The idea of national service is one that simply will not go away. There is always some illiberal arsehole who thinks that we owe the state a part of our lives and that we must be forced into servitude on behalf of the state. Today, that illiberal areshole is Philip Hollobone.
A bill to reinstate compulsory national service for 18-to-26-year-olds is set to be debated in Parliament early next year.
Kettering’s Conservative MP Philip Hollobone, who sponsored the bill, is convinced that some form of service for youngsters, be it charitable work, care for the elderly, work linked to the NHS or participation in the armed forces, would help instil a greater sense of ‘self-respect, personal reliance, discipline and behaviour’ into society.
You do not instil respect – and you certainly do not instil it by failing to respect peoples’ liberty. National service is always wrong in all circumstances. We own our bodies and our lives. So, because they belong to us and no one else, no one else has any say over them. Ever. Therefore, any form of enforced servitude is morally repugnant and only an illiberal arsehole would try to bring it back.
Enforced servitude is something this country stamped out a long time ago – although we kept the vile principle of national service long after we freed our slaves and stopped other people trading in them. The state, however, seems to think that slavery to the state is, somehow acceptable – or, at least, this particular state apparatchik does. It is not. It never will be and it should be opposed vigorously.
Acknowledging that his Bills are highly unlikely to become law, Hollobone said: “Unfortunately, the arcane nature of parliamentary procedures surrounding private member’s bills and the lack of time they have for debate will mean that the merits and demerits of the Bill are unlikely to be debated and voted upon.”
Actually, the word here is fortunately. Thankfully, this nasty little control freak will not get his way.
Nevertheless, a Change petition to stop the Bill progressing through Parliament has been set up by Falmouth activist Debbie Sayers. Arguing that young people ‘should be able to choose their own futures’, an extract from her statement reads: “It is unacceptable to force any person to engage in training that has mandatory residential elements, military training or actual service in the military without the ability to refuse. We do not want our children and grandchildren to fight and die in wars, or in training that they or we have no control over.”
Precisely. Hollobone is a nasty little dinosaur. Perhaps we should clap him in irons and force him into servitude…
This guys got form though – he was the one who wants to have a Margaret Thatcher day just to ram it in the faces of people like me who didn’t like her because she called me an enemy in my own country.
My old Dad (who did National Service) was great at arguing against this crap. One thing no-one talks about is the amount of kids who took their own lives when subjected to institutional Army bullying (I hope things are better since we’ve had a volunteer Army). He felt he had 2 years stolen from him and certainly questioned whether he did anything useful.
Fortunately, this will never see the light of day as the costs (especially of enforcement and of Court Cases once Our Learned friends start licking their lips) would be far greater than current government policy which is not to give a crap about young folk.
My father’s experience was more positive in that being in the signals, he travelled a fair bit, so saw places he wouldn’t have otherwise done. He took the view that he might as well make the best of it. That, however, doesn’t excuse the principle which is always wrong. We are not chattels of the state.
“…current government policy which is not to give a crap about young folk…”
I rather think that they (and the previous government) do not discriminate on the grounds of age. I do not believe they give a crap about any folk of any age, outside their own immediate circle…
That is; PPE graduates who sit on the green benches or on some fake charity or quango.
I wonder how many of the “problem” youngsters Mr Holloborne thinks he would be helping with this legislation would manage to pass the CRB checks necessary to carry out the activities he lists?
And can anyone see David Beckham’s children doing forced military service? or Tony Blair’s children? No, me neither.
And what does he propose doing with anybody who refuses?
I used to think National Service was a good idea. my Dad did it my uncle did it and it did them no harm, in fact quite the opposite.
But now my son is in the army and I realise the army would not want the weak pathetic morons we churn out year after year in this country. Chav kids with attitude is NOT what the army needs in times of current crisis, what they do need is not to have their number slashed and their budgets cut ad hoc.
Especially as they would not be allowed to kick them into any sort of shape (beasting as it was known) because of their “Human Rites”.
My son has worked hard to get his promotion and points out “mum most of them are such muppets they would be dead inside a week”
So no I don’t think National Service is a good idea, better off having those dedicated to serving and trained for the job willingly, than forced labour.
This is perfectly valid, of course. The last thing a volunteer army wants is a bunch of reluctant conscripts to babysit. However, the objection I have is one of principle not practicality. it is wrong in principle to enforce servitude.
yes it is. But I suppose my Victorian grandparents upbringing comes into play it’s an old fashioned thing I think my grandparents generation were the “in service” age where much of the employment was armed forces, servants or in the mills.
The military is not compulsory within the proposed scheme and as the scheme attracts a wage it could have the positive effect of getting the little scrotes used to having a wage at the end of the week, hence at the end of their ‘service’ they would be actively looking to keep that wage coming in. Agree with the sentiments regarding compulsion though.
National service with the military always attracted a wage. Doesn’t make it right though. The word “compulsory” says it all. The state has no moral authority to force anyone to work for it.
