The Nasty Labour Party - what they really stand for.

I am NOT a member of the Labour Party- thank you.

'The UK is the only permanent member of the UN Security Council that still recruits 16-year-olds'

and that is for very good reasons, perhaps. It could never happen in Germany or Italy now, for sure- and they cannot believe it is happening in the UK.

Of course, anyoe can bring anectodal exemples of 'someone they know who had a good time of it' - but you need to look at the evidence and the statistics. Which show clearly, that some sections of the population are clearly targeted. Yes, training, travelling, skiing and having all sorts of adventures- the ads on TV and in the Press are indeed very alluring.

It should not be a Hobson's choice - under 18 should have hope, training, education, support and youth clubs (remember those- they were great no), etc- without having to join the army- often without true awareness of what it means. We also know that young disturbed kids dropped with a gun and more in a hostile environment, can and do 'lose it' and no wonder. Again, do some research, some reading ... there is plenty out there.

The leader of the Labour Party May well have excellent negotiating skills when dealing with diverse groups of disaffected people & those defending a specific cause , some may call this a gift, a passion, or compassion, however these skills do not transfer beneficially to main stream politics, because the skills required to run a country for the many not the few are laborious, diverse, for ever changing mundane situations where one solution does not fit all. That along side the double standards mentioned in the OP,is why this country is politically caught between a rock & a hard place.

16 year olds can marry, there are moves afoot to enable them to vote, they can leave school, open a bank account and numerous other grown up things, but becoming a junior member of the armed forces is somehow shock horror!! These young people can leave during their first six months without any questions being asked and at no detriment to themselves. I know his because my then 16 year old granddaughter had toyed with an army career. She spent a month during the school holidays with the army in Dorset. No, it wasn't for her so she decided on a different option. Nobody MAKES these young people stay if they don't want to, the modern army doesn't want reluctant soldiers, they are NOT regarded as 'cannon fodder ( what a ridiculously old fashioned derogatory expression!) The armed forces are a professional well motivated organisation fit for the challenges of the 21st century. The duty of care is paramount, reports of unacceptable behaviour are not tolerated, and weeded out and dealt with in an appropriate manner. Of course there are failures, like there are in every walk of life, but to imply that young people are somehow lured or press ganged, held against their will and then years later abandoned on the scrap heap is simply not true.

It's about the people who recruit them

Oh, the 'hierarchy'? The 'elite'? Your words MaizieD

Well, they'll have to be crushed then - good for nothing elite and hierarchy, keeping us all in our place.

Nasty. First against the wall?

Come the revolution, eh?

It's quite funny. The phrase slightly to the right of Ghengis Khan is another hackneyed old phrase the left are turning to in desperation.

Others have said it, so many in the Labour ranks despise those not sharing their far left ideology. You could be as caring and compassionate and as poor as a church mouse but if you vote Conservative that, according to the left, somehow makes you rich, uncaring and offensive.

Oh and even more extreme than the brutal, uncompromising, blood-thirsty warrior Ghengis Khan.

Which government has referred to them as cannon fodder? Only person in politics I hsve heard insult the military is Corbyn who referred to the British army as ‘ the unemployed ‘

The term 'cannon fodder' is a nasty and dismissive phrase which assumes the worst about young recruits.

Oh, FGS, Day6. It doesn't assume anything about the recruits. It's about the people who recruit them (and I don't mean the army recruiting officers before some starts getting indignant about their loved one who is an army recruiting officer). It's about the perceived views of the hierarchy, the 'elite', governments; call them what you like.

I sometimes wonder if we're even speaking the same language...

I suppose a thread entitled The Nasty Labour Party was never going to stimulate a measured and balanced debate. I am a LP member and I think they have many very worthwhile policies. I do not worship Jeremy Corbyn but I do think he has re-energised a LP that had lost its way (and members) and had become indistinguishable from the Tory Party. I do not think I am bitter, envious or hateful, but I do want a fairer society, and one with more support for those disadvantaged by reason of birth, circumstance, or ill health, than we have at present. As to child recruitment in our armed forces I was woefully uniformed about the detrimental effects that early enlistment can have on children from adverse backgrounds. The website, previously mentioned, "Veterans for Peace UK" has very interesting and informative articles about this.

Expressing concern for vulnerable children who are not in a position to make proper decisions is just that. I am amazed that so many people do not share concern for these poor souls.

No, you are doing the Labour "I care, you don't" thing. You are twisting the discussion.

The Labour stance on this thread is that young people come out of the services scarred for life and because they had a lousy home existence which made them 'vulnerable' they should not be recruited to the services.

