It's not intended to be a practical proposal. The tories have given up on winning and are now intent on damage limitation by reclaiming as much of the Reform Ltd vote as possible, and conscription is catnip for gammons. Not a bad move tactically, given the situation, once you realise it's not a real policy.
It's not intended to be a practical proposal. The tories have given up on winning and are now intent on damage limitation by reclaiming as much of the Reform Ltd vote as possible, and conscription is catnip for gammons. Not a bad move tactically, given the situation, once you realise it's not a real policy.
The problem with that interpretation is that many people were saying almost exactly the same thing in 2015 regarding the proposed referendum on EU membership (exchange UKIP for Reform Ltd). And, look where that got us.
Sir Keir is countering this by giving all 16 year old children the vote.
I think that giving 16 year olds the vote in Scotland has worked really well. It has engaged schoolchildren in the whole process. At the last election, when I went to vote, there was a real buzz as people congratulated voters in school uniform. There were photos on Facebook of school uniformed first voters. It turned it into a rite of passage. I suspect those young voters are likely to continue to engage with future elections.
You can get married at 16 in Scotland (though it's vanishingly rare) so why not be able to vote?
Sir Keir is countering this by giving all 16 year old children the vote.
Well, the whole voting eligibility thing is confusing.
For General Elections you must be 18 or over, be a British, Irish or qualifying Commonwealth citizen, be resident at an address in the UK or living abroad and registered as an overseas voter.
For local elections in Wales you must be 18 or over, be resident in the relevant area, and are a British or Irish citizen, citizen of an EU country or have permission to enter or stay in the UK, Channel Islands or Isle of Man.
For Senedd elections you must be 16 or over, live in Wales, and are a citizen as per local elections.
For Police Commissioner elections, you must be 18 or over be resident at an address in England or Wales (excluding London), and are a British, Irish or Commonwealth citizen, a citizen of Denmark, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal or Spain, or a citizen of another EU country, if you have had permission to enter or stay since 31 December 2020, and this has continued without a break.
Quite, and what happens if they refuse - a whole other cost of bureaucracy and costs, probably criminalising large numbers of young people from more deprived backgrounds in the process.
Quite, and what happens if they refuse - a whole other cost of bureaucracy and costs, probably criminalising large numbers of young people from more deprived backgrounds in the process.
Send them to Dartmoor prison for hard labour? Because that worked incredibly well last time..
It's not intended to be a practical proposal. The tories have given up on winning and are now intent on damage limitation by reclaiming as much of the Reform Ltd vote as possible, and conscription is catnip for gammons. Not a bad move tactically, given the situation, once you realise it's not a real policy.
The problem with that interpretation is that many people were saying almost exactly the same thing in 2015 regarding the proposed referendum on EU membership (exchange UKIP for Reform Ltd). And, look where that got us.
True, but any sort of tory victory is now far less likely than in 2015.
Would conscription involve a massive programme of barracks building and recruiting staff to manage it?
Google tells me that there are approx 700, 000 18 year olds in the UK, and that the British Army comprises 186,000 people, of whom 33, 000 are Volunteer Reserves.
The BBC says that the plans are for an initial 30,000 national service army places, which leaves 670,000 spare 18 year olds to do their national service with the fire brigade or NHS.
Do they intend to expand the Fire Service and NHS, or is the plan that existing personnel will find their roles changed to include "management of 18 year olds"
The suggested figure is that National Service will cost 2.5 billion (presumably per annum) which works out at a cost of just £3,500 per 18 year old.
It’s barking mad - the military don’t want it, the youth don’t want it - it’s a shore up the vote strategy.
Though personally I don’t believe anyone too young to vote or pay taxes should be sent to war or have to pay taxes, but by the same token intellectually I could be persuaded to align voting age with ‘liability to be sent to war and pay taxes’ age…. So if voting is 16 then everything else should be 16 too. Otherwise you’ve already got young voters (16-18) sending other people to war by voting for governments that do that, whereas at the moment at least those too old have been through the liability zone.
