National Service needn't be military though. There are many things that people could do in lieu of paying tax into the economy, and there is an argument for that being a requirement for everyone benefiting from living in a country that provides so many things to all citizens. Obviously there should be exemptions for those incapable of doing it, or who have already worked for X years - I am not suggesting that retirees should be conscripted after years of work
.
The problem, however, is that it is difficult to think of many jobs that could be done under a scheme like that which are not already being done by people currently being paid, and 'conscription' would undercut their wages, and increase unemployment, which would defeat the object. It would also be open to exploitation by the sort of employers whose profits are already subsidised from the public purse in the form of top-ups to underpaid staff. If they could get a free workforce they would almost certainly do so.
Somehow there has to be a measurable incentive to being in work, and it's very difficult to achieve that without simultaneously being punitive to those on benefits. Free entry to venues, (or reduced prices) for the unwaged is a slap in the face to people working for minimum wage, but at the same time, gratuitously cutting that sort of thing seems cruel.
I'm not sure of the detail, but the idea of a time-limited unemployment benefit based on contributions seems like a good idea at first glance. If people can't claim before having paid in for a certain length of time (and the devil is in that sort of detail) they will have had to have experience of work before getting the payment, which may solve some of the problems with employability. Also, a time-limited benefit might galvanise people to find another job before it runs out. On the other hand, what are people who have never worked supposed to live on if they are denied assistance? The 'insurance' payment would have to be a extra, which might not save money, but seems like a good idea, as it would differentiate between long-term claimants and those who have temporarily fallen on hard times. Or is that going down the 'deserving and undeserving' route? I don't know.
It's not as simple as cutting benefits, or of 'workers versus scroungers', and I wish media coverage at least tried to address that.