It’s up to us to ensure fair future – not Army
EVERY now and again someone comes up with the hoary old chestnut about National Service being the solution to the latest evidence of problem behaviour among the younger generation.
And this time the call comes from Joan Rathburn, who will not have experienced the benefits or otherwise of National Service as women were not pressed into this particular duty.
Well, I was, and I look back on my two year’s service in the Army with a mixture of annoyance at the loss of a substantial part of my younger life and affection at what was a very rewarding time.
Every ex-serviceman will confirm the wonderful camaraderie which enfolds and protects each individual and develops a feeling of esprit de corps even in the most reluctant conscript.
But is this the best way to instil discipline in the young?
The object of the military is to kill the enemy and to do this unquestioningly at the orders of those of superior rank – and at the end of the day it will be the question of killing the other man (someone else’s son) rather than being killed by him.
Is this what the lady and others who promote the idea of bringing back National Service envisage as good training for the younger generation? In any case, times have moved on since the days of National Service.
The armed forces have become leaner, sharper, much more technical and like all public services continually short of money. There would be no appetite among government, of whatever stripe, to find the many millions of pounds needed for such a project.
Perhaps we should look much closer to home for the answers to perceived behavioural problems.
The first responsibility, surely, must rest with parents who oversee their child’s development by teaching and example, a difficult task not made any easier by poor prospects of meaningful jobs and affordable housing for the less affluent.
No, the armed forces are for the professionals, it is up to the rest of us to train the young and try and influence the political climate towards a fairer future for everyone. Rod Slater, via email
Politicians to wake up
GRAHAM Stringer may have more experience than I have of the corridors of parliamentary power, but his extolling the benefit of Brexit (M.E.N.
Viewpoints, October 13) with the words: ‘...we would control our own borders, money, and laws. It’s called democracy’ makes me wonder if he is seeing a different reality.
Perhaps (if the government’s ‘Henry VIII rules’ power-grab is well and truly scotched – as yet by no means certain) MPs will have chances to vote on issues that matter to Mancunians like working conditions, the environment, and international trade.
But as we see with the crumbling value of the pound, geo-political real-politics, and corporate coercion, their frame of reference and options may be rather prescribed.
And as the government wildly signs us up to trade deals we’ll have be wary of their allowing transnationals to sue our government and councils for decisions that impact on their profits – such as taking back failing PFI resources like our hospitals, privatised public utilities and infrastructure that doesn’t deliver at reasonable prices.
All these limitations to the realisation of our full democracy and liberty are on the cards.
I hope Mr Stringer and his colleagues are awake to them – but it’s not evident they are. J Martin, Manchester Greater Manchester Trade Action Network
What are the ‘true facts’
I’M not sure M Radcliffe is right in saying ‘We have the oldest Parliament in history’
(M.E.N. Viewpoints,
Saturday, October 14) – aren’t Iceland and the Tynwald earlier?
However, I do accept fully that it should be an informed and reflective parliament rather than referenda that should decide big issues like Brexit – otherwise we might still be hanging people.
I would accept M Radcliffe’s objection to a further referendum, if I felt our MPs could be trusted.
However, current behaviour suggests they can’t be. As the letter says, they seem to be intent in buck-passing too much of the time, and their reluctance to challenge predatory big business suggests they regard office as the beginning of a gravytrain.
Another correspondent (P Jones) wants to know ‘true facts’ about Brexit. But there are so many of them and so contradictory that, with the best will in the world, you could get contradictory sets of facts.
With instability in the USA and problems in the far East, I wonder if it is such a good idea to be cutting ourselves off now. Joan Pleasance, Didsbury