March issue: on sale now
The cover story of our latest issue, written by our own James Crabtree and Frank Field MP, garnered significant media attention even before the edition hit the shelves, with coverage in the Mail, Sun, Sunday Times, Independent, Evening Standard and the BBC’s Daily Politics, among other places. In their piece, Crabtree and Field argue that the time is ripe for Britain to forge a positive legacy from the current crisis, and institute a scheme of compulsory civic service, to be undertaken by all young people at any time between the ages of 16-25.
It’s an idea that sounds, they acknowledge, both utopian and illiberal; that can be accused of being both expensive and unrealistic. And yet, they argue, there is both unprecedented support for such an idea in principle, even among the young (as a Prospect/YouGov poll of over 2,000 adults throughout England, Scotland and Wales reveals); and a pragmatic as well as a philosophical case to be made for its benefits, run along progressive rather than authoritarian lines, and drawing on the well-established lessons of organisations such as the Peace Corps, Americorps, Teach for America and CityYear in the US, or Britain’s Teach First and Duke of Edinburgh schemes. In a country that’s starting to reel from the effects of recession—and where fears that discontent may bubble over into civic disorder are increasingly rife—it’s a proposal which has struck a powerful chord.
Ultimately, though, the case Crabtree and Field make is a social and moral one: that this this scheme would offer 21st-century society something it lacks and needs—a sense of belonging, mutual achievement and pride, meaningful national identity and a motivating start in life. “The task facing Britain’s leaders today,” they argue, “is nothing less than beginning to bind the wounds of the post-industrial revolution.” As ever, let us know your own opinions below.
Share
Comments
Print
Add Comment
The demand for Muslim schools comes from parents who want their children a safe environment with an Islamic ethos.Parents see Muslim schools where children can develop their Islamic Identity where they won’t feel stigmatised for being Muslims and they can feel confident about their faith.
Muslim schools are working to try to create a bridge between communities.
There is a belief among ethnic minority parens that the British schooling
does not adequatly address their cultural needs. Failing to meet this need could result in feeling resentment among a group who already feel excluded. Setting up Muslim school is a defensive response.
State schools with monolingual teachers are not capable to teach English to bilingual Muslim children. Bilingual teachers are needed to teach English to such children along with their mother tongue. According to a number of studies, a child will not learn a second language if his first language is ignored.
Bilingual Muslim children need state funded Muslim schools with bilingual
Muslim teachers as role models during their developmental periods. Muslims
have the right to educate their children in an environment that suits their
culture. This notion of “integration”, actually means “assimilation”, by
which people generally really mean “be more like me”. That is not
multiculturalism. In Sydney, Muslims were refused to build a Muslim school,
because of a protest by the residents. Yet a year later, permission was
given for the building of a Catholic school and no protests from the
residents. This clrearly shows the blatant hypocrisy, double standards and racism. Christians oppose Muslim schools in western countries yet build
their own religious schools.
British schooling and the British society is the home of institutional
racism. The result is that Muslim children are unable to develop
self-confidence and self-esteem, therefore, majority of them leave schools with low grades. Racism is deeply rooted in British society. Every native child is born with a gene or virus of racism, therefore, no law could change the attitudes of racism towards those who are different. It is not only the common man, even member of the royal family is involved in racism. The
father of a Pakistani office cadet who was called a “Paki” by Prince Harry
has profoundly condemned his actions. He had felt proud when he met the
Queen and the Prince of Wales at his son’s passing out parade at Sandhurst
in 2006 but now felt upset after learning about the Prince’s comments. Queen Victoria invited an Imam from India to teach her Urdu language. He was highly respected by the Queen but other members of the royal family had no respect for him. He was forced to go back to India. His protrait is still in
one of the royal places.
There are hundreds of state schools where Muslim pupils are in majority. In my opinion, all such schools may be designated as Muslim community schools with bilingual Muslim teachers. There is no place for a non-Muslim child or a teacher in a Muslim school.
Iftikhar Ahmad
http://www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk
> In their piece, Crabtree and Field argue that the time is ripe for Britain to forge a positive
> legacy from the current crisis,
What would make this a positive legacy?
> and institute a scheme of compulsory civic service, to be undertaken by all young people at
> any time between the ages of 16-25.
This is profoundly unfree.
Let us imagine Party A exists. He lives his life, goes to school, then university, etc.
Then Party B comes along and says – you will now do what I want for the next year. It doesn’t matter what your plans are. Or what you want. Oh – and your utter loss of freedom is “for the greater good”.
That’s right. It’s for the greater good that we make everyone into what is properly tantamount to a slave, for a year, to the State.
