Originally Posted by Griffinthe2nd

My comments regarding the "Army flourishing" were made tongue in cheek - just for the record. I agree that it will have an effect on the regulars too. It's the way that people have reacted to the cuts which is astonishing. Petitions, letters to MP's, march on No. 10 to mention a few. Oh and not wear uniform to Remembrance parade????????? - disgraceful. What happened to the stiff upper lip?

ok then you give you pay up for one month (27days pay for TA) and keep working with a smile on your face and a click in your step ...... didnt think so!

as for remeberance i agree shut up and get on with it, its not a time to be policitcal! time to remember thoes who are no longer with us!

More gems from Parliament yesterday. Looks like the Tories have seen they can hamme Ainsworth on this.


Mr. Swire: Many hon. Members have seen at first hand the extraordinary role being performed by the Territory Army and our reserve forces, which is indistinguishable from the role being played in Helmand by our regular forces. Some of us cannot understand what is going on with the Government’s freeze on training and pay over the next six months, as it seems entirely to contradict what the Secretary of State has been telling the House of late. Will he take this opportunity to clarify the Government’s position on the future of our reserve forces?

Mr. Ainsworth: Let me come to the Territory Army; I will not try to avoid doing so in any way.


And then later on:

Mr. Dodds: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way so often. On the issue of the Territorial Army and the freeze on training, I should say that more than 1,000 members of the Territorial Army from Northern Ireland are on operational deployment, which is a very high proportion, and there is real concern about what will happen to preparation for Afghanistan over the next six months. Is he saying that anyone going to Afghanistan will be trained and paid? We need to have clarification about that, because there is great concern.

Mr. Ainsworth: I did the Territorials review, so I have become acquainted with a lot of people in the House who know an awful lot about the Territorial Army and have a close attachment to it. I know that, if you do anything with the Territorial Army, you bring down a storm on yourself, but I have talked to the new Chief of the General Staff about the situation—

Mr. Brazier: He is a regular.

Mr. Ainsworth: “He is a regular and therefore cannot be trusted�?—I think that we have to guard against that! I have said to him that I know he is a regular, and I have got my eye on him, but he is running the Army and appears to be a pretty competent guy. I have to take some advice about his priority, and I agreed with him and the other chiefs some weeks ago that we had to make Afghanistan the main effort. It means that we cannot drop everything else, and no way should we, but there must be a degree of priority for Afghanistan. Everyone is agreed on that, and hard consequences flow from it.

Mr. Gray: No one would disagree with the Secretary of State about the main effort being centred on Afghanistan, but, to use an example of the situation that we face, I cite the Honourable Artillery Company, my regiment, which has 11 soldiers deployed in Afghanistan, has made regular contributions over the past eight years and, presumably, will wish to do so in the future. The company’s commanding officer told the regiment last night that ordinary regular training has been effectively cancelled, and its recruits’corps training has, too, so there will be no training in the regiment. Six months from now, will the Honourable Artillery Company still be able to provide the support that it has given to our efforts in Afghanistan over the past eight years? I, for one, very much doubt that it will.

Mr. Ainsworth: I can only promise the House that, as we take these difficult decisions about prioritisation and the amount of resource that we shift, I shall be very mindful to ensure that we do the minimum damage elsewhere while making certain that we give the appropriate priority to Afghanistan. I know that among those taking the decisions there are regulars who many Members suspect of not having sufficient feeling for the contribution of the Territorials, so I shall bear that in mind as well.


15 Oct 2009 : Column 471

Mr. Brazier: The Secretary of State has been generous in giving way, and he has taken a long-term interest in reserves, for which I am particularly grateful. However, I really do urge him to bear in mind that, however professional our regular forces are, they have a very long history of not understanding how the reserves work. To cancel all training for the next six months for everybody except the relatively small number of people who have immediate call-out papers for Afghanistan will devastate the Territorial Army and completely attenuate its ability to provide forces for the future.

Mr. Ainsworth: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and know that he says it with conviction, but I can only repeat the assurance that I have: as we go forward and try to ensure that we properly prioritise our operations in Afghanistan to the degree that the nation would expect, we are also mindful of the issues that he has raised.

Dr. Andrew Murrison (Westbury) (Con): Will the Secretary of State understand that such hibernation of skills—of the sort that the Public Accounts Committee’s report on support for high-intensity operations highlighted—may be accommodated in the regular forces, although the impact on our generic war-fighting capability would be severe enough, but cannot be accommodated in the reserve forces? Reserves will simply walk: training is what they do, and it holds them in. Does he not understand that this decision will be a huge blow to morale, and that reserve forces, on whom we depend so much, are likely simply to fade away?

Mr. Ainsworth: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I believe that, within the priorities that we have had to make, that decision had to be taken. We carried out the reserves review, but I understand the importance of the offer—we are talking about volunteers, and we have to make sure that we maintain the commitment of volunteers, otherwise we will lose them. I fully understand that point.

Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): The information that I have, which I believe to be accurate, is that the reason for the cut in funding for the Territorial Army is that Regular Army recruitment has exceeded expectation and that funds have to be found somewhere in the land budget to pay for the training of that extra recruitment. Is that true? If it is not, why is the decision on the cut in TA funding being taken so late in the year?