I’d have one age for adulthood at which all privileges and responsibilities are bestowed at once - voting, gambling, driving, drinking, service in the armed forces, marriage, etc
everything else should be 16 too. Otherwise you’ve already got young voters (16-18) sending other people to war by voting for governments that do that, whereas at the moment at least those too old have been through the liability zone.
What liability zone? I must have missed the conflicts the UK has been in since WWII where mass conscription was a serious proposition.
It’s barking mad - the military don’t want it, the youth don’t want it - it’s a shore up the vote strategy.
Though personally I don’t believe anyone too young to vote or pay taxes should be sent to war or have to pay taxes, but by the same token intellectually I could be persuaded to align voting age with ‘liability to be sent to war and pay taxes’ age…. So if voting is 16 then everything else should be 16 too. Otherwise you’ve already got young voters (16-18) sending other people to war by voting for governments that do that, whereas at the moment at least those too old have been through the liability zone.
I’d have one age for adulthood at which all privileges and responsibilities are bestowed at once - voting, gambling, driving, drinking, service in the armed forces, marriage, etc
Starmer appears to be thinking along much the same lines:
Personally I think people should have the right to vote from birth - if they are unable or unwilling to use it parents or guardian should act as their proxy, but they should be able to assert their right to use it themselves at any age.
everything else should be 16 too. Otherwise you’ve already got young voters (16-18) sending other people to war by voting for governments that do that, whereas at the moment at least those too old have been through the liability zone.
What liability zone? I must have missed the conflicts the UK has been in since WWII where mass conscription was a serious proposition.
It’s always been a serious proposition since 1916 - if conscription came in tomorrow precedent says it starts at 18.
I’ve got no interest in doing it, or supporting it, but everyone alive knows who the British state would come for, because it has been done.
And yes, in the pre-1879 days when we sent 14 year old drummer boys to war, they should have had the vote too.
Also, national servicemen (18+) were used in conflict right to the end of national service. Korea, Malaya, Cyprus etc, so 1945 isn’t really the cut off date. The cut off date for mass conscription of 18 year olds to go and be killed fighting for the the UK is 1960.
Also, national servicemen (18+) were used in conflict right to the end of national service. Korea, Malaya, Cyprus etc, so 1945 isn’t really the cut off date. The cut off date for mass conscription of 18 year olds to go and be killed fighting for the the UK is 1960.
So the vast majority of people now ineligible for national service (and conscription) due to age would also never have been through your hypothetical 'liability zone'.
1960 is a long time ago though, with very different prevailing norms. I cannot see mass acceptance of conscription in any circumstances short of an existing, prolonged major war with Russia or China, and maybe not even then.
I don't think this policy is a vote-winner even as an "imaginary" one. Although it is not "conscription" as such.
Also, national servicemen (18+) were used in conflict right to the end of national service. Korea, Malaya, Cyprus etc, so 1945 isn’t really the cut off date. The cut off date for mass conscription of 18 year olds to go and be killed fighting for the the UK is 1960.
So the vast majority of people now ineligible for national service (and conscription) due to age would also never have been through your hypothetical 'liability zone'.
Quite, but you seem to be missing the bit where I’m not advocating it - all I’ve said is that intellectually you could make a case for equalising the gateway to all the rights and responsibilities of adulthood
I was professional armed forces - I would have had no interest in babysitting conscripts. Which is why in 1960 it was abolished. The armed forces were in the vanguard of the push for abolition!
Also, national servicemen (18+) were used in conflict right to the end of national service. Korea, Malaya, Cyprus etc, so 1945 isn’t really the cut off date. The cut off date for mass conscription of 18 year olds to go and be killed fighting for the the UK is 1960.
So the vast majority of people now ineligible for national service (and conscription) due to age would also never have been through your hypothetical 'liability zone'.
