The Student Room Group

Compulsory Military Service for the Unemployed

Firstly please do not be rude and disrespectful.

In the wake of the EU exit, with these "immigrants" leaving and giving up their jobs I would like to suggest an idea for those who will still be unemployed.

Those who are not mentally or physically ill, out of work for a year, will have to join the Army / RAF / Navy. Effectively pre-war conscription.

Thoughts???

Scroll to see replies

It serves no purpose, we're not at war and it unfairly penalises the men and women who actually wish to serve.
Reply 2
No.

The military doesn't want them, can't afford them and can't house them.

It's a waste of time and money.

And the chances are, most wouldn't pass selection standards.

And fwiw, I'm speaking as someone who was in the forces.
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 3
Original post by Kieran1996
Firstly please do not be rude and disrespectful.

In the wake of the EU exit, with these "immigrants" leaving and giving up their jobs I would like to suggest an idea for those who will still be unemployed.

Those who are not mentally or physically ill, out of work for a year, will have to join the Army / RAF / Navy. Effectively pre-war conscription.

Thoughts???


Have you got any military experience?
Would the military want just any old person?
Does it degrade people who actually choose to serve?
Are all people who are deemed not physically/mentally ill automatically capable?
Reply 4
Original post by Gora The Xplorer
It serves no purpose, we're not at war and it unfairly penalises the men and women who actually wish to serve.


Penalise how?

Original post by Drewski
No.

The military doesn't want them, can't afford them and can't house them.

It's a waste of time and money.

And the chances are, most wouldn't pass selection standards.


Well how is the benefit system any better then?

I agree about selection standards.

Original post by Davalla
Have you got any military experience?
Would the military want just any old person?
Does it degrade people who actually choose to serve?
Are all people who are deemed not physically/mentally ill automatically capable?


I have got military experience however it was not for me and I am running off to Uni.

Well old people would be illegible, only 20 - 40 year olds would be suitable.

Well I doubt someone with an injury would be able to train so there would be no use in them joining the army.
Reply 5
Original post by Kieran1996
Well how is the benefit system any better then?

I agree about selection standards.


I have got military experience however it was not for me and I am running off to Uni.


Because the costs of accommodating tens of thousands of new recruits would be astronomical. We sold off all the old bases, we no longer have the area to house them.
And that's before you add the cost of all the extra personnel you'd need to manage those people, the admin, the training officers... all the extra equipment you need for them to train on.

And then you ignore the fact that if you've only got them for 2 years you're getting rid of them just when they could actually start being useful.

You're proposing a £20bn solution to a £1bn problem.

What's your mil experience?
Reply 6
Original post by Drewski
Because the costs of accommodating tens of thousands of new recruits would be astronomical. We sold off all the old bases, we no longer have the area to house them.
And that's before you add the cost of all the extra personnel you'd need to manage those people, the admin, the training officers... all the extra equipment you need for them to train on.

And then you ignore the fact that if you've only got them for 2 years you're getting rid of them just when they could actually start being useful.

You're proposing a £20bn solution to a £1bn problem.

What's your mil experience?


I'm not saying they would be there forever and that they would all be there at once, it would be like a waiting list, it would allow people to develop skills and do something useful when not working...

2 years? Why is there that limit?

so effectively you think it is better to keep them unemployed on benefits for life than spend more money and give them skills?

not much at all, however I fail to see how my mil. experience has anything to do with this

thanks for your valid discussion though, I know practically this would never work but it's nice to see opinions of others :smile:
Reply 7
Original post by Kieran1996
I'm not saying they would be there forever and that they would all be there at once, it would be like a waiting list, it would allow people to develop skills and do something useful when not working...

2 years? Why is there that limit?

so effectively you think it is better to keep them unemployed on benefits for life than spend more money and give them skills?

not much at all, however I fail to see how my mil. experience has anything to do with this

thanks for your valid discussion though, I know practically this would never work but it's nice to see opinions of others :smile:


You proposed it to be like conscription - conscription in the 50s was 2 years.

Do you know how many people there are in the 20-40 age group? Do you know how many new people fall into that category every year? How many people will you be proposing to take on every year? How many new tanks, trucks, ships and planes will we need for those guys to man? How much will that cost?

Why is it the military's responsibility to give those people skills and training?

I'm saying there's cost effectiveness. This solution comes nowhere near to meeting that on any level.


And yes, your military experience is relevant - if you'd been in you'd know that everyone would despise conscription.

Fwiw, I have been in the military. This would simply never work.
Original post by Kieran1996
Firstly please do not be rude and disrespectful.

In the wake of the EU exit, with these "immigrants" leaving and giving up their jobs I would like to suggest an idea for those who will still be unemployed.

Those who are not mentally or physically ill, out of work for a year, will have to join the Army / RAF / Navy. Effectively pre-war conscription.

Thoughts???


Your basically trying to invoke EU army conscription into British law. No thanks.What we do need though is a flood defence task force to protect our coasts & a huge housing project task force.
Reply 9
Original post by Drewski
You proposed it to be like conscription - conscription in the 50s was 2 years.

Do you know how many people there are in the 20-40 age group? Do you know how many new people fall into that category every year? How many people will you be proposing to take on every year? How many new tanks, trucks, ships and planes will we need for those guys to man? How much will that cost?

Why is it the military's responsibility to give those people skills and training?

I'm saying there's cost effectiveness. This solution comes nowhere near to meeting that on any level.


