GR Decides - Tory Leadership

[Captain Kinopio]

Eurgh, what a terrible choice. I thought Hillary vs Trump was bad, but this is just atrocious. Stewart seems the least worst option, he at least seems realistic and I appreciate he isn't chucking out false promises on tax or pulling the wool over people's eyes on no deal.

But that's probably where my agreement with him ends. I seriously do not like his idea of national service, that's the old Tory trope of taking us back to the 50s. That alone is a deal breaker for me on him, before you even get to the usual tory domestic policies.

As for the other candidates, absolute train wreck.

I just can't see them implementing it. It's going to cost way too much to make it worth while.

Also, the Army very much do not want to deal with a shitload of people who don't want to be there.

It's not military service. The fact that so many people seem to think it is when in the video setting out his plan he very clearly explains that it's not, is somewhat bemusing.

[Moggy]

Eurgh, what a terrible choice. I thought Hillary vs Trump was bad, but this is just atrocious. Stewart seems the least worst option, he at least seems realistic and I appreciate he isn't chucking out false promises on tax or pulling the wool over people's eyes on no deal.

But that's probably where my agreement with him ends. I seriously do not like his idea of national service, that's the old Tory trope of taking us back to the 50s. That alone is a deal breaker for me on him, before you even get to the usual tory domestic policies.

As for the other candidates, absolute train wreck.

I just can't see them implementing it. It's going to cost way too much to make it worth while.

Also, the Army very much do not want to deal with a shitload of people who don't want to be there.

It's not military service. The fact that so many people seem to think it is when in the video setting out his plan he very clearly explains that it's not, is somewhat bemusing.

When people hear “National Service” they instantly imagine army service so it is not all that bemusing that people assume that’s what he is talking about.

I don’t care if it is 2 years military service or 2 weeks gardening at an old people’s home – it is wrong to force people into national service and anybody suggesting it can strawberry float off.

[Moggy]

twitter.com/baddiel/status/1141244564092723201

[Lex-Man]

Eurgh, what a terrible choice. I thought Hillary vs Trump was bad, but this is just atrocious. Stewart seems the least worst option, he at least seems realistic and I appreciate he isn't chucking out false promises on tax or pulling the wool over people's eyes on no deal.

But that's probably where my agreement with him ends. I seriously do not like his idea of national service, that's the old Tory trope of taking us back to the 50s. That alone is a deal breaker for me on him, before you even get to the usual tory domestic policies.

As for the other candidates, absolute train wreck.

I just can't see them implementing it. It's going to cost way too much to make it worth while.

Also, the Army very much do not want to deal with a shitload of people who don't want to be there.

It's not military service. The fact that so many people seem to think it is when in the video setting out his plan he very clearly explains that it's not, is somewhat bemusing.

When people hear “National Service” they instantly imagine army service so it is not all that bemusing that people assume that’s what he is talking about.

I don’t care if it is 2 years military service or 2 weeks gardening at an old people’s home – it is wrong to force people into national service and anybody suggesting it can strawberry float off.

I actually think that having some kind of well promoted civil activity thing would be good. Although I don't think it should be forced or age limited.

You could just plan one day a month where people did work in the community, it might be a good thing. They do it in Japan.

[Moggy]

Eurgh, what a terrible choice. I thought Hillary vs Trump was bad, but this is just atrocious. Stewart seems the least worst option, he at least seems realistic and I appreciate he isn't chucking out false promises on tax or pulling the wool over people's eyes on no deal.

But that's probably where my agreement with him ends. I seriously do not like his idea of national service, that's the old Tory trope of taking us back to the 50s. That alone is a deal breaker for me on him, before you even get to the usual tory domestic policies.

As for the other candidates, absolute train wreck.

I just can't see them implementing it. It's going to cost way too much to make it worth while.

Also, the Army very much do not want to deal with a shitload of people who don't want to be there.

It's not military service. The fact that so many people seem to think it is when in the video setting out his plan he very clearly explains that it's not, is somewhat bemusing.

When people hear “National Service” they instantly imagine army service so it is not all that bemusing that people assume that’s what he is talking about.