Quite, but you seem to be missing the bit where I’m not advocating it - all I’ve said is that intellectually you could make a case for equalising the gateway to all the rights and responsibilities of adulthood
Yes, but as a position it doesn't bear much close examination and ends dangerously close to 'service guarantees citizenship' (which was supposed to be parody).
Also, national servicemen (18+) were used in conflict right to the end of national service. Korea, Malaya, Cyprus etc, so 1945 isn’t really the cut off date. The cut off date for mass conscription of 18 year olds to go and be killed fighting for the the UK is 1960.
So the vast majority of people now ineligible for national service (and conscription) due to age would also never have been through your hypothetical 'liability zone'.
Quite, but you seem to be missing the bit where I’m not advocating it - all I’ve said is that intellectually you could make a case for equalising the gateway to all the rights and responsibilities of adulthood
Yes, but as a position it doesn't bear much close examination and ends dangerously close to 'service guarantees citizenship' (which was supposed to be parody).
Ah Starship Troopers…
Now you’ve mentioned that I of course accept that you’re right…
I wonder if they have even discussed it with the military.
For the reason @betjemaniac cited, I'm sure they haven't.
I can only think of two reasons for this lunacy - well actually, there's a third, but that would be too incredible to believe. The first is the one @Arethosemyfeet suggested, "catnip for gammons", a policy to attract votes away from Reform. That has to be based either on a calculation that so few young electors were already likely to vote Conservative that the loss of their votes isn't worth bothering about, or that their ID policy has been so successful that those voters can't vote anyway.
The second is that this is a policy designed to be droppable should there be a hung Parliament and they are looking for a party they can do a deal with.
The third - that's that Sunak has lost his marbles.
Incidentally, as an aside, the evidence of recent history strongly suggests that sometime during the 1950s something changed in the world such that states have found they can only use conscripts to staff armies fighting for desperate defence of the national homeland. Trying to fight foreign wars with conscripts doesn't seem to work and also causes problems at home, viz the experiences of the US in Vietnam and the USSR in Afghanistan.
The interesting and more worrying question to which nobody knows the answer is whether China is too different a society, with too different a culture and history for this to apply there too.
I think they are trying to continue the narrative that the world is dangerous at the moment and think the idea of national service/army will remind people of this. They are, bizarrely given the circumstances, suggesting the world is too unsafe at present for a Labour government and we will be safer under the Conservatives.
It is a poorly thought out, expensive, waste of time and spirit; that does bugger all to address the pressing issues the world and the country face - which can be said of much Tory policy making. I imagine shortly they’ll come up with something on inheritance tax for those younger folk, without a hope of ever buying their own home or any rent security, to ignore.
It is a poorly thought out, expensive, waste of time and spirit; that does bugger all to address the pressing issues the world and the country face - which can be said of much Tory policy making. ...
As with the proposal to stop future generations from smoking, now aborted, the Rwanda scheme, now aborted, Hunt's really exciting* new policy initiative for the manifesto yesterday about extra tax benefits for high earners etc. etc. etc.
They've had since 2015 in sole power to demonstrate what a fantastic offer they are for the country and how skilled they are in making life better for everyone. Why should they be any different this time?
Incidentally, as an aside, the evidence of recent history strongly suggests that sometime during the 1950s something changed in the world such that states have found they can only use conscripts to staff armies fighting for desperate defence of the national homeland. Trying to fight foreign wars with conscripts doesn't seem to work and also causes problems at home, viz the experiences of the US in Vietnam and the USSR in Afghanistan.
I think resisting conscription outwith national defence is the norm for the UK. The press was always controversial and conscription treated as something those nasty, unfree foreigners do up until WWI.
Also, national servicemen (18+) were used in conflict right to the end of national service. Korea, Malaya, Cyprus etc, so 1945 isn’t really the cut off date. The cut off date for mass conscription of 18 year olds to go and be killed fighting for the the UK is 1960.