And yes, your military experience is relevant - if you'd been in you'd know that everyone would despise conscription.

Fwiw, I have been in the military. This would simply never work.


I think conscription was definitely the wrong word to use, I do apologise for that.

You do realise I said unemployed, I did not say everyone?

Well it's not their responsibility but at least in the event of a war we are more prepared.

I do know that it is despised but I did not really consider that using the word kinda of ruined my argument.

Original post by illegaltobepoor
Your basically trying to invoke EU army conscription into British law. No thanks.What we do need though is a flood defence task force to protect our coasts & a huge housing project task force.


well not really because if you are living at home on benefits, in some cases you want to be there. The use of the word conscription was wrong, effectively I'm proposing training for those out of employment for a year.

As for flood defence and housing, may this would be a better application? We clearly need better flood barriers and more homes to be built so those unemployed for a year or more could be trained up to take these roles.
Original post by Kieran1996
I think conscription was definitely the wrong word to use, I do apologise for that.

You do realise I said unemployed, I did not say everyone?

Well it's not their responsibility but at least in the event of a war we are more prepared.

I do know that it is despised but I did not really consider that using the word kinda of ruined my argument.


So how many are we talking? Do you know?

And how many wars have we fought in the last 60 years that we've needed conscriptees for? Wars aren't fought like that any more. We don't send battalions of men over the top of the trenches.

There's no reason whatsoever to make this the military's problem. The MoD simply wouldn't cope. Hell, just consider the difference in wages between someone claiming JSA and even the lowest level private in the Army. You tell me that it's worth the money...

You're proposing a 19th century solution to something which isn't that much of a problem.
Original post by Kieran1996

well not really because if you are living at home on benefits, in some cases you want to be there. The use of the word conscription was wrong, effectively I'm proposing training for those out of employment for a year.

As for flood defence and housing, may this would be a better application? We clearly need better flood barriers and more homes to be built so those unemployed for a year or more could be trained up to take these roles.


To be fair we could have a whole range of new assets in this country if we prioritise the needs of the working class but I am afraid it will never happen. We don't live in a country that looks out for the little guy in society. Look what Osborne did to the disabled.If you want to play the good Samaritan I suggest you do your works in the private sector because as soon as the Tories get a sniff of making people work for free they will try and jump start their next slavery projects by the thousands!
Original post by Drewski
So how many are we talking? Do you know?

And how many wars have we fought in the last 60 years that we've needed conscriptees for? Wars aren't fought like that any more. We don't send battalions of men over the top of the trenches.

There's no reason whatsoever to make this the military's problem. The MoD simply wouldn't cope. Hell, just consider the difference in wages between someone claiming JSA and even the lowest level private in the Army. You tell me that it's worth the money...

You're proposing a 19th century solution to something which isn't that much of a problem.


I think you have confidently made me realise my idea is flawed... Cheers :smile:

Atleast speaking to you I have realised some people / somethings will not go back to "how they used to be".
Original post by Gora The Xplorer
It serves no purpose, we're not at war and it unfairly penalises the men and women who actually wish to serve.


We have a paid, voluntary standing army even though we're not at war, and it serves a purpose.

I think this is a good idea. It's educational, it'd reduce crime and make people more responsible citizens.
Original post by JordanL_
We have a paid, voluntary
standing army even though we're not at war, and it serves a purpose.

That's the key word. That's why the forces are as good as they are, have the motivation they do and can do the things they do - because they chose to be there.

You put people there who don't want to be there and the cohesion disappears, as does the effectiveness.
Original post by Mathemagicien
Compulsory cheap labour service would make more sense...


Human rights would never accept that though
Original post by Kieran1996
Basically the scum who want to sit on their arses all day and claim benefits are beyond help...


A crude, crass and moronic simplification of what I said.

There are better (and, critically, far cheaper) ways of helping them than throwing them in a uniform, giving them a rifle and telling them to play soldiers for 2 years.
Original post by Mathemagicien
I don't see how its any different to military conscription in terms of these 'morals' and 'ethics' and such


I guess, a lot of prison systems do that already. It's successful in Norway.

Original post by Drewski
A crude, crass and moronic simplification of what I said.


Moronic?

So you deny the people who refuse to work because they know they can claim benefits are scum?

I am not saying everyone who claims benefits are scum, just those who manipulate the system.
Original post by Kieran1996
Firstly please do not be rude and disrespectful.

In the wake of the EU exit, with these "immigrants" leaving and giving up their jobs I would like to suggest an idea for those who will still be unemployed.

Those who are not mentally or physically ill, out of work for a year, will have to join the Army / RAF / Navy. Effectively pre-war conscription.

Thoughts???


a more practical plan would be to use these people to generate energy. the French company EDF are not going to build the desperately needed new power station at Hinckley Point now that we have destroyed our relationship with Europe.
a simple array of exercise bikes would generate enough power for a city the size of Manchester.
as a result these people would lose weight, contribute to the National Budget and earn their benefits.*
Original post by the bear
a more practical plan would be to use these people to generate energy. the French company EDF are not going to build the desperately needed new power station at Hinckley Point now that we have destroyed our relationship with Europe.
a simple array of exercise bikes would generate enough power for a city the size of Manchester.
as a result these people would lose weight, contribute to the National Budget and earn their benefits.*


well well

I could see that working, just put some British soaps in front of them on large TVs and it would work

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending