Poll: National service not a bad thing?

Would twelve months National Service benefit our society and culture?

  • Yes

    Votes: 293 57.3%

  • No

    Votes: 218 42.7%
  • Total voters
    511
Sliver said:
Sleep tight darling. ;)
Click to expand...

Multiple people ask why your experience should/would work for all, above is your rational discussion at work?

Believe it or not, not all people are you, as a KS5 teacher I worked with a number of gifted pupils, who's abilities and potential were radically different to my own, I certainly wouldn't have bluntly applied my own path to them and expected success.

Or you could just follow the narcissistic / ego maniac approach of typifying all 18 y/o as the same and assume whatever worked for you will work for them?
 
FurryLemon said:
Who is going to pay for it?
Click to expand...

Indeed. You need a huge increase in the military to pay for all the trainers of NS people which means you have to promote a lot of existing service people as they are the ones with the skills at present.
You have to build barracks as they have flogged the current ones off to a private firm based in some tax haven.
You have to equip them with uniforms, feed them, pay them and provide other equipment like guns, ammunition, transport etc, etc, etc. Apart from the extra utility spending.
You can think of a thousand extra costs and all have to be paid for. The last time we had national service you had a greater working tax base than today with these same people now pensioners or about to become pensioners.
So a tax of an extra 10p in the pound or more would be needed. I cannot see any political party putting that forward.
Apart from the fact that most teenagers would find ways to avoid it. There will be exemptions for various things which will get abused.

Non starter.
 
DarrenM343 said:
We are lucky to have been born where we are.
Click to expand...

Yorkshire is the best of places, I admit. ;) :)

You raise an interesting idea in your post which is that the national service could be focused on abroad. That actually tempts me slightly away from my Randian fanaticism because I see a some mitigating factors here. One is that it is substantially less likely to be in direct competition with the labour market. Another is that it would, imo, markedly decrease xenophobia and increase awareness. If you've spent nine months digging helping build temporary housing in a disaster zone, digging wells in Ethiopia or working in an emergency hospital on the Syrian border, then you're a lot more likely to have a nuanced perspective on global issues. Hell, you might even start to vote according to whether some action by your government is going to cause a horde of desperate refugees to flee some country because you're exacerbating a war. And I'd certainly learn a lot of practical skills. You're not going to become a qualified nurse from helping out in a refugee hospital but you might learn about first aid and health care. You're not going to become a qualified teacher by teaching little kids in the Congo to speak English properly, but it wont do any harm. In fact, I can see people learning a lot of practical skills from such activities. It might also reignite some of the entrepreneurial spirit I feel this country has lost through not being familiar with what life is like without a safety net.

And I'm not ruling out military service as one of the branches of this. The TA prove that they can be useful even if they're not quite the ARABS (Arrogant Regular Army *******s if the TA still call them that and it hasn't been quashed through political correctness). However, one of the reasons the British Army is one of the best armies in the world, is that it is made up of volunteers who have chosen it as a career and are exceptionally well trained and dedicated. I don't know diluting that pool is the best idea. Plus, the British government can't even seem to properly supply the soldiers we have half the time. If we quintupled the number we'd probably see people marching around barefoot.

Still, you've somewhat persuaded me around from being against National Service to a qualified 'it could be a good thing'. It would be costly so this would likely need to deduct from our existing overseas aid budget somewhat. (Though maybe not as much as we think as it would reduce unemployment). And that too could be a good thing as it reduces the opportunity for corruption at the receiving end (a common problem) and it also means that we, as a country, get something in return for our money in terms of those skills and greater understanding. I'm happy to save the world, but I want paying for it. ;)

You know, I'd have to put some strong controls and caveats in place - I don't trust the competence or integrity of our government further than my nose - but I've changed my mind on this. I think based on your suggestion how it could work, I'm now in favour of National Service in principle.

Well done, Sir Humphrey! ;) :D
 
Sliver said:
But it does help. It gives people qualifications in most cases that they can use in civilian life. I spent two years studying in the R.A.F. and the qualifications I gained got me jobs once I left. So personally I see the benefit of national service. If you've never served then you don't know.
Click to expand...

But there's an opportunity cost is the point. I went straight to university, studied and got my degree and went straight into work. Learning to hold a rifle, swap bandages or whatever, is highly unlikely to have brought me equivalent value skill gains than university education in the field I expected to go into at the time.
 
For me, it's no. I couldn't see anything that would be a bigger waste of my time.

Now, I'm not saying national service is pointless, and I do actually agree that a huge amount of people my age - the current uni leavers, those who've just left school, can't make or think of anything more complex than a sandwich, gotta check Snapchat yo - would benefit immensely by it. Give them some basic skills that they lack, teach them some discipline, ability to think outside of the "curriculum and how do I pass it" culture they've lived with through school.
 
adolf hamster said:
Yes, and it doesnt just have to be military, the police, fire brigade, rnli, councils etc could all use "untrained" staff.
Click to expand...

You've just listed four jobs that require substantial skill and experience and a risk to life or health.

I am in considerable doubt as to whether a continuous churn of unqualified newcomers would be an asset and aside from that puts mandatory labour in direct competition with the paid labour market. Which is detrimental to anyone seeking such work or trying to maintain their wages.
 
The "********* Generation" couldn't cope with a bit of hard work and being told what to do and when to do it.

would have loved to do something like this when I left school in the late 80's.
 
Ryan-3 said:
For me, it's no. I couldn't see anything that would be a bigger waste of my time.

Now, I'm not saying national service is pointless, and I do actually agree that a huge amount of people my age - the current uni leavers, those who've just left school, can't make or think of anything more complex than a sandwich, gotta check Snapchat yo - would benefit immensely by it. Give them some basic skills that they lack, teach them some discipline, ability to think outside of the "curriculum and how do I pass it" culture they've lived with through school.
Click to expand...

Talking to someone who had experience of the last NS during my time in the OTC at Uni the Major said. "God NO!, Trying to get a bunch of guys who do not want to be there to do anything in any reasonable time is such a waste of time. Much better to have people who want to be there"

The so called skills etc reminds me of the various other facts such as the prison population contains a disproportionate number of ex-servicemen. Ditto the homeless. The longer the service the more incapable servicemen seem to be. As one guy on the TV said 'Every hour of my day was planned, I was told when to eat, sleep, anything I needed I got given but when you finish you are suddenly faced with there being nobody being there to provide you or tell you what needs done.'
 
I think it could possibly be a good thing for those 16-18 not in education or training. Not as front line meat shields in a theatre of war but in other capacities such as disaster relief/avoidance and maybe aid projects - perhaps more technical roles if there's desire and aptitude. It might give some people much needed confidence, discipline and some direction. Not to mention new skills.

I don't think I'd have minded heading off somewhere to build flood defences or to do aid drops as a teenager if I hadn't been doing anything else with my life. It's one way to see more of the world.
 
Last edited:
My sister is in the RAF and I was talking to her a while ago and her points were

1 they dont have the staff to do it
2 they dont have positions for them
3 they dont have accommodation for them
4 they dont have the ability to deal with those who **** around

And most importantly

5 they dont want them

FluffySheep
 
Maybe some kind of national service or Gov run scheme like helping the fire service or ambulance service etc could be made compulsory for anyone who has no future\job\in education etc mapped out by the age of 21.

If you are fit and able in body and mind then there should be no reason, what excuse would you have by having nothing in place by 21?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom