Army ‘to be cut by 20,000’ if No 10 plan is approved

Civil Service is still the Land of Milk and Honey compared to the majority of Private Sector work.
Like for like? Not a chance, CS pay is abysmal, the T&Cs which compensated for it have been trashed, retention in some areas is terrible, very high turnover. Nope, I've never been a CS but have worked alongside them lots.
 
So if they cut the army by 20,000 troops, whose advice was that? Does this prove that Dominic Cummings works for the Chinese government!
 
Last edited:
Fantasy stuff, beats reality every time. It's possible to reduce the size of the Army and increase the AR so it isn't an establised fact. Well done for not using FACT!!!!! though. It's been established that different armies have different ratios. HTH.

Nobody has argued that a cut in numbers would be a good thing.
The facts speak for themselves: 80,000 active soldiers and 27k part time reserve, with a final reserve of 40k. So our total reserve is below a factor of 1, which is the traditional benchmark, for army level disaster recovery.

If you haven't noticed, the historic trends on recruitment are not constant and the trend is reduce the active element you reduce the number of willing volunteers for both active and part time. So that will also have the knock on effect at the reserve level.
 
Why is that the problem of underpaid, undervalued CS?

And if enough people are deciding the offer's not so awful - and they can't find better options elsewhere - that the system survives, then there's evidence it can't be that bad.

It's quite possible to step out of a moderately senior role in MoD CS (well, a trading fund thereof) to the private sector, and roughly double your salary thereby. There are benefits and drawbacks in doing so, of course.

I know some very good folk who are staying because they like the work and the stability, the offer's not unacceptable, and the downsides of leaving outweigh the advantages. Some have jumped ship. I know others who are staying because they know they can't do better elsewhere; and of course there's the merry-go-round of graduates coming in, doing a few years and then moving on.

But staying put while moaning endlessly about how hard done by you are achieves precisely sqrt(0) - actions count, complaining doesn't.
except that’s not what’s happening. Most of the perks of CS, not stellar pay, but good TACOS have been relentlessly removed over the last decade - yes, I know The Daily Hate says I can claim for laddered tights, but I cant.... Now? CS is not a good option that formerly attracted the better percentile with a view to a career, it’s become a staging post for the lower end Graduates looking to get a job on their CV before clearing off to a better paying job, with TACOS usually as good, often better. Look around any department now, it’s a lot of bright but dim young things flitting about, and the department reliant on a hard core of older but very experienced long term cynics Who are simply biding time till pension and escape. It’s a hollowed out system heading for a disaster when the current old and bolds bang out along with decades if institutional knowledge, there are no not so older bolds coming up behind - no Ones staying, no ones working themselves up through the ranks. Need a new C2? Don’t promote an old D, fly in some 23 yr old Graduate who won’t stay long enough to get their keyboard dirty and when you say you started out at DERA thinks it’s a supermarket chain.
how many changes to our Pension? Another year, another inferior scheme, although the muppets have really caught their nuts in a mangle now the courts bit back.

Bitter? Yes, Cynical? Yep, that too, but having sat through a Town Hall with the Head of the CS sneeringly telling us we’re a bunch of C’s and we should be grateful, yes he actually said that, we had a job, what do they expect.. and here we are, another year, another review, well actually two, and the older rats now actually hate the organisation and can’t wait to leave it after a decade of relentless kicking by our CS ‘leadership’
Well done them, a very loyal and hardworking workforce finally ground down to seething resentment. this is my 5th review, only offered VERS one of the previous times, and declined. This time out? I’ll dislocate his arm snatching the envelope.

Still, it will be alright on the night, the new consultancy bright kiddies on the block have a new cunning CS staffing plan... it’s going to be mega!
 

Daxx

MIA
Book Reviewer
Don’t like it? Go and work for someone else. It’s a free market; there’s bound to be a queue of employers looking for your skills.....

Oh ****, you’re a career civil servant who didn’t have the nouse to promote beyond the chip on his shoulder.
You dont promote in the CS. You apply for a new job a higher grade.
 

Shandy123

War Hero
If you mean Snitterfield north of Stratford, it closed as an RAF Station in 1946! RAF Syerston is still in use as home to 2FTS, as are it's satellite fields around the country, because gliders can't always return to their 'home' airfield.
Syerston, yes that's it. Passed it again yesterday. Someone said how can they cut more airfields, I was suggesting that Syerston might not be a big miss, in capability terms
 
Like for like? Not a chance, CS pay is abysmal, the T&Cs which compensated for it have been trashed, retention in some areas is terrible, very high turnover. Nope, I've never been a CS but have worked alongside them lots.
Chimes with my experience of working closely with DE&S.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
 

Cromarty

Old-Salt
hate to break this to you, but Governments don’t like seeing their Armies coming home decidedly non victorious - twice, in the same decade.