Let me put this another way – this is a tax. For one year, the economic output of everyone between 16 and 25 is fully captured by the State.
Why not just let them do what they actually want to do and tax them at 100% for a year? but that as an idea is absolutely unacceptable to everyone – “100% tax?! never!”. But to confiscate their freedom – and so their full economic output – that somehow is acceptable.
What’s more, it violates a vital principle – that all contracts are voluntary and well-informed.
If a contract (both literally, in a legal sense, and more loosely, in the sense of interactions between people) if voluntary and well-informed, then it is ethical and just. Both parties *chose* to do it, both parties *knew* exactly what they were agreeing to.
If either of these properties is violated, you have something *evil*. If the contract is not voluntary, the one party is *coercing* the other, forcing them into accepting. An example of this is rape. If the contract is not well-informed, one party is deceiving the other into accepting. An example of this is fraud.
This scheme is not volunary. The Government is using law to force people into a contract.
*All because powers are granted to the State through a democratic process does not those powers will be used in a democratic way*.
We our now in our society falling into the trap of a legal dictatorship. We are subjects, used and abused, but it’s all done by *law*. You have to realise all because something is a law doesn’t mean it is *just* or *right*.
> And yet, they argue, there is both unprecedented support for such an idea in principle, even
> among the young (as a Prospect/YouGov poll of over 2,000 adults throughout England,
> Scotland and Wales reveals);
Firstly, I want to see their poll before I have ANY opinion on if its results have any value.
Secondly, jesus christ, they argue there’s support for this idea amongst the people who don’t have to do it? and that makes it okay? that is *terrifying*. I imagine there’s a lot of support still for kicking Muslims and blacks out. Does that make it okay?
> and a pragmatic as well as a philosophical case to be made for its benefits,
Absolutely not. See previous reasoning. This scheme is profoundly unethical, even evil.
> run along progressive rather than authoritarian lines,
As if it could be. A scheme like this is inherently authoritarian, *because in the first place the people in the scheme are forced to be there against their will*. And I tell you – because the people there cannot leave, they will be abused, one way or another. Because they have no freedom. The State has taken it from them, “because there’s support for the idea”.
> and drawing on the well-established lessons of organisations such as the Peace Corps,
> Americorps, Teach for America and CityYear in the US, or Britain’s Teach First and Duke
> of Edinburgh schemes.
ALL OF WHICH ARE VOLUNTARY.
> In a country that’s starting to reel from the effects of recession—and where fears that
> discontent may bubble over into civic disorder are increasingly rife—it’s a proposal which
> has struck a powerful chord.
Has it? depressing, isn’t it. You’d think we had a better grasp of right and wrong and understood what freedom means.
> Ultimately, though, the case Crabtree and Field make is a social and moral one: that this
> this scheme would offer 21st-century society something it lacks and needs—a sense of
> belonging, mutual achievement and pride, meaningful national identity and a motivating
> start in life.
No. It would not. It *could* not. How can you feel a sense of belonging and achievement *when you were forced by law to do so?*
It is utterly inappropriate to pray in aid a thinker who writes, “Liberty depends on self-government,” given that this proposal is flatly opposed to self-government and to liberty. “Liberty depends on self-government,” absolutely: what is more self-governing than people making their own decisions? And what is less self-governing than someone else making the decisions for us? Where is the liberty in making someone do something they do not wish to do?
There’s a great deal to be said for a universal (drop the word ‘Compulsory’, it’ll just cause trouble) paid (albeit modestly) Civic Service Scheme for young people (aged 16-25) in these troubled times. And why just for youngsters? – my wife (age 55, soon to be made redundant) and I (age 58, unemployed) wouldn’t mind the opportunity just to turn up at an office, register, and be confident of being given something useful to do which makes use of our skills and experience and offers a regular wage we can feel we’ve earned.
But it won’t happen.
The funniest thing about Crabtree & Field’s article was the sub-headline ‘Most people think that young people should be asked to give something back’. Yes, of course. We (their parents and grandparents) chose to bring them into the world, have over the past 20 or so years blighted their childhood in the sacred names of Liberty and Materialism, had condemned them to a lifetime of indebtedness and high taxation so that we could enjoy a carefree and spendthrift existence even before we collectively trashed the economic system, and now as we approach old age want to be sure there’ll be people to staff our Care Homes and perform other menial tasks once the foreign workers have departed for more congenial climes. Yes, of course British youngsters should ‘give something back’.
