"Hard-pressed TA faces £5m cut in its budget"

#1
From today's Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/14/nrights414.xml

Hard-pressed TA faces £5m cut in its budget

By Graeme Wilson, Political Correspondent
Last Updated: 6:46am BST 14/06/2007

A leaked Whitehall memo has revealed Government plans to cut funding for the Territorial Army by £5 million, even though ministers admit the decision is "difficult to justify" and will "undermine our objectives".

The memo, marked "Restricted", was sent to Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, and Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the Chief of Defence Staff, by Adam Ingram, the armed forces minister. The memo reveals that the Ministry of Defence is planning to cut the TA budget by £2.5 million in both 2007-08 and and 2008-09, despite the pressure of Iraq and Afghanistan on the force.

Mr Ingram says he has been briefed on the impact of a funding cut and argues that "these consequences should have been foreseen and made clear to ministers in a timely fashion as a factor in [our] decision making, since they will be difficult to justify and they undermine our objectives for the TA in the short term, possibly longer."

Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said Mr Ingram's comments revealed that even ministers appeared to recognise the damage being caused by defence cuts.

When Labour came to power in 1997, there were 56,200 people serving in the TA. Last year the figure was 35,940, more than 6,000 below the MoD's official manning requirement of 42,000.

The MoD said last night: "Last financial year, overall funding for the Territorial Army amounted to about £350 million. We do not comment on leaked documents, but can confirm that the TA will continue to be funded at the level needed to provide their invaluable support for current commitments."
 
#2
The MoD said last night: "Last financial year, overall funding for the Territorial Army amounted to about £350 million. We do not comment on leaked documents, but can confirm that the TA will continue to be funded at the level needed to provide their invaluable support for current commitments."

What we really need them to do is commit to the increase in funds necessary to allow us to provide invaluable support to future commitments.


Hmm, just noticed the word "invaluable" and that's not ironic at all is it? What was the phrase? Cost of everything, value of nothing... is that the same as invaluable?
 
#3
a leaked memo!! my ARRSE, we have all seen this comming for a while. where they could cut costs is by stopping these senior officers using the military budget to fly up and down the UK every time there is a dinner on in some godforesaken place.

The TA wastes money hand over fist. the auditors should see where all this money goes, the "bosses" make stupid decisions on doing things that are not beneficial to preparation for potential forthcomming operations. It makes me laugh if the TA or Army even was run like a civillian organisation it would have gone under along time ago. There is one answer to get us out of the poo now and that is to privatise the TA, or even corporate sponsorship. now that would be funny, imagine working on Telic or Herrick with body armour sponsorship across the front.

mmm, thats given me an idea........................
 
#4
Colonel_Foreskin-Crumb said:
if the TA or Army even was run like a civillian organisation it would have gone under along time ago.
Step forward 1st Bn the Royal Tesco Regt closing with and destroying the insurgents in their up armoured check out desks. "I say Smithy, lob another couple of Value Pizzas at them - the fcukers aren't withdrawing..." :rofl:
 
#6
America spent about $500 billion on defence last year, the UK around $59 billion. Is the TA likely to have to start having to pay for its own uniforms and equipment?

I intend to buy my own anyway but I'm thinking that many people would not be able to afford to and that would leave the TA looking like some kind of Army Cadet Force nightmare.
 
#7
tapx2 said:
America spent about $500 billion on defence last year, the UK around $59 billion. Is the TA likely to have to start having to pay for its own uniforms and equipment?

I intend to buy my own anyway but I'm thinking that many people would not be able to afford to and that would leave the TA looking like some kind of Army Cadet Force nightmare.
plz tell me u r just a wind up

or typical hac :wink:
 
#8
"Hard-pressed TA faces", eh?

TA face-mashing is such fun. Come here, marzipan-features.
 
#11
Um, the cuts could affect you.

T&S, MTDs, Recruiting, Kit, AT, events, weekend trg, are all easy targets.

I suspect that this is the beginning of something, not the end.

Any cuts in activity will impact on capability. morale, trg standards, operational sp, and unit cohesion.

Values and Standards? pah.
 
#12
Load of balls.. This Government are coming very close to getting what they pay for, and the loyalty and dedication of many is being tested to breaking point.
 