I don’t care if it is 2 years military service or 2 weeks gardening at an old people’s home – it is wrong to force people into national service and anybody suggesting it can strawberry float off.

I actually think that having some kind of well promoted civil activity thing would be good. Although I don't think it should be forced or age limited.

You could just plan one day a month where people did work in the community, it might be a good thing. They do it in Japan.

People can already do all sorts of volunteering activities. Lots of people do, lots of people don’t.

What Stewart is suggesting is forcing young people to do it. Which is a completely different proposition.

[Lex-Man]

Eurgh, what a terrible choice. I thought Hillary vs Trump was bad, but this is just atrocious. Stewart seems the least worst option, he at least seems realistic and I appreciate he isn't chucking out false promises on tax or pulling the wool over people's eyes on no deal.

But that's probably where my agreement with him ends. I seriously do not like his idea of national service, that's the old Tory trope of taking us back to the 50s. That alone is a deal breaker for me on him, before you even get to the usual tory domestic policies.

As for the other candidates, absolute train wreck.

I just can't see them implementing it. It's going to cost way too much to make it worth while.

Also, the Army very much do not want to deal with a shitload of people who don't want to be there.

It's not military service. The fact that so many people seem to think it is when in the video setting out his plan he very clearly explains that it's not, is somewhat bemusing.

When people hear “National Service” they instantly imagine army service so it is not all that bemusing that people assume that’s what he is talking about.

I don’t care if it is 2 years military service or 2 weeks gardening at an old people’s home – it is wrong to force people into national service and anybody suggesting it can strawberry float off.

I actually think that having some kind of well promoted civil activity thing would be good. Although I don't think it should be forced or age limited.

You could just plan one day a month where people did work in the community, it might be a good thing. They do it in Japan.

People can already do all sorts of volunteering activities. Lots of people do, lots of people don’t.

What Stewart is suggesting is forcing young people to do it. Which is a completely different proposition.

Yeah, but I would like something where everybody is encouraged to do it, backed by some big national push in the media.

Rory should just push for the IB to replace GCSE's you have to do volunteering to get good grades in that.

[Moggy]

Eurgh, what a terrible choice. I thought Hillary vs Trump was bad, but this is just atrocious. Stewart seems the least worst option, he at least seems realistic and I appreciate he isn't chucking out false promises on tax or pulling the wool over people's eyes on no deal.

But that's probably where my agreement with him ends. I seriously do not like his idea of national service, that's the old Tory trope of taking us back to the 50s. That alone is a deal breaker for me on him, before you even get to the usual tory domestic policies.

As for the other candidates, absolute train wreck.

I just can't see them implementing it. It's going to cost way too much to make it worth while.

Also, the Army very much do not want to deal with a shitload of people who don't want to be there.

It's not military service. The fact that so many people seem to think it is when in the video setting out his plan he very clearly explains that it's not, is somewhat bemusing.

When people hear “National Service” they instantly imagine army service so it is not all that bemusing that people assume that’s what he is talking about.

I don’t care if it is 2 years military service or 2 weeks gardening at an old people’s home – it is wrong to force people into national service and anybody suggesting it can strawberry float off.

I actually think that having some kind of well promoted civil activity thing would be good. Although I don't think it should be forced or age limited.

You could just plan one day a month where people did work in the community, it might be a good thing. They do it in Japan.

People can already do all sorts of volunteering activities. Lots of people do, lots of people don’t.

What Stewart is suggesting is forcing young people to do it. Which is a completely different proposition.

Yeah, but I would like something where everybody is encouraged to do it, backed by some big national push in the media.

Rory should just push for the IB to replace GCSE's you have to do volunteering to get good grades in that.

So you just want David Cameron’s Big Society idea to come back?

“Hey kids, do you want to get good grades? Then go and pick up some litter that us middle aged folk dropped. LMAO!!”

