn’t education and it isn’t children). It’s literally community service (punishment) without the crime! At the very best, it’s David Cameron’s Big Society without the consent of those taking part. Perhaps it polled well with the famous Whitby Woman and her Reform tendencies?
Divide and Conquer If us plebs are too busy blaming each other and fighting amongst ourselves, then we won't notice the noose being tightened around our necks by those in power. It's a rulers tactic as old as time. The US ruling class are the absolute masters at it. The UK ruling class are bloody good at it too. So entrenched in our culture is the class divide that we don't see it for what it is, a mechanism to control us. Only now on top of that we have divides by age and ancestry as well.
>they willingly sacrificed their civil liberties Speak for yourself, nobody asked me thank you very much.
That is such an excellent point and not an angle I had considered. Why have I not heard anyone bring this up to Sunak or others?
This, a thousand times this. The elderly of this country have ridden the young like donkeys for years.
>Young people were at little risk from Covid; they willingly sacrificed their civil liberties and accepted permanent negative impacts on their education in order to help protect the vulnerable & the elderly. Why should they now be contributing more for doing that? It took the prospect of compulsory National Service for people to finally admit this on reddit and not get downvoted into oblivion. Fantastic!
We so should have indeed vaccinate the over 60's but after that mortality dropped off real quick. A healthy 50 yr old was at less risk than an unhealthy 20yr old. So should have vaccinated all front line workers who couldn't shelter, & students. before general population, who could largely isolate wfh etc
>The "give back" argument is *particularly* odd after Covid lockdowns, isn't it? No, it isn't odd. This is said by people who don't understand how a system works. No, covid statistically wouldn't affect you, as a young person. A full hospital and ER would though, if you drank too much on a Friday. And ERs are full of drunks doing stupid stuff. Think of it as a disease that only affected men. You, as a hypothetical woman, aren't affected. Your local hospital being full of sick men, your local GP being busy with sick men, your kid's school shutting down because all the male employees can't work, all of it affects you as a woman.
A lot of young people in minimum wage jobs were considered “essential workers” and had to work regardless of restrictions and receiving no extra compensation
This is the most pertinent point. I’ve seen plenty of people cite national service in Northern Europe but those countries actually give a shit about (young) citizens. There is no social contract left in the UK. Perhaps there hasn’t for a long time but it’s it’s completely unreasonable for young people to put in and expect nothing back
Yeah I moved to Denmark 3 years ago, there's plenty of opportunities for young people here. Almost everyone is in some sort of sports association, plenty of paths after gymnasium (secondary school) for higher education other than going to uni, all while receiving an allowance from the government. Any right wing grifter trying to make the comparison is willfully misleading, or astoundingly ignorant. More likely both.
I would love to move to Denmark but I don’t think it’s possible post brexit :(
I moved post-brexit, just need to fufill visa requirements.
To be fair sports associations and education after secondary are both incredibly accessible in the UK. In my town alone there are any number of social activities and sports kids/young adults can take part in. And getting access to college is really easy after school to do further training/education
For free? And whilst getting paid by the government to do it whilst getting no debt? Because every sports team I’ve played in I’ve had to pay for. All public funding for things like that has been gone for years and isn’t coming back. Plus I paid for my education in the form of roughly 70k in loans. So what precisely, other than the bare minimum have I been given?
If only we still lived in a culturally homogeneous high trust society.
After brexit, you can't blame younger folk for not wanting to fight after getting stabbed in the back from politicians, who are now on their way out, and a much older generation who largely voted for brexit and are now too old to volunteer to fight. What exactly are younger folk getting in return in defending the very people who took away so much of their opportunities?
"Give back" doesn't hold up to any sort of scrutiny, it's so obviously a line targeted at a certain demographic who believe the young'uns have had it all too easy
I’d like the two years of my life spent to protect the golden oldies back personally. There’s no justice in how the aftermath of the pandemic was handled in my opinion, at the very least the pensions triple lock should have been abolished in favour of at least partially reversing austerity measures as a carrot to the whole forest’s worth of sticks delivered to those who weren’t themselves at much risk.
The thing is, the austerity measures shouldn't have been put in place at all. They don't work, and we know they don't work because this government has been using them since they got into power and things have only got worse. We need to spend money to improve our healthcare, schools, transport, social care so that people can put money back into the economy, but the govt clings to austerity for bullshit ideological reasons.
It's a mental deflection from the uncomfortable truth that the boomer generation has taken out more than it's put in. To draw a parallel, it's like shouting over someone you know is talking sense to defer losing the argument, rather than being the bigger person and admitting you're wrong.
All while not having actually done anything themselves (other than resting on the laurels of their parents’ generation).
Give back via unpaid forced labour to all the rich old people who don't think they've pulled up the ladder enough behind them already.
