Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The £2.5bn would be better spent improving pay and conditions for Regular and Reserve personnel. The only advantage I can see from the scheme would be an increase in the number of somewhat trained reserves available to the RN/RM in an emergency. Even if the large majority would only be suitable for non frontline jobs it would at least free up trained and qualified personnel for employment in frontline tasks.


Never gonna happen as they got no chance of winning gain


We thought the same for Labour years ago. Give it a decade, people will probably be shouting Labour out.


By then the Tories will be under new management. Who knows what their priorities might be. But for certain this is going nowhere for 4/5 years.




Dont forget they say some of the costs for the scheme – pie in the sky accounting- will be funded by ‘tackling down on tax evasion’
ROFL while drunk at that one.

Our ardent government defender Sean has gone all quiet


Because unlike some big mouths I don’t feel the need to spout off on every story.

Just because I don’t plan to follow you crazy conspiracy types and vote for the fascists at Reform, doesn’t mean I support the Tories. I support good ideas whoever comes up with them. However this national service idea is not one of those.


I got the impression this was to be a part time gig. That likely means the military options are basically the Reserves. They are already set up for part timers.


Civilian side 1 weekend a month unpaid, military 1 year full time with a “allowance/pocket money” and presumably food/housing.


And there is the issue, just where are we going to ‘house’ an extra 30000 people given the state of current accomodation within the armed forces.
Not entirely sure about both the Army and RAF, but 12 months service is of very little use to the RN, as it takes about that long to get from new entry to phase 2/3 training dependent on trade.
A little more joined up thinking required I image.


So a sensible person would join the Reserves instead. You actually get paid, similar commitment, University option. Bet the politicians haven’t thought how an 18 year old in the Reserves is to be treated.


Not so. part time for most but ‘full time’ for 30,000 military stream

It is likely there would be some sort of reimbursement for the military stream, given it would be a year long.”
The community service would be 25 days unpaid , spread over 1 weekend a month over 1 year


As someone who has to do workforce planning and finding training and supervisors for our actually dedicated students and apprentices for emergency care services in the NHS…I would be so pleased to have a load of 18 year olds dumped on my services for 25 days in a year before being rotated around for a new lot…..if the NHS is asked to do this it will cause massive disruption and increased demand on staff..I suspect people in the forces are feeling the same sort of WTF…..

Last edited 1 month ago by Jonathan

Perhaps they should work on farms and create local groups to work within the local community


Well if your a county lad like me then, your children do get involved in agriculture…but since farms generally have very funny working hours that are compressed into specific hours ( like very early morning for the fruit pick to go to the supermarket) and most of our kids live in cities miles away from the farms….it’s not so much of a going idea…unless your willing to shift them all into caravans onto the farms during the correct season and take them out of school…

maybe as an idea…we actually give them all really good quality apprenticeships in the jobs we need so we actually train up and keep the 300,000 nursing and care staff we need….


The biggest positive I can see from this is that is has raised an important discussion point. Several European nations already run schemes like this and, for example, rhe one in Norway is very popular with 18 year olds there. Whether the auK is capable of running a similar scheme remains to be seen. If it was run by the military, then possibly, if it was run by Capita, who run current recruitment, or the Civil Service, then there isn’t a chance in hell of it working.

Phil Chadwick

The application process needs to be radically changed. If there is to be a few thousand 18 year olds compelled to serve, then why not open up the Careers Offices and let the RN handle recruitment. Simplify the process of joining. How does one serve for a single year though? It’s too short to be effective. I suggest that after recruits have passed basic training, they are then offered a choice, that they can carry on into Part 2 training in their chosen Branch, with the offer of a full 22 Year contract on passing, or they can choose to leave the Royal Navy, with no harm done. Investing in new People costs a lot of money, and for that you would expect some kind of return that benefits both the service and the individual.


