Army personnel strength down again

#1
The official Defence Analytical Services and Advice (DASA) have just published the latest set of statistics known as TSP 05 - Regular Forces Outflow from Trained Strength to Civil Life (LINK) as of 1 Aug 08.

There is a range of tables for officers and other ranks of the three services. A quick glance suggests that in many cases the outflow rate has been steadily increasing from a base figure around 2003.

Trained strength in Regular Army Other Ranks fell from 81,640 on 30 Jun 07 to 80,250 on 30 Jun 08, a net loss of 1,390 in 12 months.
 
#3
The arguement on recruitment or retention still rages though... :roll:
 
#4
Does this include TA?

msr
 
#6
hackle said:
msr said:
Does this include TA?

msr
These particular stats are regular forces only. Tri-service.
I think the last set of figures for "TSP 07 - UK Reserves and Cadets Strengths" were wef Apr 07 and were published late Sep 07, so there should be an update out soon?
 
#7
chocolate_frog said:
The arguement on recruitment or retention still rages though... :roll:
If you keep in the people that you have for a bit longer, then you won't have to struggle so hard to recruit people to replace those that left long before the latest recruits even thought of joining up...!

How many 'Gapped' post's are there out in the Regiments that can't be filled by someone, either at all, or by someone with the correct rank..?
 
#8
Its often said on ARRSE that an economic downturn would see a surge in recruiting, which could bring in enough blokes to make rotation slightly less severe for those currently serving, and thereby help retention.

Well, a recession is surely on its way, so this is a real possibility.

I do wonder though. Given the emphasis on spending on big bits of armoured vehs / other UORs, & the huge implications that the Credit Crunch has for public spending, would we have enough money to train, equip and pay an increase in recruiting?

In short, could the MoD actually afford the holy grail of full manning?

I don't understand the details of funding, and would be grateful to hear from any of you who do...

Charlie
 
#9
Charlie_Cong said:
Its often said on ARRSE that an economic downturn would see a surge in recruiting, which could bring in enough blokes to make rotation slightly less severe for those currently serving, and thereby help retention.

Well, a recession is surely on its way, so this is a real possibility.
There is already at least 1 million people on the dole and none of them seem to want to take the Queen shilling.
Benefits are alot higher now than they were in the last recession.
 
#10
'Benefits are alot higher now than they were in the last recession.'

But for how long? We are already deeply in hock and the latest bank nationalisations put us even deeper. Put quite bluntly, there are too many non-productive mouths (of all types) to feed. Cyclops has 2 options: either drastically cut public spending (which he is psychologically unable to do) or borrow even more (and raise taxes drastically to pay for it). There will come a time in the near future when no one will lend us any more money (just like the '70s).
 
#11
stacker1 said:
Charlie_Cong said:
Its often said on ARRSE that an economic downturn would see a surge in recruiting, which could bring in enough blokes to make rotation slightly less severe for those currently serving, and thereby help retention.

Well, a recession is surely on its way, so this is a real possibility.
There is already at least 1 million people on the dole and none of them seem to want to take the Queen shilling.
Benefits are alot higher now than they were in the last recession.
Why work when you can Sponge.

The recession V's recruitment thing holds some strength. But during the last recession in the 90's the Army wasn't really doing much, and obviously things are a bit different today.

Linked into that is the dependency on state that many of the youth become conditioned to in the last 10 years. Just going to college earns you £30 per week, with three bonuses of £100 for good measure. May not be much, but it's still £1500, plus whatever a student can make in Mcdonalds, and it all funds a cushty lifestyle of parental and state handouts to fund that period of adolescence.
 
#12
heard_it_all_before said:
stacker1 said:
Charlie_Cong said:
Its often said on ARRSE that an economic downturn would see a surge in recruiting, which could bring in enough blokes to make rotation slightly less severe for those currently serving, and thereby help retention.

Well, a recession is surely on its way, so this is a real possibility.
There is already at least 1 million people on the dole and none of them seem to want to take the Queen shilling.
Benefits are alot higher now than they were in the last recession.
Why work when you can Sponge.

The recession V's recruitment thing holds some strength. But during the last recession in the 90's the Army wasn't really doing much, and obviously things are a bit different today.

Linked into that is the dependency on state that many of the youth become conditioned to in the last 10 years. Just going to college earns you £30 per week, with three bonuses of £100 for good measure. May not be much, but it's still £1500, plus whatever a student can make in Mcdonalds, and it all funds a cushty lifestyle of parental and state handouts to fund that period of adolescence.
You only get the handout if your parents earn something like £25,000, and only runs from 16-18, unless they've changed the system. And how exactly does working at McDonalds at the same time give you a 'cushy lifestyle'. That would mean that the student is working AND studying.
 
#13
parapauk said:
heard_it_all_before said:
stacker1 said:
Charlie_Cong said:
Its often said on ARRSE that an economic downturn would see a surge in recruiting, which could bring in enough blokes to make rotation slightly less severe for those currently serving, and thereby help retention.

Well, a recession is surely on its way, so this is a real possibility.
There is already at least 1 million people on the dole and none of them seem to want to take the Queen shilling.
Benefits are alot higher now than they were in the last recession.
Why work when you can Sponge.

The recession V's recruitment thing holds some strength. But during the last recession in the 90's the Army wasn't really doing much, and obviously things are a bit different today.

