TA to be "re-branded"!

How does one 'settle' in a house, when you are posted every 2 - 3 years?

And how does one empty the singley blocks and patches in to a housing market already overpriced and under resourced to meet demand? Or does he think moving squaddies back in with their parents is a 'goer'.
The guy is an idiot, even the newest Tom will understand why this will not work, a disproportionate number of soldiers come from the north, and there are fewer units up north to be posted to. As for being posted to a unit for 10-15 years, so much for promotion then. And if I were posted for 15 years to one unit I certainly would not buy a house in that area either.


War Hero
Book Reviewer
I can't even comment on the asinine tone of Hammond's comments. If it's meant to be a populist crowd-pleaser, then who exactly is the crowd?
Yet again a know-nothing, jumped-up never come down again, moronic politician opens his gob and pours out rubbish gack food for the media and poor old Joe Public. Come on the revolution!
I reckon that there is an idea to reduce the armed forces to such an extent that a Euro-army becomes the only option by default.

The idea of getting regs into private housing is ludicrous; buy a place in Luton, or down the road from a mosque? Also unless I'm mistaken a lot of people join the army aged 18-20 something, how many civilian teenagers have a mortgage. The fact it is designed to save money for the MoD implies that the serving soldier will be out of pocket to implement it.

If your troop is scattered across town, how will that effect training and discipline? More sickies thrown perhaps?

The TA plans seem equally sound bitten;

'Most reserves will be limited to a six-month tour once every five years and employers may be given tax breaks to encourage their staff to join the reserves'

Note the use of 'most' and 'employers may'. Defence on the cheap, presumably we will see the return of RAFAux flying with chopper pilots from Bristows, and university sqns.


Re-brand the TA. I suppose first they will have to change TA Regulations. The first paragraph of which states:


a. The title of the Army’s volunteer reserve force is the Territorial Army which should not be confused with the Army’s regular reserve.
The idea of re-branding the TAs has been banded around more times than I can remember, but has never come to anything. It won't this time either.
The time to do it should coincide with changing the law requiring employers to release 'reservists' for mobilisation if required (war, MACP etc), but that won't happen either.
I think we're lucky he didn't finish the statement 'yes and ho'.
I joined as a Territorial and I'm going to retire as a Territorial. The units that I've been in have a (V) suffix, not a (R).

To me, (R) means that you weren't good enough to get into the 1st Team.

If the term "Territorial" is going to be dropped because it doesn't reflect the extended range of the part-time Army, then deeper thought is needed for the rename, especially if it's because the part time Army will be a major part of the 1st line force. "Reserve" is an insult.
Just to focus on the keen desire of Government to see our people 'settled' so their families can have stability etc etc for a moment.

CEA costs around £200m p/a. SFA costs - well we don't really know due to the very peculiar ways it's administered - but it's certainly around £100m p/a. And DIO can't administer it (see 'HASC' for more). And SDSR will effectively dump about a third of the Reactive Force onto SPTA where the greatest majority of CEA claimants work (and live in SFA) so we're headed for a proper rail crash.

So they're going to double or triple LSAP from its current pathetic £8k (some senior persons have asked for £50k) in order to get people out of SFA and into stable communities so they can't claim CEA. Meanwhile, the Adaptive Force will be there to 'mop up' everyone else who doesn't really fancy settling in SE England. Which will be quite a few I suggest.

I don't see any of this as a drama really - because there'll be so many other problems to deal with that once we leave AFG and Tommy Atkins coming home in bags falls away from the front pages of the tabloids, no-one will care about where - or how - SP live.
Call it what you like - you still can't polish a turd.
Why not go the American way with National Guard, seems to work fine for them?
Because the US sees service in uniform completely differently to the UK.

The fundamental engagement you need from the civilian sector to make a national guard construct work simply does not, and will not, exist.

Also takes a lot to train and maintain: that'll never happen either.


Book Reviewer
No sweeping generalisations there then? Anyway, what is it now - British Forces can now not stage anything more than small to very medium levels engagements anywhere in the world without sugar daddy Yankeestan pulling the strings? Or by the time the cuts are all implemented anyway. Like it or not, the stabbers are part of the long term future, across the Regs, the Army Flying Service and the Coastal Defence Force.

Besides, by the time the cost cutting measures are finished, the Swiss Army will be looking a bit tasty to us.
So how much could all the remaining service accommodation be flogged off for?
I only ask because yet again, this all smacks of another smash & grab firesale of state assets.
Why not go the American way with National Guard, seems to work fine for them?
Because the Americans have it written into their very DNA via their Constitution and the 'Minutemen' of the War of Independence from the very beginning that the 'militia' is the cornerstone of their democracy.

Similar threads

Latest Threads