Unless the system has changed since I joined, I don’t think there is a need to do this. You sign on the dotted line for 22, with the caveat that your earliest get out is after a minimum of 18 months service? I guess with your suggestion you are just moving the point at which one commits, so you may remove a handful of people who are disgruntled and unhappy for 12 to 14 months post training?


Recently in Denmark where this kind of process is ongoing seems to be working according to a young lady who was running the entrance to the military museum in Copenhagen it is expected to produce a large reserve force for the Danish military.


And Denmark has had it for years but only takes a small number
“Last year, 4,700 people served military service, of which about 25% were women. This number will be increased to 5,000 per year.
Denmark’s armed forces currently number about 20,000 active personnel, including some 9,000 professional troops.” -BBC

stephen ball

I think the world all has the same problem a population that is living longer.

So how does a country stall/hold back each years cohort?

Here in the UK education is up till the age of 18 now. Then many go on the university and gain nothing.

With a national service, I think it is good for a year. EG RNLI, Mountain Rescue, St Johns Ambulance, Forestry Commission (forest fire, field fire), Coastguard other organization similar to these.
It will get youngster’s out in the countryside camping and hiking, living outside, First Aid, teamwork.


As the civilian side is only supposed to be 1 weekend a month (presumably to avoid paying people) not much will be achieved. But anyway the Tories are going to get a stuffing on 4/7 and the whole thing will be forgotten.

stephen ball

I think it will come back if torys fail to win, Strarmer’s Labour is a Labour of service(his motto).

With automation becoming more and more common, need to keep the plebs busy.

stephen ball

The UK state pension age is 66 now but will increase to 67 between 2026 and 2028, and to 68 from 2044.

In the period March to May 1992, there were 984,000 people aged 18 to 24 in full-time education. In May to July 2016, there were 1.87 million, approximately 1 in every 3 people, aged 18 to 24 in full-time education.

Therefore UK needs to stall/hold back a years cohort before they join the workforce. Unless we magically create 1mill jobs from somewhere?


A years cohort held back?
For the non military stream, which is most ‘yoof’ its only 25 days done as 1 weekend a month for 12 months.

Louis Gordon

How do you pay those people for the year? many people leave college at 18 and go straight into full time work or education while working part time. Making them do some kind of national service would just set them back a year and would be a net loss in tax revenue.

148 lad

were you on the Bristol?


To many people finding ways to say NO to this proposal (not just here but especially the ToL) , not enough readers giving suggestions on how it could be implemented, how it would be feasible and positive. The probable issues and ways to address them are important. Someone posted here that 5,000 young recruits having participated in such a scheme and found it to their liking and decide to extend another year, or 5 would transform the RN and its critical sister RFA.


People aren’t interested in thinking of ways to implement it because.

  1. They think it’s a stupid idea that needs killing off.
  2. They believe the Tories are in for a kicking on the 4th and the whole thing will be forgotten on the 5th.
John Smith

It’s a really stupid idea that has no merit but let’s play along.

To make this work you need:

A civil service agency to manage and enforce it. (At a time when there is a CS recruitment freeze and we are cutting MOD civil servants that are actively helping the fleet).

Significant enlargement of the Vetting Agency (At a time its struggling to grow to support current demand).

Massive infrastructre investment in training facilites and naval bases.

Significant increase in dental/medical staff (where are they coming from?)

Significant increase in training staff (where are they coming from?)

They will all need a pension. (That money would be better spent giving current AB a 40% pay rise to make it attractive).

What jobs are they going to be doing as its take 15-18months for most to be useable in a position.

None of this benefits the current regular forces, putting bums on seats is meaningless if they are unmotivated and barely trained with little to no experience.


Why would people say that is a good idea when they think that it stinks?

You be positive if you want to but you can’t tell other people how they think.

Tony Rosier

It’s a great idea, some of the cadets will like it and stay on some won’t but better that way it gives them the chance to see what they are getting.


