It might clarify the discussion if we separated the argument for conscription due to perceived military threats and/or foreign policy from some notion of civic duty or national service. Military conscription or the UK called national service from the late 1940s to the early 1960s is very different from the civil national service proposed by the Tories, and I think at one time discussed by the Blairites., and that which often is offered as an alternative in countries that have military conscription. The current proposals are cobbled together and marketed with outcomes and objectives as 'a shared sense of purpose among our young people and a renewed sense of pride in our country', learn "real world skills, do new things and contributing to their community and our country". '"addressing the fragmentation in society" , and 'getting young people out of their bubble'.
Conscription or retro national service is about expanding the capacity of reservists or those with some basic military training. In the post war period it was mainly used to bolster policing the fragmentation of the British Empire It was not about giving young people a sense of purpose or structure, community cohesion , civic pride, increasing citizenship ship , or bringing together people from diverse backgrounds, not did it install a sense of discipline in lawless youth. In fact, the youth and young people's crime rate rose from the late 1940s to the early sixties. it was never measured or assessed on those outcomes.
Whilst we on the subject of happy countries , research on what makes countries, and indeed places happy, suggests that reducing inequality, maximising health, trust in neighbours and communities and trust in governments are key drivers rather than conscription. It should also be noted that in some of these liberal happy states the section of the population most unhappy are indeed young people to the point where Finland has one of the highest suicide rates within Europe. There is nothing uniform about attitudes to conscription in Europe simply a minority have it and a majority don't. For every socially liberal, politically and socially cohesive country that has it, we have illiberals promoting it as in Italy where the fascist Salvinni is a strong advocate. Conversely, liberal, socially cohesive Spain abolished it in the early 2000's it after a long and successful campaign by the' insumisos' movement.
There may well be an argument for a service or service that helps foster within young people a sense of national pride, citizenship etc even basic skills and guidance , assists with the transition into adulthood and gets young people out of their bubble but let's face it that service isn't going to be a throwback to 'you're in the army now' or something that comes with sanctions. However, I don't think that those whose eyes light up at the mention of the word national service are really advocating such a service anyway. Those who want to argue for military conscription need to put their cards on the table be honest and say actually it will be compulsory, it's will being imposed, there will be sanctions for those that try and avoid it and it's solely for the benefit of boosting the capacity of a trained reserve for armed forces because your state thinks it might need to go to war. They could even use dancing TikTok videos to promote it.
)
