Redundancies in the Regular Army - full manning looms

R

rordog95

Guest
#21
One minute the gov say they need more soldiers and the next their fobbing them off? Beats me
 
#22
rordog95 said:
One minute the gov say they need more soldiers and the next their fobbing them off? Beats me
Are you aware of the current economic situation, or are you just very slow?

msr
 
#23
really?_fascinating said:
. Oh, hang on, done all that. Surely that little £20m of TA cuts culd not have resulted in this? Surely?
Oh Puh-leease. You know fine well the two elements are not related.

Supposedly we are nearly at "full manning" - but thats not the case for the Bns I know of, even at Pte soldier level. Further up the chain there are larger gaps - Captains in particular I believe. As a secondary - Does that "full manning" take into account the additional posts required to run our little war ?

Is it perhaps more the case that an ongoing manning shortfall was taken as a done deal in some-ones speadsheet and better recruiting is blowing holes in the their budget ? The answer then being to bin some of the less effectives from the mid range of the food chain in favour of more youngsters ?
 
#24
really?_fascinating said:
Surely that little £20m of TA cuts culd not have resulted in this? Surely?
Bore off.

msr
 
R

really?_fascinating

Guest
#25
I see, so proposing that one £20m might have been swapped for another is not allowed?

The number and depth of cuts in all areas now mean we have to bin regualr soliders to baalance the books. We ALL know full manning is but a a mere blip, but we just cannot live within our resources. Saving £20m on the part time element might have avoided this latest measure. Or at least pushed if further to the right.

But I am sure you are right.

MSR - don't you see the irony in your GBS quote - you are Paul I presume?
 
#26
really?_fascinating said:
The number and depth of cuts in all areas now mean we have to bin regualr soliders to baalance the books. ?
You are going to have to get rid of a few of those who are unable to deploy.

And be honest, the MOD could save £35bn if its procurement worked, there is no irony.

If you don't want the TA to support Ops, then man up and tell us. I am sure many of us can find something else to do with our weekends and lives.

msr
 
R

really?_fascinating

Guest
#27
I applaud the pronciple that we only keep those able and ready to deploy, I doot like the way this has been forced on us to balance the books.

Hmm....now where else are there lots of people being paid a soldier's wage while under no obligation to deploy?

Any way, only fishing, play nicely
 
R

really?_fascinating

Guest
#28
MSR

Be fair, I have been saying that I want the TA to provide suitable, acceptably trained IRs to cover gaps on ops. I cannot state it any more plainly, you do not need the bloated and self serving structures you have now. Nor do you need to provide a career for people to command TA units if the need is for IRs and sections. Training people to do that, with the expextation of deployed service every five years is what I believe the TA should be configuring itself to do.

Nor do you need 37000 people to provide about a 1000 a year.

We are operating a medium scale Army supported by a large, legacy and unwieldy reserve. If we need to balance our books, we should choose duty cycle over community engagement and footprint.

Happy now?
 
#29
really?_fascinating said:
I see, so proposing that one £20m might have been swapped for another is not allowed?

The number and depth of cuts in all areas now mean we have to bin regualr soliders to baalance the books. We ALL know full manning is but a a mere blip, but we just cannot live within our resources. Saving £20m on the part time element might have avoided this latest measure. Or at least pushed if further to the right.

But I am sure you are right.

MSR - don't you see the irony in your GBS quote - you are Paul I presume?
Weren't the £20m TA savings (later reversed) an attempt to meet pressures to the 09/10 budget, and not part of a longer term plan?

This measure - redundancies - is (I assume - take nothing for granted with the MoD) an attempt to save money over several years to come, so I don't think the two are related. Even if the cuts to the TA had stood in 09/10, other cuts (such as the reduction in the regular Army) would still have been needed going fwd.

Of course, it may have been that the £20m saving from the redundancies would have been partly borne by the TA, had there not been the recent furore about TA cuts in 2009. That, however, is a different matter.

PS - I hope that the Meantime Brewery's products haven't made my post even less intelligible than usual.
 
R

really?_fascinating

Guest
#30
Nope, same 'basket' of measures unfortunately! The manpower cap is a symptom of the current state of the books. TA cuts @ £20m might have helped or even pushed this measure off the radar - we are cutting manpower at the top of the market, we can only reduce as jobs grow in the economy.

Not that i would understand the economy of course, I am but a mere Regular and therefore have no clue how the real world works. (Standfast wife in a job, mortgage, school fees, nanny etc etc etc.)
 
#31
really?_fascinating said:
I am but a mere Regular and therefore have no clue how the real world works. (Standfast wife in a job, mortgage, school fees, nanny etc etc etc.)
Bit chippy this morning aren't we, RF? Mind you, the relationship between "the real world" and employer-paid school fees might perhaps be a little tangential... :D
 
#32
Is this what you are hinting at?

MoD private education bill tops £170 million

Date: 16 March 2010
By EMILY ASHTON

THE Ministry of Defence spent more than £170 million helping service personnel pay for private education of their children last year.

Junior defence minister Kevan Jones said the MoD provided £172,844,735 of funding on the Continuity of Education Allowance (CEA) in 2008-9, up from £162,189,373 in 2007-8.

The CEA is paid to members of the armed forces to fund the education of their children in independent schools.

In a Commons written reply to Liberal Democrat defence spokesman Willie Rennie, Mr Jones said: "The purpose of the CEA is to allow children of armed forces personnel to achieve a stable education against a background of frequent parental postings both at home and overseas."
 