Linked into that is the dependency on state that many of the youth become conditioned to in the last 10 years. Just going to college earns you £30 per week, with three bonuses of £100 for good measure. May not be much, but it's still £1500, plus whatever a student can make in Mcdonalds, and it all funds a cushty lifestyle of parental and state handouts to fund that period of adolescence.
You only get the handout if your parents earn something like £25,000, and only runs from 16-18, unless they've changed the system. And how exactly does working at McDonalds at the same time give you a 'cushy lifestyle'. That would mean that the student is working AND studying.
You obviously don't have teenagers in your household.. :D

Your household income
To qualify for EMA in the academic year starting in September 2008 your annual household income must be below £30,810 (for tax year 2007/2008).

And there’s good news if you have a part-time job – any money you earn isn’t included in your overall household income.

up to £20,817 per year £30 per week
£20,818 - £25,521 per year £20 a week
£25,522 - £30,810 per year £10 a week
more than £30,810 per year no entitlement to EMA

I was recently on a civilian course, and one of the delegates was a college tutor who was retraining as he'd had enough. He said that loads of tutors were leaving as EMA has single handedly destroyed the College System. Many of the 'Easier' subjects are now plagued with youngsters that just want to do the minimum and get the money. Many of the courses at the Vocational Colleges are only 2 days a week, this means that the youth can then do 'part-time' work for the rest of the week.

EMA has got nothing to do with education, it's about conditioning the Nu Labour voters of the future. If it was about education, ALL kids would get it. How can you have two kids on a course that both hand in all there work on time but one gets £30 and the other gets nothing..? It's UTTER Bollox.

If you can stomach it, READ MORE...
 
#14
EMA has got nothing to do with education, it's about conditioning the Nu Labour voters of the future. If it was about education, ALL kids would get it. How can you have two kids on a course that both hand in all there work on time but one gets £30 and the other gets nothing..? It's UTTER Bollox.
Why on earth would you want to hand taxpayer's money to children whose parents can afford to keep them? And let's face it, the kind of feckless wasters who do a 2-day a week pottery course are hardly likely to turn up to vote on polling day - and indeed that goes for all benefit scroungers.
 
#15
It will be interesting to see the figures for the next 2 years. The wont really reflect current outflow as those who would be out 2009/10 have just been given 2 extra years.

That said, who can blame people for leaving with the current Op interval?
 
#16
parapauk said:
EMA has got nothing to do with education, it's about conditioning the Nu Labour voters of the future. If it was about education, ALL kids would get it. How can you have two kids on a course that both hand in all there work on time but one gets £30 and the other gets nothing..? It's UTTER Bollox.
Why on earth would you want to hand taxpayer's money to children whose parents can afford to keep them? And let's face it, the kind of feckless wasters who do a 2-day a week pottery course are hardly likely to turn up to vote on polling day - and indeed that goes for all benefit scroungers.
You didn't get my point. Why give £30 to anyone? If they really want to go to college they will go anyway. All the money that's wasted on EMA could have been much better spent elsewhere in the 'Black-Hole' that is education.

They are also now planning on giving away millions in Child Care for 2 year olds. As far as I remember, and not wanting to sound out-of-touch, parents looked after children of that age. Creches will now be filled with the kids of Chav's, whilst the parent goes out to hang about in bus stops.

It's know wonder the countries gone to the dogs...
 
#17
heard_it_all_before said:
parapauk said:
EMA has got nothing to do with education, it's about conditioning the Nu Labour voters of the future. If it was about education, ALL kids would get it. How can you have two kids on a course that both hand in all there work on time but one gets £30 and the other gets nothing..? It's UTTER Bollox.
Why on earth would you want to hand taxpayer's money to children whose parents can afford to keep them? And let's face it, the kind of feckless wasters who do a 2-day a week pottery course are hardly likely to turn up to vote on polling day - and indeed that goes for all benefit scroungers.
You didn't get my point. Why give £30 to anyone? If they really want to go to college they will go anyway. All the money that's wasted on EMA could have been much better spent elsewhere in the 'Black-Hole' that is education.

They are also now planning on giving away millions in Child Care for 2 year olds. As far as I remember, and not wanting to sound out-of-touch, parents looked after children of that age. Creches will now be filled with the kids of Chav's, whilst the parent goes out to hang about in bus stops.

It's know wonder the countries gone to the dogs...
They get the money because in some households, their really is pressure on children to start earning as soon as they can duck out of school. This at least contributes a little.

I think you are out of touch. A few years back, women started to go out to work. The trouble was, nursery doesn't start until 4, and maternity leave only lasts 18 months (the most you can ask of employers). So unless you are the type that can spend a fortune on a nanny, you're stuffed. With this you can get back to work ASAP. Obviously you could argue that women should stay at home for the first four years, but I expect a fair few women would object.
 
#18
I'm far from Out-of-Touch. This is just another system that like the EMA, is well intended, but will no doubt lead to abuse.

More Nu Labour spin. Years ago working Full-Time meant exactly that. These days, and in an attempt to be seen to employ more people many large, manual and low skilled employers now only employ people for limited hours. More people in work, but also more people unable to earn a full-time wage. Creative accounting I believe they call it.

If more proper jobs were available then people wouldn't need to look to the state for support.


"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. "
 
#19
heard_it_all_before said:
I'm far from Out-of-Touch. This is just another system that like the EMA, is well intended, but will no doubt lead to abuse.

More Nu Labour spin. Years ago working Full-Time meant exactly that. These days, and in an attempt to be seen to employ more people many large, manual and low skilled employers now only employ people for limited hours. More people in work, but also more people unable to earn a full-time wage. Creative accounting I believe they call it.

If more proper jobs were available then people wouldn't need to look to the state for support.


"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. "
The jobs have and will always be there. It's just a question of what you would regard as a respectable job. Dishing out aftershave and lollipops in a nightclub toilet is one way to make a living but most people wouldn't even consider it as a job. The desire to work is whats lacking IMO.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top