Having served for 25 years in the Fleet Air Arm this will be a nightmare. The Navy needs volunteers not pressed men and girls who rely on mobile phones and Facebook to survive. The typical 18 year old today has no respect no ambition and no sense of country. There will be the odd exemption to this but few and far between. Can’t wait to see how many don’t even show up….no one could police it.


Perhaps read the article before commenting?

“Less than 4% of the approximately 750,000 18-year olds in the UK would be able to take up one of the 30,000 military placements that would be made available. This is an important point and the military would be able to vet and select from the best available, weeding out the most unmotivated or actively obstructive candidates….”

And I’m pretty sure the teenagers would probably describe in equally disparaging terms. You’d both be wrong, inter-generational warfare only encourages our enemies abroad. Spreading disharmony in the west, trying to undermine the cohesion of our society, is a major tactic of Putin’s trolls.


I suggest you give it some thought before commenting. We can’t get people through the recruiting system in a timely fashion now, besides its weakness in identifying unsuitables who waste training establishment time. Just how do you think we are going to ‘vet’ 4 percent of 750k efficiently!
And how easily you used Russian trolls. No one undermines the West any greater than the people leading the West. Grow up, fool!


Totally agree someone who knows the system????


What do you, the pro Russian troll, know about independent, conscious thought? How does it feel being one of Putin’s useful idiots?

Last edited 1 month ago by Sean

Clearly you have never served in the RN. It’s a proud professional service who people are 100 percent volunteers unlike most forces. I have worked with services who have so called conscripts and weekend warriors…. Best of luck with that.Pay the current lads a decent wage give them better facilities ships and aircraft and stop wasting money on such stupid schemes that to be honest will never get off the ground unless we go to war.


And you clearly never had any education, otherwise you would have read my comment before spouting your nonsense.
Did I say I supported the national service plan? No I did not, because I don’t.
What I did do was;
(a) point out that you were overlooking important points from the article, such was your need to rant
(b) your disrespectful and discriminatory language towards the youth of today.

You’re clearly both a fool and a bigot.


No inter-generational warfare here, there were the same amount of useless indifferent tossers when i was serving as there is now. I want to see the Regulars and Reserves properly established with the more than adequate amount of motivated volunteers that we have in this country efficiently and correctly recruited, fed, housed and trained. The rest of them can do enforced litter picking or tree planting or whatever the idea is, just keep them away from the Forces.


I think your comment

“men and girls who rely on mobile phones and Facebook to survive. The typical 18 year old today has no respect no ambition and no sense of country.”

Is pretty disrespectful and inaccurate in describing the youth of today. Did you have a mobile phone and Facebook when you were a youth? I don’t think so. You use of “typical” means this is your opinion of most of the youth, not just a useless minority.

Personally I find it disappointing that your bigotry was picked up by the recruiters and you were allowed to serve. I expect our servicemen to be the best of our society and you clearly fail with your attitude.

Last edited 1 month ago by Sean

At last.. someone who understands


“Understands nothing” you mean.
You can probably relate…

Louis Gordon

“The typical 18 year old today has no respect no ambition and no sense of country.” That’s not been my experience at all, most 18 year olds are good people with ambitions, it’s a select few that make the rest look bad.

Whale Island Zookeeper

To me it seems many of them are just bereft; but they don’t know what it is they are lacking.

I note South Asian kids don’t seem to suffer this lack.


Agreed, each generation has its small, bad minority. The latest is no different.


Don’t think this will happen anyway, but…

There are about 750,000 18 year olds (each year) of whom only a maximum of 30,000 or in other words 4% would join the military. That suggests those who choose the military would be fairly well motivated. I note the article mentions the RN alone getting about 29,000 applications a year already so the increase in numbers aren’t huge.

It would probably make sense for the army to take the whole intake though. A year allows firva reasonable amount of training before conscripts either join full time, join reserves or complete their year. That could help build a reserve army for home defense and civil emergency.


If you want to improve the personnel situation across the armed forces, focus the funding on recruitment and retention and quality of life.