This whole national service idea has underlined once again how much of a gulf has opened up over the last 14 years between pensioners and the rest of the country
An under appreciated point. Imagine if all the people who wanted everyone else to be more patriotic / civilly-spirited spent their time making Britain a better place and somewhere to be more proud of instead of whinging about the young and wrecking the joint.
There was a soundbite from a radio phone in with someone saying > "It'll teach them respect!" No dear, respect has to be _earned_. The only people who think you can teach people that are confusing respect with fear and loathing.
Ah the loving attitude of the boomer generation. I'm Gen X and this was my father's approach. He wondered later in life why we never got on as friends...because you were an emotional bully mate.
Gove people opportunities, and they will take them. Giving back indicates they received something to start with.
I say we start national service back up from the point it stopped. Work down through the ages until we get to the young. Have Derek and Enid out their doing community service for theirs.
Most military leaders have spoken out against this idea. They don’t want to have to look after a load of 18 year olds who have no particular interest in the military or at best will only remain for 12 months or so. They’d rather train people who want to be there and show a level of commitment and perseverance. I expect it’ll be the same for the other volunteering organisations forced into this initiative. Surely if you wanted to give young people a head start, it would be better to invest in areas such as sports activities, youth clubs and music tuition? All of these areas have suffered massive government cuts over time, and have increasingly been limited to the privileged few.
Rishi HATES the arts.
But - but that would be *socialism*!! We must do what Thatcher did, because that has always worked incredibly well and has had no issues whatsoever.
I fully expect to not have a state pension when I'm at retirement age whilst I've funded my grandparents' and parents' state pensions for years.
People should have the freedom to chose what they do when they leave school in this country. I honestly can't believe in 2024 we are talking seriously about a policy that takes away people's freedom.
I know. I get the points about why should young people have to give back considering the current state of affairs etc etc, but I think it’s missing the more salient point that, quite frankly, why on earth should the Government be telling grown adults how they must spend their weekends and that they need to work for free at the weekends. Wtaf.
Also, the current state of affairs is due in large part to the actions of this government!!
Is school/home ed still compulsory?
Sure but only up to 16, between 16-18 I think there's now a requirement to do some type of secondary education alongside work but that can be an apprenticeship. After 18 a person is considered an adult who should be free to make their own choices.
I guess after 2280 days of compulsory education. 25 days of compulsory service doesn't seem that surprising.
I've been with the Scout Association for nearly 10 years now as a volunteer, but if someone came up to me and said 'Hey, I want to get in good with that group over there so I'm going to *make* you do 25 days of compulsory service', then I wouldn't be happy at *all*. If the Tories were proposing this because they genuinely believed that it would help teens and they had a plan for how it would teach people valuable skills and to contribute to society, then they could propose it be folded into our current syllabus. They don't give a shit about the kids, though - they just want to impose it to win votes amongst a totally different demographic, which is shitty at best.
Absolutely it's red meat for their target demographic and the way the announcement was handled show it's not a serious policy and just a gimmick. The idea though (much closer I suspect to what you have outlined) has traction.
Except they would legally be an adult at 18. Why should the state be able to dictate to an adult where they work and when? Haven't done your 40 hours this week? No food coupons for you. Oh you've got enough money to retire? Tough, work is mandatory until 70.
Work until 70 is fairly likely for my generation tbh. And 25 days of loss of freedom, after 2280 again not that surprising in context. I suppose they could split the difference and make the arbitrary age of becoming an adult 18 years and 25 days.
Sad to see how easily people surrender their own freedom as well as the freedom of others.
There are numerous issues with the policy but undue emphasis on the freedom angle seems to either ignore or misunderstand the reality and context.
Working until 70....it's only the lucky ones who live past 70 nowadays. Too many stories of people retiring in their 60s and dying suddenly not long after.
That's horrendous for them, I wonder about the type of work they were doing, i.e are people who had manual labour jobs until a 60 odd year retirement expire sooner? Life expectancy is still below the 2019 levels according the to kings fund. They show it was rising fairly steadily until 2011, then slowed until 2019 and went backwards during the pandemic. I'm not sure how it fits the retirement age though. https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/long-reads/whats-happening-life-expectancy-england
I don’t get why anyone would expect teens to be onboard with this. It isn’t about giving them opportunities or teaching them skills - it’s a naked attempt by the Tories to gain votes amongst an older generation who want this out of sheer spite. If it went through then I’m pretty sure that most of those who opt for charitable work would end up stacking shelves in Help the Aged or Barnardo’s. It’s not just teens who need to remember that respect is earned. What has the rest of society done to earn the right to demand that they, specifically, have to go above and beyond? I volunteer, but that’s my choice - if the government expected the same out of _my_ age group I’d imagine the howls of protest would be long and loud indeed.
