Sunday 26 May 2024

The Tories' National Service Stunt

An election is called, ambushing everyone, including the governing party. The first few days of the campaign have been lacklustre to disastrous, and there is a polling mountain to clime of between 17 and 25 points, depending on which survey you pay attention to. If you were the incumbent Prime Minister in this position, how to turn this desperate situation around? For Rishi Sunak, promising the return of compulsory national service for 18 year olds.

According to James Cleverly speaking on Laura Kuenssberg, this idea is about getting young people "out of their bubble" and forcing them to mix with others from a range of backgrounds. The important bit, he said, was the "societal coming together". He talks about "fragmentation" and "detachment", and argues it's an "investment in young people" that might "pump-prime lifelong volunteering". 30,000 18 year olds will go into the military, with the rest doing the equivalent of 25 days in a variety of "voluntary" schemes. Such as food banks, helping the homeless, and clearing up the other social costs left by a long-standing Conservative government. This is to be funded by a mix of a crackdown on tax avoidance and raids upon the Shared Prosperity Fund, the Johnson-era levelling up scheme.

Contrary to Cleverly's claims, apart from the principles of liberty and freedom at stake there is no need for national service. For all of the Tories' concerns with anomie and youngsters not fitting in, the most recently available ONS figures showed 29% of 18-24 year olds already volunteer. In the first quarter of this year, 58.4% of 18-24 year olds were employed, which does not include those in full-time education. Furthermore, one in five 11-18 year olds are young carers. And, if anything, the rising generation are the most pro-social generation ever. The Tories know this, of course. Cleverly's arguments are made off vibes peddled by Telegraph and Mail scare stories, which in themselves bear zero scrutiny. Unsurprisingly, the party of fundamental dishonesty has hitched its wagon to a policy whose assumptions are fundamentally dishonest.

For once, the press pack have called Sunak's wheeze right. As polling shows, the further one is from the age of 18 the more enthusiastic the voter. With the forecast election result pregnant with the Tories' existential doom, cohering the core vote over chasing fair weather supporters is no optional extra. Another reason why a post-election right wing turn is more than likely. But also, that support is menaced by Reform. That Nigel Farage has ruled out standing for the "party" so he can spend more time grifting on the American lecture circuit is one positive to an otherwise gloomy campaign start, but the danger Reform could take hundreds of thousands of votes in marginal seats at the Tories' expense is well understood. Sunak is betting that national service tickles the fancy of Reform-curious voters in all sorts of ways. It plays to insufferable nostalgia for a time they never lived through, appeals to this layer's authoritarian instincts and fears of the new, and there's a vicarious thrill to be had from forcing pampered young people to do something they'd hate doing.

This idea of a national service "for the modern age" has floated around the Tory ether for a while, in both its voluntary and compulsory forms. But sadly for Sunak, quite apart from the practicality quibbles (how are young people going to be sanctioned if they refuse? Are they going to get banged up?), the idea this could win votes doesn't hold much water. For every elderly voter won back from Reform or abstention, they are helping mobilise a greater anti-Tory feeling among young people themselves. While today's 18 year olds won't be undertaking the scheme (the government talks hazily about it being up and running by the end of the decade), they will feel it's an attack on them, encourage them to turn out, and to vote accordingly. For some it might prove to be a radicalising moment, a realisation that the powers that be want even more from them without offering anything in return. And then there are the parents, who are unlikely to be supportive. National service is a cynical stunt and one that might prove counterproductive.

Not that any of this matters. The promised return of national service has no chance of seeing the light of day under the Tories, seeing as oblivion awaits. But, despite mockery from sundry Labour MPs on social media and the Sunday politics shows, the leadership's response has been to attack the funding rather than the principle of the scheme. Either this implies they see merit in the Tories' arguments, which wouldn't surprise anyone, or once again they don't want to challenge the prejudices of the core Tory vote they're immolating their base for to win over. Is there no political argument Keir Starmer and co. won't run away from?

Either way, Labour will be very happy without this announcement. If the Tories are doing all the leg work to give good reasons to not vote for them, the less pressure there is on Starmer to offer anything positive.

Image Credit

9 comments:

Phil said...

It's possible that this is smarter than it looks. On one hand, as you say, it's tailored to chip away at the bloc of ex-Tories who have drifted to Reform - and who may now be wondering if they really want to cast a pure protest vote at a General Election. On the other, the Labour leadership response has been worse than lacklustre - although they attacked the proposal as impractical, they came perilously close to endorsing it in principle, even suggesting that conscription might be 'necessary'. There's already a groundswell developing of left and centre-left withdrawal from Labour, and this is only going to fuel it. Ironically, Starmer may have done just what his supporters were perpetually accusing Corbyn of doing, and "walked into a Tory trap".

Anonymous said...

Has anyone consulted the services whom these unwilling conscripts would be foisted on? When I was a Charge Nurse in the NHS, I would not have thanked you for sending me a bunch of resentful 18 year olds to take care of every weekend in addition to my other responsibilities. They would need training and supervision so would not lessen the workload of the regular staff- if anything they'd increase it. People can already volunteer, join the TA or special constables, etc, so the only new recruits would be the unwilling and unsuitable. They can afford to propose this policy because they'll never have to implement it.

Anonymous said...

