Conscription

Doodle dog. Most 70year olds I know already do many of the things you suggest without being conscripted.

Doodledog

maddyone

Conscription to the voluntary sector of the 70 year olds!
I’ve never heard of such a barmy idea in my entire life!
I can’t even be bothered to discuss it because it’s so ridiculous!

I don't know how seriously that was meant, maddie.

I'm going to practise knitting socks.

That's interesting Greta. In my area, we saw in the first days of the pandemic that volunteers did a sterling job helping others, which is just as well because the official response by the local authorities was woeful. Maybe there should be a strategy for prioritising what would be really needed during an invasion (just as is happening now in Gaza) and having ready made plans.

In Sweden they have something called Total Defence Service. It includes people between 16 and 70. It does not necessarily mean
military service. Some Swedes would be expected to look after the vulnerable, help with childcare, help with cooking. Not unlike what so many of us would do naturally in peacetime.

maddyone

Conscription to the voluntary sector of the 70 year olds!
I’ve never heard of such a barmy idea in my entire life!
I can’t even be bothered to discuss it because it’s so ridiculous!

I don't know how seriously that was meant, maddie.

I think the problem is that if war were declared and conscription came in it would be too late. The country is populated by the old, unfit and overweight, and many people see themselves as exceptions who deserve special treatment. Relying on most of us to defend the realm would be pointless. If the people in the know really think that an invasion is likely, we need to get toughened up PDQ or learn to speak Russian (or Chinese or North Korean).

My father was a child in WW2, but did military National Service, which he hated. He was stationed in Libya. As others have said, times were different, and whereas I agree that today's young people would step up in extremis, they are (rightly, IMO) far less biddable than in the past.

That may not be what's expected - talk of war seems to indicate terrorism or cyber attacks rather than an invasion - but again, a lot of people would struggle there, too. We are very dependent on the Internet, on digital finance and so on. If an attack froze our bank accounts, and we couldn't buy anything or order it in, what would we do? Or if an enemy took over all communications and we couldn't trust the radio, TV or any form of media yet they were the only way to get information? Who would we trust? Or if they polluted the water supply or cut off the gas?

Maybe some form of civil militia is a good idea, so that there are ready-made rallying points, and some sort of structure in place. It's nightmarish, isn't it?

Conscription to the voluntary sector of the 70 year olds!
I’ve never heard of such a barmy idea in my entire life!
I can’t even be bothered to discuss it because it’s so ridiculous!

Callistemon21

War

Or Defence?

Exactly.
I would like to think that we would defend our country with all it’s imperfections but all it’s freedoms should we be threatened.
My father didn’t wait to be called up in WW2, he joined up voluntarily at eighteen years old and fought on the front line at the end of the war. Many of your fathers did too, and I like to think that our younger members of society would do the same if we were threatened.
Someone said they hate the concept of war. I think we all do. We hate it and fear it. But I think we’d hate living under Putin even more.

Sorry - we cross-posted, Dickens.

What you describe is what I earlier called 'extenuating circumstances' - looking after a sick person, or all kinds of other things are very much 'doing your bit'.

As I say, I don't have a manifesto here - I don't even know if I would vote for community service if there were a referendum on the matter. I'm very much thinking aloud. My earlier post (above this) was in answer to Maisie, not to yours, which I hadn't read.

I agree that many people take on voluntary roles throughout their lives, and I think it would be good to let 'served time' count as such, so people could, say, be a Scout leader in their 30s and put their feet up at 70 (or 50 if they are lucky enough ), or whatever. The chances are that a lot of lifelong volunteers would want to carry on with no obligation, and they should be able to do so. But if someone is stuck on a grotty estate, with no money and no aspiration, wouldn't it be a good idea to have a means by which they can see what is available for them to do? Not 'workfare', as that just cuts wages and can be akin to slavery. Definitely not connected to benefits in any way, but something with no stigma, that everyone is expected to do at some point in their lives, in return for living in a 'civilised' society.

That probably sounds Pollyanna-like, and it's not. It's more based on 'from each according to ability:to each according to need', which seems to me a sensible way to run any sort of group situation, but which needs both sides of the equation to work.

Again, I know what you mean, Maisie, but at the same time we live in a society where a lot is provided. Welfare and public services are in decline, but we have education, healthcare, police, defence and things like roads, libraries and civil infrastructure on tap.

I didn't connect productivity with taxpaying, or I don't think I did. All the same, the things described above are paid for because most people are productive, at least for a while, and it is mostly earnings that are taxed. Yes, we all pay purchase taxes, but they are paid out of recycled earned income - ie money that has been earned, taxed and given to whomever is spending it (if they haven't earned it themselves). It's not 'new money' and it's not there as a result of someone having produced goods or provided a service to earn it - the goods and services will also benefit society, on the whole.