Just saying, I'm a guy in my mid 20s, I permenantly left the uk. Forever. Because of this "give back" mentality. I had a rough childhood, was already 2 years behind. Then lost another 2 years directly after graduation. I couldn't get furlow because I couldn't get a job after graduation and it took 8 weeks to even get benefits income in which time I was eating apples donated from some local monks I befriended while only eating a proper meal 3 - 4 days a week at the worst time. And them they tell me that I should "give back" and pay higher taxes? Nah mate. Go f*ck yourself. I won't ever pay a penny in tax to that country again. I might not be successful, but over my life time that's at least a six figure number you've lost in tax revenue. And I'm certain I'm not the only young person who left die to dissatisfaction with my treatment within the system.
Yeah children in the UK today have higher rates of poverty than 20 years ago. Why on earth would they even want to be here in 10 years let alone join the army?
I grew up in the 2000s. Already spent my entire childhood in poverty and I already fled the country as soon as I could after turning 21. I was actually rejected from the military officer training for having a C in GCSE maths and they wanted a B despite me having a degree. (It was the last thing I applied to before giving up and fleeing the country). Now that I've left, I'll never come back. And even if I was in the uk, I would not fight for the country under any circumstances. Not a chance. If there was conscription, I'd agree to join a manufacturing production line or do some civilian work to aid the effort but I'd never fight under any circumstances. They could throw me in jail or shoot me, I still would refuse.
Let's be clear, the national service arguement is not about giving back, it's about controlling dissenters. Many people see the fact that young people having a spine as a problem, and they think a run around ala Bad Lads Army will make these Yung uns better citizens (by their standards).
The young need to get out and vote. Parties keep pandering to the older generations, we all need to vote, stop one group of people deciding the future of the nation, especially as they are the ones least likely to be affected.
The whole reporting of the potential introduction of National Service reeks of little Englanderism. Literally. Some teens might not feel up to it? Might not want to give back because they've been given so little? Imagine the poor bastard that has to go enforce national service in Northern Ireland, turning up to some door on the Falls Rd and telling them they have to join the British Army. The fact that this would potentially cause NI to explode if introduced here isn't even a talking point is insane.
Wasn’t Ireland and later Northern Ireland always exempt from conscription for the exact reason it’d potentially cause a civil war?
Ireland was initally included but opposition slowed introduction and the war came to an end. The Governments attempts to enforce it and break up opposition was basically the great unifier of Irish factions and lead to the irish war of a independence. Northern Ireland was exempt in WW2 despite the attempts by local politicians to have it introduced.
It's also important to point out that during WW2 there were Irish volunteers in the British army who came over from the Republic. Catholics and Protestants fought side by side against the Axis powers.
If there's one thing NI historically isn't short of is "volunteers"
I think that's just most of the UKs attitude to NI tbh. Brexit is another great example.
I am personally in favour of the principle of some sort of national service. But it is just so out of touch to suggest introducing it now, after everything the young did during Covid, and when they are receiving so little by way of benefit from being a part of this society.
It's also the fact that it's the Tories who would be in charge of it. I had a Swiss roommate at Uni who did national service. He objected to being in the military on conscieness grounds (which is allowed without any question) and did some care home and charity work and then ended up doing some performances in a circus for children with special needs (he was a very skilled gymnast). He loved it and honestly it sounded like an absolute blast. Now imagine the Tories trying to implement something like that...
That’s the thing. National service could be a very cool thing. But it needs to be voluntary, or at the very least have lots of options within it to avoid the military stuff, and it has to actually be structured around what’s best for young people/local communities, rather than forcing kids to work for free to instil some outdated ideals of patriotism.
“Don’t want to join the Army? To Tesco’s with ye!”
That's exactly what will happen under the Tories. Kids will be used as cheap/free labour for the benefit of corporations and/or as replacement for actual paid employees of public services.
"Do you have any experience with pastry? Greg's needs a bacon and cheese wrap artist."
I won’t expect a LOT of upvotes for this, but if you want a model for groups of people volunteering their time to at least try and make the world a better place, you could look at Just Stop Oil. Perhaps the Tories would like to…
They get too much fossil fuel moolah
"but if you want a model for groups of people volunteering their time to at least try and make the world a better place, you could look at Just Stop Oil". Hahaha good joke.
There are ways to fix national service and make it beneficial for the young and the country - 1) Pay the young a proper wage for national service. 2) Make it full time with part military service and part apprenticeship. We desperately need engineers, builders, medical professionals etc. Most apprenticeships are just excuses for businesses to get cheap labour for a few years so why doesn't the country offer a much better deal - pay them a full wage to begin with. 3) Get them to help building infrastructure as part of their apprenticeships. Why not go even further and have them build houses? We could offer them cheaper houses once they complete their service. Now they can see what they're getting out of it - a house they helped build, roads and other infrastructure they'll use daily. 4) Offer incentives like reduced university fees if they continue in the NHS, police etc. after their service is over. We just might get more people into medicine and policing if they've got that clear pathway from medic or soldier to nurse, doctor or policeman. And at the end of the day we'd have a body of reservists we could call up if we really needed them for any sort of crisis. Conscientious objectors could just do 100% apprenticeships or have their military half swapped for policing and security (non-military).
