Britain has two main problems that, at first glance, can be used to solve each other.
< p>On the one hand, too many young people are left without work. On the other hand, the Western world is gradually realizing that its armed forces are inadequate in the face of threats from Russia and other aggressive dictatorships.
In a difficult moment, a terrible decision comes to mind: conscription.
In a difficult moment, a terrible decision comes to mind: conscription.
p>
The idea has some appeal. Drill Sergeants have extensive experience working with idle hands.
And few things are better for mental health than focused work and a busy schedule. As Mel Stride, the work and pensions minister rather than defense secretary, said last month, too many people “convince themselves that they have some serious mental illness rather than the normal anxieties of life.”
< p>He wants so that 150,000 people with mild mental disorders are forced to find work. But the government could do some useful work for them.
Businesses certainly value those with military experience. The American investment bank Citi, for example, has a program to hire veterans. He praises their «unique character-based skillset, which includes resourcefulness, teamwork, follow through and calm under pressure.»
At the same time, Britain's defense appears a little understaffed.
Sir Alex Younger, the former head of MI6, suggested that the government find «ways in which the country as a whole can participate and contribute to security during an emergency.»
A useful option may be a form of selective conscription, in which the government «theoretically has the power to force people to serve in one way or another, but does not exercise it except in areas where it is really necessary.»
Thus, the call kills more than two birds with one stone. At the same time as strengthening Britain's security and creating a well-trained reserve for future wars, the country could cut benefits costs by paying young people to do something useful.
This could mean reintroducing national service, potentially for all school leavers. Alternatively, the UK could create a Swedish-style system, as Sir Alex has suggested, where everyone applies but only a few are selected.
A year later in boot camp, these newly experienced, disciplined and generally matured fun-loving Jack Taras are turning into motivated veterans with versatile skills and a keen work ethic, ready to stimulate the economy — or so the theory would seem.
The economic situation is certainly grim.
Just over 850,000 people aged 16 to 24 are not in education, work or education learning — this means that they have actually made a choice from the productive economy.
That's despite more than 900,000 job openings, including hundreds of thousands in industries including hospitality and retail that traditionally tend to hire young people.
But there are serious problems with the idea.
p >
Firstly, as these vacancies show, there is a severe shortage of skilled and motivated workers in Britain.
About 800,000 people turn 18 every year. If hundreds of thousands of them drop out of the job market, out of training, and into military camps, companies will be able to hire fewer people, not more.
Martin Beck, chief economic adviser at the EY Item Club, says the call will remove much-needed workers from the economy.
«It will be a burden on the workforce and could worsen skills shortages,» he says.< /p>
“But there may be offsetting benefits from learning useful social skills and working with others.”
In the 1950s, the government was forced to reduce or end National Service, which was created after World War II and required all able-bodied young people to serve for a specified period.
The financial burden on the state budget, the poor quality of conscripts and labor shortages for industry were regularly cited in parliament as reasons to shorten the service life or abandon the system altogether.
The National Army Museum describes national service after World War II as «a burden on the Army, tying down regular soldiers to training new recruits,» even as it «pulled workers out of the economy, leading to opposition from the public, government, industry, and many high-ranking officials.» officials» before the system collapsed in the early 1960s.
An additional risk for today's workforce is that those who can be considered capable of performing some form of national service are already healthy and motivated, rather than people written off as long-term ills who are least likely to be willing or able to enter a physically demanding job. military world.
The risk is that conscription will worsen the jobs crisis without helping those who the scheme's supporters say most need extra motivation and discipline.
In addition, conscription is rarely popular, at least among those subject to it. After all, if people wanted to join the military, they could just sign up.
Or they should be able to do so. Of the million people who have tried to join the Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force over the past decade, three out of every four gave up because the process took too long.
This suggests that forces may , gave up. It's the kind of capability problem that won't improve if the government tries to force them to take on hundreds of thousands of reluctant recruits every year.
The quality of reluctant recruits may also be lacking: even among those who stayed the course and persisted in applying, only 132,000 ultimately signed up and nearly 170,000 were rejected.
At the start of the year, Britons under 40 were asked whether they would answer the draft in the event of a third world war. Nearly two in five said in a YouGov poll that they would refuse conscription even in such a serious global emergency.
The topic is extremely sensitive even in Ukraine, which is fighting a war for national survival. Much of the country's initial success in stopping the Russian attack in 2022 was due to the determination of its defenders, who fought for their homes and loved ones against unmotivated and confused conscripts.
But two years later, the government in Kyiv is only reluctantly lowering the conscription age to 25 because it desperately needs more soldiers and cannot count on enough young male volunteers.
And then there is the target of conscripts.
There are few signs that the British government wants more citizens under arms. Not only are current plans not desperate for more soldiers, they also see the army cut to 73,000 troops by next year, the lowest in two centuries.
Strapped for money, Whitehall is in no rush to find new ones places to recruit huge numbers of soldiers. number of new public sector employees.
Using conscription as the first method of reversing this long-term decline seems counterintuitive, to say the least, and represents a remarkable turn in government personnel policy.
Life in troops can have many advantages. A labor market recovery is unlikely to be one of them.
Свежие комментарии