«the less pressure there is on Starmer to offer anything positive»

The great myth driven by the pundits that Starmer is cipher that has made no definite policy offers is quite strange, because he has made loud and repeated promises to his core constituents of affluent brexiters, my usual quotes:

* Property: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/05/house-prices-freefall-property-ownership-rent-britain
«The foreground of Labour policy, however, is all about home ownership. Not unreasonably, Keir Starmer sees buying a house as “the bedrock of security and aspiration”, and often makes glowing references to the pebble-dashed semi in which he grew up. Given the chance, he will apparently lead a government set on pursuing a 70% target for home ownership, up from England’s current figure of 64%. There is talk of a new mortgage guarantee scheme; the party’s first actions in government will include “helping first-time buyers on to the housing ladder and building more affordable homes by reforming planning rules”. Labour, we are told, “is the party of home ownership in Britain today”.»

* NIMBYsm: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jun/19/labour-urges-tory-backbench-rebellion-in-planning-reform-vote
«Labour will attempt to heap pressure on Boris Johnson over his planning reforms after the Tories’ byelection defeat by calling on backbench rebels to support the opposition in a Commons vote. Sir Keir Starmer’s party has tabled a debate calling for the prime minister to change one of the most controversial proposals by giving communities greater oversight of planning applications.»

* Make Brexit work: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/10/keir-starmer-accepts-end-of-eu-free-movement-in-brexit-reversal
«Keir Starmer has abandoned the commitment to free movement of people in the European Union he made to Labour members during the party’s leadership contest. The Labour leader said his party had to be honest with the public, and that if it won the next general election a major renegotiation of the Brexit treaty would not be possible.»

* Police immunity: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/11/labour-facing-another-split-over-police-immunity-in-spy-cops-bill
“Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, had called on the party to abstain over the bill, arguing that statutory regulation of undercover operatives would have been necessary if the party had been in power, after the government only narrowly won a court case over the issue.”

* Limit the right of protest: https://www.thenational.scot/news/23510723.coronation-keir-starmer-no-plans-repeal-new-protest-laws/
«KEIR Starmer has also said he is not preparing to rip up the new police powers that have come under fresh criticism after the arrests of protesters ahead of the King’s coronation.»

Plus no need for quotes for other points:

* Solid, principled purging of the entrysm into the party of those "trots" who don't support the interests of "Middle England", have social-democratic or socialist opinions, or criticize the wars endorsed by the USA and israeli governments.

* Solid, principled support any war started or endorsed by the USA or Israeli governments.

* Solid, principled fight against anything that Russia, China or Iran say or do.

Anonymous said...

@Phil Depends on how smart those Labour-withdrawers are. Are they dumb enough to vote other than Labour in a Lab-Tory marginal...?

Starmer might have shed some votes in other marginals (where nobody other than Starmer's core constituency has any reason to vote Labour). But under most circumstances those ought to hurt Starmer without benefiting the Tories at all.

Plus, it's very early days of the campaign. If this is one of the core gimmicks that Sunak intends to rely upon, then he has to keep pushing it all month, while Labour can completely change their tune in response if they want to. And if Labour aren't still responding to this gimmick later in the month, then it means they'll be responding to a different one, and this initial exchange over National Service will be ancient history.

Rodney said...

To add to what commenter Phil said, it's probably a coincidence but the Tories announced their national service plan shortly after Starmer talked about how he *might* give 16 year olds the vote with the justification “If you can work, if you can pay tax, if you can serve in your armed forces, then you ought to be able to vote,”.

This leads me to wonder if Labour had a plan to grant 16 year olds the right to vote in return for them taking on the responsibility of national service/forced volunteering. It would certainly be in line with Starmer's authoritarian mindset and his party's insistence they represent working people, not the working class. Nor is it hard to imagine the focus groups liking the idea.

In which case it is possible that in stealing the idea of national service the Tories thought they were disrupting Labour's campaign strategy while also shoring up their core vote.

Jim Denham said...

Engels:

"The more workers who are trained in the use of weapons, the better. Universal conscription is the necessary and natural extension of universal suffrage; it enables the electorate to carry out its resolutions arms in hand against any coup that might be attempted.

"The ever more complete introduction of military service is the only aspect of the Prussian army reorganization which interests the German working class." (“The Prussian Military Question and the German Workers’ Party,” 1865.)

Blissex said...

Just spotted on "The Guardian" two quite interesting pieces:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/27/starmer-im-a-socialist-and-progressive-who-will-always-put-country-first>
«Starmer: I’m a socialist and progressive»

Is he trying to push away his core constituency of affluent brexiter property owners? Mandelson will scold him harshly for claiming to be a scary, dangerous "socialist". :-)

The following graph of voting intentions polls shows that *something big* happened in October-November 2023, where presumably the number of Conservative voters crashed greatly increasing the Labour percentage. Some people will remember that in 2020, 2021, 2022 Starmer got some big fails in by-elections. Note also the huge increase of Reform UK at the same time. It may well

Too bad this graph does not show absolute numbers and not even the percentage of undecided or won't say:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/27/labour-polling-lead-conservatives-overstated-tory-election-expert#img-1

Anonymous said...

Rodney

That is completely and totally a product of your imagination - no Labour person has *ever* suggested 16/17 year olds getting the vote only on condition of "national service" or anything similar.

Its total frenzied Corbynist rabbit hole mind rot.

I'm all in favour of critiques of Starmerism - something our host can do very well - but please can we stay serious.

Rodney said...

Anonymous, I thought putting "it's probably coincidence" in the first line would clue people in to the fact it was idle speculation, alas in your frenzied desire to punch left you forgot how to read.

By the by, do you remember when your ilk claimed it was Corbynite fantasy that Starmer would drop all his leadership election pledges? Or that he'd drop his green investment pledge? Or that he'd welcome far right Tory MPs with open arms? Or that he'd screw the unions? Or that he'd embrace transphobia? etc etc

Perhaps you and yours shouldn't be so quick to dismiss things as fantasy?