2024 General Election
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Forest Hillbilly  in a hidey-hole 26 May 24 4.27am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Great idea. Lets train the youth to shoot, stab and kill properly
"The facts have changed", Rishi Sunak |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
Badger11  Beckenham 26 May 24 8.15am |
|
|---|---|
|
It has some merit but like Labour says this is just a promise to have a review, there are no details. That said it seems a little lopsided, 365 days in the military or 25 days as a weekend civilian. I think we know which one they will choose. It needs to be comparable if you can give up a year for the army why not the NHS.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Matov 26 May 24 10.00am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
It has some merit but like Labour says this is just a promise to have a review, there are no details. Because it ain't going to happen. And let compare like with like. Starmer promises the 'kidz' a vote at 16 (and all part of the process of getting us back into the EU) whilst Sunak dangles the carrot of compulsory trench warfare. The notion of this election being anything else other than a farce is simply undeniable now. It is making a mockery of democracy.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 26 May 24 10.04am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Matov
Because it ain't going to happen. And let compare like with like. Starmer promises the 'kidz' a vote at 16 (and all part of the process of getting us back into the EU) whilst Sunak dangles the carrot of compulsory trench warfare. The notion of this election being anything else other than a farce is simply undeniable now. It is making a mockery of democracy. So as well as getting the vote at 16 they will be able to drink watch p*** and serve on the Front Line in a war. Not to mention that they will be treated as adults by the criminal justice system.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Teddy Eagle  26 May 24 10.15am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Matov
Because it ain't going to happen. And let compare like with like. Starmer promises the 'kidz' a vote at 16 (and all part of the process of getting us back into the EU) whilst Sunak dangles the carrot of compulsory trench warfare. The notion of this election being anything else other than a farce is simply undeniable now. It is making a mockery of democracy. The vote at 16 has come up on here before. Personally I have no objection for those who are at work - no taxation, etc. Of course whether they take up the option is another question.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Matov 26 May 24 10.15am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
So as well as getting the vote at 16 they will be able to drink watch p*** and serve on the Front Line in a war. Not to mention that they will be treated as adults by the criminal justice system.
For my money, a Labour win, and subsequent second referendum on the EU is now an absolute given and they know they need to ensure the vote is won in such a way to give it the veneer of respectability. I would assume they have gamed it in advance to anticipate a mass boycott from the Anti-EU lobby so need to bump up the numbers voting the way they want. Forget this GE. It is done and dusted for Labour barring a potential twist even I can only write whilst wincing at its sheer hyperbole (it's possible that Sunak might announce he will no longer be standing in his seat meaning he is effectively resigning. Johnson will then emerge as a candidate in a super-safe seat and effectively take on the mantle as potential PM should the Tories turn it around but please accept this as the musings of a travel-weary brain) so we are now into the space of what happens afterwards.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 26 May 24 10.34am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
The vote at 16 has come up on here before. Personally I have no objection for those who are at work - no taxation, etc. Of course whether they take up the option is another question. I thought they don't leave school until 18 these days, or did I imagine that? My issue is that a 16yo stabs a victim and the lefty lawyer will bleat that at that age their brains aren't properly formed until early twenties so they make bad decisions. Same lawyers and mates will argue that they should get the vote at 16, well which is it?
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Teddy Eagle 26 May 24 12.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
I thought they don't leave school until 18 these days, or did I imagine that? My issue is that a 16yo stabs a victim and the lefty lawyer will bleat that at that age their brains aren't properly formed until early twenties so they make bad decisions. Same lawyers and mates will argue that they should get the vote at 16, well which is it? They do unless they can find an apprenticeship, in which case they can leave school at 16 and will pay income tax.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 26 May 24 1.39pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
They do unless they can find an apprenticeship, in which case they can leave school at 16 and will pay income tax. Ah thanks
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| rob1969 Banstead Surrey 26 May 24 4.17pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
They do unless they can find an apprenticeship, in which case they can leave school at 16 and will pay income tax. What happens if they leave work after a few weeks - or get sacked ?Back o school - I doubt it !
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| steeleye20 Croydon 26 May 24 7.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
The decision to scrap national service was vindicated by the Falklands War, so I don't think the defence chiefs would welcome this but see it as a nuisance. The army around 100,000 in 2010, now 70,000 approx. Doesn't look at all convincing, recruitment a privatisation failure. Volunteering is great depending what for, should be encouraged, personally I'd get them working on sewage. That would certainly be character building.
Edited by steeleye20 (26 May 2024 7.13pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| georgenorman 26 May 24 7.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
The decision to scrap national service was vindicated by the Falklands War, so I don't think the defence chiefs would welcome this but see it as a nuisance. The army around 100,000 in 2010, now 70,000 approx. Doesn't look at all convincing, recruitment a privatisation failure. Volunteering is great depending what for, should be encouraged, personally I'd get them working on sewage. That would certainly be character building.
Edited by steeleye20 (26 May 2024 7.13pm) Of course, it was Attlee's Labour government that brought it in in the first place.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.