The reaction to National Service on here

[MaryMaryVeryContrary]

Many European countries (including Scandinavian countries) have NS. Are they ‘ridiculous’? Or are their much-coveted-by-Mumsnet-users communities better because of their sense of individual responsibility and contribution?

If 24 days (that’s how long it would be in total) of delivering prescriptions or volunteering as a hospital guide has you talking about human rights violations and Nazi Germany, then it’s very clear that you’re so pampered a bit of NS would do you good.

Everyone on here expects the world in terms of a ’village’, generous benefits, a caring society, but wants to do fuck all to contribute to it and think the notion of them having to do ANYTHING for anyone else is insane.

It’s nuts!

The reaction is confirmation to me of the lack of citizen responsibility and dare I even use the dirty word….patriotism

It used to be an honour to serve for your country and ‘put back in’ but alas, no more

From what I’ve seen, there is a lot to be gained by every young person in partaking in this. I don’t understand the issue with ‘voluntary’. School isn’t voluntary either but no one has a problem with that. And most things you do in life aren’t completely voluntary, I have to go to work to pay my bills, it’s not voluntary, I have some freedom in what I do, but I can’t just do nothing and watch tv all day.

I think fostering a sense of belonging to a country, one where you partake in the upkeep and pride in that country is a good thing

and have you reflected on why you feel justified to exempt yourself while imposing it on others. You are not doing anything - you have no moral authority to comment

I agree.

You could also do those things AND GET PAID WELL FOR IT.

So why limit it to young people?

If its not just a shiny pre-election nonsense or free labour grab, and there is inherent value in fostering a sense of belonging and participation in your country, then surely it should be imposed upon every citizen who is of voting age.

Seems silly to have realised this value but to only seek to instil it in about 1% of the population. Surely we should wait this sense of belonging and pride to be instilled in the 38 year old parents of 2 kids as well, they're literally raising the next generation

The social contract is broken, that's why people don't feel like "putting in".

People used to get things out of it as well, such as being able to see a doctor when you are unwell or send your kids to a decent school, or be able to buy a house, or rent one affordably or save enough money for retirement.

More and more of our money is being hoovered up by the top 0.1% so that people don't get these basic things. People are too exhausted trying to live their every day lives in a broken country.

Unless MN is full of people currently under 18 years none of the posters who think it is a ridiculous idea will have to do anything. That's one of the many reasons any fair minded person would object.

Indeed. All we have to do is not vote Conservative, which seems a no-brainer for all sorts of reasons. I don't think many new 18 year old voters will be, DD1 certainly won't be voting for them.

I won’t be voting for them. I hope they’re wiped off the face of the planet. I’m going to hold my nose and vote for Labour although tbh I don’t love them or even like them that much,

It is just a distraction, some people obviously think its a great idea, others don't. But while we are arguing about NS we're not agreeing on what is actually wrong with the Government/country/society which is nice for both Cons and Lab.

I won't worry about it anyway, Tories are finished for a while so it won't happen. Whatever Starmer proposes in response might though...........

Why are people assuming that those objecting to this don't have community spirit? They may well have more community spirit than the entire tory party put together but object to forced labour dictated by a party that have shown they don't give a flying fuck about our communities. It's insulting to all the teens up and down the country who are already giving back more to their communities than any tory ever has.

That's going to go really well, isn't it?

Who says people would need to give up all those things? Do you really think that is what happens in places where there is NS? Because it's not. Many of those things would continue much as they are.

It's also temporary, and the reason it's usually proposed for younger people is because it dovetails in well to the end of their education years and can provide a good start into the adult working world.

Your whole post, that it's crazy that anyone should expect to give up anything like even a weekend hobby, for a short time, to serve the wider community, reeks of entitlement.

Yep!

And not one of the people who are chiding others for not buying into it are making anything like the same commitment level themselves. The OPs description of her own voluntary activities falls well short of what she feels entitled to expect from 18 year olds, and most of the others haven't even said that.

