Conservative vote winner?

Brigadier said:
So, my second - born - who is doing his A levels, and has a part-time job (at which he was yesterday, is at today, and will be at tomorrow) - will be expected to give up one or both of them, to spend a year gaining no more than he already is, or picking up rubbish on a weekend instead?

Who is going to compensate him, for losing 25% of his wages?

Flag-shaggery for the gammons......


Great "plan" (y) :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
And all those like him of course
 
Brigadier said:
So, my second - born - who is doing his A levels, and has a part-time job (at which he was yesterday, is at today, and will be at tomorrow) - will be expected to give up one or both of them, to spend a year gaining no more than he already is, or picking up rubbish on a weekend instead?

Who is going to compensate him, for losing 25% of his wages?

Flag-shaggery for the gammons......


Great "plan" (y) :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Just one example of why this won't get off the ground, even if by some miracle the Tories win the election.

It'll be a bit like stopping the small boats or the Rwanda scheme, 'it's happening ... it's happening ... it's happening' all the while in reality it's not happening.
 
Munroast said:
think it is a brilliant idea myself, a year in the army would transform the lives of our feckless youth. Exercise, healthy diet, proper socialising. And on top of that it will help to strengthen our armed forces in an ever increasingly unstable wold.
Click to expand...
Except all your points are wrong.

If you want a strong armed forces you should 1st start with those that want to be in them.

How many can't get in because of the cutbacks. But you think those with no interest will make up for it!
 
Mottie said:
Oh, so today you want an argument? You didn’t the other day, I wonder why that was. :rolleyes: I did get what I voted for. We left the EU. I’d have preferred a cleaner break. That’s what I didn’t get. I’m happy enough with what we got though.
Click to expand...
No. No argument wanted.

Just logical thought processes.

1st you say you didn't get what you wanted. Then you say you did.

Difficult to follow that logic
 
Bod ... said:
It simply would not work. Our youth today simply won't have it
Then how do you police it?

Young Muslim youth who have no affiliation or loyalty to the flag or country.

Young Palestinian supporters would be at cross purposes as in any event of war, we would be on the side of Israel.

Eastern European parents would up sticks and go home. Rather than have their children join up.


Young British kids would think **** that I'm not defending this country to protect the lot that won't serve.

The battle for number 10 should be the government who will deal with law and order, respect for others and generaly uniting the nation. And living standards.
Click to expand...
And I should have added that the rich will just pay so that their children don't have to serve.

"Why should (some will argue) why should they serve when professional footballers don't have to."

Mykhailo Mudryk plays on the wing for Chelsea. He earns millions why his countrymen die on the front line defending his country.
 
John said

" Lucy Fisher and George Parker in London and Jennifer Williams in Manchester

12 MINUTES AGO



Prime minister Rishi Sunak’s pledge to reintroduce compulsory UK national service, including assigning up to 30,000 18-year-olds to the military, was rejected last week by one his own defence ministers.



Defence personnel minister Andrew Murrison warned of a hit to morale, headcount and resources if “potentially unwilling national service recruits” were introduced alongside Britain’s professional armed forces.



In a written answer in parliament last Thursday, Murrison said there were no plans to revive national service, which was scrapped in 1960, just two days before Sunak put the policy at the heart of the Conservative election manifesto.



“If potentially unwilling national service recruits were to be obliged to serve alongside the professional men and women of our armed forces, it could damage morale, recruitment and retention and would consume professional military and naval resources,” Murrison said. “If, on the other hand, national service recruits were kept in separate units, it would be difficult to find a proper and meaningful role for them, potentially harming motivation and discipline.”



FT.com
 
Bod ... said:
John said

" Lucy Fisher and George Parker in London and Jennifer Williams in Manchester

12 MINUTES AGO



Prime minister Rishi Sunak’s pledge to reintroduce compulsory UK national service, including assigning up to 30,000 18-year-olds to the military, was rejected last week by one his own defence ministers.



Defence personnel minister Andrew Murrison warned of a hit to morale, headcount and resources if “potentially unwilling national service recruits” were introduced alongside Britain’s professional armed forces.



In a written answer in parliament last Thursday, Murrison said there were no plans to revive national service, which was scrapped in 1960, just two days before Sunak put the policy at the heart of the Conservative election manifesto.



“If potentially unwilling national service recruits were to be obliged to serve alongside the professional men and women of our armed forces, it could damage morale, recruitment and retention and would consume professional military and naval resources,” Murrison said. “If, on the other hand, national service recruits were kept in separate units, it would be difficult to find a proper and meaningful role for them, potentially harming motivation and discipline.”



FT.com
Click to expand...
And thats why it's a con.

Even there own party know it.

But it's rabble rousing. Look on here for example
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top