Many others have tried to point out that yes, scarred individuals may have chickens coming home to roost in later life but why should all youngsters lacking nurture and care be denied an experience that for many, many is life-enhancing, providing so much which has been missing in their young lives? I am sure rigourous medical assessments can weed out those who would definitely not suited to the life and let's not pretend the armed forces no nothing about the effects of trauma. Those joining the police, fire and ambulance services can also be traumatised. I have a friend who taught and continued stress affected her later in life.

The term 'cannon fodder' is a nasty and dismissive phrase which assumes the worst about young recruits.

The term 'hero' describes most young people who, knowing the risks, sign up to protect their country. I prefer the latter. Officers die in combat too you know.

Corbyns labour dont WANT to appeal to centrists. They hate centrists MORE than they hate the far right (makes sense now that they have more in common with extremists than liberal centrists) and they hate the middle classes more than they hate the super rich.

Its turn on your neighbour because they have 2 cars instead of your one mentality

lemon, a poster said I was a target , seems bullying and threats and within the guidelines

I am a Labour Party member and I agree envy and almost hatred is what is pouring from a section of the Labour Party since Corbyn became leader

Yes.

Being "labour critical" gets you labelled a life long Tory and hater of the underprivileged.

You either blindly adore or you are the enemy.

Even if you desperately WANT a left or centre party that you can still vote for

I find it surprising that some can't see it Annie as it gets reported enough!

I am a Labour Party member and I agree envy and almost hatred is what is pouring from a section of the Labour Party since Corbyn became leader

Maizie you confuse venom with 'not what you personally agree with'... a common mistake on GN politics threads.

I can't see any sour grapes.

Oh dear. <sigh> That's because MaizieD I didn't mention sour grapes

That particular phrase concerns envy, and wanting something you cannot attain.

To be described as sour, however, generally means you are angry, grumpy and bitter. It's been demonstrated by some Labour supporters on this thread.

Sorry to be pedantic but your comprehension skills seem to be lacking.

good posts notanan2 which is why Labour is now the nasty party.

Ask your average CURRENT labour supporter "why labour" and you unleash a tirade of venom about everyone who is non labour.

I don't recall that question being asked of Labour supporters on Gnet, notanan.

It really is 'make it all up' time here on Gnet today

@lemon, I'll grant you that Day6 has a great facility with words but it doesn't make her content any more sensible. It just helps her to get the venom out more fluently.

There is a very dangerous culture around labour right now. They have become more divisive than ukip!

Where is the lie trisher? They are paid, they is camaraderie, there is travel, and they are trained to use arms plus other training.

Sorry to have only just come across this thread, but I'd like to say I watched Question Time and was appalled by Rod Liddle's vitriolic rant, I thought he came across as an absolutely despicable individual.

It's unbelievable. Some people who claim to be Labour supporters are so sour. The bitterness, envy and scorn just pours from them. Compassionate Labour? Not with all the hatred and nastiness as demonstrate here in their 'ranks'. No way.

I would sadly have to agree.
Ask your average CURRENT labour supporter "why labour" and you unleash a tirade of venom about everyone who is non labour.
Labour support at the moment is being built on hate & division. You are either with us or against us. If you arent voting labour (even if you previously did) you are disablist Tory scum.

Previously , if you asked labour supporters "why labour" , you might get the odd Thatcher rant but you would also get bright eyed enthusiasm for Labour policies and an engaging discussion. Not insults for not being one of them.

Really I sometimes despair of the level of analysis and understanding exhibited by some on GN. No one has criticised individuals. No one has said there are none who benefit from army training. We are discussing 16 year olds from disadvantaged backgrounds who are recruited too early. They are children and a civilised society proects its children as best it can. Andthe best protecton for these children would be for us to adopt the same regulations as all other EU countries and not recruit until 18. The UN advises this.
And for those who doubt the numbers
The Ministry of Defence released the UK armed forces biannual diversity statistics 2016. They show that the proportion of the Army's intake aged under 18 increased from 22.5 per cent to 24.1 per cent. The armed forces as a whole recruited 1,140 16-year-olds and 1,250 17-year-olds, from a total of 12,300 new recruits.

Child Soldiers International say Army recruitment policies place the minors in the riskiest roles in the infantry and forces them to serve longer minimum service periods. Recruits aged 16 have a total minimum service period of six years, while 17-year-olds must serve for five. Adults can be discharged after four years' service.

The UK is the only permanent member of the UN Security Council that still recruits 16-year-olds

Cannon fodder indeed!.

thanks for heading us back to the thread topic Jalima