In the spirit of modern British politics, our most recent Tweedledums and Tweedledees, or Thompsons and Thomsons, are again indulging in their great gladiatorial encounters. On the one hand, Sunak, Goveless in Gaza. On the other hand, Starmer, looking like a butler, bringing forward his great double act of Jeeves and, er, Reeves.
We wake on a Sunday morning to find that Sunak is promising to bring back National Service. All the retired sergeant majors who read the Telegraph reinsert their monocles, raise their swagger sticks, before drinking a double brandy out of the skulls of former colleagues lent back to the nation as part of an exchange for the Benin bronzes.
We also get out of the other side of the bed to find that Starmer is promising to lower the voting age to 16. All the feral youth of the nation immediately polish their passports, read a newspaper for the first time, and wonder why they can’t vote for Anthony Fauci, Chris Packham or Nicky Minaj.
Sunak: “Teenagers will either pursue a full-time military commission or alternatively can spend one weekend a month volunteering in civil resilience… Only by nurturing our shared culture and fostering a sense of duty can we preserve our nation and values for decades to come. This is an investment in both the character of young people and our security.”
Starmer: “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.”
It is all a trick.
First of all, National Service ≠ conscription. So it is voluntary. It will probably involving collecting rubbish on Sundays, or harassing the elderly during the next lockdown, or helping Just Stop Oil protestors by holding their glue caps. Perhaps, at the best, it might mean that we, unlike Nazi Germany, would begin a war by sending teenagers to the front rather than ending that way. As soon as the NHS is included in ‘National Service’ we know that this is just silliness squared.
Second, lower the age of voting ≠ radical change. For no young people know where their local school is. That’s a joke. But apparently they don’t vote. Let ’em vote; they won’t vote. But let’s make schoolchildren hysterical with responsibility and ennui.
But isn’t it amusing that the historic parties have offered us equal and opposite policies?
This is what happens when the choice is between a Sun and a Star. We are blinded by infinite possibility.
The logic seems to be:
There are no adults in the room.
So let us ask the children for help.
But notice the difference in tone. The Conservatives ask for a military solution, as if we are living in ancient Rome. Labour asks, on the contrary, for a civil solution, as if we are living in a political science textbook.
The other thing is that each seems to ask for what they are not. The modern Tories, led by Sunak, are about as unmilitary as one could possibly be. Sunak is a fair-weather politician (yes, I allude to that rain): one would prefer to have Keir on one’s side in a fight. And, on the other hand, Labour, as led by Starmer, are about an undemocratic as one could imagine. Starmer is a lawyer, for God’s sake. He wants to legislate us out of politics not into more of it. Why they are imposing their fantasies on the young is unclear.
Notice also the alarming fact that both parties are trying to tie up more of us in the state. It is as if we have still not built much of a state, and have to finally get around to building one: to catch up with Louis XIV and Frederick the Great. So much for the liberties of an Englishman.
But for the moment, we can enjoy the contrast between these two stunt policies. Which do you prefer, dear elector? “If you can vote, you should fight”, or, “If you can fight, you should vote”?
Dr. James Alexander is a Professor in the Department of Political Science at Bilkent University in Turkey.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.