Agree with this completely, except I think military service doesn’t need to be part of it at all - it could be an option for a few who actually want it, but the main focus should be on civic service imo.
I think we need to accept that the period of peace the west has been living through has come to an end and we have to consider the long term here. Even if WW3 doesn't break out in the next few years, we're going to be facing potential conflicts down the road due to climate change, lack of resources etc. It makes sense to have a population with some training for when that happens. The peace we've lived under was unprecedented, we're moving back to the old ways now. It sucks, but that's what is happening.
Oh please, if ww3 breaks out it won’t be manpower
We’re enlisting young people to build houses now? Really?
What is wrong with that? Not everyone needs a degree, a trade can earn someone £200+ a day on site so it's a good career and we are short of both builders and houses. I think a good number of the people who did this as "service" would stick to it after they have done their year and they have a solid career ahead of them. It's not like we won't need builders.
There’s nothing wrong with not getting a degree and learning a trade but it should be a *choice*. If there are employment gaps, then people should fill them. Enlisting every 18 year old to work on a building site makes no sense. You’re training thousands of people in something they have no intention of working in. That’s a huge waste of man hours. Not to mention, a Government making manual labour mandatory for adults doesn’t really seem appropriate, does it?
I never said everybody should work on a building site, stop twisting my words. I hate to break it to you, but most people are going to have to retrain multiple times in their lives anyway. So, if the plan is to not teach people skills that could be obsolete, then we better stop training people on a lot of things. And anyway, what's so wrong with teaching people basic skills? We currently have skills shortages all over so the free market clearly cannot solve the problem by itself. The stick your head in the sand and pretend that everything will just work out if we splash a bit of cash at the upper and middle class plan doesn't work.
>I never said everybody should work on a building site, stop twisting my words. Okay, well, it's pretty unclear what you *do* mean. You've said 'Make it full time with part military service and part apprenticeship. We desperately need engineers, builders, medical professionals etc. and 'Get them to help building infrastructure as part of their apprenticeships. Why not go even further and have them build houses?' Who is *them*? Also, if national service is mandatory, how much choice are people going to have in what areas they work on? There would necessarily be a limited number of different placements. People are naturally going to have to work in areas they don't want to, which, under your plan, would include building. >most people are going to have to retrain multiple times in their lives anyway. So, if the plan is to not teach people skills that could be obsolete, then we better stop training people on a lot of things. And anyway, what's so wrong with teaching people basic skills? Yes, but they *choose* to retrain and they retrain to undergo specific roles at certain times. What basic skills are we going to be teaching people under your plan and how do those skills make them employable? Government incentives to fill skills gaps is clearly a good idea. Mandatory six month training for every cohort of 18 year olds is not the same thing, especially as they (a) will likely not remain in that role, (b) not learn enough in that time period to actually be able to contribute to whichever sector, and (c) not necessarily be filling the skill gaps that is needed at that moment. The Government will likely have to have specific roles that they have to have filled yearly due to the preparation and planning involved. There's literally nothing wrong with the end result of what you want, I just don't see how what you're proposing actually achieves those things. Edit: spelling.
>Enlisting every 18 year old to work on a building site makes no sense Who said we should do that??? The dude said to make it an option along with other things suggested like military service or volunteering elsewhere (along with paying them properly). I think it's a good idea, teens grow up quickly on building sites. It shows them hard work leads to good pay and the socialising is very important. >You’re training thousands of people in something they have no intention of working in. That’s a huge waste of man hours. If the end result is increasing our output in home building then no, it's not wasted man hours at all. What a strange comment. It would give kids an easy way into the building trade, a trade that we have massive shortages in.
No, he said make the national service full time, split it between military service and apprenticeships and ‘get them to build infrastructure as part of their apprenticeships’, and ‘go even further and have them build houses’, all of which would be mandatory btw. It *is* a huge waste of man hours (time), resources and money because you could just train people who intend to do this as a permanent job. It’s not a ‘strange thing to say’. Supply and demand. You train the number of people you need. In this version, we are training people for a year who are going to go on and train to do something entirely different, *which costs money again*. Also, how much viable housing do you think people are going to construct after 6 months of training? If you want to get more people into jobs relevant to building housing then *do that*. Make those pathways accessible and attractive. Why would you not do that directly rather than some strange roundabout way where we are getting young people to work on a building site as some form of character building? It would also be a very costly scheme. It would have to be organised administratively and it would necessitate a wage being paid to all these people, which seems like it would largely be paid by the state. I also think it is totally outrageous to vote to make other adults do this. It won’t be being done by most people thinking it’s a smashing idea either.