And who were the cnuts who hamstrung the military in those wars? Who sent them out ill equipped and without a clear objective? Hard to achieve a task that hasn't been defined and kept changing.
 
Couple of nice pieces in The Guardian which tend to give last week's ST pieces more credence and put the wind up the top brass.
1) Dominic Cummings to tour sensitive MoD sites amid defence review - PM’s adviser will visit SAS and Porton Down, and has been to MI5 and MI6, leaked email says
and
2) Mark Francois being his usual debonair self in committee.


Did a quick check and I don't think the following has been posted on this thread, if it has, apologies.
1594303428756.png
 
Reserves are cheaper than regular active soldiers? It was the primary reasoning for scrapping the TA and replacing it with a new reserve commitment, to justify the reduction in the size of the active soldiers. The net result today: We have less reserves than serving soldiers !

If we reduce the serving active element, then haven't we proven that the reserves as presently constructed, cannot be expected to cover the gap, without a steeper fall in the reserves and its those reserves which are supposed to be the element that will defend our sovereign territory and in an emergency cover any attritional losses.

The military is already becoming less and less seen as a workable career by the young and that downward trend, will get steeper post any army cuts.
You do realise you're arguing against your own post and therefore in support of mine don't you :cool:
 
Syerston, yes that's it. Passed it again yesterday. Someone said how can they cut more airfields, I was suggesting that Syerston might not be a big miss, in capability terms
Not in capability terms for immediate war-fighting output, but as a training establishment, it plays a role in the capability pipeline. And as far as flying training goes, for safety reasons as much as anything else, you don't want a bunch of sprogs going up-diddley-up-up and cluttering up an operational airfield or its airspace.
 
And who were the cnuts who hamstrung the military in those wars?
That would be the Generals who were fighting the wrong war and convinced themselves they had nothing to learn from anyone else

Who sent them out ill equipped and without a clear objective?
That would be the Generals who had no idea how to define an objective and bought all the right kit for 'The War', which turned out to be the wrong war

Hard to achieve a task that hasn't been defined and kept changing.
That would be the Generals who keep blithely promising the Politicians victory parades with chips by Christmas and kept redefining their idea of 'victory' when that Christmas passed?
 
Oh Padawan..... early 90s MoD offered redundancy and anyone with half a brain and seniority applied, almost all got it leaving gaping holes of experience and expertise.

I've seen nothing in the intervening years to suggest MoD has learnt the lesson.
I got promoted out of Options...
I remember going to a dining out night in a secret Wiltshire base which became dubbed, “The Millionaires Dinning Out Thrash!” The total value of payouts along the extended top table was something like £1.3m, plus it was the end of the month, plus a couple of “normal” time-served leavers. Took me a few days to get over the alcohol poisoning.
 
The facts speak for themselves: 80,000 active soldiers and 27k part time reserve, with a final reserve of 40k. So our total reserve is below a factor of 1, which is the traditional benchmark, for army level disaster recovery.

If you haven't noticed, the historic trends on recruitment are not constant and the trend is reduce the active element you reduce the number of willing volunteers for both active and part time. So that will also have the knock on effect at the reserve level.
You appear to be not accepting that an increase in the AR is possible, not my problem. You're exactly the kind of person who says we need to try new things and then measures everything in LSD.....
 
You appear to be not accepting that an increase in the AR is possible, not my problem. You're exactly the kind of person who says we need to try new things and then measures everything in LSD.....
I think hes getting hung up on the "ex forces called up if required definition of reserves" -
If your reserves are all ex forces then of course fewer regulars = fewer reserves.

That isn't the case if like the UK you recruit never been a regular and other part time soldiers into the reserve and that's the bit wooshing past.
.
The biggest object to a large reserve there (budget aside) is visibility ie having them be high enough profile and distributed enough** to recruit - but even here as the reserves get bigger theyre more distributed so more visible.

Actually equipping them would help as well. Buy sufficient armour to equip the regulars and reserves rather than the current enough to field some of the reserves - and again people will join up to play tank commander vs pretend this beat up old landie is a cvrt etc


** You may drive from Bath to Bristol for an evening bath to London isn't so appealling
 
You appear to be not accepting that an increase in the AR is possible, not my problem. You're exactly the kind of person who says we need to try new things and then measures everything in LSD.....
Ok Mr Sourpuss, tell me: How will the AR suddenly increase ?
As I see it, if you lose 20k Regulars, then the historic evidence is the reserves will go down as well.
 
You do realise you're arguing against your own post and therefore in support of mine don't you :cool:
I was arguing about the side effects of the cuts and you were arguing, against one possible remedy to those side effects. So I think we do agree, on no more cuts otherwise all the myriad of tough choices become starker.
 

Latest Threads

Top