The one thing we never seem to touch on is the “professional reserve” – when I left the RN I signed on the dotted line (again) to say I was required to turn up if summonsed for the next 3 years, and my S6 respirator was vacuum sealed in a bag and given back to me. However, we never call up these people, we don’t make these reservists pitch up for 1 week or even 1 weekend a year, to get briefings on new kit, do some fire fighting or whatever. I am thinking RAF and Army would benefit even more (having joined the TA 10 years after leaving the RN). Why do we neglect this source of experienced, highly trained personnel when we talk about reserves and boosting numbers?


Excellent idea.

Whale Island Zookeeper

How to structure reserves is one of those bottomless topics with lots of twists and turns to get lost within.

I think the biggest mistake was taking ‘ships’ away from the RNR. Something to focus training around instead of training being classroom or simulator based.

And perhaps operating a separate service outside the RN would be an idea too? A service that acknowledges it’s core is experienced and not fresh out of Raleigh; somewhere weekend Queeg’s cannot get a foothold to degrade a unit’s performance.

I think a good model to follow would be that of that Danish Naval Home Guard. To save time I will lift a paragraph straight from WIkiepdia.

The Naval Home Guard (Marinehjemmeværnet) deals with securing naval installations, patrolling of the Danish territorial waters, and carries out Search and Rescue missions. It supports scientific research for Danish universities, provides vessels for police and customs operations ashore, and supports exercises and training of other military units (navy, special operations forces, etc.).

The Danish Naval Home Guard is commanded by a full service naval captain (kommandør) and a staff of professional full-service personnel. The organisation was totally revised by 1 January 2017. The professional staff is supported by voluntary service staff personnel of experts, planning personnel, advisors, specialists and instructors.
The Navy Home Guard comprises 35 flotillas (company sized units), with 30 “general-purpose” flotillas equipped with 900 klassen and 800 klassen ships, along with one flotilla equipped with 2 trailer-based speedboats and command vehicles. Their primary missions include surveillance, picture building, and security in territorial waters, as well as search and rescue operations.

Additionally, the Navy Home Guard maintains four highly specialized Maritime Force Protection (MFP) flotillas, utilizing speedboats and drones for harbor protection and escorts. These 35 units are always on a 1-hour call for search and rescue, military, and police deployments.

Alongside its operational prowess, the Navy Home Guard has two music corps and a staff unit.

The flotillas are all commanded by volunteer naval lieutenants (kaptajnløjtnanter).

Denmark’s geography is different to ours. But something similar could be made to work. The UK lacks inshore maritime policing unlike the rest of Europe.

comment image

Steven Alfred Rake

The idea on National Service is a good thing and should envelope all governmental organisations like the MoD, NHS, CS, Police, Fire and even down to working for the local councils so that there is a choice for people who are not comfortable in a uniform. Part of that service should involve learning English and learning a trade so that the young lad or lass gets some thing out of the experiance of their NS which should be 2 years minimum, this could also be extended to people who what to emigrate to the UK so that they are giving something to the country rather than just taking . But yet again this particular half baked idea is neither one thing or the other just like the promise of 2.5% before 2030 knowing that by mid 2024 the Cons will be out so is just another gimmick.


Its one weekend a month for 1 year for community service. 25 days.
This sort of thing requires supervisors , but as you rightly said its just an election gimmick


If you consider…if your putting an 18 year old in a healthcare setting they are going to need at least 2 hours of direct supervision a day…so 25 days that’s 50 hours…if 100,000 got sent to the nhs that’s 5 million hours of supervision a year.


You mean like a nursery for 18 year olds.. somewhere to leave them before they grow up!
You’re right, it’s a nonsense gimmick or a lead before they force people to go get bombed by Russia in Ukraine

Last edited 1 month ago by FLJ3
Louis Gordon

2 years minimum is ridiculous, most people are perfectly capable of learning a trade on their own, they don’t need the government to force them to do it.