So the vast majority of people now ineligible for national service (and conscription) due to age would also never have been through your hypothetical 'liability zone'.
Quite, but you seem to be missing the bit where I’m not advocating it - all I’ve said is that intellectually you could make a case for equalising the gateway to all the rights and responsibilities of adulthood
Yes, but as a position it doesn't bear much close examination and ends dangerously close to 'service guarantees citizenship' (which was supposed to be parody).
Ah Starship Troopers…
Now you’ve mentioned that I of course accept that you’re right…
Well, you are always welcome to explain why I'm wrong, I'm just saying that intellectually the case is very weak - once you get away from such tropes as 'rights and responsibilities'.
I think resisting conscription outwith national defence is the norm for the UK. The press was always controversial and conscription treated as something those nasty, unfree foreigners do up until WWI.
Sorry, but I regret to say that's nonsense. Between 1945 and 1960 the UK used conscripts in the same way as any other part of the army, including using them to make up number in the BAOR (British Army of the Rhine), which fortunately didn't see them getting killed, and sending them to Korea where quite a lot were. That had nothing to do with national defence.
I think resisting conscription outwith national defence is the norm for the UK. The press was always controversial and conscription treated as something those nasty, unfree foreigners do up until WWI.
Sorry, but I regret to say that's nonsense. Between 1945 and 1960 the UK used conscripts in the same way as any other part of the army, including using them to make up number in the BAOR (British Army of the Rhine), which fortunately didn't see them getting killed, and sending them to Korea where quite a lot were. That had nothing to do with national defence.
I'm saying that brief period was very much the exception - the post-1960 attitude was a reversion to the pre-war norm.
You can get married at 16 in Scotland (though it's vanishingly rare) so why not be able to vote?
That's not really a great example. Being able to marry at 16 in Scotland is not really something to be proud of. The UN defines 16 and 17 year olds getting married as "child marriage", just like it defines people of the same age in the Army as "child soldiers".
I understand the Conservative Party intend to fund the £2.5bn annual cost of the national service scheme with £1.5bn diverted from the UK Shared Prosperity fund (levelling up) and £1.0bn from taxes which are currently being avoided by tax payers. If they know that here is so much tax not being collected why aren't they already doing something about it? Who is liable for this loss over the last fourteen years and will Tony Blair & Gordon Brown be asked to compensate the country for the amounts lost during their government?
I've seen the thought that this is secretly an effort to plug holes in the care system by forcing young people into those jobs.. and then not paying them.
I don't know if the Tories have thought this far down their nonsense policy, but if they have they are surely lost the plot.
Abandoning levelling-up will not be good for Wales, already a generally poor part of Britain. But that doesn't matter, as it elects very few Conservative MPs.
Anyway, our mountains (Eryri and Bannau Brycheiniog) will resist levelling.
Levelling up hasn't been a thing for a while. That was obvious when levelling up money got spent on improvements in public transport in London, but wasn't a priority before that became public knowledge.
You can get married at 16 in Scotland (though it's vanishingly rare) so why not be able to vote?
That's not really a great example. Being able to marry at 16 in Scotland is not really something to be proud of. The UN defines 16 and 17 year olds getting married as "child marriage", just like it defines people of the same age in the Army as "child soldiers".
I did not know that! I don't know what the figures are like for 16 year olds. It seems that less that 1% marry prior to the age of 21, and I'd guess the bulk of those would be 19 or 20. So I think "vanishingly rare" is correct for 16 and 17 year olds.
But I do think voting at 16 is a good idea, and has worked well here.
You can get married at 16 in Scotland (though it's vanishingly rare) so why not be able to vote?
That's not really a great example. Being able to marry at 16 in Scotland is not really something to be proud of. The UN defines 16 and 17 year olds getting married as "child marriage", just like it defines people of the same age in the Army as "child soldiers".