If someone never works, they never pay in, but they still benefit from all the things bought from other people's efforts. We all look after our homes and families, (unless we have a full staff ) which is why I don't think that doing this is reason enough not to contribute to 'the system'.

We are lucky to live in a country where so much is provided, but as things are in decline to the point where working people are using food banks and many older people can't afford heating, maybe it is time to ask everyone to chip in? Not just by buying 'stuff', but by doing something practical that benefits people other than themselves and their family. That way there will be more to go round, and the country would be a better place to live.

I don't think that that POV has anything in common with the 'Kinder Kirche Kuche' ideal you seem to be invoking. One is about expecting a simple (and individually decided) contribution to society/community/whatever you want to call it, the other is about enforcing a lifestyle onto a whole sex.

Doodledog

I certainly wasn't envisaging a compulsory 4 day week for over 70's! Good grief. In wartime, maybe it would be necessary, but I do think people need to put their feet up at some point, after decades of work.

But if everyone (who is able to) gave up even half a day, a lot could be achieved to make the country a better place. People working full-time would be exempt, but there could be compulsory schemes for employers to allow staff days off - a bit like for being a magistrate, or if they are in the TA. My children both work for employers who operate volunteer schemes, but I think they are only once or twice a year. My daughter always opts to work for the Dogs' Trust, and my son cleans up an area of the beach near where he lives. They get exercise (as do the dogs!) they meet new people from other companies in the schemes, and their work is for good causes. There is no remuneration and they make up lost work time afterwards, but their salaries are paid, so both they and their (different) employers contribute in their own ways. It will be tax deductible for the employers too, I assume.

I don't (personally) see looking after one's own family as community service though, unless there are extenuating circumstances. We all do that, along with running our homes and so on.

But if everyone (who is able to) gave up even half a day, a lot could be achieved to make the country a better place...

I can see the point you are trying to make. I thought about it earlier because I don't like to be a mean-spirited-bah-humbug sort of person. This is purely anecdotal, but - in my circle of friends and acquaintances, I believe that all but one or two are doing some kind of voluntary work anyway... ranging from commercially-useful things like helping to run and man the local tourist office (and the town's museum); keeping the town clean and tidy (quite literally, with brooms and garbage gathering); purchasing and planting and tending blooms to fill the town's planters that the council can no longer afford to do - essential in a 'tourist-town'; transporting children in groups to events; ferrying elderly people to appointments, etc - the man opposite me now in his 80s has been doing it for years though might have to give up soon on health grounds. I can't remember all that everyone is doing, but there is a general hive of charitable, community work that these retirees are doing. Obviously, there are younger working people volunteering also, at weekends.

I don't believe that these people, in their 70s and 80s are unique to my area.

I contribute financially because I'm caring full-time for my disabled partner and am partially disabled myself - my volunteering days are now over.

So, to some extent we are already doing our bit - even though it is only local, but keeping towns and villages functioning and commercially viable is the small part that benefits the whole, ultimately.

I don't (personally) see looking after one's own family as community service though, unless there are extenuating circumstances. We all do that, along with running our homes and so on.

Of course. Looking after elderly parents is what we all do (or did), but I'm not really talking about the social care... running errands, doing a bit of cleaning, ferrying them around, etc. I meant more those who are caring for very elderly parents who have continuing and urgent medical needs and who, in truth, probably need full-time care but can't (for one reason or another) or won't go into a care-home. I've known someone in that position, trying to juggle a full-time job whilst caring for an elderly parent who in truth was not really safe being left alone for any extended period of time. It's utterly exhausting and draining. Anyone who's spent a few years doing that kind of care really doesn't need any extra work tacked on to their retirement date.

If their work was being remunerated how can it be voluntary? OED says that voluntary is done, given, or acting of one's own free will but you're suggesting that it would be "one year per person" which sounds rather prescriptive and contractual. You would definitely reshape current patterns of volunteering; with your idea; you'd have thousands of disgruntled, resentful people who don't want to be working in a community garden or handing out tea for the WVS.

Why not just make everyone work a year longer after their due retirement date and be done with it? Oh wait..... that's already been done by previous by previous governments!

Somewhere in this discussion the word 'unproductive' was used in conjunction with taxpaying. Which says to me that people don't necessarily think about other forms of taxation.

Anyway, the idea of it obligatory to 'contribute to society' in the ways suggested makes me very uneasy.
How did people feel, for example, about the tory MP saying that it's women's duty to have children?

