There was more a pong than whiff of desperation behind the knee-jerk ‘this will get the grey vote’ ‘policy’ to reintroduce National Service for the UK’s 18-year-olds.

What felt like a wild notion thrown over the table at 1am after the second bottle of port more than any logical thought-out policy, became a super gaffe before the ink was dry on campaign leaflets.

You could almost hear the cogs working. What would be a dead cert to rally the grey vote on July 4 to show the Tories meant business? Turn on the feckless ‘yoof’ and instil some discipline into the screen-obsessed entitled teens by turning back the clock to put them through a year of National Service – or Natty Servs as said yoof has dubbed it on social media.

A tough year serving their country in military or in voluntary work will show who’s boss. You can imagine the back slapping. A stroke of genius, old boy.  Detaching them from their phones for a bit of sergeant-major drilling harshness will bring them in line.

Offering young and cheap labour into the decimated armed forces and public services would solve staffing issues too. Kerching.

What planet is the PM on to believe that targeting young people as the enemy that needs sorting would be an early election sweetener? The election – or Genny Lec in social media speak – will decide the future of these young people and parties want them with them not actively and openly against them, preaching that only a year of mandatory national service will create a “renewed sense of pride in our country.”

It’ll take a bit more than that.

But how far removed to alienate the young vote from the get-go; the generation where home ownership will be a but a dream, life already feels precarious after the Covid years, missing school, being incarcerated at  home and missing crucial years of development; a generation that will not have children because of the financial crunch and raising a family will be a financial squeeze too far.

So, let’s make them suffer more and make them a target for nasty.

As soon as the sound bite was announced it emerged as all bluster and no substance. It was a notion not a policy.

No one would be made to do it, was an answer to a suggestion it was too harsh. Then, fines would be imposed on the parents of 18-year-olds who tried to avoid it.

An 18-year-old is an adult in the eyes of a law and responsible for themselves. However, what the Tories did there was to reveal the stealth of how the last 14 years has shaped a very different life for 18-year-olds in 2024 than those decades ago. Independence at 18 is a pipe dream.

‘Kidults’ are stuck living at home because of spiralling rent prices and parents have to help adult children through university by topping up their student loans so effectively remaining dependents until 21.

Pointing to parents as the penalty payers for Natty Servs refuseniks was very telling about how the party views 18-year-olds.

What was even worse was that no one in government could explain how this much heralded surefire vote winner would work.

This election is when people will be looking at manifestos for policies that will help young people after too many years where they have been pushed to the bottom of the priority list for support. 

They need a leg up in life rather than early morning drills and kit inspections.

The scheme would cost £2.5bn. This cash would be far better used on delivering more and better apprenticeships into meaningful training leading to real skilled jobs.

Rishi Sunak – richer than the king it was reported this week – said “This is a great country, but generations of young people have not had the opportunities and experience they deserve” bandying around phrase like “bold action” and “transformational for our country.”

Spot on. But why haven’t they had these opportunities? And whose fault, is it?

The opportunities they deserve is great education and quality training for real jobs.

This month, I had the privilege of interviewing and writing about 16-year-olds who started their apprenticeships in the energy industry e four decades ago, starting out with the same company in Great Yarmouth in 1984.

After 40 years of travelling the world and carving stellar careers, they looked back on their rigorous four-year apprenticeships  as gold standard grounding that prepared them for the great careers they had – proper training, with mentors whose words  and advice still ring in their heads today; investment into them as teenagers to set the their way with the right skills and confidence.

They lamented on how things have changed – read deteriorated – but are doing heir bit to invest in young people as they had been, but ‘policy’ has not been on their side.

If a party wants to turn the clock back with policy to help young people have the opportunities of 18-year-olds 40 years ago, vote winners would be well thought out apprenticeship programmes, working with industry to shape and deliver, and free – or at least affordable – higher education that doesn’t cost the earth for third rate service from universities that have switched from being all about education to being money driven.

Help not harshness please for the UK’s future.