I did not know that! I don't know what the figures are like for 16 year olds. It seems that less that 1% marry prior to the age of 21, and I'd guess the bulk of those would be 19 or 20. So I think "vanishingly rare" is correct for 16 and 17 year olds.
A useful article - it's rare but not so rare as to be irrelevant.
It seems kind of weird to me that you could consent to sex, and therefore potential pregnancy with its body and life changing consequences, but not consent to marriage and giving your child a more stable family in which to grow up. If 16 remains the age of consent won't those communities where it is (relatively) common simply arrange a religious marriage and leave the "wife" with minimal legal protection?
I'd be interested to hear how this stuff works in places where they still have conscription (South Korea, Germany?) but it would be quite a weird situation if a married-at-17 year old was separated at 18 from their spouse and forced to do military service.
I would guess that there must be ways to avoid it such as being newly married or on a university course or abroad, which may well undercut the supposed advantages of any British Tory system of conscription.
Particularly if those conscripted are not even going to be paid a wage.
Incidentally, has it been assumed that Sunak's conscription initiative applies to all youngsters, or just male ones? The scheme is so barmy that so far as I'm aware, nobody seems to have bothered to ask that one.
FWIW I believe getting married was quite a popular tactic for trying to dodge the draft in the Vietnam war.
But this is getting away from the election and I shall soon have to issue a hostly admonition to myself for going off topic so we should probably best end the tangent here.
Incidentally, has it been assumed that Sunak's conscription initiative applies to all youngsters, or just male ones? The scheme is so barmy that so far as I'm aware, nobody seems to have bothered to ask that one.
I think it has to be just males, as otherwise the gammon press couldn't go on about *Our Boys*.
I just learned this week that Hay Festival (now on) got some 'levelling up' money, which seems odd. They do a good scheme in getting schools from a wide area of Powys bussed in on the first two days, but the rest of it is not exactly a cheap day out!
It seems kind of weird to me that you could consent to sex, and therefore potential pregnancy with its body and life changing consequences, but not consent to marriage and giving your child a more stable family in which to grow up. If 16 remains the age of consent won't those communities where it is (relatively) common simply arrange a religious marriage and leave the "wife" with minimal legal protection?
There seems to be a general modern attitude that says that sex isn't such a big deal, that pregnancy and its long-term consequences are routinely avoidable with contraception and/or abortion, and probably that randy teens are going to go at it like rabbits anyway. Whereas marriage gives you these heavy legal chains of obligation.
I actually agree with you that the age of sexual consent and the age at which you can marry should be the same, and I'm inclined to put it at 18, with a general "Romeo and Juliet" law that says that consensual sex with one or more underage parties, and an age gap of less than two years won't be prosecuted.
I would also (dragging the topic back towards the election) put the voting age at 18. Not because I don't think plenty of 16 and 17 year olds couldn't make a responsible choice about who to vote for (because they could, just like they can make a reasonable and responsible choice about whether they're ready to have sex with someone), but because there's a lot of development still going on in teens, and whilst some kids might be ready for these adult responsibilities at 16, I think there's a considerable number of people who become ready between 16 and 18.
Comments
Sir Keir is countering this by giving all 16 year old children the vote.
I think that giving 16 year olds the vote in Scotland has worked really well. It has engaged schoolchildren in the whole process. At the last election, when I went to vote, there was a real buzz as people congratulated voters in school uniform. There were photos on Facebook of school uniformed first voters. It turned it into a rite of passage. I suspect those young voters are likely to continue to engage with future elections.
You can get married at 16 in Scotland (though it's vanishingly rare) so why not be able to vote?
For General Elections you must be 18 or over, be a British, Irish or qualifying Commonwealth citizen, be resident at an address in the UK or living abroad and registered as an overseas voter.
For local elections in Wales you must be 18 or over, be resident in the relevant area, and are a British or Irish citizen, citizen of an EU country or have permission to enter or stay in the UK, Channel Islands or Isle of Man.
For Senedd elections you must be 16 or over, live in Wales, and are a citizen as per local elections.
