MPs urge more support for TA

#4
Most odd.

Para 20:

In order to improve recruitment by making better use of resources, the Regular Navy, Army and Royal Air Force have taken over responsibility for recruiting Volunteer Reserves. The Department undertakes analyses of demographic and societal trends. Forecast reductions in the number of working age people and the changes in the health and physical fitness of the population mean that recruitment may become more difficult.[45] The Department is looking more towards the Regular Reserves, ex-Regular personnel, many of whom might be interested in becoming Volunteer Reserves.[46]
A statement is made: "In order to improve recruitment by making better use of resources, the Regular Navy, Army and Royal Air Force have taken over responsibility for recruiting Volunteer Reserves."

But there is no commentary on that statement at all. No discussion of its implications, of whether it is working, of how the change has been implemented. Instead, it goes off on a tangent.

That's a strange omission, given that the All-Party Parliamentary Reserve Forces Group had this to say only last month:

The Australian experience offers a bitter lesson here. The decision to integrate regular and reserve recruiting under (regional) regular headquarters in Australia was taken in 1997 following similar logic to the decision here.

A higher proportion of Australians live in a small number of big cities than is the case in Britain, so that the logic for centralising into regions was arguably stronger there than it is here.

Nevertheless the experience was disastrous; recruiting plummeted from around 5,000 per year to a little over 2,000 for the subsequent three years, only partially recovering since. Their Army Reserve lost almost a third of its strength in three years.

The parallel is complicated by the fact that there was a simultaneous introduction of joint regular/reserve recruit training as well, requiring those
joining the Army Reserve to do nine weeks basic training.

Nevertheless, although in some respects the Australian Army Reserve continues to do well (its retention remains significantly better than our TA and it has also had some successful operational deployments of formed subunits), it has conspicuously failed to rebuild numbers since recruiting was regionalised [and integrated].
 
#5
Dr_Evil said:
Most odd.
No, just joined up government at its best ;)

But most probably because they do not understand the implications of the statement.

msr
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#6
Not at all odd, when you consider:

- The PAC Report was in response to an NAO Report, which was published in March 2006.

- The PAC Report took evidence in June 2006.

- almost all the input to both reports concerned TELIC 1 - 3.

Now even the most jaundiced onlooker would admit that things have changed since then. But the report, published today, is simply out-of-date. It does however give some MPs the chance to bup their gums over things having gone wrong three years ago as if it were yesterday.
 
#7
"The Department is looking more towards the Regular Reserves, ex-Regular personnel, many of whom might be interested in becoming Volunteer Reserves."

Well, since the regular reserve has proved so willing to turn up when called up, as per their contracted obligation, I can really see them turning up to join the TA. I think I've seen maybe a dozen ex-regulars join my TA Company in 14 years. Somehow I doubt there's that few ex-regulars in the South Yorkshire area.
 
#8
Kitmarlowe said:
I think I've seen maybe a dozen ex-regulars join my TA Company in 14 years. Somehow I doubt there's that few ex-regulars in the South Yorkshire area.
Our PSAO has been actively targeting those leaving the regulars (in S Yorks), he had some good results about 4-6 over a couple of years. They were mainly ex-infantry but all have since rejoined the regulars.
 
#9
I'll believe it when I see it. Anything that isn't backed up by £££ isn't worth the paper it's written on. The capability and direction of the TA are is the hands of the Treasury - see Telegraph article
'A freeze on recruiting' for those units not directly supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (well, I suppose there aren't many of them these days) - for example. I don't understand why 'they' just don't 'get it'. SDR - close regional TA centres and so reduce footprint and numbers of potential recruits reduce too: they didn't get that either. Freeze recruitment for two years and you may as well just close the unit because it'll create a manpower time-bomb. I've no doubt COs will indulge in jiggery-pokery to recruit in these places and hold people on the books of other locations somehow, but it's all so unnecessary. It's all so obvious - any TA soldier from Sgt upwards would be able to state the obvious effects.
It's this sort of rubbish that pished me off with the TA and eventually made me listen to Mrs Stabtastic and spend more time looking after the family rather than making do and mend, hiding people on the books and doing utterly cr@p paperwork.
 
#11
OldSnowy said:
Not at all odd, when you consider:

- The PAC Report was in response to an NAO Report, which was published in March 2006.

- The PAC Report took evidence in June 2006.

- almost all the input to both reports concerned TELIC 1 - 3.

Now even the most jaundiced onlooker would admit that things have changed since then. But the report, published today, is simply out-of-date. It does however give some MPs the chance to bup their gums over things having gone wrong three years ago as if it were yesterday.
OldSnowy 1, Dr Evil 0
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads