More Generals go

#1
At least six 'talented' generals quit Army over defence cuts - Telegraph

The concern about "the good ones going" is, of course, the quality of those who remain.

The counter argument highlights that the good ones may have been heavily involved in the last decade of war (which has been dominated by 2 succesive defeats), so any change is a change for the better.

Whilst there seems to be a certain amount of agonising and empathy by commentators, i am reminded of CSgt "McFcuknasty"'s observations whilst I was vomming at the side of the road, following another RowCo educative session

"Pays to be a winner, cadet SBP, Pays to be a winner.........right i've seen enough of your breakfast. AGAIN!!"
 

TheresaMay

ADC
Moderator
DirtyBAT
#2
Ok - think about this logically...

You have say, six OF8s on that have been OF8s for oo, lets think - 7 years? That'd put them somewhere at the top of their pay ladder right?

So 6 of them jump / pushed. And 6 are immediately promoted from OF7 to OF8.

You now have 6 x OF8s, all on the lowest pay level (and earning much less than their previous counterparts); and 6 x OF7s less to pay in the Forces.

So in a way, it means that the upcoming talent can be promoted, who would have otherwise not got a look in (dead mans shoes), and at the same time, the Government save an uber fortune in pay. Some very clever people have been at the helm with this redundancy lark, I dare say.
 
#3
Nice article.

It doesn't say what their talents are, exactly. Maybe they're handy with a guitar in the Mess.
 
#4
I thought Patrick Marriott (who I worked for a few years ago and highly rated) had retired? Very happy to be corrected?

This line though made me laugh

"Many in the Army are becoming increasingly bitter that the MoD opted to sack a further 12,000 soldiers in order to keep a major defence programme, in particular the two new aircraft carriers. "

This ignores the reality that the MOD cannot afford 12000 soldiers, because there is not enough money to pay for all of them and the supporting equipment to go with them. No matter how you look at the costs, they simply do not add up unless you lose bodies. Its nothing to do with protecting CVF, but everything to do with the fact that we have little money, UK service personnel cost a lot of money to pay, and there is only so much money in the kitty.
More piss poor reporting from the Telegraph - quelle surprise...
 
#5
That should read…

"Many in the Army are becoming increasingly bitter that the MoD opted to sack a further 12,000 soldiers in order to keep the Household Cavalry, Brigade of Guards, and other sacred cap badges. "
 
#6
Such people are all "grown ups" and you suspect they have weighed up staying on against the inevitable offers from outside. As has been pointed out elsewhere this lot are all on short engagements, are not stupid and will probably do OK for themselves on the outside.

One thing is for certain, LinkedIn will be doing a roaring trade in the near future. I wish I had a pound for each acquaintance in the regular army who is now touting themselves as a "facilities manager" (QM), "department leader" (CO/OC) and "Procurement consultant/<insert technical discipline> Subject Matter Expert" (DE&S RMs). The latter is particularly concerning given that many of these people have only been in post for a year or two. Experts my arrse!
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#7
I thought Patrick Marriott (who I worked for a few years ago and highly rated) had retired? Very happy to be corrected?
He has retired. A loss to the army, but not necessarily to do with defence cuts.
 
#8
I can't help thinking if they could gently persuade a couple of hundred more of the UK's "talented" generals to quit cuts further down could be minimized and the Realm would be considerably safer.
 
#9
"He has retired. A loss to the army, but not necessarily to do with defence cuts. "

Thank you - I agree, he is a great loss to the Army. In my own experience he was one of the finest, funniest, sharpest Army Officers that I had the pleasure of working for. A real pity he didnt get higher up in the system, but I'm sure he will do brilliantly in whatever he puts his mind to next.
 
#10
Doesn't matter how many go it's their legacy that counts. What is their legacy? Are their areas of responsibility better than before they arrived?

Seems to me the Army, particularly over the next several years, needs a reformer of Haldane's stature, a trainer with Haig's tenacity, and a commander with Slim's resolve to shake it, mould it, stiffen it, and blow some morale into it, all three working from the same page, with clearly defined goals and in office together long enough to see the reforms through.
Right now the plan (if there is one other than to mindlessly slash expenditure) changes daily, no one seems to know what's happening and Generals are jumping ship - all the ingredients for an unhappy state of affairs. What's next? The Broderick cap?
 
