General Chat

It is rumoured that if the Labour party are elected to government at the next general election they are considering reintroducing National Service as an option to enable them to deliver their pre-election pledge of a job for all 18 year olds. Details have yet to be finalised but the scheme if adopted would be likely to commence in 2016. All 18 year olds (Both sexes) would be liable for conscription as would anyone subsequently reaching that age. Conscription will be deferred if the individual is either already in fulltime employment or is enrolled on a recognised educational course. Such deferments will be reviewed at 6 monthly intervals to ensure that the individual is still in work or still regularly attending their educational course. If they are not the individual would be liable for immediate conscription. The period of National Service would be 2 years.

Most conscripts would be involved in the armed forces in non combat roles with alternative roles such as auxiliaries in the fire and ambulance services, non medical roles in the health service and mentoring roles in primary education being considered as alternatives.

The scheme could have many benefits. Initially it will take a lot of 18 year olds off JSA and temporarily out of the job market thus increasing the chances of others looking for work to obtain it. On their return to the job market as 20 year olds, those who have completed their National Service will hopefully have gained additional skills that will enhance their chances of finding work.

What are your thoughts on such a scheme?

sounds good to me - my OH was amongst the last to be conscripted into National Service, and although he didn't really want to go, he very much enjoyed it - posted to Singapore in the RAF

National Service teaches people to stand on their own two feet and take responsibility for themselves

As ex military I'm not in favour of conscription into the armed services. The people in the services are today all volunteers and are professionals in their field. The armed services should not be a dumping ground for the country's young.

I'm also uncertain what skills those conscripted would learn, I certainly didn't put much that I learnt into practice on return to civvy street, in fact I had to learn to stand on my own two feet having been given food, accommodation and clothing for ten years.

There are also the problems that such a scheme would cause a couple off the top of my head are:

If conscription would be for two years that is an awful lot of monetary investment into training, uniform etc. for relatively little return

Todays armed services have a zero tolerance approach to any form of drug abuse, any youngster unhappy at being conscripted would simply need to smoke a joint or two to successfully get kicked out

Jonesey - in principal I would be in favour of such a scheme, I knew many people, some were family members, who said their period of National Service helped them achieve their goals in life.

Such a scheme would need to be thoroughly thought through with proper training & educational prorgammes provided so as to give individuals experience that will enable them to find work once their two years service is completed, one thing it must not be is just a dumping ground for the young unemployed.

It hasn't been thought through AT ALL, by any party.

Where does the money come from?

Who loses their jobs in the NHS (etc) to allow 'non-medical' ( etc) inexperienced 18 year olds to do what would be a paid job for someone.?

What the sweet FA is the good of a teenage 'mentor' in primary education, someone who has just come OUT of school and quite possibly ( if they haven't either gone straight on in education or a job already) is sick of school in the first place and unlikely to be any good at 'mentoring' someone still there? NB I base this on the peer group of my son at college (17/ 18) some of whom do not wish to be there, and have behaviour that wouldn't be any damn use for mentoring a gerbil! )


Voluntary, fine, conscription? As described above, they just lost my vote...which means I won't be voting for anyone for the first time since I was 18!
:-|

Is this not just the labour party taking Mr Philip Hollobone Conservative MP's proposal and trying to make it there own?

very original, NOT

Just shows that Labour have no policy ideas of there own

Roy

erm Jonesey . where is this "rumour" to be found please ? because I can find no trace via google..? and if it's being said by anyone it is usually to be found online, even if it's only on one of the 'odder' sites .

