Conscription

[MadAdey]

• Well you are not convincing me of anything. You just seem to have a negative view and wont consider or admit to any of the positives. Or, you are being argumentative. I wonder which?

You suggested earlier that all people with 22 years service are against this, now where did you get that from? I had 30 years service and I know well that many of my comrades think the same way.

I wouldn't say that many of my comrades are very keen on the idea of national service as there is enough people already in an over stretched budget. There is no way the defence budget could handle having to take another 50,000 people into the armed forces, that is why we have had the defence reviews that cut the budget, making the MOD drop the number of service personnel actively serving. If you took in 10,000 people into national service and paid them a basic soldier starting pay it would cost £120m just to pay them. Now take into account the subsidised accommodation and food, the kit that would need to be issued, the old camps that would need re opening and making fit for people to live in. These camps would need a full chain of command installing and the support personnel. National Service would cost the country probably £200m + a year to start. Who's paying for that, we struggle to give enough beds to hospitals and keep classroom sizes under 30.

I think what would better in this modern age would be to not do National Service in the old way, but make these people join the TA or the Royal auxiliary Air Force. Make them carry out 5 years of service in one of them and they might just enjoy it and carry it on for life. This is how I see the pros and cone of giving people 3 years national service or reserve service that might just keep doing.

National Service:

• Young unemployed people are given a sense of purpose and self respect.
• large reserve made up of personnel that are trained to a basic level.
• Going to cost a small fortune and the defence budget does not have the money.

can't think of any others....

5 years reserve service.

• Young unemployed people are given a sense of purpose and self respect
• large reserve made up of personnel that are trained to a basic level.
• We will have a large reserve pool of people that decide to stay with it for life that will be keep up to date with all the latest kit and training, giving us a highly skilled reserve force should the day arrive that we need it.
• not going to cost the tax payer a small fortune to foot the bill as they are not getting paid full time and would not need to re open old camps to accommodate them.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

Our armed forces are not set up for national service - there is no need for national service.

Agreed, there is no need for conscripts. But the benefits regarding discipline, respect etc etc are enormous.

 

[SocketRocket]

• 
  
  I wouldn't say that many of my comrades are very keen on the idea of national service as there is enough people already in an over stretched budget. There is no way the defence budget could handle having to take another 50,000 people into the armed forces, that is why we have had the defence reviews that cut the budget, making the MOD drop the number of service personnel actively serving. If you took in 10,000 people into national service and paid them a basic soldier starting pay it would cost £120m just to pay them. Now take into account the subsidised accommodation and food, the kit that would need to be issued, the old camps that would need re opening and making fit for people to live in. These camps would need a full chain of command installing and the support personnel. National Service would cost the country probably £200m + a year to start. Who's paying for that, we struggle to give enough beds to hospitals and keep classroom sizes under 30.
  
  I think what would better in this modern age would be to not do National Service in the old way, but make these people join the TA or the Royal auxiliary Air Force. Make them carry out 5 years of service in one of them and they might just enjoy it and carry it on for life. This is how I see the pros and cone of giving people 3 years national service or reserve service that might just keep doing.
  
  National Service:
  
  
  • Young unemployed people are given a sense of purpose and self respect.
  • large reserve made up of personnel that are trained to a basic level.
  • Going to cost a small fortune and the defence budget does not have the money.
  
  can't think of any others....
  
  5 years reserve service.
  
  • Young unemployed people are given a sense of purpose and self respect
  • large reserve made up of personnel that are trained to a basic level.
  • We will have a large reserve pool of people that decide to stay with it for life that will be keep up to date with all the latest kit and training, giving us a highly skilled reserve force should the day arrive that we need it.
  • not going to cost the tax payer a small fortune to foot the bill as they are not getting paid full time and would not need to re open old camps to accommodate them.

• 
  
  I agree with that, good thinking.

 

[Ethan]

I fully understand we're not in those sepia coloured days of yore. Full employment would be a much better option but surely something more formulated that all these government training schemes which seem to be continually rolled up in new guises. I'm not actually keen on the full military discipline side of things and feel at this time, it's best left to the army and reservists and assume should the nation ever been drawn into a global war again conscription would come in anyway if the need arose.

I do think if there is a way of getting those from 16-22 into some kind of formulated regime (if only for a three-six month period) we may be better off longer term. That said, national (military) service exists in many nations across Europe and beyond, so maybe there is still a degree of merit in there somewhere and we're just not doing it right

National Service IS a government training scheme, which makes the assumption that shouting at youths and making them march through the night will make them more responsible citizens later. There is no evidence this would have this effect. And you would train them to fight and use weapons? Whoops. That'll be good for those later fights outside Yates Wine Lodge. And there would be exemptions for certain jobs and students, so there would be a flood into useless university courses. And nice upper middle class kids would get exempted out, so the whole thing would focus on the feckless youth from working class estates.

The Army is allegedly a professional army, and professional armies don't want conscripts, who are by definition reluctant joiners, and usually counting the days to get out.

Yes (possibly Prime) Minister covered the issue in an episode 30 years ago and most of what was said then remains true now.

 

[SocketRocket]

National Service IS a government training scheme, which makes the assumption that shouting at youths and making them march through the night will make them more responsible citizens later. There is no evidence this would have this effect. And you would train them to fight and use weapons? Whoops. That'll be good for those later fights outside Yates Wine Lodge. And there would be exemptions for certain jobs and students, so there would be a flood into useless university courses. And nice upper middle class kids would get exempted out, so the whole thing would focus on the feckless youth from working class estates.

The Army is allegedly a professional army, and professional armies don't want conscripts, who are by definition reluctant joiners, and usually counting the days to get out.

Yes (possibly Prime) Minister covered the issue in an episode 30 years ago and most of what was said then remains true now.

Can I take it you are not for it then?

 

[Old Skier]

Valid points but it has worked elsewhere. These type of issues would be huge stumbling blocks and not sure how you'd overcome them

Name them

 

[Foxholer]

National Service IS a government training scheme, which makes the assumption that shouting at youths and making them march through the night will make them more responsible citizens later.

Actually, it makes the assumption, based on experience, that it will make them better Professional Soldiers - nothing to do with becoming more responsible citizens! That may or may not happen, but is by no means the goal of the shouting and marching!

And you would train them to fight and use weapons? Whoops. That'll be good for those later fights outside Yates Wine Lodge.

Yep, better organised/disciplined and more capable gangs too!

Yes (possibly Prime) Minister covered the issue in an episode 30 years ago and most of what was said then remains true now.

Wow! That takes me back!

 

[Deleted member 15344]

• 
  
  I wouldn't say that many of my comrades are very keen on the idea of national service as there is enough people already in an over stretched budget. There is no way the defence budget could handle having to take another 50,000 people into the armed forces, that is why we have had the defence reviews that cut the budget, making the MOD drop the number of service personnel actively serving. If you took in 10,000 people into national service and paid them a basic soldier starting pay it would cost £120m just to pay them. Now take into account the subsidised accommodation and food, the kit that would need to be issued, the old camps that would need re opening and making fit for people to live in. These camps would need a full chain of command installing and the support personnel. National Service would cost the country probably £200m + a year to start. Who's paying for that, we struggle to give enough beds to hospitals and keep classroom sizes under 30.
  
  I think what would better in this modern age would be to not do National Service in the old way, but make these people join the TA or the Royal auxiliary Air Force. Make them carry out 5 years of service in one of them and they might just enjoy it and carry it on for life. This is how I see the pros and cone of giving people 3 years national service or reserve service that might just keep doing.
  
  National Service:
  
  
  • Young unemployed people are given a sense of purpose and self respect.
  • large reserve made up of personnel that are trained to a basic level.
  • Going to cost a small fortune and the defence budget does not have the money.
  
  can't think of any others....
  
  5 years reserve service.
  