For Police Commissioner elections, you must be 18 or over be resident at an address in England or Wales (excluding London), and are a British, Irish or Commonwealth citizen, a citizen of Denmark, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal or Spain, or a citizen of another EU country, if you have had permission to enter or stay since 31 December 2020, and this has continued without a break.
Simples, eh?
People who think this could work clearly haven't met many 18 year olds.
Send them to Dartmoor prison for hard labour? Because that worked incredibly well last time..
True, but any sort of tory victory is now far less likely than in 2015.
They'd be shot*
* I made this part up
Google tells me that there are approx 700, 000 18 year olds in the UK, and that the British Army comprises 186,000 people, of whom 33, 000 are Volunteer Reserves.
The BBC says that the plans are for an initial 30,000 national service army places, which leaves 670,000 spare 18 year olds to do their national service with the fire brigade or NHS.
Do they intend to expand the Fire Service and NHS, or is the plan that existing personnel will find their roles changed to include "management of 18 year olds"
The suggested figure is that National Service will cost 2.5 billion (presumably per annum) which works out at a cost of just £3,500 per 18 year old.
None of this makes sense.
https://x.com/implausibleblog/status/1794668737125118010
O - and I wish someone would provide us with a comprehensive list of these mysterious *British Values* that the fruitloops keep banging on about...
Though personally I don’t believe anyone too young to vote or pay taxes should be sent to war or have to pay taxes, but by the same token intellectually I could be persuaded to align voting age with ‘liability to be sent to war and pay taxes’ age…. So if voting is 16 then everything else should be 16 too. Otherwise you’ve already got young voters (16-18) sending other people to war by voting for governments that do that, whereas at the moment at least those too old have been through the liability zone.
I’d have one age for adulthood at which all privileges and responsibilities are bestowed at once - voting, gambling, driving, drinking, service in the armed forces, marriage, etc
And neither - until 5 days ago - did the government:
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2024-05-15/26391
What liability zone? I must have missed the conflicts the UK has been in since WWII where mass conscription was a serious proposition.
Starmer appears to be thinking along much the same lines:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/25/labour-16-17-year-olds-right-to-vote-keir-starmer
It’s always been a serious proposition since 1916 - if conscription came in tomorrow precedent says it starts at 18.
I’ve got no interest in doing it, or supporting it, but everyone alive knows who the British state would come for, because it has been done.
And yes, in the pre-1879 days when we sent 14 year old drummer boys to war, they should have had the vote too.
Also, national servicemen (18+) were used in conflict right to the end of national service. Korea, Malaya, Cyprus etc, so 1945 isn’t really the cut off date. The cut off date for mass conscription of 18 year olds to go and be killed fighting for the the UK is 1960.
So the vast majority of people now ineligible for national service (and conscription) due to age would also never have been through your hypothetical 'liability zone'.
I don't think this policy is a vote-winner even as an "imaginary" one. Although it is not "conscription" as such.
Quite, but you seem to be missing the bit where I’m not advocating it - all I’ve said is that intellectually you could make a case for equalising the gateway to all the rights and responsibilities of adulthood
Yes, but as a position it doesn't bear much close examination and ends dangerously close to 'service guarantees citizenship' (which was supposed to be parody).
Ah Starship Troopers…
Now you’ve mentioned that I of course accept that you’re right…
I can only think of two reasons for this lunacy - well actually, there's a third, but that would be too incredible to believe. The first is the one @Arethosemyfeet suggested, "catnip for gammons", a policy to attract votes away from Reform. That has to be based either on a calculation that so few young electors were already likely to vote Conservative that the loss of their votes isn't worth bothering about, or that their ID policy has been so successful that those voters can't vote anyway.
The second is that this is a policy designed to be droppable should there be a hung Parliament and they are looking for a party they can do a deal with.
The third - that's that Sunak has lost his marbles.