Mr. Ainsworth: No one—neither my predecessor nor I—has tried, in the circumstances that we have faced, to discourage the recruitment opportunity that the Army has had. Yes, of course there are financial circumstances. Recruitment to the Regular Army has been so successful over a period of time. I do not think that Conservative Front Benchers would, on reflection, have taken another decision; if they had been in the position of my predecessor or me at various points of this year, I do not think that they would have said no. When the opportunity and need were there, recruitment was allowed to progress. That is the priority, and it is also the Chief of the General Staff’s priority.

Mr. Arbuthnot: By and large, there is cross-party agreement in the House about the priorities for what we devote to defence and about the priorities within defence.
15 Oct 2009 : Column 472
However, the Government have taken two profoundly wrong decisions. The first was to reduce spending on research and technology. The second was to cut funding to the reserves. That is profoundly wrong, and it will have long-term consequences for the armed forces.

Mr. Ainsworth: As I have said, we have to try to be mindful of permanent damage to our reserves and of protecting our research and development. We cannot completely sell tomorrow to pay for today. However, today is the pressing need. Afghanistan has to be the main effort and I do not think that any Conservative Member genuinely disagrees with that in principle.

Mr. Swire: I pay tribute to the fantastic work being done by the medics at Camp Bastion, where our wounded are receiving first-class treatment. A lot of the medical staff there are reservists themselves. Is the Secretary of State absolutely certain that the effective freeze on TA training and recruitment will not endanger the services that we will be able to offer in future to our wounded at Camp Bastion?

Mr. Ainsworth: I am certain that those facilities will not be put at risk in any way, and I will continue to satisfy myself on that point. I know the huge contribution that reserves play in medical services. It varies with deployments, but generally speaking it involves a high proportion.

Originally Posted by spad

Originally Posted by Griffinthe2nd

My comments regarding the "Army flourishing" were made tongue in cheek - just for the record. I agree that it will have an effect on the regulars too. It's the way that people have reacted to the cuts which is astonishing. Petitions, letters to MP's, march on No. 10 to mention a few. Oh and not wear uniform to Remembrance parade????????? - disgraceful. What happened to the stiff upper lip?

ok then you give you pay up for one month (27days pay for TA) and keep working with a smile on your face and a click in your step ...... didnt think so!

as for remeberance i agree shut up and get on with it, its not a time to be policitcal! time to remember thoes who are no longer with us!

Spad

Immature bite there, calm down.T

The first comeback is this is our living, its the profession we do, unlike and i don't mean this in a derogatory way, the TA who do not, or should not , rely on their TA income. iT IS not your chosen profession, it is something you have voluntarily chosen to do, and something you can, (and many do) pick and chose when they do it to suit themselves.

I have posted lots of times but i will repeat to clarify, I KNOW THERE ARE A PERCENTAGE OF TA THAT ARE FAR MORE COMMITTED TO THE JOB, but a sizeable proportion of TA see it as a hobby, extra income, a social thing, so stop comparing your loss of 'income' with a regs loss of income.

And keep smiling

Originally Posted by Crunchie

Originally Posted by spad

Originally Posted by Griffinthe2nd

My comments regarding the "Army flourishing" were made tongue in cheek - just for the record. I agree that it will have an effect on the regulars too. It's the way that people have reacted to the cuts which is astonishing. Petitions, letters to MP's, march on No. 10 to mention a few. Oh and not wear uniform to Remembrance parade????????? - disgraceful. What happened to the stiff upper lip?

ok then you give you pay up for one month (27days pay for TA) and keep working with a smile on your face and a click in your step ...... didnt think so!

as for remeberance i agree shut up and get on with it, its not a time to be policitcal! time to remember thoes who are no longer with us!

Spad

Immature bite there, calm down.T

The first comeback is this is our living, its the profession we do, unlike and i don't mean this in a derogatory way, the TA who do not, or should not , rely on their TA income. iT IS not your chosen profession, it is something you have voluntarily chosen to do, and something you can, (and many do) pick and chose when they do it to suit themselves.

I have posted lots of times but i will repeat to clarify, I KNOW THERE ARE A PERCENTAGE OF TA THAT ARE FAR MORE COMMITTED TO THE JOB, but a sizeable proportion of TA see it as a hobby, extra income, a social thing, so stop comparing your loss of 'income' with a regs loss of income.

And keep smiling

And you Crunchie, get back to work!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by Griffinthe2nd

Originally Posted by Crunchie

Originally Posted by spad

Originally Posted by Griffinthe2nd

My comments regarding the "Army flourishing" were made tongue in cheek - just for the record. I agree that it will have an effect on the regulars too. It's the way that people have reacted to the cuts which is astonishing. Petitions, letters to MP's, march on No. 10 to mention a few. Oh and not wear uniform to Remembrance parade????????? - disgraceful. What happened to the stiff upper lip?

ok then you give you pay up for one month (27days pay for TA) and keep working with a smile on your face and a click in your step ...... didnt think so!

as for remeberance i agree shut up and get on with it, its not a time to be policitcal! time to remember thoes who are no longer with us!

