Add Your Idea

Re-Introduce National Service for youth unemployed.

10 Comments 30th October 2014

Re-introduce compulsory National Service for anyone aged 18 or over who isn't in further education and is unemployed. Particularly those individuals who have NEVER had a job.

Compulsory National Service could also be used as an alternative to prison in cases of petty crime or reoffence.

They could be paid a wage, say at NMW, which would be partly funded by the reduction in paying out dole money or not having to keep them in prison.

Why does this matter?

This idea is important as it would reduce the number of unemployed youths that hang around street corners and town centres terrorising law-abiding citizens and instill in these people a sence of national pride and discipline.

Todays youth generation need to have their attitudes changed and begiven something to believe in and to be proud of. A term in the Services could teach them a trade and give them the necessary skills and experience for securing employment after their service is concluded.

We might even be able to fill the skills gap and not have to rely on foreign workers to fill some skilled vacancies.

The prison population, with all of its associated costs, could be reduced significantly if those youths imprisoned for petty crime or reoffending were given National Service as an alternative. I can see this being a much better way to reform these characters than prison ever can.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

Highlighted posts


10 Responses to Re-Introduce National Service for youth unemployed.

  1. Mike Lange says:

    I served in H.M Forces for 12 Years in the National Service years.It taught me discipline and respect for others.It must be a cheaper and better option than just giving money to these layabouts for nothing.If I was younger I would like to knock these wasters into a self disciplined condition.Put them on Active Service and wake them up.I was on Active Service in Borneo 1963 and feel my suggestion is justified.
    Michael Lange (Ex Royal Artillery,Royal air Force and Navy)1958-1970)

  2. PT says:

    I think it’s a great idea. I think that National Service would be brilliant for anyone coming out of school and not going into further education. Especially for anyone coming out of an unstructured family background it will instil discipline and a sense of teamwork and community I don’t think we see as often as we used to. I was lucky, my parents dinned it into me, but we can’t blame kids who don’t have that instilled in them, for not having a sense of fair play or honour or duty (to themselves, each other, their communities). How could they?

    I don’t refer to people who are unemployed as layabouts or wasters though, because I’ve been long term unemployed myself and I know it wasn’t for want of trying. Some do try very hard, but if there are three jobs and three hundred applicants…. guess what? You can’t call 297 people wasters by default.

  3. Ray Bottomley says:

    National Service is the answer.Young men and women at the age of 16 should be given two options, either stay on for one more year to attain A levels then uni, or national service. To me National service from ages of 16 to 19 should be compulsory. It will offer the following benefits;
    1. Take kids off the streets and into paid for accomdataion – old RAF and Army bases would be ideal.
    2. Would save on jobseekers allowance as they would be employed and have a minimum wage
    3. Work in the community, floods, assistamce to the aged etc etc
    4. teach them discipline, repect and honour to others and more importantly themselves
    5. teach the kids valuable life lessons, money management and basic skills
    6. Give parents around the country time, space and peace of mind that their kids are safe
    Come on Mr caneron, please please consider this

  4. Jon says:

    We could make all community workers unemployed as the kids will be doing it, we could make all Council gardners unemployed as the cheap kids will do the work, likewise anyone with a semi skilled physical job can be replaced by cheap child labour. Perhaps we should get some of the child labour experts over from India and other SE Asian countries.

    Does the our highly skilled and professional Armed Forces really want a load of unmotivated dossers?

    What trade do you learn in the infantry?

  5. J Robertson says:

    Bad idea.
    (1) People react to strangers, discplin and physical excercise in different ways. For some people it’s unpleasant. Ask people who did national service in the past.
    (2) Some people are able to contribute a lot at a young age by creating jobs, music, or whatever. Less so if in uniform.
    (3) A minority of ex-service people have trouble re-integrating and end-up as heavy drinkers, rough sleepers or whatever. Conclude what you like from that.

    I should probably post an idea that full time soldiers should perform trades in peace time, for example by running some ambulances or bidding as a regiment to do building jobs. That way, the minimum necessary full-time military are more prepared for civilian life and cost less to the taxpayer.

  6. Common Sense says:

    Right, so when there is mass unemployment because of failing schools and mass immigration to the country leaving no opportunities for teens they should be forced to do national service instead of pursuing their own goals and aspirations just to please people in positions of privilege?
    Don’t think so somehow, and I can guarantee it won’t be happening to non Muslims for a start off, they will have a religious reason for not doing it.