[Rex Kramer]

There is obviously an issue with disenfranchisement amongst large swathes of the population at the moment. Have a wander into any local council meeting and every single person on this site would be at least 20 years younger than the majority of the people elected. There needs to be a way to get younger people (and at 45 I'd include myself) involved in local issues and some kind of voluntary national service might help improve this. But there needs to be significant structural change in how that kind of thing is viewed and the time made available to those studying or working so they can get involved. There are plenty of opportunities out there now but is there really the time for those in full time education or people with a full time job and families?

[Moggy]

I don’t think young people are the problem. The problem is the baby boomers that continue to use up all the resources and strawberry float over the young at every opportunity.

Make 50+ year olds do something for the country and then they might hopefully stop flying to their holiday homes while shitting on kids who dare to ask how they will ever afford a home.

[Lex-Man]

Eurgh, what a terrible choice. I thought Hillary vs Trump was bad, but this is just atrocious. Stewart seems the least worst option, he at least seems realistic and I appreciate he isn't chucking out false promises on tax or pulling the wool over people's eyes on no deal.

But that's probably where my agreement with him ends. I seriously do not like his idea of national service, that's the old Tory trope of taking us back to the 50s. That alone is a deal breaker for me on him, before you even get to the usual tory domestic policies.

As for the other candidates, absolute train wreck.

I just can't see them implementing it. It's going to cost way too much to make it worth while.

Also, the Army very much do not want to deal with a shitload of people who don't want to be there.

It's not military service. The fact that so many people seem to think it is when in the video setting out his plan he very clearly explains that it's not, is somewhat bemusing.

When people hear “National Service” they instantly imagine army service so it is not all that bemusing that people assume that’s what he is talking about.

I don’t care if it is 2 years military service or 2 weeks gardening at an old people’s home – it is wrong to force people into national service and anybody suggesting it can strawberry float off.

I actually think that having some kind of well promoted civil activity thing would be good. Although I don't think it should be forced or age limited.

You could just plan one day a month where people did work in the community, it might be a good thing. They do it in Japan.

People can already do all sorts of volunteering activities. Lots of people do, lots of people don’t.

What Stewart is suggesting is forcing young people to do it. Which is a completely different proposition.

Yeah, but I would like something where everybody is encouraged to do it, backed by some big national push in the media.

Rory should just push for the IB to replace GCSE's you have to do volunteering to get good grades in that.

So you just want David Cameron’s Big Society idea to come back?

“Hey kids, do you want to get good grades? Then go and pick up some litter that us middle aged folk dropped. LMAO!!”

I want to get the adults to help as well. I went to a beach clean up thing the other day and think it's really shitty that apart from me and the organisers the oldest person there was about 12.

[Rex Kramer]

Like I said, every local council is populated with loads of 50+ (in most cases 70+) people. It's not the fact that they're doing stuff, more the fact that they're making all the decisions on what stuff is done. Any kind of 'national service' should be open to all ages and needs to be accommodating for those in work but there needs to be benefits or incentives to get younger people to engage. There is constant talk of the young not having a voice and this seems a reasonable way of giving them that.

[Moggy]

Eurgh, what a terrible choice. I thought Hillary vs Trump was bad, but this is just atrocious. Stewart seems the least worst option, he at least seems realistic and I appreciate he isn't chucking out false promises on tax or pulling the wool over people's eyes on no deal.

But that's probably where my agreement with him ends. I seriously do not like his idea of national service, that's the old Tory trope of taking us back to the 50s. That alone is a deal breaker for me on him, before you even get to the usual tory domestic policies.

As for the other candidates, absolute train wreck.

I just can't see them implementing it. It's going to cost way too much to make it worth while.

Also, the Army very much do not want to deal with a shitload of people who don't want to be there.

It's not military service. The fact that so many people seem to think it is when in the video setting out his plan he very clearly explains that it's not, is somewhat bemusing.

When people hear “National Service” they instantly imagine army service so it is not all that bemusing that people assume that’s what he is talking about.

I don’t care if it is 2 years military service or 2 weeks gardening at an old people’s home – it is wrong to force people into national service and anybody suggesting it can strawberry float off.

I actually think that having some kind of well promoted civil activity thing would be good. Although I don't think it should be forced or age limited.