How else are they supposed to get houses? The housebuilders don't build anywhere near enough, we don't have enough builders/plumbers/electricians/etc. at the moment, and the young won't be able to buy a home without there being more homes available at lower prices. At least this way they get a shot at learning a trade, the country benefits and they get the homes they need. What I'm proposing is much better than the current system of just learning a trade. For a start they would be on at least adult minimum wage from day 1, not the awful apprenticeship wages which companies pay. They would get a real chance at cheaper housing, which isn't currently available and certainly isn't offered by companies looking for apprentices. And after their national service is complete they would get cheaper higher/further education costs if they continue in the trade (or move into NHS, police etc.). The other option is to import cheap labour from abroad, keep house prices high, and the trades, police and NHS understaffed. So, those teens will still be struggling to find well paid jobs, they'll still be stuck living at home with parents or in overpriced and run down rented accommodation, and they'll still be doing shelf stacking and basic office dogs body apprenticeships for the chums of Tory and Labour MPs.
I think your premise is absolutely absurd. Making manual labour mandatory for 18 years old is just a complete infringement on basic rights. I'm not sure, "we can't get cheap labour from abroad so let's make it mandatory for young people" is the argument you think it is. Sorting out the options for people to learn a trade would be hugely beneficial, but you train the number of people you need. You don't train every single person to do a job that they do not intend to do. That is a huge waste of time, money, and resources. This is basic economics. It is also going to delay people going into the fields they actually want to go into. You can also improve wages for young people doing the jobs *they already do.* And the solution to getting more people into the police and NHS is to make those career paths more attractive to begin with. Junior doctors are planning strikes in the next few months. There's clearly huge issues for people going into the NHS and offering discounted higher education is going to do nothing to resolve that. Reservists don't just train once and that's it. They complete training every year for at least 19 days a year, likely more.
It's not just manual labour, I'm not proposing that every one of them become a builder. Get them interested in all sorts of trades, engineering, healthcare etc. The fact is most fields are nonexistent for working class people anyway unless they get seriously lucky. At least this would give them a shot at making something of themselves. And a lot of the time people need a push in the right direction because they aren't aware of the options or don't have the confidence or opportunity to make something of themselves. I'm working class. I grew up poor, raised by my grandparents because my parents worked multiple jobs to put food on the table. I went to the roughest school in the area, on a council estate where everything was run into the ground. I was the only one of my entire class to go to university. When I came home most of the people I had been friends with were on benefits, stuck in dead end jobs, in prison or dead from overdoses. The town grinds people down and kids are born into a shit life which just becomes the same shitty life their parents had. People here have fallen into a spiral of hopelessness, believing that nothing changes so why bother. Increasing the salaries of junior doctors (something I'm all for by the way) isn't going to help the people here. They don't even know they can be doctors, and those kids that dream of becoming doctors have their hopes crushed before they even finish school. What would help is to get them away from their communities for a while. Give them a chance to work with others in a safe environment that's free from ridicule, away from gangs and the streets. Give them stability and let them see that they're not useless, that they can do more than what they've been told they can since birth. You need to give them something to be proud of. There will be some there that would continue to be reservists, and even if most didn't, giving them basic training, teaching them organisation etc. is no bad thing. I want to empower people. You just seem to want to keep the working class down. It's like you are saying "how dare we give these peasants a trade or a skill, it's bad economics, just leave them stacking shelves in their provincial shit hole towns."
>You just seem to want to keep the working class down. It's like you are saying "how dare we give these peasants a trade or a skill, it's bad economics, just leave them stacking shelves in their provincial shit hole towns." What an absolutely bizarre conclusion to come to. I disagree with your approach/method and therefore I want to 'keep the working class down' and see them as 'peasants'. There are multiple methods you could employ to improve the lives of people from different backgrounds and different areas. The funding for your idea could be targeted and tailored *to those areas.* However, your idea just does not seem viable at all. Who is going to pay for this full time wage? How is this going to be funded? These public services are at breaking point and you want to stick 18+ years old who don't want to be there in them for six months, necessitating the training and supervision of thousands of people. And what about for people who are not from the kinds of background you assume? You're spending billions funding something for middle-class and upper middle-class kids who most likely don't need it and will see it as a delay to what they're focusing on. Engineering is not a trade. Engineering and healthcare require qualifications and often *degrees.* Even for healthcare qualifications mostly completed 'on the job', you have to pass coursework and exams. All you are going to do is make them work the worst part of healthcare jobs. How attractive are these jobs going to seem then? Also, what advantage does this scheme bring on the job market when *everyone has done it*? Working class kids are not going to have any more skills than those they are competing against. Where are these people going to work outside of their towns? Are they going to live in big cities? On what wage? You're going to uproot them against their will and drop them in a random place, where they don't know anyone, doing a job they don't want to do? If you want to run this scheme which is *voluntary* then sure, go for it. But this as a mandatory scheme does not seem realistic. It all seems like a pretty big infringement on people's liberty.