  7. The Fenners says:

    I did at first think this was a great idea but thanks to the good comments above my opinion has changed. National Service to a country that looks after it’s own people first yes, but not this country who expects manners and discipline from Brits but turns a blind eye to foriegn ignorance and bad behaviour. The rest of my bit goes on more in a right wing sort of way. Wink Wink ………………………………………… !

  8. Maxell says:

    I don’t think we could do this in a multicultural society as a lot of those called up would be fighting for the other side in times of war. There is no coherent society anymore to allow this.

  9. Rockape1973 says:

    As a former ex serviceman (still deeply involved with military affairs) with a uniformed career of over 35 years I have 3 reservations about the proposal to reintroduce national service.

    My reservations, set out below, are;

    Financial.
    Professionalism.
    Geopolitical / Historical.

    1. FINANCIAL.
    It has been argued here that the introduction of national service would ease pressure on prison budgets and social welfare costs to the state (dole). In reality the arithmetic is simple; feeding, equipping, training and leading people costs almost exactly the same whichever agency does it. This proposal would merely result in transferring costs from prison and welfare budgets to the MOD budget. No net savings to the state (taxpayer). Indeed going a step further the mobility, skill requirements and structural nature of the armed forces is such that the costs might, of necessity be higher.

    2. PROFESSIONALISM.
    The British armed forces are counted amongst the most respected and professional in the world. This professionalism has its roots in a number of things but particularly the length of time served by our servicemen most of whom have 9, 12 and 22+ year careers. This is long enough to develop outstanding skill levels and a deep understanding of the moral, cultural and traditional values of their particular units.

    It is interesting to compare the speed of non commissioned promotions in the UK armed forces to others. We regularly hear of American SNCOs (Sergeants and above) with 2 and 3 years of service whereas in the UK establishment 9 – 12 years would be perfectly reasonable for promotion to Sgt.

    Arguably the introduction of a 1 or 2 year national service scheme would dilute the professionalism, pride and culture of our increasingly technical and highly skilled military workforce down to the level of some \’other\’, less respected nations.

    It takes time and effort to develop a man or woman to the level expected of the British, and can not be rushed without negatively impacting the pride and sense of identity of professional career sailors, soldiers and airman / women.

    3. GEOPOLITICAL / HISTORICAL.
    Reference is often made to what a good thing national service was in the past, and this is quite possibly true, in context.

    The national service period which ended in 1962 was a de-facto extension of the 2nd world war after which conscription was not ended, it simply continued into the post war era. At that time Britain had massive overseas commitments, a process of decolonisation to manage and a series of small but vicious wars against communist insurgents. The overall military establishment was huge by comparison to the present day.

    It was also a time of (with the greatest of respect) relatively low tech \’labour intensive\’ warfare when infantrymen (not skilled tradesmen) required less training and stronger, different, styles of leadership. These days are behind us.

    A very large number of \’support arm\’ roles have been civilianised and are now carried out by contractors. This is not only true of \’high tech\’ roles but also of the menial tasks carried out by national servicemen.

    In the era when I joined there were regimental game keepers, the trade of blacksmith and farrier, vast numbers of bricklayers, butchers, typists, MT drivers and dental nurses almost of which are now jobs done by civilians and contractors.

    In the RAF we had legions of TAGs (Trades Assistant General) who were droves of unskilled labourers used for sweeping the roads of RAF stations, counting bedding in the guardroom store and a range of other things which are either no longer done or are carried out by civilian contractors.

    The entire shape and context of the UK forces has changed immeasurably since those days. National service would simply be inappropriate.

    Finally, and very importantly, the national security threat profile has changed. The second world war is over, the threat of a massed land invasion of Europe (by armoured infantry) has changed, we no longer have an empire to defend or a significant presence in Germany, Cyprus, Malta or East of Suez in Hong Kong and Singapore. All of this has been recognised and adapted to in a range of unwelcome but pragmatic defence restructuring / butchering measures during the 1970s, 80s and 90s.

    The British armed forces of the 21st century are going to be incredibly highly trained, lean and agile, superbly motivated, inspirationally led and above all driven by an awareness of their own enduring traditions and values.

    The days of moustachioed Winsor Davis Sergeant Majors overseeing conscripts painting coal black are long gone and there is no place on the British military horizon for a reintroduction of national service, as far as I can see through my well worn monocle.

Comment on this idea

Good idea? Bad idea? Let us know your thoughts.


Back to top
Add Your Idea