Steven Alfred Rake

I would agree that a lot of people are capable of learning a trade but there is a lot of people who for one reason or anouther are quite happy sitting with their hand out, waiting for a hand out and the UK is at a tipping point with the people who pay into the system in taxes and NI are decreasing in number, while there is an ever increasing proportion of the population who have never paid into the system that combined with the vast influx of migrants both legal and illegal means that the good old UK is for the best part bankrupt (physically, morally and socially) so if we can get young lads and lasses use to work and a sense of pride to be British then in my book this must be a good thing.
But for that to happen who ever ends up in No 10 has to put in place a real system of NS not a micky mouse gimmick!


As a person who does workforce planning for the NHS I would rather dunk my head in a bucket of piss than try and deal with the insanity that would be a load of 18 year olds being dumped on the NHS….I will say this…we don’t want them…


1) the nhs deals with vulnerable people and people at there most vulnerable…we have to do lots of checks to make sure predators don’t get into the workforce and we fail all the time even with all the checking we do…a hundred thousand 18 years old dumped on us every year would be a nightmare.
2) the healthcare system is profoundly complex and there are lots of opportunities for people to be harmed by mistakes so new people need supervision..that takes time for experienced staff…we are struggling to provide the required supervision for our students and apprentices that want to work in healthcare and will hopefully be with us for years and years…if we had say 100,000 18 years olds that we had to train up and supervise every year I’m not sure what we would do….that’s taking away all the time for our students and apprentices….will the government give the NHS funding for the say half a million hours of supervision a year ( that’s only 50 hours of supervision each )you would need to support 100,000 18 year olds working in the NHS.


May be fun for those kids but not much use for the service for 12-month period except for cleaning and catering.

Last edited 1 month ago by Graham

For the previous ‘National Service’, it ended with the huge Tory defence cuts of 1957. Those that served after that time till 1960 where only those who had deferred for some reason before ’57.

Even so back then the RN hardly had any NS conscripts – said to be only 5%- the rest all went into the Army and RAF

A personal story of national service including the time in the RNVR later

“I spent the remainder of my National Service days as a storekeeper with HMS Siskin at Gosport. This was between 28 June 1949 and 1 September 1950.

Last edited 1 month ago by Duker

Why stop at eighteen year olds? How about making either military reservist or twelve weekends a year in the emergency services for a few years mandatory for MPs.

A little knowledge of the military among our political class would do more for the armed forces than all the eighteen year olds they can take.


Great comment.


They are far too old , theres only 20 or so ( out of 650) who are under 30!
However previous service a different matter

The 45 MPs are made up of 24 with experience as a regular member of personnel and 21 with reservist experience. Of the current MPs with a military background, 42 are men and three are women. Forty-one represent the Conservative Party, while two are Labour members. Forces net


They don’t all have to fight on a ship. They aren’t too old to volunteer as an NHS porter or to work desk duty at the local cop shop, or to answer 999 calls. Maybe if they found out what MOD did by actually working there, they wouldn’t be so sanguine about cutting civil servants. I’m sure there are plenty of jobs a sixty year old could do in the categories military, NHS, or emergency services.

Besides, half these people take PPE at uni and work in political jobs from their early twenties. If they knew it was mandatory for becoming an MP, they’d go for it.

Last edited 1 month ago by Jon

Love it!


This is an important point and the military would be able to vet and select from the best available, weeding out the most unmotivated or actively obstructive candidates that will inevitably be amongst a group under compulsion..

The present recruiting system is not fit for purpose. Idiots still get through, applications are denied and the process can take over a year to join. To me this means that the tories are going to bung their mates at Capita more money to keep the system failing or it’s just a carp piece of election erring nonsense.. That is until you find out that tory trash spokeswoman Anne-Marie Trevelyan has proposed parents being fined if your kids don’t take up the placement.
This is nothing more than preparing white kids to be cannon fodder for the politician’s masters coming war with Russia and China!!

Rob N

This appears to be a measure to avoid improving pay and conditions for the military. We should be improving the lot of the service personnel in order to improve retention and attract new recruits.

Peter S

Compared with a number of European countries and the US , we do not have a large pool of trained reserves @34000 in the volunteer reserves. France and italy have @100000 gendarmerie/ carabinieri who can supplement core military units if required. US has both reserve and national guard personnel in large numbers.
Our main problem is shortages of skilled professionals through a combination of ineffective recruitment and worsening retention because of dissatisfaction with pay/ conditions. It would be better to use the money this new proposal would require to improve those conditions, including RFA pay rates.
If we want to go further in increasing reserve forces, we should rely on motivated volunteers rather than any form of conscription.

Random Commentator

I think the government has it the wrong way round – why not ask pensioners/retired to volunteer to do desk jobs to supplement the NHS, civil service, military etc. Many are bored and want a purpose and they actually have useful experience. Plenty of them of them are still in their 50s.


I think it’s worth pointing out that National Service was also very unpopular with those who were subjected to it, so I’m not sure it’s fair to pre-judge the young people of today for having the same attitude as our grandparents and/or great grandparents. That said, I’m supportive of the general idea of a Nordic style National Service, and to be honest I think a lot of 18 year olds will be as well- as long as it’s pitched right. A lot of people, like I did when I finished A-levels, don’t really have a firm idea of what to do, what opportunities are available, or how they fit into the stream into the world of work etc. So doing a year of some kind of either military or civilian service that looks good on CV and gives some practical skills, while giving them a bit of time to think about their options, would likely be well received.
The challenge is, the timing of the proposal makes it fairly clear that this is an election punt by the Tories trying to catch some votes from the “the youth of today need a bit of taking in hand” brigade, without any thought on how to implement it properly- and the normal disregard that Tories have for how to fund it properly as well.
This could work really well and be a benefit, although I agree with this post that the Navy may not be the best place to put many of them. But the way it’s been put up at the moment is not workable- which doesn’t do the idea justice.

Ian Mitchell

Someone never gets the word – in this case my MP who is a retired Medical Commander and just happens to be a Junior defence minister. This is what he said before some moron in Conservative Office suddenly to roll out this old chestnut to try and stop the inevitable. Just in case you think I am looking forward to a Labour government in charge of Defence then you would be wrong.

If potentially unwilling national service recruits were to be obliged to serve alongside the professional men and women of our armed forces, it could damage morale, recruitment and retention and would consume professional military and naval resources.
“If, on the other hand, national service recruits were kept in separate units, it would be difficult to find a proper and meaningful role for them, potentially harming motivation and discipline.
“For all these reasons, there are no current plans for the restoration of any form of national service.”

The core issue is that most 18 -19 year olds are not going to react well to compulsory service in whatever form it comes. I cant blame them.

This simply distracts us from the MOST important issue that should be facing the Navy Command chain at this time which is how to transform the current recruitment, selection and training pipeline for ratings and bring it into the 21st century so that it works. Then there is retention. Privatisation of the recruitment system gets blamed rightly but actually the hidden problem is that independent research based thinking about improving rating recruitment ,training, development and recruit attrition is lacking.

HMS Raleigh is still stuck in a model of recruit training that has not really changed in 30 or should I say 40 years. The idea that a recruit does not spend any time at sea during the whole of Phase 1 would make my first Leading Hand (a reservist Mine warfare rating and an amazing leader) turn in his grave.

Potential recruits need to be engaged and encouraged right from the outset of a the recruitment pipeline by actual serving naval personnel. RNR centres can play a role here as should Dartmouth and the URNU fleet. I was impressed when BRNC was used for Phase 1 training but that was a once off I believe it should have a bigger role in outreach and offer potential recruit visit experiences.

All in all the thorny issue is that the Royal Navy is currently run by officers who seem to have completely forgotten what then Captain later Admiral Julian Oswald told his cadets the day before they passed out in 1982 when he said to them that the most important resource the Navy had were its people and its your job to lead them well.