You could just plan one day a month where people did work in the community, it might be a good thing. They do it in Japan.

People can already do all sorts of volunteering activities. Lots of people do, lots of people don’t.

What Stewart is suggesting is forcing young people to do it. Which is a completely different proposition.

Yeah, but I would like something where everybody is encouraged to do it, backed by some big national push in the media.

Rory should just push for the IB to replace GCSE's you have to do volunteering to get good grades in that.

So you just want David Cameron’s Big Society idea to come back?

“Hey kids, do you want to get good grades? Then go and pick up some litter that us middle aged folk dropped. LMAO!!”

I want to get the adults to help as well. I went to a beach clean up thing the other day and think it's really shitty that apart from me and the organisers the oldest person there was about 12.

That’s great, but it is never going to be popular if a politician starts saying “hey everyone, while I am busy cutting disability allowance, why don’t you go and clean up the beach!”.

It is even worse when the politicians start saying “Let’s force the bloody kids to clean things up! Forcing them out to clean up the mess we made is bound to make them feel part of society”.

[Drumstick]

If the old people are so keen on bringing back national service then perhaps they should be the generations to undertake it. After all, they've already lived the majority of their lives, whereas youngsters haven't had that privilege yet.

[Moggy]

Like I said, every local council is populated with loads of 50+ (in most cases 70+) people. It's not the fact that they're doing stuff, more the fact that they're making all the decisions on what stuff is done. Any kind of 'national service' should be open to all ages and needs to be accommodating for those in work but there needs to be benefits or incentives to get younger people to engage. There is constant talk of the young not having a voice and this seems a reasonable way of giving them that.

Forcing kids (as per Rory Stewart’s idea) out to do national service for a month is not going to alter the demographics of the local council.

A national volunteering scheme for people of all ages is not going to be popular especially if implemented by politicians.

A volunteering scheme that has benefits/incentives for young people is doomed to failure as it will never be able to offer any decent incentives.

Even if somehow you persuade people of all ages to go out and volunteer together, I can’t see how that is ever going to give young people a voice. A couple of hours picking up crisp packets is not going to make people vote on election day.

[Lex-Man]

Eurgh, what a terrible choice. I thought Hillary vs Trump was bad, but this is just atrocious. Stewart seems the least worst option, he at least seems realistic and I appreciate he isn't chucking out false promises on tax or pulling the wool over people's eyes on no deal.

But that's probably where my agreement with him ends. I seriously do not like his idea of national service, that's the old Tory trope of taking us back to the 50s. That alone is a deal breaker for me on him, before you even get to the usual tory domestic policies.

As for the other candidates, absolute train wreck.

I just can't see them implementing it. It's going to cost way too much to make it worth while.

Also, the Army very much do not want to deal with a shitload of people who don't want to be there.

It's not military service. The fact that so many people seem to think it is when in the video setting out his plan he very clearly explains that it's not, is somewhat bemusing.

When people hear “National Service” they instantly imagine army service so it is not all that bemusing that people assume that’s what he is talking about.

I don’t care if it is 2 years military service or 2 weeks gardening at an old people’s home – it is wrong to force people into national service and anybody suggesting it can strawberry float off.

I actually think that having some kind of well promoted civil activity thing would be good. Although I don't think it should be forced or age limited.

You could just plan one day a month where people did work in the community, it might be a good thing. They do it in Japan.

People can already do all sorts of volunteering activities. Lots of people do, lots of people don’t.

What Stewart is suggesting is forcing young people to do it. Which is a completely different proposition.

Yeah, but I would like something where everybody is encouraged to do it, backed by some big national push in the media.

Rory should just push for the IB to replace GCSE's you have to do volunteering to get good grades in that.

So you just want David Cameron’s Big Society idea to come back?

“Hey kids, do you want to get good grades? Then go and pick up some litter that us middle aged folk dropped. LMAO!!”

I want to get the adults to help as well. I went to a beach clean up thing the other day and think it's really shitty that apart from me and the organisers the oldest person there was about 12.