#33
Nothing is sacred it seems, same general justification for the Allowance

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7070451.ece

Diplomats lose out as school fee perk is cut by up to £1,200

Jill Sherman, Whitehall Editor, and Joanna Sugden

Diplomats with children at Britain’s top public schools will lose most from a decision to cut school fee allowances by up to £1,200 a year, The Times has learnt.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials working abroad will also lose a range of perks including a “wear and tear” allowance for crockery and cutlery used for entertaining and a “wasted food” payment in countries with frequent power cuts.

From September, diplomats who send their children to the most expensive independent schools such as Eton, Harrow, Rugby and Wycombe Abbey will have to pay an extra £1,200 for each child. Those with children attending day schools will have to pay an additional £900 per child.

After heated negotiations with the unions over the last three months, the Foreign Office has dropped its original proposal for all staff to pay 5 per cent of school fees for children educated in Britain.
 
#34
But lets ignore the fact that there is no plan to cull the TA ranks of non-deployables (yet anyway, i think we will ALL see some serious cuts thi syear or next), the 50 yr old full screws etc which make up a sizeable chunk of the TA, not to mention the massed ranks of WO/SNCO's, with no tour experince, in the TA holding up those coming through with real experience.

Personally i agree with cutting out the dead wood in the regs, but again another TA topic gloating on the regs getting cut, we are already having a reduction in how many recruits we can take, so the regs are taking the hits and certain are sitting there laughing.

And yes it is gloating, and not very subtle either, but then i am a reg, you have heard it all before etc etc

So yes alot of regs are equating the TA getting their £20 million back and 400-500 regs being culled. Probably not accurate but an easy enough mistake to make, and i hope the papers don't add 2 and 2 and get 5 :twisted:

As another point (Spad take note :D ) i have just had to take several of my lads off a tour to allow TA to go on it, as we HAVE to have a certain % of TA with us ( a point another poster made before). Those lads are gutted.
So it isn't always a case of you's covering for us. To be honest i have yet to have been on a tour we couldn't fill ourselves, but have had to take a % of TA with us.

As for BSA being cut, dodgy ground as it is a retention incentive, bit like the TA bounty, not that it affects me, but i know alot of WO/SNCO's with kids in boarding schools, to give stability etc who would not be happy to see this taken away.
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#35
Not sure if this is for here, or for the "things in history you didn’t realise" thread, or whatever it's called, but I noticed that earlier someone commented on the inability to overbear by 500 men as being an indication of inefficiency. It’s not – it’s the law.

There is no need for the UK to have a Standing Army as we have the RN to protect our borders – or at least that’s the theory, and the legal basis for the Army, according to the Bill of Rights. That is why Army numbers are capped absolutely, and why funding must be voted through each year. We’ve had one military dictatorship, albeit a long time ago, and Parliament remains keen to prevent another.
 
#36
OldSnowy said:
Not sure if this is for here, or for the "things in history you didn’t realise" thread, or whatever it's called, but I noticed that earlier someone commented on the inability to overbear by 500 men as being an indication of inefficiency. It’s not – it’s the law.

There is no need for the UK to have a Standing Army as we have the RN to protect our borders – or at least that’s the theory, and the legal basis for the Army, according to the Bill of Rights. That is why Army numbers are capped absolutely, and why funding must be voted through each year. We’ve had one military dictatorship, albeit a long time ago, and Parliament remains keen to prevent another.
I knew that :D

As for full manning, i am -49% (4) Cpl and -27% LCpl (4), in my det
 

The_Duke

LE
Moderator
#37
Crunchie said:
OldSnowy said:
Not sure if this is for here, or for the "things in history you didn’t realise" thread, or whatever it's called, but I noticed that earlier someone commented on the inability to overbear by 500 men as being an indication of inefficiency. It’s not – it’s the law.

There is no need for the UK to have a Standing Army as we have the RN to protect our borders – or at least that’s the theory, and the legal basis for the Army, according to the Bill of Rights. That is why Army numbers are capped absolutely, and why funding must be voted through each year. We’ve had one military dictatorship, albeit a long time ago, and Parliament remains keen to prevent another.
I knew that :D

As for full manning, i am -49% (4) Cpl and -27% LCpl (4), in my det
How does that balance with having to take your lads off tour to make room for the TA, and never needing IRs from the TA?
 
#38
The_Duke said:
Crunchie said:
OldSnowy said:
Not sure if this is for here, or for the "things in history you didn’t realise" thread, or whatever it's called, but I noticed that earlier someone commented on the inability to overbear by 500 men as being an indication of inefficiency. It’s not – it’s the law.

There is no need for the UK to have a Standing Army as we have the RN to protect our borders – or at least that’s the theory, and the legal basis for the Army, according to the Bill of Rights. That is why Army numbers are capped absolutely, and why funding must be voted through each year. We’ve had one military dictatorship, albeit a long time ago, and Parliament remains keen to prevent another.
I knew that :D

As for full manning, i am -49% (4) Cpl and -27% LCpl (4), in my det
How does that balance with having to take your lads off tour to make room for the TA, and never needing IRs from the TA?
Because our commitment to this upcoming tour doesn't affect the whole unit, just an element, so i don't have to support the full Bn, plus most of the slots are for SNCO's.
 

The_Duke

LE
Moderator
#39
Fairy snuff. It does however raise the point that your circumstances are not exactly standard, and as such your comments about IRs reflect your particular unit circumstances rather than the wider perspective of manning shortfalls and IRs.
 
#40
I am not trying to take anything away from the TA contribution.

More taking umbrage at the origonal post, when we are supposed to be getting rid of the them and us attitude, we get someone posting about cuts to the regs, good news for the TA ( i believe there was some sarcasm in it about the TA being expected to now do more, so i think there was probably irony in it), but to a reg reading it could be constued as gloating.

I know you are teeth arms, so yes IR's/formed companies to reg inf Bn's are crucial to their manning.
 

Similar threads

Top