Once the penny drops, however – that a PAID Civic Service Scheme would in the short term primarily BENEFIT those who did the ’serving’ but be FUNDED by those who were ’served’ – then enthusiasm for it would evaporate. We’ve lived selfishly for 40-odd years, and it’ll require more inspiring leadership than Britain is likely to get from politicians of any of our parties to persuade us to break the habit of a lifetime.
There could be an argument for getting ‘young people’ organised enough to resist such stupid illiberal autocratic programmes from a reactionary autocratic executive, so ‘giving back’ ideas of freedom and self determination to the body politic.
There is a case for all of us imposing on all of us a duty and right to spend some time during our lives (e.g. before age 70) in public service at a basic rate of pay; provided that we can select much or all of the timing and form of that service for ourselves. There is no case for the rest of us dictating to the ‘young’ that they must do such service while the rest of us are exempt.
I read an article of John Mortimer’s where he said that the “youff” just don’t respect the elders in Britain as much as they do in America (or, perhaps, as much as they should). With that in mind, I think there is much need for a change to this mentality. I do not think, however, that a compulsory “civic service” would do the trick. It is an interesting idea, but as mentioned by Mark Brady, the funding of the idea would eventually cause even more furore than is truly necessary. High-school programs such as the International Baccalaureate require students to provide 50 community hours as a part of their curriculum. It is mandatory so this opens the possibility for students to lie about it and just get a “phony” signature–a problem that I think only arises from obligations imposed on teens. 15-25 year olds probably have “enuff” on their plates to do something like this. Plus, if this all got implemented, right around the corner might come again the prospect of conscription. I don’t rightly know if this could ever come to fruition a good idea in principle, but the creator of Rumpole, teachers, parents and grandparents nationwide will surely just laugh at the prospects of children (teens) doing some goodwill. I may, however, be deluded. As a 20 year old though, I just don’t see this gaining any momentum.
This makes me sick. I can say there is no support which I am aware of among the young, and it comes as absolutely no surprise that those who a said to support it are those who would never be obliged to take part in it.
Here is my major problem with this proposal: Young people are being told that they have to give somthing back to society, in return for somthing that they have ‘recieved’. Ignoring the fact that they have had no choice in what they recieve, the major flaw in this argument is that what they have recieved has not been very good, and that these young people are being told to re pay a society which resents and disrespects them and at the same time wonders why the young are so ‘disrespectful and inconsiderate’ towards them (this being thier own highly subjective judgement).
Young people are brougt into contact wit society and the state at first throuhg school, which, last time i checked about 6 years ago (in Scotland) was an intisution which used verbal, psycholigical and occasionally (unofficially or informally) physical abuse to subject the young to a version of living death which they spend the rest of their lives resenting. Don’t get me wron,im not against the idea of education, i just don’t see why it has to be focused on indoctrination and subjegation, as it is here in the UK, as well as in China, Korea, and Japan (to name a few states with schools similar to or modelled after our own). It is apparent to anyonw who goes to a school that actual learning is not the aim. the aim os to impose the will of the school as an instution upon the pupils, to make them pliant and submissive. Actually learning in most schools, at least in my area is just a joke. If you leave with 5 highers in scotland (the standard uni requirements) then you are classed as a 4 or 1 percenter, depending on the school.
One of th eother things whci baffles me is the aggressive way that pupils are delat with by schools, with uniforms, and general mistreatenet (the constant, constant screaming at your face for one) driving most students/pupils/learners off so that they quit after the mandatory 4 years.
The most obvious explanantion for this (which i can see) is that teachers, as with most of ’society’ (the olds, in other words) basically hate young peopple and are determined to make their lives hell.
If this is not the case, then they are going far wrong somwhere.
It basically comes down to a lack of respect for young people from society itself, which, as a result, can take a running jump form the young.
It is every sane persons instinct, and every human beings right, to hate those who have wronged them.
Anyhting else is madness, or and any attempt to make it otherwise is basically fascism (as it interferes with humans where it had no right to in an attempt to create an environment in line with its own desires or world view).
If you ask me, four years of deffered payment univeristy are almost a just reward for six (four of them mandatory) years of fascism spent rotting in a state high school. The state had us for four years, we were thiers to do withas they pleased. They did so, and we hated it, because it was intentionally designed to be unpleasant. Society hates young people, and they hate them back. It’s the same in Germany and everywhere else, to lesser extent. But it’s a big thing here beacue of the amount of time the older generation spend giving the young a hard time. The UK was found recently tp be the worst place to grow up in Europe. Part of Scandinavia (Can’t rmemebr which country) was the best.
Maybe Norway is worth it, but britain definitely isnt (try going to hospital), and will not be until it changes its ways drastically.
My advice is to move to Canada.