  • Young unemployed people are given a sense of purpose and self respect
  • large reserve made up of personnel that are trained to a basic level.
  • We will have a large reserve pool of people that decide to stay with it for life that will be keep up to date with all the latest kit and training, giving us a highly skilled reserve force should the day arrive that we need it.
  • not going to cost the tax payer a small fortune to foot the bill as they are not getting paid full time and would not need to re open old camps to accommodate them.

• 
  
  Yep them helping out the reservists would certainly be a better idea
  
  But making it compulsory would negate the effect
  
  They always say you get 90% from a person pressed into it but 100% from a volunteer.
  
  Giving the youth of today more discipline is never a better thing nor is treating them respect but it can't be forced these days - there is too much human rights floating around
  
  Perfect example - when I was going through basic I saw people getting knocked out cold by a rock,when he was hit with the butt of a rifle for not pointing it down the range - we were forced at one point to keep the slr about our heads until we could no longer physically hold it there - plus many many other punishments and
  
  When I was an instructor and did a room inspection someone hadn't ironed their shirts so out the window they went - I was told I couldn't do that because it would be counter productive apparently
  
  When we used to get charged and get jankers - we used to be sent to wash pots and other rubbish jobs - can't even do that anymore
  
  That's why you can't have people that don't want to be there - they will be a hinderance

 

[SocketRocket]

Yep them helping out the reservists would certainly be a better idea

But making it compulsory would negate the effect

They always say you get 90% from a person pressed into it but 100% from a volunteer.

Giving the youth of today more discipline is never a better thing nor is treating them respect but it can't be forced these days - there is too much human rights floating around

Perfect example - when I was going through basic I saw people getting knocked out cold by a rock,when he was hit with the butt of a rifle for not pointing it down the range - we were forced at one point to keep the slr about our heads until we could no longer physically hold it there - plus many many other punishments and

When I was an instructor and did a room inspection someone hadn't ironed their shirts so out the window they went - I was told I couldn't do that because it would be counter productive apparently

When we used to get charged and get jankers - we used to be sent to wash pots and other rubbish jobs - can't even do that anymore

That's why you can't have people that don't want to be there - they will be a hinderance

The PC issues can be changed if the people will it. I would surmise that the way the world and country is moving they will have to at some point. The way it has become is unsustainable.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

The PC issues can be changed if the people will it. I would surmise that the way the world and country is moving they will have to at some point. The way it has become is unsustainable.

Sorry but the PC issues may have gone too far in certain areas but people have rights now - unless you believe they should have their rights taken away ?

 

[williamalex1]

My thoughts are extend school leaving age by at least a year for pupils that can't find job by the start of the next school term , and put them in a subsidised work placement along the lines of the old work experience , but hopefully much more refined .

 

[SocketRocket]

Sorry but the PC issues may have gone too far in certain areas but people have rights now - unless you believe they should have their rights taken away ?

If the rights are a detriment to the way society operates then yes. As I suggested; in my opinion the world is moving in a direction where all these things will have to be reviewed and probably changed. I am in no doubt that the rules and laws relating to Human Rights have gone too far in favour of the criminal and reprobate, to the detriment of decent living people and will have to be changed to bring a level of common sense into play.

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

If the rights are a detriment to the way society operates then yes. As I suggested; in my opinion the world is moving in a direction where all these things will have to be reviewed and probably changed. I am in no doubt that the rules and laws relation to Human Rights have gone too far in favour of the criminal and reprobate to the detriment of decent living people and will have to be changed to bring a level of common sense into play.

Which rules and laws in relation to criminals have gone too far?

 

[SocketRocket]

Which rules and laws in relation to criminals have gone too far?

I dont want to write a very long reply on each aspect and example of it. The ability to deport foreign criminals that have raped and murdered for a start. How we deal with Jihadist terrorists and people that preach terror is another. The way undesirables can hide behind the right to a family life. Kid gloves with unruly school kids anti social behaviour. Ya de da de da!!