I assume we'll now get a series of posts from people supporting the proposals and claiming they do a full unpaid day a month and more, and maybe they won't all be lying. But it's very telling. If you thought it was that wonderful, you wouldn't want to limit it to 18 year old NEETs.

So what does happen in other countries where they have national service? You seem very knowledgeable about it so presumably you are thinking of a specific country?

This is true as far as it goes.

What is interesting though is that what Thatcher was saying is essentially that people need to realize that benefits given by the state are made possible through the work of other citizens. The state isn't a person that is productive in itself. So there is a public duty to be productive if we want the state to be able to provide benefits.

Essentially that there needs to be a balance between what we want the state to provide and our expectation of contributing to that. She felt that there was a lack of balance in people's expectations, which, given the whole IMF loan, seems potentially justified.

Not yet RTFT but most army people are against it. They say the worst thing they want to do is babysit kids who don't want to be there and aren't serious about it and could put lives in jeopardy. You don't want to give those sorts of kids a rifle.

Well, it'll go pretty well for the legal profession at least. Nice money to be made challenging it!

When I lived in Greece, male Greek friends (they were under 30 and it was last decade) told me that once they'd done the 6 weeks basic training, there was nothing for them to do on their compulsory military service. Some of their colleagues were apparently sent home for months at a time and a couple of the ones I knew had got jobs near their barracks, working in cafés, etc.

From day one, by definition. Under international human rights norms there are certain exemptions when it's nonetheless permissible - chiefly military conscription as well as associated (e.g. medical) service in wartime. Also certain traditional obligations such as citizens firefighting services or flood defense. I very much doubt this could be extended to cover a scheme where under 5 percent do military service and the remainder of the population are press-ganged into doing what the USSR called a "subbotnik" - Saturday shifts helping with the harvest or doing street cleanup. Modern Eurooean systems do have alternative service but it's either for volunteers or for conscientious objectors who have already been selected for the military. It's also paid.

You're quite right.

Unfortunately, OP and the people who agree with her haven't been willing to pay much attention to the views of people with relevant experience in the areas all these NEETs would be fobbed off on.

I went on a date once with a deputy head master. Was chatting for a couple of weeks before hand and seemed great.

God knows how but we got on the subject of war and he said he’d never join the army if there was a war on. Why should he put him self in the firing line for other people?

I have 2 cousins in the RAF and another was in the PARAS. He is happy to kick back and expect other people to step up - like my family.

I went off him instantly.

In light of world events we absolutely should be thinking about what potentially could happen and be prepared. If I was asked to contribute in some way I would. I happen to rather like the life the uk has to offer

It's generally mainly military service, and it's a bit like a job, where people get some training and also their living expenses and such are paid. They work for a period of time and when they are done they go on to their further education and work with the skills they have gained. Which they carry through their adult lives.

It's a model that could be extended to some other kinds of work quite easily, and even within a military model, there are a lot of different types of work - medical, builders, clerks, etc.

It's a good foundation for how to work effectively in a group and take a leadership role, much more so than many young people will have had before.

People are being deeply naive if they think only countries like Switzerland or Finland or even Israel are the only ones who need to think about having a population with an ability to step up in a military conflict. The chances of a global conflict in the next decades are really significant and many western countries are deeply unprepared. I suspect the UK would be full of people like the men who have run away from Ukraine, unwilling to fight for their country but expecting others to take them in, and no doubt hoping to go back if it's later possible. All based on the sacrifice of others.

Quite

People are being deeply naive if they think only countries like Switzerland or Finland or even Israel are the only ones who need to think about having a population with an ability to step up in a military conflict. The chances of a global conflict in the next decades are really significant and many western countries are deeply unprepared

This proposal does absolutely nothing to address that, though. It would be actively detrimental to defence, because its expensive and the people with actual military expertise think its a bad idea.