#11
I thought Patrick Marriott (who I worked for a few years ago and highly rated) had retired? Very happy to be corrected?

This line though made me laugh

"Many in the Army are becoming increasingly bitter that the MoD opted to sack a further 12,000 soldiers in order to keep a major defence programme, in particular the two new aircraft carriers. "

This ignores the reality that the MOD cannot afford 12000 soldiers, because there is not enough money to pay for all of them and the supporting equipment to go with them. No matter how you look at the costs, they simply do not add up unless you lose bodies. Its nothing to do with protecting CVF, but everything to do with the fact that we have little money, UK service personnel cost a lot of money to pay, and there is only so much money in the kitty.
More piss poor reporting from the Telegraph - quelle surprise...
As far as the common soldier is concerned, that's what's happening. Don't forget that the manpower budget has pretty always been lower that the actual authorised size of the Forces. A subtle con that's now screwing us over.....
 
#12
........ Don't forget that the manpower budget has pretty always been lower that the actual authorised size of the Forces. A subtle con that's now screwing us over.....
As opposed to the RAF, who have had a policy of deliberate over-manning for decades and are now squealing like stuck pigs over their cuts.

Back on topic; Can we expect lots of sniping from some/many/all of these retired Staff Officers from the outside from now on? It's always seemed to be the thing, say nothing and ensure the pension whilst in, then mouth off when the financial future is safe.

Will we see some integrity issues in the coming months, I wonder?
 
#14
Well, would you want to sacrifice your pension knowingly?
No, but if I hadn't spoken my mind while in I'd keep my own counsel when out.
 

Wordsmith

LE
Book Reviewer
#15
Seems to me the Army, particularly over the next several years, needs a reformer of Haldane's stature, a trainer with Haig's tenacity, and a commander with Slim's resolve to shake it, mould it, stiffen it, and blow some morale into it, all three working from the same page, with clearly defined goals and in office together long enough to see the reforms through.
Check out Jackie Fisher's reforms of the Navy in the early years of 1900. He delivered a technically better, more efficient navy at a lower cost than in previous years. But he didn't fiddle about with uncoordinated cuts. He had a clear strategic vision and he modified the navy to suit it. He was also prepared to steamroller over internal opposition, which didn't make him too popular at the time. History has given a general thumbs up to his efforts...

Wordsmith
 

chimera

LE
Moderator
#16
Ridiculous article. By nature of their age (and terms of service) all 6 of those pictured in the article have just run out of time (and promotion opportunity) and retired.

They may have been great people in their time, but on that basis we would still have the likes of Inge still serving.
 
#18
Oh look - the story is complete bollocks! The official rebuttal is below.

"This is nonsense. The article contains a number of inaccuracies and individuals have been misquoted. Several of those named are still serving with no plans to leave before their normal retirement date. The remainder have already left the Army having reached the natural end of their careers. None left because they were disillusioned and this article does those individuals a huge disservice after decades of distinguished and valuable service to the country.

More than 24,000 people leave the Armed Forces every year, including senior officers who come to the natural end of their careers. The number of senior officers departing early is in line with the historic trend over a number of years.

The MOD has long been criticised for being top heavy with too many senior officers and is soon to announce a reduction in senior posts to ensure the Services are balanced, streamlined and effective."
 
B

bokkatankie

Guest
#19
Check out Jackie Fisher's reforms of the Navy in the early years of 1900. He delivered a technically better, more efficient navy at a lower cost than in previous years. But he didn't fiddle about with uncoordinated cuts. He had a clear strategic vision and he modified the navy to suit it. He was also prepared to steamroller over internal opposition, which didn't make him too popular at the time. History has given a general thumbs up to his efforts...

Wordsmith
Sad that in the same process he took away the ability for Captains in a Fleet to think, but there you are one step forward two steps back.
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#20
More piss poor reporting from the Telegraph - quelle surprise...
The ever ...ah ...resourceful Thom Harding , wannabe doyen of Fleet Street Defence reporters, vice Max Hastings... .....didn't Lamont Kirkland retire as GOC 4 Div in January then ?

Lamont Kirkland | Facebook

I stand by to be corrected.

Sunnoficarus: you forget '...in order to keep the Gurkhas ( and Joanna Lumley) onside...'
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top