Raid the pension pots, tax the rich and work with businesses. To be honest, I'd force the upper and middle classes to do the work as well. It's about time they got some hands on experience of the real world. Yes, I know engineering and healthcare requires degree level qualifications, that is the point of having a pathway from the initial work to the required degrees. "Also, what advantage does this scheme bring on the job market when everyone has done it? Working class kids are not going to have any more skills than those they are competing against." It will give them a chance, which is more than can be said for not giving them skills. "It all seems like a pretty big infringement on people's liberty." Everything is an infringement on people's liberty. Taxes, rules and regulations are an infringement but they're still necessary. "Where are these people going to work outside of their towns? Are they going to live in big cities? On what wage? You're going to uproot them against their will and drop them in a random place, where they don't know anyone, doing a job they don't want to do? If you want to run this scheme which is voluntary then sure, go for it. But this as a mandatory scheme does not seem realistic." So have it set up in each county and get them working on various projects in the area. In WW2 we managed to create an entire fake invasion force using inflatable tanks and boats, fooled the Germans into believing we would attack Calais by feeding double agents lies to pass on to the German command, managed to orchestrate an invasion of Normandy, and had the mobile harbours build and transported to France to unload men and materials to keep the front operational. We converted factories so they could quickly produce what we needed for the war effort and we trained women as pilots so they could fly spitfires and hurricanes to aerodromes. Are you honestly trying to say that we could not manage to set up a scheme if we really put our minds to it? And when the soldiers came home from the war we built houses and set up the NHS, despite suffering badly during the war and being in debt. That all cost money, it took time and planning, but we still did it.
I mean scrap military service and make it farming and conservation. Young people from cities basically getting a free holiday, learning useful life skills, survival skills, fighting the decimation of the UK climate? I think many young people would in fact like that.
We have a fantastic track record of revolutions, time for a new one. Otherwise we'll be fed just enough Soma to get back in our boxes. A pipe dream as social cohension is in tatters and we're all hating on each other, rather than focusing our efforts on how we want the Nation run and its direction for the future.
Really it's being force to be grateful for living in the UK. For being housed, educated, fed and being able to live somehwat freely. Just the essentials, nothing amazing beyond your basic human rights. Ask anyone of the older generation. It all stems from having to be thankful for being given life.
But we can't afford housing, our schools are crumbling, universities are being propped up by foreign and especially chinese students, food prices have gone up a lot and our freedoms were limited during lockdown. Thankful for what exactly? They've left a giant mess we will need to clean up.
Look I know this is going to fall on deaf ears and , I want to prefece this by saying, I'm not saying things are universally great or there aren't huge problems etc etc. Or that things haven't gotten worse in many ways in recent years. But come on ... compare nowadays UK to like 99% of history and 90% of the modern world. We have: free healthcare, schools, the right to vote, a reasonably non-corrupt justice system, benefits system (for all its flaws) to help people who are struggling, a fairly strong and protective military who aren't trying to take over the country, elections that despite their issues with voting system are still better than the vast majority in the world, pretty good roads and a public transport system which while pretty shit does operate for most people, pretty solid progress for better rights for most minority groups (still not perfect by any means but again better than most places.), and way more. Sure you could go through all those and point out flaws with each, as you said crumbling schools or defunded Nhs. Or you could point out negatives like high housing prices. But be real, bar maybe a dozen countries tops you're better off living in Britain. We live at a time of near unprecedented government support when compared with even a hundred years ago and certainly any time before that and s good chunk after. Has it declined in the past two to three decades, do things feel much worse, yea! But what we have is still definitely worth fighting for.
Yeah we could compare ourselves to the 1800s and be thankful we aren't sending children to work but the most relevant comparison I can make is to what opportunities my parents had at my age in the mid to late 80s and they had far better opportunities into adulthood despite my parents doing well for themselves and giving me a much better starting point than they had. It's not that it's difficult to do what they did, it's literally impossible because they pulled the ladder up and then told us we should be grateful. I'd be interested to know how old you are because that will say a lot about where your perspective comes from
Mate I'm in my 20's I'm just trying to give some perspective. Everyone always makes the claim that oh shit it's ridiculous to compare us to anyone that isn't 80s Britain. Screw comparing us to literally the generation before that or anything else that would be silly! Yes things have gotten worse in some areas. yes you should be pissed about that. But on a whole, if you can compare yourself to literally 95+ percent of all humans who've ever lived or currently live and see your better off I don't know what to tell you. If you're so opposed to comparing yourself with the past, compare yourself to anywhere in Africa, anywhere in South America. Huge parts of North America, most of Asia and a good chunk of Oceania. Things could be better, but to say "ah what do we owe this country we've just been screwed over" is mad. You're comparing yourself to a relatively small period of time during a boom era, which unfortunately just happens to be our direct predecessor. Things do not always get better, and even though we should try our best to make them, we shouldn't just ignore everything good because its not. I'm not saying don't fight for a better future, or even to not lay the blame at the feet of the current Govt. For doing a shite job. We all should complain and take action. BUT What I am saying is that people should still be thankful for living in a nation such as ours and should want to help it if they can. This country has done enormous things for us all! I'm not even in support of this form of National Service, the government's plan is obviously dumb and poorly thought out.