Incidentally, as an aside, the evidence of recent history strongly suggests that sometime during the 1950s something changed in the world such that states have found they can only use conscripts to staff armies fighting for desperate defence of the national homeland. Trying to fight foreign wars with conscripts doesn't seem to work and also causes problems at home, viz the experiences of the US in Vietnam and the USSR in Afghanistan.
The interesting and more worrying question to which nobody knows the answer is whether China is too different a society, with too different a culture and history for this to apply there too.
They've had since 2015 in sole power to demonstrate what a fantastic offer they are for the country and how skilled they are in making life better for everyone. Why should they be any different this time?
I think resisting conscription outwith national defence is the norm for the UK. The press was always controversial and conscription treated as something those nasty, unfree foreigners do up until WWI.
Well, you are always welcome to explain why I'm wrong, I'm just saying that intellectually the case is very weak - once you get away from such tropes as 'rights and responsibilities'.
I'm saying that brief period was very much the exception - the post-1960 attitude was a reversion to the pre-war norm.
That's not really a great example. Being able to marry at 16 in Scotland is not really something to be proud of. The UN defines 16 and 17 year olds getting married as "child marriage", just like it defines people of the same age in the Army as "child soldiers".
Oh, and is levelling up no longer to be a thing?
I don't know if the Tories have thought this far down their nonsense policy, but if they have they are surely lost the plot.
Abandoning levelling-up will not be good for Wales, already a generally poor part of Britain. But that doesn't matter, as it elects very few Conservative MPs.
Anyway, our mountains (Eryri and Bannau Brycheiniog) will resist levelling.
I did not know that! I don't know what the figures are like for 16 year olds. It seems that less that 1% marry prior to the age of 21, and I'd guess the bulk of those would be 19 or 20. So I think "vanishingly rare" is correct for 16 and 17 year olds.
But I do think voting at 16 is a good idea, and has worked well here.
BONKERS.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/26/rishi-sunaks-national-service-pledge-is-bonkers-says-ex-military-chief
https://www.lawscot.org.uk/members/journal/issues/vol-68-issue-11/early-marriage-any-need-for-action/
A useful article - it's rare but not so rare as to be irrelevant.
It seems kind of weird to me that you could consent to sex, and therefore potential pregnancy with its body and life changing consequences, but not consent to marriage and giving your child a more stable family in which to grow up. If 16 remains the age of consent won't those communities where it is (relatively) common simply arrange a religious marriage and leave the "wife" with minimal legal protection?
I would guess that there must be ways to avoid it such as being newly married or on a university course or abroad, which may well undercut the supposed advantages of any British Tory system of conscription.
Particularly if those conscripted are not even going to be paid a wage.
The whole thing is completely crackers.
But this is getting away from the election and I shall soon have to issue a hostly admonition to myself for going off topic so we should probably best end the tangent here.
I think it has to be just males, as otherwise the gammon press couldn't go on about *Our Boys*.
I expect you're right. The gammon press will still go on about *Our Boys*, though, as they're not very bright (the press, I mean).
There seems to be a general modern attitude that says that sex isn't such a big deal, that pregnancy and its long-term consequences are routinely avoidable with contraception and/or abortion, and probably that randy teens are going to go at it like rabbits anyway. Whereas marriage gives you these heavy legal chains of obligation.
I actually agree with you that the age of sexual consent and the age at which you can marry should be the same, and I'm inclined to put it at 18, with a general "Romeo and Juliet" law that says that consensual sex with one or more underage parties, and an age gap of less than two years won't be prosecuted.
I would also (dragging the topic back towards the election) put the voting age at 18. Not because I don't think plenty of 16 and 17 year olds couldn't make a responsible choice about who to vote for (because they could, just like they can make a reasonable and responsible choice about whether they're ready to have sex with someone), but because there's a lot of development still going on in teens, and whilst some kids might be ready for these adult responsibilities at 16, I think there's a considerable number of people who become ready between 16 and 18.