I do agree with you LR but there is the idea that they don’t work for the dole money and that in some cases (not all ) encourages laziness and a “the world owes me a living mentality” as there has been talk of making those claiming job seekers work for their dole and that would be compulsory one could postulate that maybe armed forces and a wage , compulsory or not is not really very different. Is it not still enforced labour?
JSA is intended to be a leg-up for jobseekers. So it should be claimed while looking for a job. The jobseeker should not be expected to work for it as this detracts form their primary objective of finding suitable employment. That’s the deal. If they default on that deal, fine, withdraw it, but don’t punish those who use it as intended. I claimed it briefly during 2011, when we returned from France and were looking for work. I have paid multiple times over for the pittance I got back. To be expected to work for it would have been wholly wrong and, yes, enforced labour.
Is not education forced on people in ever increasing amounts.
Mark you crowding young males and young females in national; service of any kind might well do wonders for the birth rate.
This topic was mentioned some time ago, when we agreed to disagree. As a successful ‘graduate’ of conscription, then regular Army and second career, I still feel there are advantages to some form of community service, whether military or otherwise. It could be considered a form of payback in which education and trade skills, as well as life skills, would be available. It would also give many young people a sense of pride in belonging, whether to a particular apprentice group, military branch or Army regiment or Corps. There is no perfect system to resolve the problem of disaffected, unemployed, youth but this is one suggestion. Those who disagree may wish to suggest a better one.
While some people came out of conscription with a positive attitude, many did not. There were those (and had I been of an age, I would have been one of them) who correctly regarded it as stolen time and did not cooperate. I most certainly would have not cooperated with any form of conscription, irrespective of the personal cost as it is immoral and the state does not own me and I owe the state nothing. Certainly I do not owe it for my education as this was ten years of imprisonment in a state institution having their education forced upon me. I educated myself and learned far more when I left, fortunately.
A better solution. Good God, doing nothing is better than that.
And pride is not an emotion that is something to look up to. I don’t do pride, so don’t encourage it in others. I prefer self-respect. And being forced to give up a period of one’s life in the servitude of the state will do nothing to instil either pride or self-respect in young people who resent the imposition. I’m pretty easy going and was never a disaffected youth, but conscription would have very quickly turned me into one.
“A better solution. Good God, doing nothing is better than that.”
So let’s take this one stage further. The person doing nothing goes to the local housing department and says, “I have nowhere to live.” The housing department official, that’s the one who is working and paying taxes, follows the same principle and does nothing. The person then goes to Social Services and says, “I have no money and nothing to eat.” That official, who also works and pays taxes, does nothing. Everyone that the disaffected person goes to, does nothing. Apart from a hungry, homeless, person you may end up with someone who realises that you get nothing for free in this country. Any benefit or charity, whether housing, food, or financial, is on the back of someone who is working and contributing. Is it unreasonable to expect that anyone who receives a benefit paid for by someone else, should also make a contribution, whether in kind or other? I assume you maintain your bike, buying new parts to replace those worn out and either servicing it yourself or having someone else do it for you? If you, or that other person, did nothing, your bike would break down. If all the disaffected youth in this country did nothing but rely on benefits, they would grow up to be disaffected adults who do nothing and then, once those who did work and contribute die out, there will be no one to pay the benefits for all the upcoming disaffected youth who do nothing. The result will be what?
The bike analogy doesn’t work. I choose to have a bike and I choose to accept the consequences of not servicing it. National service is compulsory, so choice doesn’t enter into it.
Also, why should the majority of young people suffer for the few? That is nothing more than collective punishment and is as immoral as enforced servitude.
I’m all in favour of putting difficult choices before a recalcitrant claimant – that is; look for work or face losing benefits as they still have a choice, difficult though it might be. And, they can do as I did, take work they don’t particularly want until something better comes along.
I will always object to the idea that the state presumes it knows best and that it has the moral authority to force people into its service. This is wrong and will always be wrong.
I don’t like the mealy-mouthed wording of the “activist’s” petition.
She seems to be saying that compulsory service in the military – and only in the military – is wrong, leaving the unspoken implication that for other things – writing for the Guardian, perhaps, or working at the bbc – it would be perfectly acceptable.
Time to stamp on that sort of nonsense I think.
I think you are seeing something that isn’t there. She has emphasised the military aspect, but the petition does cover all conscription.
It’s funny that you should bring this up because this Sunday, Switzerland holds a referendum on the subject of abolishing compulsory military service. (More information here.) All the parties are against the proposal apart from the Greens, the socialists and the Christian socialists, who are backing it. The Swiss public is likely to say NEIN/NON/NO to the initiative.
The problem is that the major organisation campaigning for it’s called Group for a Switzerland Without an Army – i.e. they don’t just want a voluntary army; they want the Swiss army to completely disband itself and cease to exist. They essentially seem to be people who hate any kind of military or national self defence.