A positive legacy for the recession
With our new-look March issue hitting news-stands on Thursday, it’s been a busy weekend for the authors of our next cover story, James Crabtree and Frank Field MP. In their essay, Crabtree and Field look at the results of a YouGov/Prospect poll of over 2,000 adults, released today, which reveals that 64 per cent of British adults (and a majority of young people themselves) now support a compulsory national citizenship programme in which all 16 to 25 year olds would be required to spend one year doing full-time, modestly paid community service. The poll also shows astonishingly widespread concerns about civil unrest and the long-term impact of the recession.
James spoke this morning on the Today programme, talking to NUS President Wesley Streeting about whether such a scheme could be a positive legacy of the recession; he also wrote a comment piece for the Independent this morning making the case for civic service; he and Frank Field also published a joint essay in the latest Sunday Times, which gives a foretaste of what you can expect from their full essay in Prospect:
Critics will say such a programme is illiberal, expensive and ineffectual; a tax on the young, and a way of funding state services on the cheap while sapping the strength from the existing voluntary sector. But this need not be true. Civic service would give focus to today’s fragmented efforts. All parents, at least, would have an incentive to help out: this would not be something that just happened to other people’s children.
With an annual intake of up to 500,000 teenagers, a compulsory programme would cost many billions. Some of this money could come out of education budgets, perhaps by postponing the plan to raise the school leaving age. The rest could be justified as part of the push to boost the economy out of recession. Franklin Roosevelt did something similar with his Civilian Conservation Corps – Roosevelt’s “tree army” – just weeks after taking office in 1933.
The full Prospect cover story will be free to read on our website from Thursday morning; you can also read a more detailed analysis of the poll on our website now, with plenty more additional analysis and responses in the pipeline.
Share
Comments
Print
Add Comment
Young people, as all people are sovereign entities. If you steal their life and their liberty it is theft. Down with rentseekers.
Perhaps the article will make a well-argued and nuanced case, but right off the bat, I find the idea utterly repulsive.
Let’s not beat about the bush, it’s slavery – one year, civic-minded, community-tinted slavery, but slavery nonetheless. It reinforces the poisonous idea that citizenship is some sort of privilege granted by the state rather than a right. Waving poll results in its favour doesn’t make it a good idea, it shows that opinion polls will always support populist nonsense.
Start a scheme for young people to do a year of civic service, fine. Fund it, great. Make it compulsory, and that’s way over the line.
Anthony, thanks for the post. But————with the greatest of respect, that is a splendidly over the top, illogical reaction. Consider:
Scenario 1: A 17 year old is mandated to stay in Education or Training by the Government.
Scenario 2: A 17 year old is mandated to stay in Education or Training by the Government—but given the option to do it as civic service instead?
The first is freedom, the second is “slavery.” Wait. What? We do not consider 6th form to be slavery, or at least, the last time i looked the nation’s 18 year olds weren’t in leg irons.
There are very strong arguments against this idea. But, with respect, modern slavery is not among them. Instead, i’d go for it on that fact its expensive. It is also illiberal, to a degree. It has opportunity cost. And, especially, what do you do about enforcement, and truanting. These seem to be the real weaknesses.
Hope you enjoy the piece when it comes out—in shops tomorrow
jc
ps – In the piece I make the argument as follows:
the philosophical objections cannot be so easily dismissed. such service is, on the face of it, illiberal and in many ways runs counter to the spirit of the age. But there isactually a strong liberal case for such measures—built on a vision of a good society in which reciprocal relationships are acknowledged and acted on, with help from government. a free society often makes claims on its people, from compulsory schooling to paying taxes and defending the nation in a time of peril. civic service can be just such a legitimate demand. in particular, like schooling, it is a legitimate claim on the young. philosopher michael Walzer, in Spheres of Justice, argues that equal citizenship requires all to play a part in the gruelling work that makes society function. if not, such tasks will become marginalised—as is self-evidently true, for instance, in much of Britain’s social care system. michael sandel, another liberal thinker—and recently announced 2009 reith lecturer—agrees with Walzer, claiming that “liberty depends on self-government,” which in turn re- quires “a sense of belonging, a concern for the whole, a moral bond with the community whose fate is at stake.” Under- pinning such a vision is the need to understand the people, institutions and predicaments of your community. But such an understanding is clearly missing in Britain today. moreover, the January 2009 British social attitudes survey showed that two thirds of adults view young people as incon- siderate and disrespectful. a period of public service would help to disprove this, binding together generations now viewing each other with barely disguised hostility.
Fair enough, a bit over the top – and I haven’t read the piece yet (I’ll wait for my subscription copy
However, forced labour has many nasty historical echoes.
I do accept that the state has a claim on people in terms of their education, but that has to be argued for by reference to the benefit to the individual, not benefit to society as a whole. If I get a degree in astrophysics, or do an apprenticeship as a metal-basher, those are choices I make for myself about my future life – very different from choices made by the state.
And more than the cost, there’s the quality issue to involuntary labour. We didn’t get rid of conscription because it was illiberal – we got rid of it because the Army thought it was an expensive waste of time.
A very controversial proposal! But from listening to young people I know that if they are offered a range of compelling activities which connect with their interests and concerns they will give their time freely.
v is an organisation which aims to inspire a new generation of volunteers aged 16-25 across England. The key to our approach is that we offer volunteering activities that are compelling not compulsory. This is exactly the same as the Americorps model which is hailed across the political spectrum. We don’t need to import that model here – we already have our own model, grown from our distinctive British traditions for voluntary action with the support of young people and delivered in partnership by v and hundreds of locally based organisations.
It is important that we provide young people with clear pathways through this economic downturn. By expanding the number and range of volunteering opportunities open to 16-25 year olds we can help to maintain hope and positive activity. Volunteering can give young people the chance to gain new skills and equip them for future employment or education. Our new vinspired awards provides a way for young people’s achievements to be recognised. I’d prefer those in positions of power or influence to get behind the awards and show young people that we value their contribution rather than calling for a form of conscription in the community.
The vast majority of Britain’s youth is law abiding, caring, concerned, ambitious and yes, optimistic. They crave belonging, respect and relationships. I see them everyday all over the country. Of course there are those who are off the rails and out of control but this minority should not be used to drive public policy for all.
Terry Ryall, CEO of v, the youth volunteering organisation.
[...] our new-look March issue hitting news-stands on Thursday, it’s been a busy weekend for the authors of our next cover story, James Crabtree and Frank Field [...]
AZ
I preferred your first post.
Someone who uses lack of leg irons as an argument is not worth an answer.
Bernard Shaw did agree with von Hayek that “socialism is slavery” to the law, but “it is expedient to explain things to fools according to their folly”.
Does everyone have the right to a degree in astrophysics, without regard to the interests of society?
The 1920 Commission on Secondary Schools did state that schooling should be provided free for anyone capable of benefiting from it, but job prospects were implied.
This article is about providing footballs and deck chairs for the inmates of Belsen Concentration Camp, ignores the greater evil.
Field changes his economic magic potions with the weather, but promotes each as though he had thoroughly researched the subject, of which he knows nothing.