ACF Budget Cuts Petition To Government.

Discussion in 'ACF' started by spike7451, Oct 23, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. spike7451

    spike7451 RIP

    As you are aware,our government announced budget cuts to the TA,not also were they affected but also the Cadet forces.

    If you care what happens to our Cadets,please sign & pass on.

    Thank you,

    HM Government e-petitions
  2. It costs £100,000 a year to "look after" a young offender. It costs £40,000,000 to give 46,000 cadets activities and experiences which tend to help them become normal working citizens., paying taxes, not offending, and contributing to society. About £870 a year each.

    For the cost of one young offender, we can give this chance to support one hundred and fifteen decent kids in their futujres!

    Even If the government can't see this as an investment which is very quickly self-financing, what they should do is cut the costs of young offenders by half !

    It is time to start looking at the rights of ordinary civilised people, and investing in them, not the dross! Yes, tough in adult populations in prison, but what the hell, £60,000 each saved every year, every young offender.
  3. We were chatting about something along these lines at my CCF the other day.

    Maybe, especially with these 'Youth Organisations in Uniform' 'Outreach' etc schemes going on, the ACF/CCF/ATC/SCC should start being funded by the governments youth budget as well as by the military. We have no purpose in a theatre of war, and apparently we are not a recruiting effort. So why are we even on the MoD's budget? The cadet forces achieve more for the government's youth targets than it does for the MoD's current targets, so I think it's about time the people who really depend on the cadet forces actually started paying for them. Budget cuts in the Ministry of Defence should not be able to affect the running of a youth organisation, which has, like I said, at least the same amount of benefits to the government as it does to the military.
  4. Budget cuts mean budget cuts. If we have to cut Doctors, Nurses, social workers and regular armed forces then i'm afraid the cadets doesn't even register as to why they shouldn't have cuts.
  5. I would certainly like to see Local Authority Youth budgets policed, or centrally allocated funds instead, so that the relatively cheap Cadet Forces got a good share of any available moneys. The idea I like is that, as in lifelong learning, and indeed as the Army operate in--service education moneys, that there would be an allocation for every young person. If unused, it is not issued. If used, it goes to the youth service that provides any proven structural programme for youth development.

    The uniformed organisations, ACF, CCF, SCC, RMC and ATC are good at this, as are the St John and Red Cross, Scxouting and Guiding, but I would set the bar quite high in standards to disallow council "give them this" and "take them there" schemes loosely agrued about their having contact with responsiblke adults being enough achievement.

    I would also like to see proper research done on financial input versus outcome, as i suspect that the difference between what the average ex-cadet provides back to government over that of any average, same-postcoded child in any area is significantly greater than would be the cost of £1,000 or even probably £2000 a year to do this. The cost is peanuts compared wioth our spend on "education", and absolutely miniscule compared with the cost for a small proportion of kids we may just save from going in the youth custody direction.
  6. General budget cuts affecting cadets? Not a problem.
    Military budgets affecting cadets (and, frankly, cadets affecting defence budget)? Problem.

    It's a 2-way thing. There shouldn't be a situation arise where money that should be spent on wartime operations is being spent on a non-contributory (to the conflict) youth organisation; and neither should the cadet forces, who fulfil more government targets than military targets, be cut by money being spent on war. Yes we are service cadets, but I think where the budget comes from should be reviewed.
  7. Indeed is my point Tom. The cadet forces provide excellent value for money in youth development, which is of benefit not only to the military but to the civil community too. So the organisation being run entirely at the cost of the military seems silly, there should be funding from the civil side too. If the same amount of money could be offered from the civil side as from the military side, the value of extra training available would be huge (based on the high-output-from-low-input theory you mentioned). The only problem I could foresee is that, in normal government style, they'd probably demand to be in control of what the money was spent on, and we'd end up being funded for all sorts of school-club-style bone activities the cadets have no interest in. But that's a whole other subject.
  8. The money is gone it's all been spent, sorry if the cadets need cuts wherever the money comes from then tough.
  9. That, Jarrod, is unfortunately the real situation of the moment.
  10. I'm aware of that, and I'm not trying to say the cadets shouldn't be cut in favour of any other organisation - in fact quite the opposite.

    My point is, when the money is there, why is the money for a youth organisation taken from the same pot that pays for the armed forces on operations?
  11. The money isn't there, read these forums, look at the PCT and council cuts and job losses, the money has gone we are massively in debt and will be for a very long time.
  12. There is SOME money there. If there was NO money there, NOTHING would happen. We'd be forced to withdraw from Afghan and shut all the TACs and all sorts. So there is SOME money, evidently.

    I'm just wondering why the government's youth budget has enough to cover so many stupid, useless, over-priced and failing schemes, when the cadet forces offer an excellent value for money scheme for young people; yet the MoD are still made to cough up for it.

    Your logic seems to be 'if there is no money, it doesn't matter who's paying - MoD or Civil'. My point is 'why is the defence budget being cut short of a further £40,000,000 to spend on something which really, the government's youth money should fund? The MoD budget should be for operations, not a non-contributory youth organisation, which probably offers more value for money to the civil youth programmes than the military one'

    The ACFs value for money in the MoD's eyes is quite poor, it mainly acts as a recruitment for them. But the value for money of the ACF to the government - in terms of youth projects - is very high. So, the ACF will no doubt be affected more by budget cuts whilst under MoD funding, as they're much further down the financial order of march in the MoD than they are in civil youth projects.
  13. The tax payer is paying and there really is no money left. Brown had to print more and they may have to do so again.
  14. Head -> Brick wall

    I am perfectly aware that this country is skint, but if we want to avoid future skintness, we need to sort our finances out. And using youth-organisation-funds to fund a youth organisation, rather than war-fighting-funds to fund a youth organisation, might be a start. And I certainly believe it would yield better results - providing the military could continue to administer how that money was spent.
  15. You sort of understand but not quite I'll type it in big boy letters.