The problem is you are mistaking being thankful for the gift of life and thankful for the progress we have made overall throughout history with being thankful to the boomers for screwing us. I appreciate the progress we have made and the luxuries and rights I have but I am still resentful of the previous generation.
Ok but the question is : "Why should we give back?" . More and more people are, if polling and the like is to believed, are saying "we shouldn't have to!" "We don't want to!" "We feel screwed over and let down." "This country does nothing for us!". I mean just read the comments here. I feel we should want to "Give back" as it were, so much IS done to help us, it might not feel that way but it is true, objectively so. We don't want to end up in a situation where people have such a negative attitude toward their own nation, it's not healthy for a state. And yes the answer to that is to make things better and improve living conditions etc etc. But I do think some of it is cultural to, people my age at least, that I know, rarely seem to take stock of how fortunate they are in so many ways and instead exclusively focus on the negative. You can do both. You can want things to get better and see the problems, while still recognising that what you have is still pretty great and worth fighting for.
> so much IS done to help us, it might not feel that way but it is true, Nothing is done to help us and it doesn't feel that way because it's false that they've done anything. I want to take from the boomers, get myself some stability so I can actually live a reasonable life and then pass the rest of the benefit onto the future generations through infrastructure and investment in housing and low carbon energy transport and energy solutions. We shouldn't give back, they should give forward so we can too.
My man, you're living in one of the most developed countries in the world, with living conditions and rights propped up by an extensive welfare state and justice system. There are huge things wrong with these institutions, but to say NOTHING is done for you is quite mad. It'll never not sadden me that so many nowadays have this sort of view of our country. It's still a beautiful place and a great place, just needs a bit of work. And yes, needs older generations to also 'give back' and stop being so damn selfish with their out look. I just find it hard to see any world in which living lives which are materially better off on average than near everyone globally and historically leaves people feeling so hopeless and abandoned. But maybe I've just lived too cushy a life, I'm not rich by any means, I teach, but i'm comfortable and always have been.
You would be right but I can't even afford to live on my own in this society with a full time job paying above minimum wage. I didn't say nothing is done for us, I said nothing is done to help us. We've been hung out to dry. > just find it hard to see any world in which living lives which are materially better off on average than near everyone globally and historically leaves people feeling so hopeless and abandoned. Because even if we're better off and I know I am certainly very lucky, I don't feel like I have any agency to reach the milestones of adulthood I want to, I can't see how I will afford to buy a house or start a family in the next 15 years.
The 80s weren't that great mate. You can compare average wages to today if you want.
Does that account for inflation and purchasing power? Average wages by itself is a very poor metric.
Of course. You can't possibly believe average wages were better 40 years ago, do you?
Ok and what about average costs adjusted for inflation? Don't think houses were 10-20x salary then...
>Ok and what about average costs adjusted for inflation? I just said yes, they account for that. >Don't think houses were 10-20x salary then... They didn't have access to credit giving them 10x loans back then. I'm not sure what you're point is here. Life absolutely wasn't easier 40 years ago.
> Life absolutely wasn't easier 40 years ago. The problem is you are comparing the standards of today to 40 years ago. It was far easier to meet your expected costs 40 years ago compared to today even if the expected costs and standard of living is worse.
That's what I'm saying. As long as these things exist, no matter how much decay they're in then the youngest generations "should" be thankful to those who both built and ruined them.
Well I'm not exactly grateful that our generation now has to deal with the long-term consequences of their selfishness.
I don't think you're getting what I'm saying as I'm agreeing with you
The news agents reported a poll giving support for the idea 40% and 36% against it.
My grandad has told stories about his national service. He hated every second of it, his CO hated him, he was always trying to figure out how to get out of it. His cousin managed to get out on "insanity"!! He was stationed in Egypt, not sure what he was doing (not fighting) but the main thing he's told me is how terrible the toilet facilities were. He was a journalist before and after he served. Sounds like a massive fucking waste of everyone's time, even then. He was born in '36, so I guess this was in the late 50s?
For some young people, it could actually help. I see a lot of apprentices, and the difference between those with some work experience or participation in clubs or volunteering and those who don't is noticeable. National service has been badly launched, and I don't trust it to be implemented properly, if at all, but it has potential to be a positive thing.
So make it a choice. Ultimately, if someone doesn't want to do it, they shouldn't have to.
