Do read the post old chap. That’s why near the top I put in this.

it’s a difficult subject to discuss if one hasn’t had to endure it oneself.

Of course if we couldn’t speak of it because we hadn’t done it then the logic would say Defense Ministers could only be ex-military men, and so on.

A country doesn’t have to be under threat to have some form of national service. I’m thinking of Switzerland and Norway, although I haven’t researched whether they still have it, so I’m ready to be corrected. What we have seen with professional armies is that reduces one of the checks and balances on governments to commit to a war. Blair was able to be very gung ho because he knew there wasn’t going to be a large anti-war group of mothers on his back.

Still as I said at the beginning this is not a view that has anywhere like majority support, so is unlikely to be carried out by any government in the near future. Having said that if youth unemployment continues to worsen I suspect an FDR like work program may be needed to fix damage done by the present government, and that is half-way towards a national service, or at least on the road. Tax is whole different subject best left to another day.

National Service is massively unpopular among the young in those countries that still have it (those who actually have to do it). It is close to the ultimate nanny state piece of direction (Do this job, its good for you; and if don’t, you will go to prison).

That is even before the destruction of the capabilities of the armed forces. Professional soldiers, unless the country is under direct threat such as WW2 or Israel, are better trained and motivated than conscripts who only serve 1-2 years. That is why so many European countries have moved away from conscription in the last 20 years (Germany ended it last year).

I’m always leery of opinion polls that suggest people favour things that might negatively effect them (such as pay more tax or have national service they or their children will have to endure). Economists note revealed preference where people say one thing and do another. Both those are cases where the revealed preferences have pretty much always been to vote for less tax for themselves and less obligations. They really support higher tax and conscription for other people.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/lifestyle/2012/05/education-%E2%80%93-labour%E2%80%99s-next-clause-4

If not.

Then im afraid you will not be trusted.

We have for over 14 years had major added protection of the internet.

What utter rubbish that parents allow children to watch porn media.

We have had freedoms that we spoke as of right now.

I have watched riots from aboard and in other nations and have also disagred.

Either you block this.

Or you Labour will be faced with the same problem as the coalition.

It is not a threat, it is realistic.

A sick man will go harm children, always, its them who we need to lock up.

We can find them, together.

Find them locate them, its easy to do.

Dont punish the rest of us adults for being innocent on the internet.

I find it hard to debate or differentiate between the mixed middle of our political decline.

I see the cuts, i see our people decline in work and our people suffer in many cuts in benefits and services.

Which are needed for our people to survive our nation.

What i do ask you, as a party.

Is that, if we dont fall back under that shadow of Iraq and other really expensive wars, and fall into the american banking system.

As we have.

Now as the EU declines, we are now back into that.

I ask you.

Do you think we are stupid?

Will you defend out people, our old and vunerable..

Remember this election is not about knocking on doors, this next elextion will be about the INTERNET.

I agree with you that schools are getting too large. When I was at school 20 years ago  1000 pupil comprehensives were rare, now that is small. The argument that big schools can have better facilities is not sufficient. A school with a sense of community where the head knows all the pupils and they know each other is more important than having the latest digital blackboards. If there are certain expensive facilities that really are needed then they can be shared between several schools (minibuses aren’t that expensive).

On single sex education again I have sympathy. My co-ed comprehensive was formed from the local girls grammar and secondary modern. A level physics was a male only preserve. The excellent teacher who had come from the girls grammar blamed the mixed classes. On their own teenage girls were happy to do what interested them, in a mixed environment they felt uncomfortable leaving their assigned gender roles. Now modern girls may be different but teenagers spend lots of time worrying about how the opposite sex see them. The less distractions the better for study. Against that you comment on how confident they are. The mixing co-ed education gives in almost certainly part of that so you have to make a judgement.

Teacher tenure and testing. Whole hearted agreement. But then apart from teacher unions I think everyone agrees with you.

Unsurprisingly I’m not with you on positive discrimination. No only is the evidence unclear that comprehensive pupils do better at university (they are far more likely to drop out so will get lost in the final degree figures) but if you give quotas for state school pupils how will you stop the middle classes educating Johnny up to Year 11 in private schools then going to a state 6th form college, topping up with private tutors such as happens in South Korea?

I think though all in all you are making the case for Free Schools. These are smaller, can be single sex and can  fire under performing teachers. I’ll take your Tory Party membership application now.