Why does Rishi if re-elected, want to bring in national service for the 18+ including mandatory drafting, yes drafting 😯?
I hear on the radio thismorning. Does he know something we don't?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
Three ways to understand this:
1) People expect Trump to win the US election.
If that happens, he will reduce funding for the UN, NATO and US military bases in Europe. That means that the UK and others will have to increase the size of its military to maintain the same level of coverage. The military was cut to the bone (as with everything else) during the Cameron and Osborne years and the cheapest way of doing this is to have national service. Otherwise - given the armed forces already have a recruitment shortage - you'd have to significantly increase the wages of service personnel.
2) Vote winner with the base
The national service idea is popular among GB watching boomers because it harks back to a time of empire and war that they romanticise about but did not live through. Amongst the generations who would actually get conscripted, the idea is poisonous and ridiculous. I almost hope someone tries this because it would massively increase anti-war movements and lead to some serious discussions of Britain's foreign policy!
3) Desperate last roll of the dice.
Nothing needs adding here.
1) People expect Trump to win the US election.
If that happens, he will reduce funding for the UN, NATO and US military bases in Europe. That means that the UK and others will have to increase the size of its military to maintain the same level of coverage. The military was cut to the bone (as with everything else) during the Cameron and Osborne years and the cheapest way of doing this is to have national service. Otherwise - given the armed forces already have a recruitment shortage - you'd have to significantly increase the wages of service personnel.
2) Vote winner with the base
The national service idea is popular among GB watching boomers because it harks back to a time of empire and war that they romanticise about but did not live through. Amongst the generations who would actually get conscripted, the idea is poisonous and ridiculous. I almost hope someone tries this because it would massively increase anti-war movements and lead to some serious discussions of Britain's foreign policy!
3) Desperate last roll of the dice.
Nothing needs adding here.
@Burnley123
Vote winner with the base
The national service idea is popular among GB watching boomers because it harks back to a time of empire and war that they romanticise about but did not live through.
The national service idea is popular among GB watching boomers because it harks back to a time of empire and war that they romanticise about but did not live through.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Elessar · 31-35, M
@Burnley123 Eh, also irl kinda. I mean the leading parties are FdI (far-right), followed by the M5S (currently for the most part talkies), and the PD (Christian dem.). Berlusconi's leftovers are hardly liberal, the league is arguably even (much) more far-right than Meloni.
The closest thing to proper liberalism is Italia Viva, which sits at like 5% if I remember well
The closest thing to proper liberalism is Italia Viva, which sits at like 5% if I remember well
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Elessar · 31-35, M
@Burnley123 I don't remember Corbyn's exact alignments on all matter, but at least over here, it's pretty much impossible finding a "serious" leftwing party. Similarly, you can't find a serious rightwing one. They're all catering to populism and trying to win voters yelling slogans and selling oversimplified solutions to complex problems. And that's an expression of the electorate: if you try being serious and stop screaming populist nonsense, voters will lose interest and go to the Salvini of your political area.
I see no solutions ahead.
I see no solutions ahead.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@Elessar That's a very reductive analysis. Populism of the left and the right is very different. In fact it's diametrically opposed.
Elessar · 31-35, M
@Burnley123 They are, but it's still populism ultimately. The promises they make during the campaign are either absolutely non-concretizable (like the right's "naval block", proposing to use the Navy to halt immigration routes), or attempting to concretize them will fail spectacularly resulting in a half-assed version of what was initially proposed (see M5S' universal basic income.. that was all but universal, and essentially an incentive to work irregularly and also get an additional paycheck at the expense of the regular workers) and/or in yet another financial blackhole (see the recent 110% superbonus, pretty much signed/prorogated by every main party including the ones that were/are nominally against it).
It's not a sustainable situation. A country can't go on forever electing populist, utterly incompetent executive that f*cks up big time until things get so bad they need to trigger a govt crisis, let a technical govt step in to do the bare minimum to stop a total meltdown and take all the blame of the previous political govt, and then repeat the cycle.
It's not a sustainable situation. A country can't go on forever electing populist, utterly incompetent executive that f*cks up big time until things get so bad they need to trigger a govt crisis, let a technical govt step in to do the bare minimum to stop a total meltdown and take all the blame of the previous political govt, and then repeat the cycle.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Elessar · 31-35, M
@Burnley123 Let me start from the end, because there's been a key misunderstanding I think:
When you said your only options are essentially centre-right neoliberalism vs. far-right conservatism, I said "here (implying: unlike there) the options are not even those".