Spad

Immature bite there, calm down.T

The first comeback is this is our living, its the profession we do, unlike and i don't mean this in a derogatory way, the TA who do not, or should not , rely on their TA income. iT IS not your chosen profession, it is something you have voluntarily chosen to do, and something you can, (and many do) pick and chose when they do it to suit themselves.

I have posted lots of times but i will repeat to clarify, I KNOW THERE ARE A PERCENTAGE OF TA THAT ARE FAR MORE COMMITTED TO THE JOB, but a sizeable proportion of TA see it as a hobby, extra income, a social thing, so stop comparing your loss of 'income' with a regs loss of income.

And keep smiling

And you Crunchie, get back to work!!!!!!!!

not wanting to be seen to bite here either but a sad fact of today's economical state of affairs is that more and more of the TA rely on the extra income to a degree, so it is not incomparable to a Regular's loss of income... it is just a loss of income on a different scale. Not to mention the hit it has on all the students serving in the TA (after summer challenge etc) who have the TA as their main job supporting them at university etc.

The real question here i suspect is who many Ministers, MPs and civil servants would you see doing without 27 days pay this year to support the "savings" our nation is making just now?! what was that about leading from the front? qualities of a leader? need i go on?

Originally Posted by cog_gunner

Originally Posted by Griffinthe2nd

Originally Posted by Crunchie

Originally Posted by spad

Originally Posted by Griffinthe2nd

My comments regarding the "Army flourishing" were made tongue in cheek - just for the record. I agree that it will have an effect on the regulars too. It's the way that people have reacted to the cuts which is astonishing. Petitions, letters to MP's, march on No. 10 to mention a few. Oh and not wear uniform to Remembrance parade????????? - disgraceful. What happened to the stiff upper lip?

ok then you give you pay up for one month (27days pay for TA) and keep working with a smile on your face and a click in your step ...... didnt think so!

as for remeberance i agree shut up and get on with it, its not a time to be policitcal! time to remember thoes who are no longer with us!

Spad

Immature bite there, calm down.T

The first comeback is this is our living, its the profession we do, unlike and i don't mean this in a derogatory way, the TA who do not, or should not , rely on their TA income. iT IS not your chosen profession, it is something you have voluntarily chosen to do, and something you can, (and many do) pick and chose when they do it to suit themselves.

I have posted lots of times but i will repeat to clarify, I KNOW THERE ARE A PERCENTAGE OF TA THAT ARE FAR MORE COMMITTED TO THE JOB, but a sizeable proportion of TA see it as a hobby, extra income, a social thing, so stop comparing your loss of 'income' with a regs loss of income.

And keep smiling

And you Crunchie, get back to work!!!!!!!!

not wanting to be seen to bite here either but a sad fact of today's economical state of affairs is that more and more of the TA rely on the extra income to a degree, so it is not incomparable to a Regular's loss of income... it is just a loss of income on a different scale. Not to mention the hit it has on all the students serving in the TA (after summer challenge etc) who have the TA as their main job supporting them at university etc.

The real question here i suspect is who many Ministers, MPs and civil servants would you see doing without 27 days pay this year to support the "savings" our nation is making just now?! what was that about leading from the front? qualities of a leader? need i go on?

Well having had some experience of working with the TA, I know of at least two at one particular unit who do not have a civvy job at all, and therefore rely heavily on their "income" from the TA. Both were fat wasters funnily enough!

Originally Posted by Crunchie

Originally Posted by spad

Originally Posted by Sangreal

Originally Posted by quiller

"Quickly! I'm Territorial Army....Can I buy another bullet?"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/coffeebre...toons/mac.html

Is the TA bod the one with the bowler hat?

no he's the one at home in front of the TV sulking he cant play too!

I thought he was the chubbier one right at the back struggling to get up the hill

No thats Me..

Even though I'm unemployed at the mo, signed off jobseekers to do camp and have not been paid for camp. Money isn't really a big deal.

The thing I'll miss the most is the social aspect, thats not beer as I don't drink but the social aspect looks like it's going to continue.

I supose the hardest thing to get used to - is I've spent a lot of my spare time in an organisation that the Army doesn't take seriously.

All my plans for next year focus on my kids and making me and them happy.

Originally Posted by TangoZeroAlpha

Originally Posted by Bravo_Bravo

Originally Posted by Tonanti

Members of the TA are, in effect, part-time employees of the MOD.

Wrong.

Not Wrong - the TA are PT Employees when they are on duty! And entitled to the same (pro-rata) TACOS as comparable Full Time Employees... so says the London Employment Tribunal in a TA pension case heard about July 2007.

TZA

IIRC a later case deemed the TA to be Casual Labour. Also, I believe that we are secifivally exempt from the provisions of the Treaty of Rome relating to the rights of part-time staff. ( exepted by... HMG... ). Hence no pensions accrual. If the case had been upheld we would have had notification of pensions accrual, as under Article 117 of the same Treaty states that pensions are deferred pay.

Originally Posted by kingburn_99

probably already been asked BUT.....

What the hell do SPSI/PSI/PSAO and QM do now?

Cartwheels.