That’s great, but it is never going to be popular if a politician starts saying “hey everyone, while I am busy cutting disability allowance, why don’t you go and clean up the beach!”.

It is even worse when the politicians start saying “Let’s force the bloody kids to clean things up! Forcing them out to clean up the mess we made is bound to make them feel part of society”.

I think the big problem with the Big Society isn't that it was a bad idea, it was that the Tories were cutting budgets to ribbons at the same time. I think with the right government/ strategy behind it, it could actually work.

[KK]

I presume all schools still do their yearly adventure/activity holidays that usually last a week. Very fond memories of those. For some, it's also their first time away from home for any sustained period.

They're not mandatory, but 95% of the class would usually do it. Parents had to pay, though I can't remember how much it was.

[Rex Kramer]

Like I said, every local council is populated with loads of 50+ (in most cases 70+) people. It's not the fact that they're doing stuff, more the fact that they're making all the decisions on what stuff is done. Any kind of 'national service' should be open to all ages and needs to be accommodating for those in work but there needs to be benefits or incentives to get younger people to engage. There is constant talk of the young not having a voice and this seems a reasonable way of giving them that.

Forcing kids (as per Rory Stewart’s idea) out to do national service for a month is not going to alter the demographics of the local council.

A national volunteering scheme for people of all ages is not going to be popular especially if implemented by politicians.

A volunteering scheme that has benefits/incentives for young people is doomed to failure as it will never be able to offer any decent incentives.

Even if somehow you persuade people of all ages to go out and volunteer together, I can’t see how that is ever going to give young people a voice. A couple of hours picking up crisp packets is not going to make people vote on election day.

Why though? A well thought out scheme including incentives for companies to release staff and benefits for those taking part could be popular (lower council tax bills, vouchers towards university fees etc). All those things are well within the remit of a government tax scheme.

[Moggy]

Like I said, every local council is populated with loads of 50+ (in most cases 70+) people. It's not the fact that they're doing stuff, more the fact that they're making all the decisions on what stuff is done. Any kind of 'national service' should be open to all ages and needs to be accommodating for those in work but there needs to be benefits or incentives to get younger people to engage. There is constant talk of the young not having a voice and this seems a reasonable way of giving them that.

Forcing kids (as per Rory Stewart’s idea) out to do national service for a month is not going to alter the demographics of the local council.

A national volunteering scheme for people of all ages is not going to be popular especially if implemented by politicians.

A volunteering scheme that has benefits/incentives for young people is doomed to failure as it will never be able to offer any decent incentives.

Even if somehow you persuade people of all ages to go out and volunteer together, I can’t see how that is ever going to give young people a voice. A couple of hours picking up crisp packets is not going to make people vote on election day.

Why though? A well thought out scheme including incentives for companies to release staff and benefits for those taking part could be popular (lower council tax bills, vouchers towards university fees etc). All those things are well within the remit of a government tax scheme.

My company already offers time off for people who want to volunteer. I don’t know anybody that has taken them up on it.

If there are financial incentives then you might get a few more people signing up, but I doubt the incentives will be high enough to encourage many people. Saving a few quid on tax is not going to make people give up their free time, especially when so few people get free time to themselves.

And getting politicians to front a volunteering campaign is going to make people even less inclined to want to do it. Politicians are not highly thought of and having a twat like Rory Stewart, David Cameron or Boris Johnson telling people how great volunteering is will only make people switch off.

And none of this is really relevant. The national service idea by Rory Stewart is based on forcing young people to work in the community for 4 weeks. It’s a bullshit idea that is designed to appeal to gammony old Tory voters who think young people are all drug addled hoodies.

[gamerforever]

I'm all for Boris and Jeremy's tax cuts and its about time too especially after the ridiculous dividend tax charge they implemented. What people need is an incentive to want to succeed, not a barrier to stop at a certain level.

[Cuttooth]

I'm all for Boris and Jeremy's tax cuts and its about time too especially after the ridiculous dividend tax charge they implemented. What people need is an incentive to want to succeed, not a barrier to stop at a certain level.

People generally aren't any happier earning more and more money once they reach a certain level.