Oh for clarity, I'm absolutely in favor of some form of UBI, if designed and implemented decently, and if it's truly universal. That thing they came up with was an "universal basic income" only in the name.
What I'm criticizing and calling populism is selling poorly thought ideas that resonate well among the masses, but that concretely are nonviable or even detrimental because there's been absolutely no medium/long term planning.
Examples: "let's shoot at the immigrant boats!" or if you want "let's send the immigrants to Rwanda!" yeah, that's absolutely ethical and won't backfire internationally, "let's cut the spending by halving the number of parliament memebers".. that'll save us what, €0.50 per person per year, at the greater cost of greatly reducing representatives?; "let's give people money and call it UBI!".. financed how? oh, we'll think about it later!.. "no to nuclear energy!! but no to solar panels on farmable land, and no to windmills, no to domestric extractions!".. to continue importing fossil from Russia/Saudi Arabia?).
I'm of course not against simply doing politics for the masses (broad yet technically correct definition of populism).. otherwise I'd be at right!
The "populism" (with the definition above) situation we have here, also, is something that I think you've left behind post-Brexit, and also the reason why Conservatives over there are in a bad spot right now: reality has hit you, people woke up, they won't believe in political fairy tales as easily any more. Over here, we haven't had anything comparable (yet? 😬), so people are still going to fall for those.
We're absolutely dealing with different situations rn
Whether we have the same traits? Again no. Labour's manifestos, though radical for a British context, were costed and planned. [...]Aside from being anti establishment, there is zero common ground.
Oh absolutely, I wasn't trying to imply at all that we were in comparable situations, actually the opposite 😋 Nor that Labour or Green and M5S are comparable: I brought the five stars up only because currently they're our main/only viable (>5%) "leftwing" party.When you said your only options are essentially centre-right neoliberalism vs. far-right conservatism, I said "here (implying: unlike there) the options are not even those".
I'm not a fan of M5S because they were pretty much a contrarian student bullshit weeter made into a political party
Are*, not were: contrarianism is pretty much one of the few constants of that party: now they're for the most part tankies, but remember that their first governing coalition, led by Conte in person, was made with Salvini's league. I've a hard time defining them "leftwing", even if now they somehow try to position themselves as some sort of "anti-right" bastion. Oh for clarity, I'm absolutely in favor of some form of UBI, if designed and implemented decently, and if it's truly universal. That thing they came up with was an "universal basic income" only in the name.
I haven't asked you to define populism. If either of us did that, we'd probably agree that it's a politics that sets itself in opposition to the political establishment and claims to be on the side of the people. 'For the many, not the few,' was a corbynite electoral slogan. So guilty, I guess.
But I think it's important defining it; this definition is broad, and it works; but I was thinking of something more specific, so I'd say not guilty.What I'm criticizing and calling populism is selling poorly thought ideas that resonate well among the masses, but that concretely are nonviable or even detrimental because there's been absolutely no medium/long term planning.
Examples: "let's shoot at the immigrant boats!" or if you want "let's send the immigrants to Rwanda!" yeah, that's absolutely ethical and won't backfire internationally, "let's cut the spending by halving the number of parliament memebers".. that'll save us what, €0.50 per person per year, at the greater cost of greatly reducing representatives?; "let's give people money and call it UBI!".. financed how? oh, we'll think about it later!.. "no to nuclear energy!! but no to solar panels on farmable land, and no to windmills, no to domestric extractions!".. to continue importing fossil from Russia/Saudi Arabia?).
I'm of course not against simply doing politics for the masses (broad yet technically correct definition of populism).. otherwise I'd be at right!
If you ever want anything at all bar minor tinkering with a system if neoliberal capitalism, then you have to attempt some kind of populism. If you are serious about winning.
I guess, but ultimately the feet need to remain in the ground. You can't replace neoliberal capitalism by selling people an utopia that cannot realistically ever happen once they vote you in, while betting that people are too stupid to realize. It'll only backfire.The "populism" (with the definition above) situation we have here, also, is something that I think you've left behind post-Brexit, and also the reason why Conservatives over there are in a bad spot right now: reality has hit you, people woke up, they won't believe in political fairy tales as easily any more. Over here, we haven't had anything comparable (yet? 😬), so people are still going to fall for those.
We're absolutely dealing with different situations rn