Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2024 8:15 pm I wonder if some of these decisions are not unconnected to the standard of Sunak's campaigning.

I think there's definitely something in that. That ludicrous story about a bunch of Tory MPs trying to abort the general election and bring Sunak down may well have been a load of old cobblers- even if it's true that sufficient letters had been sent in to the 1922 committee, Graham Brady would simply have sat on them until after the election - it seems to be a reflection of how desperate these men and women now are. They were/are prepared to do anything to scupper Sunak in their own self-interest, and that includes, ultimately, baling out in order to avoid the approaching tsunami of 3am community centre electoral humiliations. It's a sort of desperate dirty protest, to evoke an H-block image, intended to exact revenge on a lousy leader who has run out of road, regardless of how much it may fuck up the future of the Tories as a political party for generations to come.

Any chance of this overrated fool losing?

Brexit wouldn't have happened, David. And the financial crisis was in 2008. You inheritied a growing economy with the deficit peaking. And Labour has the same position on Ukraine as you do.

On the pandemic, what would be the criteria for success? Excess deaths or time spent in lockdown?

On Ukraine, there has been a consistent national position which Labour has backed. And I dare say they'd have managed the refugee situation better.

Brexit was his party's mess, and the Tories locked everyone else out of the withdrawal negotiations.

So fuck him.

Davis squints, grins and says ‘you wait and see’ when questioned about Brexit. So want to punch his smug face.

What has the voting age got to do with identity politics? Are young people all disabled black lesbians?

Couldn't they, you know, compete for young people's votes?

Don't threaten me with a good time, Andrea.

Having spent all day attacking Labour's plans to give the vote to 16 year olds the Tories have now announced that they plan to bring back national service if re-elected.

satnav wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 10:08 pm Having spent all day attacking Labour's plans to give the vote to 16 year olds the Tories have now announced that they plan to bring back national service if re-elected.

A courageous move.
It'll play well with the geriatrics and the fash.
So maybe a move to win back Reform voters.

The first comment on ConservativeHome

One last desperate punt for the out of touch,"bring back the birch" Reform vote.

How's he going to fund sticking up to 250,000 people a year through basic training and where"s the business case in spending 6 months training a squaddie, employing them for another 6 months and then watch 99% of them jack it in and go home? Add it to the £64m in unfunded tax cuts.

The other plan is for making them do one weekend a month of community service. What a load of authoritarian nonsense. Treating an entire generation like criminals.

How's he going to enforce it?

Desperate. Absolutely desperate and pathetic.

I did some "back of a fag packet" sums, then decided to check the actual facts.

Anybody who did National Service is at least 85 years old.

This is a policy to the Weatherspoons warriors who never did it, and would run a mile (well limp a mile) if asked.

Rather delightful that this insane policy announcement from the Tories coincides with Labour indicating that lowering the voting age to 16 will be in this manifesto. If you were 17 again, which party's offer would you favour?

I wonder whether anybody with video editing skills will make Reggie Perrin's "Rishi's Army".

For when the balloon goes up.

I see there's now a 2.5 Billion price tag on this.

On previous record, that will be taken out of the Military budget which grows to 2.5% GDP.


So our "boost military spending" pledge morphs into "Turn the forces into an expensive youth club".

Bones McCoy wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 11:22 pm This is a policy to the Weatherspoons warriors who never did it, and would run a mile (well limp a mile) if asked.

It’s the ol’ bone spurs preventing them serving or else they’d give Johnny Foreigner what for.

Bones McCoy wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2024 12:19 am I see there's now a 2.5 Billion price tag on this.

On previous record, that will be taken out of the Military budget which grows to 2.5% GDP.


So our "boost military spending" pledge morphs into "Turn the forces into an expensive youth club".

It's actually coming from the "UK shared prosperity fund"( which was supposed to be making up for the lost EU funding) and clamping down on tax avoidance, according to the FT.

Apart from all the old arguments against National Service, this scheme (probably dreamt up by Rishi this morning over his 'Spoons breakfast with veterans), there are two obvious flaws:
1. faced with a choice of a year FT in the forces or a year of one weekend a month with the civvy emergency services, how many are going to take the first option?
2. I'm told that it takes six months to train a modern squaddie, after which the forces will have the benefit of their services for a further six months before they can stick two fingers up at the RSM and bugger off back to civvy street. In what way does that represent value for the time and money invested in training them?

My late father did 2 years national service 1950 to 1952. Not his favourite time of life. Part of it stuck out in Egypt. Our armed services want people who want to be there not those who are there on sufference. This has all the hallmarks of a back of a fag packet policy and once you start picking at it then it will fall apart. Will it apply to all 18 year olds, or just males, and how many more wealthy families will engineer exemptions for Tarquin because of his bone spurs?

Simon

A big argument against it comes from the armed forces themselves. They don't want to be wasting their time and resources nannying surly teenagers who don't really want to be there.

Plus, the selection process is quite rigorous. As it is, quite a few applicants fail to get in. Are the Tories suggesting that selection is made easier to allow unsuitable candidates to join?

Tan has it.

Yug wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2024 7:45 am A big argument against it comes from the armed forces themselves. They don't want to be wasting their time and resources nannying surly teenagers who don't really want to be there.

Conscripts are handy as cannon fodder to keep your hardened professional soldiers alive. Project Fear you say? Yeh I’ll give you Project Fear while canvassing young parents on the doorstep. But there’s always community service so your kids can be treated like criminals at the weekends.