Why does everyone keep assuming that some people are 'non taxpayers'?
'Tax' isn't just income tax, most people will be lifelong taxpayers unless they don't spend any money at all...

Yes, we know that MaisyD, but I think you're taking the phrase "non taxpayers" a little too literally. I'm fairly certain that most people know about indirect taxes etc but, for ease of the discussion, they use the phrase to indicate that many people don't have a sufficiently high level of income to attract paying taxes on it. Don't get stressed by it; we all know what they mean.

Clearly 4 days was too much! I made it clear that the scheme I was outlining was for one year per person only, would be remunerated, and that it would take years of planning and reshape current patterns of volunteering.

I certainly wasn't envisaging a compulsory 4 day week for over 70's! Good grief. In wartime, maybe it would be necessary, but I do think people need to put their feet up at some point, after decades of work.

But if everyone (who is able to) gave up even half a day, a lot could be achieved to make the country a better place. People working full-time would be exempt, but there could be compulsory schemes for employers to allow staff days off - a bit like for being a magistrate, or if they are in the TA. My children both work for employers who operate volunteer schemes, but I think they are only once or twice a year. My daughter always opts to work for the Dogs' Trust, and my son cleans up an area of the beach near where he lives. They get exercise (as do the dogs!) they meet new people from other companies in the schemes, and their work is for good causes. There is no remuneration and they make up lost work time afterwards, but their salaries are paid, so both they and their (different) employers contribute in their own ways. It will be tax deductible for the employers too, I assume.

I don't (personally) see looking after one's own family as community service though, unless there are extenuating circumstances. We all do that, along with running our homes and so on.

It appears that the Germans are facing the same difficulties regarding manpower shortages in their armed services. Their Defence Minister has mooted the possibility of reintroducing compulsory military service, which was ended in 2011. There is political resistance to it though. The Swedes have reintroduced CMS too.

Why does everyone keep assuming that some people are 'non taxpayers'?

'Tax' isn't just income tax, most people will be lifelong taxpayers unless they don't spend any money at all...

winterwhite

No I'm not entirely joking. I'm envisaging a situation where the end of working life is marked with a year of appropriate community work/service before retirement. What is so funny about that?

Enforced volunteering = slavery

Re-elected , not reflected

I think this government is desperate to reduce the number of pensioners. Covid didn't do enough so now they can go after the non tax paying, state pensioners (intended as light hearted comment) and work the remaining life out of them. The really scary thing will be if trump gets reflected and takes the USA out of NATO. I can see conscription being necessary in that scenario. We, born after WW2, have known a time of stability and relative prosperity unknown to many. As the world moves towards the far right it is all becoming far more precarious. We may well find war on our doorstep instead of it being something that happens "over there".

winterwhite My weekly "Community Work" since retirement from full-time work at the age of 69, consists of 3 mornings of school drop offs, 2 afternoons of school pick ups, 1 evening of taking 2 children to swimming lessons, 1 evening taking a child to football practice, 2 mornings as a volunteer committee member for a retirement group. All gratis. I'm tired now. I've done my bit and more. I don't want to contribute any more of my time to society. I just want to be left alone to read my long neglected books, tend my neglected garden and sit on my backside watching you toil away with your appropriate community work/service before retirement. Enjoy!

Pammie1

winterwhite

No I'm not entirely joking. I'm envisaging a situation where the end of working life is marked with a year of appropriate community work/service before retirement. What is so funny about that?

I think any government trying to introduce such a thing wou;d be committing political suicide.

I agree Pammie1

Retiree Conscription just isn't going to be attractive to very many people.

Either you retire from work or not. Adding another year of community work is just upping the retirement age. And the logistics of who does what in the 'community' - and for how much remuneration, would be an operational and organisational nightmare.

Not to mention the fact that at age 70, many people's health starts to deteriorate. Not necessarily drastically (though for some, it is), but energy levels drop, tiredness creeps up on you, joints wear out, etc,

... and for some, the 70s are the last few years of their life. There are also those who've been combining their work with looking after ageing and ailing parents as they near retirement.

Enough is enough.

Silly idea Winterwhite I thought it was a joke and not a very good one.

My goodness so much is contributed to society already by those of pension age

Think of the unpaid childcare, the caring, the volunteering, the untold and unrecorded visits and help to friends and acquaintances, the work carried out in such institutions as churches, village halls, various committees etc. etc.

Take all that out of the equation because the government insists on the pensioner “doing their bit” and society would be much the poorer.

People retire for a good reason, ignore that and commit political suicide.