this on here a few weeks ago




BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and
consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present
Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—
1 National service system
(1) Every individual who has attained the age of 18 years, and who has not
attained the age of 26 years, shall be liable to serve one year of national service
at some point between these years unless exempt.
(2) Exempt individuals are those with severe mental or physical disability.
(3) National service shall be defined as participation in a full time scheme
accredited by HM Government as meeting the requirements of national service
and set out in regulations by the Secretary of State.
(4) Non-exempt individuals who do not serve one year of national service before
the age of 26 years shall be guilty of an offence.
2 Scope of the scheme
(1) Regulations shall provide that the scheme must extend the scope of the
National Citizen Service and include the following elements—
(a) educational assistance for those participants who have yet to attain
basic educational requirements of reading and writing in English and
mathematics;
(b) coaching and instruction to attain basic levels of physical fitness,
personal discipline, smart appearance, self respect and respect for
others;
(c) instruction in personal financial budgeting, household bills, nutrition,
cooking, time keeping, life skills, tolerance towards others, treating
elderly and disabled people with dignity and respect; and
(d) instruction in basic aspects of the law in relation to the most common
offences involving young people.
B
5
10
15
20
2 National Service Bill
(2) Regulations shall also provide that the scheme shall include—
(a) a residential element, requiring that participants live away from home;
and
(b) an element of public service, comprising one or more of the following
to be chosen by the individual—
(i) charitable work,
(ii) social action,
(iii) care for the elderly or disabled,
(iv) overseas development activity, or
(v) work connected with the National Health Service, the
emergency services or the Armed Forces.
3 Pay and tax allowance for participants
(1) Participants in national service shall be paid the national adult minimum wage
during their year of service with accommodation and travel funded by the
Secretary of State.
(2) Regulations shall provide that a person who has successfully completed their
year of national service shall be presented with a national service certificate
which shall entitle them to a lifetime income tax rate personal allowance 10 per
cent above the personal allowance that would otherwise apply.
4 Interpretation
In this Act “national adult minimum wage” means the minimum wage as
specified under section 2 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and
exemptions and modifications set out in section 3 of that Act shall not apply.
5 Financial provision
There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament—
(a) any expenditure of the Secretary of State in consequence of this Act, and
(b) any increase attributable to this Act in the sums which under any other Act
are payable out of money so provided.
6 Offence
Regulations shall provide for those guilty of an offence under section 1(4) to be
subject to a penalty.
7 Regulations
Regulations under this Act shall be made by statutory instrument and may not
be made unless a draft of the regulations have been laid before, and approved
by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
8 Short title, commencement and extent
(1) This Act may be cited as the National Service Act 2013.
(2) This Act comes into force one year after Royal Assent.
(3) This Act extends to England and Wales.

I agree with Staffs Col and Rose. Not thought through and expensive and why use the military as a training school/dumping ground when they have been cut to the bone as it is?

It will never happen, people are more enlightened now, and wouldn't, unless they wanted to, be told what they had to do with there lives.

If it is an idea, then it's a stupid one.

Rose,

In my OP you will note that I started by saying, "It is rumoured". My source was a active local Labour Party member but I am old enough and ugly enough to know not to state as fact what has yet still to be proven. I admire your faith in Google which good as it is does not yet contain the answer to every question. Incidentally it was only when I read Roy's post that I discovered that a Conservative MP had raised a private members bill proposing basically the same thing last month.

You ask, "Where does the money come from?" I can only assume from the state but remember that it would only be the extra over and above JSA (£56.80 per week) already being paid out to each unemployed 18 year old that would need to be funded.

You ask, "Who loses their jobs in the NHS (etc) to allow 'non-medical' ( etc) inexperienced 18 year olds to do what would be a paid job for someone.?" Why should it be necessary for anyone to lose their job? Are we not constantly being told that the lack of care provided by some hospital trusts is due to under staffing resulting for example in nurses having to do administration work rather than being free to administer to their patients needs. Both Germany and the USA have in the past successfully used conscripts in non medical healthcare positions as an alternative to military service.

With regard to the suitability of 18 year old young men to be mentors to 7~11 year olds I concede probably not, but what about 18 year old young women. Is the position of mentor not too dissimilar from the nursery centre assistants or after school club assistants that a lot of females would choose to do if they could find such a job. Would you be happier if the situation was known as classroom assistant rather than mentor?


Staffs Col,

I missed conscription by 4 years so I cannot speak from personal experience. During my time in the workplace however I have known many men who did do National Service as a conscript. I would estimate that it was about 50:50 between those who said they thought that it was a complete waste of time and those who said it did them no harm whatsoever and probably did them some good. With regard to drug abuse, the military may have a zero tolerance approach but I am sure that there are some who ignore the ban. Those (Regular or conscript) who choose to do so then get caught have committed a criminal act and should be punished accordingly.


I've got no axe to grind and it doesn't bother me one jot whether the scheme originated from the Labour Party, the Conservative Party or any other quarter for that matter. I think that the general idea has some merit and that properly thought through and administered correctly could work.

OH began his national serv ice aged 21 and decided at the outset he would enlist for 4 years, get more pay and see the world.

He saw Germany. He has always said and I have heard him converse with others of his ilk - it was a good experience - mixed with lads from all walks of life and that the first night he was wakened by the sounds of sobbing - quite a few of these lads were homesick already but I am sure that the RAF Sergeant would welcome them with kindly open arms the following morning.

OH often says 'bring back national service'.

Jonesy

My faith in google is not exhaustive, but if there is a rumour 'somewhere' from 'someone' it usually makes its way online...and if online, as the 'Queen of googling' I can usually find it by clever combination of search terms. :-D

re jobs "why would it be necessary for anyone to lose their jobs"....it would not be "necessary" but it would happen nonetheless...beccause it does. Very few employers I would trust not to take the 'cheap option' of a subsidised young conscript in preference to an employee on full pay.