As if life isn’t hard enough for those under the age of thirty.
Many graduate with huge debts and with fewer job prospects to earn enough for housing, servicing these debts, raising young families and saving for a pension/rainy day.
These debts were incurred because the baby boomer generation currently power now decided that the state should no longer fund higher education with taxation. The same baby boomer generation that has cut state pensions and increasing the state retirement age, but has rather conveniently delayed the introduction of these changes so that they can still retire at 60 with full state pensions, whilst their children and grandchildren are left to work years longer and for lower state and lower private pensions.
So, who exactly is the selfish generation?
The post-hippy pro Thatcher generation in power. Now, the baby boomer generation that did not have to do national service and did not have to pay for higher education are seeking to impose yet more onorous conditions upon the young whilst the state coffers are being emptied to prop up their savings and investments which would almost certainly would have been wiped out, had Thatcherite economics been allowed to take its natural course.
Rather than imposing yet more conditions upon the young, I would suggest that the generation in power should hang its head in shame and apologise for its greed, selfishness and hypocracy.
Crabtree and Field are right about the diverse benefits of greater community involvement but misguided, for two reasons, about the age group they want to target. Firstly, the young adults they write about are just too old to reap the greatest benefit from their proposals. If we really want to present people with an alternative to selfish individualism we ought to start much earlier than they suggest. Gang culture, for example, has caused far too much damage by school leaving age to make their proposals plausible. Secondly, the forced conscription of adults is, as they almost concede, deeply illiberal. We generally accept that children’s tastes need to be educated and this is why we present them with a diverse range of experiences – of which community involvement should be one – but adults can only legitimately be engaged by carrots rather than legal sticks.
What is needed is a comprehensive re-think of what we want education to do and how it should go about doing it. All children, from secondary age onward, should be involved in at least half a day’s community and environmental work per week. Children from different post code areas (a real source of division in the city I teach in) and ethnicities would be brought together, their levels of physical activity would rise, and a sense of achievement would be engendered in kids who gain little in the way of praise from a system focused on narrow performance targets. We need, in addition, to be careful about endorsing the authors’ surrender to socially conservative notions of ‘character building’. The engaged, democratic citizen is one who is willing and able to be critical of the values of his or her community and not merely a passive recipient of them – education has a role to play here also. Finally, and bizarrely given Field’s background as a campaigner, the authors say not a word about the role played by social inequality in creating the ills they speak of. The Work of Richard Wilkinson, amongst others (see Prospect review, September 2005 as well as his new book ‘The Spirit Level) would indicate that financial incentives for greater participation by the poor, especially the long term unemployed, would have a powerful impact on social cohesion and one free of the coercive elements of Crabtree and Field’s proposals.
P Badger, Barnsley
28th February
I am very much favour this idea of civil conscription as it will probably do more to unite disparate groups against the paternalistic authoritarian state than just about anything I can think of. More and faster please.
How about A COMPULSORY YEAR OF SERVICE FOR ALL GOVERNMENT MINISTERS, right through to the Prime MInister, DURING THE FIRST YEAR OF THEIR OFFICE, at basic national average income?
And if such a scheme existed and was voluntary, how many of the current crop of expense bludgers would volunteer?
The nerve of Gordon Brown, writing that he was humbled by the willingness of many young people to engage in ‘green activism’, after the recent scenes outside The Carbon Trading Exchange, after 6.30, when the press ahd pretty much left the area?
Hubris and arrogance is a more appropriate term.
Mr. Brown also claims that this scheme would build on citizenship courses currently on offer. Then why is it that the UN Charter and The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as the history and published rationale of the United Nations (to avoid war) is NOT part of that course. Does he not realise that it is a legal requirement of ratified membership of the UN that ratifying member states do teach these things and an essential companent of international citizenship?
Probably escaped his attention… or maybe he just choses, like so many, to ignore his responsibilities to the people of England, Wales and Scotland because ‘its impractical’.
I won’t repeat some of the excellent summaries of Baby Boomers selfishness given above, but there is a serious point about a system to encourage community solidarity by activity, and I also wonder if the State are willing to pay for this civic society role (herm or maybe the lottery could fund gap years in Salford?)..
I see no reason why the NEET problem should not be combined with the retirement problem. Baby boomers and beyond are not going to sit in ‘retirement villas’ until the TV gives out, neither does it appear that young people are prepared to slip into the same underdog position we have written for them. So we have a huge opportunity to bring experience and enthusiasm together in one neat bundle. We gonna wait for the 2050 generational war that is political power versus economic power, or we gonna organise a framework for people to do what they would probably quite like to do anyway..?