#13
tapx2 said:
No, I want a decent boots, bergen, body armour, quality. My father can afford it so why not.
That clinches it.

Oxford English Dictionary said:
wah (wä) n. 1. tapx2. 2. (zool.) The panda. 3. (hum.) An overtly serious question concealing sarcastic intent. orig. Cantonese "Gah! You got me!"
Edited out of perfectionism.
 
#14
MrTracey said:
Um, the cuts could affect you.

T&S, MTDs, Recruiting, Kit, AT, events, weekend trg, are all easy targets.

I suspect that this is the beginning of something, not the end.

Any cuts in activity will impact on capability. morale, trg standards, operational sp, and unit cohesion.

Values and Standards? pah.
'You' being those TA units that have contributed least to ops in terms of IR and formed sub-units/dets.
 
#15
I'm afraid that this is 'outing' that which some of us have seen coming for ages. The utility of the TA has been taken for granted, is still being taken for granted, and clearly will be the case for some time to come.

The TA is a soft target when it comes to cost cutting because they are assuming that the goodwill, loyalty, and tenacity of the average TA soldier will mean that whatever they do, he will still turn up.

Rumours have been surfacing for ages - cuts in MTDs, C1 trg, etc.. - how any half wit can think that they can penny pinch to this degree and get away with it is beyond me. £2.5m? - a few tanks of fuel for Gordon Brown's recent flight to Iraq (Queens flight note) - pathetic.

What this says about TA100 and continued sp to operations is nothing short of scandalous. The reverse should be happening.

Two faced, boot licking, OJAR protecting, pension cuddling, 8astards!

I'm going to have a few months off.
 
#16
pombsen-armchair-warrior said:
MrTracey said:
Um, the cuts could affect you.

T&S, MTDs, Recruiting, Kit, AT, events, weekend trg, are all easy targets.

I suspect that this is the beginning of something, not the end.

Any cuts in activity will impact on capability. morale, trg standards, operational sp, and unit cohesion.

Values and Standards? pah.
'You' being those TA units that have contributed least to ops in terms of IR and formed sub-units/dets.
and what exactly has that got to do with anything?

The TA is a slow burn organisation.

Focusing resource on those that have sp ops in the past is like cleaning the stable of the horse that's just bolted. We should, like any great business, be focusing on areas that haven't supported ops and not ignoring the fact that just because a unit has made a significant contribution in the past, doesn't mean it will again in the future...Oh God, it's just dawned on me ...it's an infantry thing! I bet it's the CSS community that's going to take the hit.

And who's in power in the higher echelons of the Army? - oh, it's the infantry!!

Morale. morale, morale!!!
 
#17
crossed_axes said:
From today's Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/14/nrights414.xml


When Labour came to power in 1997, there were 56,200 people serving in the TA. Last year the figure was 35,940, more than 6,000 below the MoD's official manning requirement of 42,000.

The MoD said last night: "Last financial year, overall funding for the Territorial Army amounted to about £350 million. We do not comment on leaked documents, but can confirm that the TA will continue to be funded at the level needed to provide their invaluable support for current commitments."
Oooh! £10k apiece

Lets see:
Pay and Bounty - £4000
Travel costs - say £1500 (depends where Camp is - Cyp, ASI, FI or wherever)
Ammunition - £1.50
Postage - £100
Clothing - £2.50 (excluding FII - been trying to exchange trainers for about 3 years now)

So accommodation must work out at about £100 per night. Must get onto the powers that be and point out that hotel accommodation would be cheaper.
 
#19
tapx2 said:
putteesinmyhands said:
Ammunition - £1.50
What? How comes you don't do any shooting? I expect to do lots! I will buy my own ammo if I have to.
sadly, it's exactly comments like that which the centre relies on.

PS - it's very expensive.
 
#20
MrTracey said:
tapx2 said:
putteesinmyhands said:
Ammunition - £1.50
What? How comes you don't do any shooting? I expect to do lots! I will buy my own ammo if I have to.
sadly, it's exactly comments like that which the centre relies on.

PS - it's very expensive.
I'm aware most people can't afford to buy their own ammo and was not suggesting they do. I would like to do lots of shooting though.

What are they thinking of, I mean it's essential to practice.
 

Similar threads

New Posts