"18 year old young men to be mentors to 7~11 year olds I concede probably not, but what about 18 year old young women." Gender is not relevant to my opinion.

and

"Are we not constantly being told that the lack of care provided by some hospital trusts is due to under staffing resulting for example in nurses having to do administration work rather than being free to administer to their patients need"

So which of these vital options would the untrained 18 year old be doing? admin or non medical work ? because I don't think I would feel 'safe' with someone who was being 'forced' to do either job were I in hospital.

When YTS was introduced a few years back employers widely misused the scheme to provide themselves with cheap labour and the those who did YTS with the armed services were on the whole a total waste of space - they didn't want to be there didn't want to know and didn't hide the fact.

I thought the powers that be had cut back on all service personnel so how come they are now rumoured to be proposing this way of doctoring the jobless figures?

I think they are all clutching at straws, no one party or even two lol, will make a good job of sorting this country's problems out.

I wonder what it will be like for my son's children if he has any and for all those grandchildren of ours in the next forty or fifty years.

Lizx

Col,

You appear to have a somewhat jaundiced view.

I was not aware that the YTS (Youth Training Scheme 1980~1989) which was an on the job training scheme for 16 and 17 year olds only had any involvement or indeed provided trainees to the armed services. Even if it did the scheme submitted applicants to prospective "Employers" for interview prior to their engagement on the scheme so whether the applicant would be suitable/unsuitable for any particular situation could be decided by the "Employer". There was no obligation on the "Employer" to take on someone who they deemed likely to be an unsuitable trainee.

Your assumption that the scheme was misused as a source of cheap labour is I'm sure accurate in some cases but certainly not in all. At the time I was an employer and took several trainees referred to me by one of the voluntary organisations charged with operating the scheme. Whilst I had some trainees who didn't live up to my expectation I ended up taking on 3 trainees as full time permanent employees. Subsequently over the next few years 2 of them rose into managerial positions with us and 1 with another company. Had the scheme not been in existence they may not have had the opportunity to progress beyond the dole queue.

Some people cruelly joked that YTS stood for Young, Thick and Stupid and there were indeed some trainees who matched that description having been recipients of flawed teaching practices such as Phonetic spelling and mathematics primarily using only calculators. The main reason the YTS scheme was introduced was because, then as now, there were more people than there were jobs coupled with the demise of the traditional apprenticeship route into employment.

Thank you for your insult - perhaps you just don't like those who disagree with you

I still cant find anything on the web or in the press about this 'rumour' but as you explain your source was only a local Labour Party member hardly at the seat of the national Labour Party or likely to be privy to a plan or policy that no-one else seems to be aware of.

Col,

No insult intended, I am sorry that you took it as one.

As far as not liking anyone who disagrees with me I assure you that is not necessarily the case. All are entitled to an opinion which we may or not agree with. Debate usually starts as a result of two opposing viewpoints. It is through debate that matters or disputes are usually resolved.

In any case I cannot see anything in this thread that you and I have actually disagreed about. In my opening post I mentioned a scheme that I had heard about and expressed an opinion that I thought that it may have some benefits. I asked others what their thoughts were.

You proffered your thoughts based upon your personal military experience that you were not in favour of conscription into the military and expressed the opinion that the armed services should not be a dumping ground for the country's young. In my response I neither disagreed or agreed with your comment nor did I write anything in an attempt to belittle your view.

Your next post concerned the Youth Training Scheme for 16 and 17 year olds during the 1980's, something that I did have personal experience of. You expressed your opinion that that scheme had been widely misused by employers who used it as a source of cheap labour. You further stated that those who did YTS with the armed services were on the whole a total waste of space. Once again I did not disagree with your comments, indeed in part I agreed with them in relation to some possible misuse by employers. I stated that I was unaware that the YTS scheme had been involved in providing trainees to the armed services as it was an on the job training scheme for school leavers aged 16 or 17 years old. I then added my comments based upon my personal experience of the scheme just as you had added your comments on conscription in to the military based upon your personal experience in the military as a regular.

I must conclude therefore that it is my use of the word Jaundiced that has offended you. Perhaps our definition of the word differs. This sums up mine, what is yours?

Feeling or showing dislike, distrust, or anger because of past experiences : likely to think that people, organizations, etc., are bad.

I have to agree with Staffy Col 1st post here, But I also agree with Ann I do feel it teaches good values and responsibility. The youth of today do seem to be a bit mamby pampered and I take full blame for making my own children like that. They were not brought up as I was, I have smoothered them a bit... :-D