Labour cuts costs - TA training on hold

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by FORMER_FYRDMAN, Oct 10, 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. FORMER_FYRDMAN

    FORMER_FYRDMAN LE Book Reviewer

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8300530.stm

    Would the resident Labour apologists care to explain this in the context of Gordon's belief that there is no economic downturn, that the economy will grow next year and that the armed forces will get everything they want? Good job we're not fighting anyone.

    Unbelievable. Not to mention the duty of care issues when a TA soldier is called to serve on the basis of pre-deployment training only.



    PS Apologies for the cut n' paste link, perhaps one of the more IT literate could oblige if it doesn't work.
     

  2. The thing that pissed me off most is not the cuts, but the fact they're only being done for a £20m saving. The defence budget is massive, and they're bitching over £20m. Cost overruns on the carrier will be hundreds of millions, perhaps give the contracters there a kick up the arrse instead of stripping the TA to nothing.
     
  3. FORMER_FYRDMAN

    FORMER_FYRDMAN LE Book Reviewer

    Exactly, we could cover these costs by being tougher on MP's expenses.
     
  4. Wont TA soldiers leave the army now? Whats the point of being in if you can't train?

    That will save some more dosh though wont it?
     
  5. FORMER_FYRDMAN

    FORMER_FYRDMAN LE Book Reviewer

    Certainly you can't suspend an organisation like the TA for six months and not do very serious damage.
     
  6. I'm looking at this news and wondering what I'm going to have left of a platoon when they restart training.

    Imagine this were a civilian organisation ... would you work for a company that had to shut one division's doors for half a year, whilst you see massive spending overrun in other divisions, and all in the name of £20m out of a £35bn budget?

    I don't see that happening in the National Guard in the US, and I think it's a sad state of affairs that the TA is getting hammered like this. If this is part of the "One Army" concept then it doesn't speak volumes for what our Regular colleagues can expect ...
     
  7. I think that is the point. The current Government doesn't have the balls to go toe to toe with the TA or regimental lobbies that would kick up a fuss if there were explicit disbandments. So they have come up with a plan for the organisation to effectively disband itself.

    The Army Board are professional soldiers and so they will know exactly how much damage this will do to the TA. That they should do something so deeply cynical speaks volumes about how much they value the TA.

    Sad but inevitable. When the Regular Army is faced with a decision like this we will chop the TA every time. Of course, there's no savings to be had on in Horseguards....
     
  8. With the war progressing in Afghanistan, and with other threats lurking, only in Alice's 'Wonderland' or in Labour's Britain could this be happening.
     
  9. The perception is that soldiers don't vote or don't vote Labour, this is just part of Labours scorched earth policy, remind me again who's likely to have to deal with the fallout from this.
     
  10. FORMER_FYRDMAN

    FORMER_FYRDMAN LE Book Reviewer

    Agreed, but I think Dergeneral's point is valid too - I can't see Gordon trying to push this through at this time without tacit support from the military establishment.

    I think those clowns need to understand that Afghanistan won't last forever and that there are more enduring defence needs - the ability to significantly increase troop numbers at short notice in the event of a general conflict being one of them and a more general awareness and appreciation of the military in wider civil society being another. Not to mention the availablility of a flexible pool of trained manpower to bail out the Regulars when their leaders fail to stand up to politicians who want to embark on half-baked and under-resourced military adventures.
     
  11. Well, that's a pisse. How does this impact those of us who were just prepping to go and sign up?

    I'm guessing I just need to wait 6 months or so and look on the bright side that I'll be even fitter by then.
     
  12. Being discussed also here

    Certainly stinks of Broon scorched earth if true
     
  13. Why am I not in the least surprised at this, given the Labia Partei,s pathological hatred of the Armed Forces, except when it comes to their own self agrandisment (Bliar). In fact they stand in mortal fear that if there was an Army at home, it might just take it into it,s head to move against their political bosses and do away with them altogether, in a long overdue Coup de Etat. :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x
     
  14. There's more in the times article here.

    If training did stop for 6 months, I guess we would loose half of our meagre compliment of commited soldiers. I can see the day when the unit consists of only of the few (mainly ex regular soldiers, about 5% of our establishment) we have who attend the minimum of training but want to deploy regularly, like a branch of the Regular Reserve. Is that the plan? Do they think they can just train recruits then shelve them for a year or two until OPTAG and deployment?

    Even if this is jounalist overreaction to the training cuts currently underway, these stories add impetus to the downward spiral of morale in the TA.
     
  15. brettarider

    brettarider On ROPs

    Well the goberment can fook off if they think that any of us will attned any national call out's stabbed straight in the back.

    Perhaps they can tell me this what will happen to the recruitment of TA soldiers sorry come back in 6? by that time a lot of people will have left and suddenly a massive training gap/and lack of experience.