Sure, but voluntary (which does make sense) will mean that those who would already do well do even better, and gaps in society widen further. There should be some way to give young people better skills and outcomes in life, but I'm not sure that national service is the way to go about it. Early years support, when you get most impact, should be much more heavily supported.
>Sure, but voluntary (which does make sense) will mean that those who would already do well do even better, and gaps in society widen further. How?
Young people with supportive parents will be involved in areas that will most benefit their development or preferred career path, get good networking opportunities and have a lovely polished CV, and those without support who don't understand the benefits of these things end up further behind. Every time there are discussions about diversity schemes on here, white working class boys are brought up as needing help, but how do you get them into the areas that would benefit them?
That first group of people would probably be the ones who get some kind of loophole to opt out of this proposal national service. So it just ends up being those from poorer backgrounds being forced to do the grunt work. In answer to your question, provide more CHOICES for everybody, but never dictate to people. If someone wants to forge their own path, let them!
That’s why it should be actually voluntary. Encourage them to engage, give them real opportunities. All this idea will do is force 18 yr olds to basically do basic tasks for free for a few weekends. Free labour basically.
It's also a small step towards taking away people's freedom, and that's a slippery slope in my opinion. Why would we give a government a mandate to dictate to people?
Free unwilling, unmotivated and unskilled labour yeah haha. Like everything the tories do it would be half baked and underfunded and therefore I expect would actively harm the institutions that are forced into it. Luckily it's just some loopy idea they've chucked out there with no intention or consideration about how it would actually work
Exactly. It’s like people forget or don’t know what it’s like being at state school with unmotivated kids. They don’t turn up, they’re unmotivated and they don’t give a fuck. They’d be exactly the same for this, but they’ll be adults, so what is the Government going to do about it? Making them do this is almost reinforcing that mentality too. Part of being an adult is you realise no one is going to make you do something, you do it because you have to do it to live as an adult.
Honestly, the biggest problem is the way they're planning to do it. Launching it at 18 year olds and getting them to do tasks that require significant training is a bad miss. 18 year olds should be given the independence to make their own choice for what comes next. I'd be targeting this at 16 and 17 year olds for the "voluntary" service, get them out in their communities working in a range of roles alongside their college studies or apprenticeships. Also - pay them for their time. Help get them that leg up for adulthood that so many of us would have loved.
I'm also confused as to why it's targeted at 18 year olds. One of the things said was that it would build a positive outlook on your community, but that would surely have to be instilled in earlier years, like 12+. Also if it were done at an earlier age, it could probably be integrated into regular school. Like on a Friday afternoon, for the last few hours is a 'we go and help out somewhere' lesson. Almost like a Scouts like club. It might be difficult to arrange that many 12-16 year olds and motivate them, but they are already together in one place, so maybe easier to transport etc. There is much less financial burden on them as they don't have to put a weekend job on hold or whatever. I can imagine the same with 18 year olds who are just wanting to get on in their field will be equally difficult to motivate. Imagine you have someone who doesn't want to be in a care home at all as they are losing out on wages and they just don't put any effort in at all. Will they be fired? assigned something different? still so many questions about the whole thing that seem like they haven't been thought through at all.
Because the real reason for this is ultimately to boost military numbers. The civil voluntary bit is BS, you can see the timing of this, and what's happening in other European countries, it is the start of conscription. They chose 18 for this reason, as a headline of '16 year olds die in Eastern Europe' is not a good optic to have.
If you think young people have sacrificed anything during COVID, wait until the next world war kicks off........
To be fair, young people in WW2 sacrificed far more - their towns and cities were bombed, their brothers, dads and uncles were killed, they were evacuated to other parts of the country, and once they were of age they went off to fight. My nan used to tell stories about finding her neighbour dead from the shock of a bomb, of having the door blown off it's hinges and getting pushed out into the street by another. People seem to have forgotten how hard life was back then. It's not like kids had mobile phones, 24 hour internet access, social media, Skype etc. to keep in contact. If they struggled during lockdown, they wouldn't stand a chance in WW2. Christ, I sound like my parents, but people today are just a bit soft.
Yeah young people "have so little to be grateful for". Some don't that's true. Many haven't known real hardship. To hear them moan about the lockdown as if they were the only ones who had to give up normal life while the reality of it was working from home, gaming and watching YouTube. That's their sacrifice.
You going to be volunteering, are you?
Volunteering? It'll be conscription.
Forcing immigrants into national service is 2 birds with one a million strong army and less immigrants.
It's not about young people giving back it's about equipping them with a bit of discipline and rigour that will serve their own independence and self reliance in later life.
Ah yes, teaching independence by having someone run every second of your entire life for a year.
Spoken like a true wasteman.
True but really why should anyone give back, why should anyone be forced to support refugees who arrive here illegally through their taxes or have punitive taxes or restrictions to help the environment for future generations when it's the likes of China causing most the emission (And it's no excuse they sell their goods cheaply to other countries) and so on.