Platforms are useless without people unless of course you plan to run the Navy with robots!

Whale Island Zookeeper

unless of course you plan to run the Navy with robots!

That’s what they intend to do. It doesn’t cross their mind that these unmanned systems take a lot of manpower to look after them, are still very much of limited ability, and the human is still the most flexible ‘module’ the Service can deploy.


It will be a future of “electric this- autonomous that- cyber everything” according to the bright young things who are tasked with coming up with new ideas these days

Wasp snorter

There were 3 young people from this demography on BBCs Today news programme (Radio 4) this morning. They were brought on to discuss this policy. Despite being on National Radio to discuss this one thing, they were lacking in any sort of understanding of it, even the few details published on how it would work. One had some positive things to say but they were saying this would ‘affect their mental health’ being worried about it, and why is this happening to them. When challenged that mixing with other people would actually help mental health, he then literally was unable to argue his point and fell silent and then we had dead air for awkward seconds, finally the journalist moved on after getting no response.


How many times has the Sunak mentioned National Service in Parliament since he became Prime Minister? None. Pure electioneering. There is no new funding and there is no plan. The money they mention would be better spent improve the conditions for our current service personnel

Irate Taxpayer (Peter)


I now have to own up = I might have played a small part in inspring this hare-brained idea….

Two weeks ago, here on Navy Lookout, I had suggested that the government establishes a all-new military unit, one essential for the defence of the United Kingdom’s homeland against Russian nuclear-tipped Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBM’s).

Because those very-nasty SLBM missiles will take twenty minutes to arrive on target (i.e. from when the local air-raid siren sounds), I had suggested that would give the new unit plenty of time to leave their day job’s; kiss their mum’s goodbye; then run straight into action.

Accordingly I had proposed that unit could be a part-time (reservist) role.

I had proposed that this new part-time unit be called the Warmington-On-Sea Home Guard (Anti-Ballistic Missile Defence Platoon).

That was posted before the general election was announced….

Unfortunately the Conservative Party’s office intern – the one who is now writing their manifesto pledges during their summer holiday break from reading PPE (note 1) at Oxbridge – appears to have read my post on Navy Lookout ….

….and has now cheakiliy rebranded it with the old-fashioned name of “National Service”.

Blatent Plagarism

regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)

Note 1. TLA translation – “PPE” means Politics, Philosophy and Economics: not Personal Protective Equipment.

Whale Island Zookeeper

PPE must be useless of degrees. Those who read for it seem to know nothing about politics, philosophy, nor economics.


And yet I’ll wager it’s not on the Tory’s hit list of useless degrees.

Whale Island Zookeeper

Methinks you may be right there! 🙂

Irate Taxpayer (Peter)

Jon and Whale Island Zookeeper


Peter (Irate Taxpayer)


How many times has Sunak mentioned National Service in Parliament”

Its a classic pre election gimmick, when you cant run on your record , you throw a dead cat into the room and suddenly every one is only talking about it , next week they will move onto another ‘dead cat’

The real impact is that it works, wont change the final result but they are just trying to save as many seats as possible

Oh dear

Dont think it would work.
Besides I have been bullyed and pushed about all my life because of my autism. I think it would be far worse in the forces where snotty little NCOs would make my life hell.No thanks.


If NATO succeeds in forcing a large scale war against Russia, it doesn’t have enough manpower. Well that explains all the countries talking about drafts.


A completly daft idea. Far better to spend the money fixing the broken recruitment system and allowing 30,000 more regulars.

During the days of national service, the navy used very few conscripts. Most of the requirement was for soldiers, the navy even in 1950s britain needed more technical skills and longer service. The navy offered a 3 year voluntary service, many potential conscripts volunteered for this to avoid 2 years involuntary service in the army.

Even relatively low skilled jobs need more than a year’s service to pay back the diversion of skilled instructors.