Tories Call For Crisis Force

maninblack

LE
Book Reviewer
#1
The Tories have suggested, amongst other things, the need for a Crisis Force to deal with things such as flooding, terror attacks etc.

My thought are;

The TA are short and have trouble dealing with the current level of deployments.

The Army are busy all over the place and have little spare capacity.

Would it be practical to have a sub-TA for much like the old home defence battalions who would be less militray focused in their training and more engineering/logistics focused?

The staffing for this could be raised with limited commitments from ex services people who cannot do "Normal TA" because of age, family commitments or minor injury.
 
#2
From fecking where?

All our spares were used up when we civilianised everything.

Perhaps we should send Civil Servants? :roll:
 
#3
maninblack said:
The Tories have suggested, amongst other things, the need for a Crisis Force to deal with things such as flooding, terror attacks etc.

What an original idea! I know, we could call it Civil Defence, oh wait...
 
#4
maninblack said:
The Tories have suggested, amongst other things, the need for a Crisis Force to deal with things such as flooding, terror attacks etc.

My thought are;

The TA are short and have trouble dealing with the current level of deployments.

The Army are busy all over the place and have little spare capacity.

Would it be practical to have a sub-TA for much like the old home defence battalions who would be less militray focused in their training and more engineering/logistics focused?

The staffing for this could be raised with limited commitments from ex services people who cannot do "Normal TA" because of age, family commitments or minor injury.
My bold: And who would immediately be called up to plug gaps in other current deployments to release troops for Iraq/AFG? It wouldn't work unless you could guarantee that they wouldn't be used for anything other than domestic crisis management, in which case why do they need to be military?

Conversely, if they are military, the rules for deployment can be changed the moment the Treasury starts making more cuts, and hey presto! over the seas they go!
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#5
It's just the Tories trying to exploit the current situation to thier own advantage. I'm no fan of Labour, but this is just bollox. Increase the size of the Army? Pray tell, I'm sure that Gen Dannant is all ears for that one. Lots of 'suggestions' in order to sway the vote of those poor folks who have lost everything to the floods.

Sneaky Tory b&stards, led by a political lightweight. Get shot of Cmeron lads, and you just might get my vote in the future. He's too much like Tony Bliar and you know it, so get shot of him and get an older, less 'let's do it for the kidz' leader and people might listen. I was no great fan of Thatcher when she was in power, but by Christ the Tories have looked 3rd rate ever since they knifed her.

This is bugger all but British politics at its best (or worst dependant on your viewpoint).
 
#6
Not a bad idea. Let's take it a little further. CIMIC teams - instead of building sh*t houses and printing presses for those populations overseas (that don't particulalrly like us or want us) re-designate the CIMIC as Home Commitment Emergency teams.

Plenty of Sappers in that lot. Give 'em their own 1-star, own HQ and Bingo ! another military growth industry.

Just a thought. In-coming from Sappers expected.
 
#7
10 years back in Malaga every time the mountains caught fire the local civpop just sort of rocked up to wherever firemen were standing about admiring the view and volunteered to join up for the duration. You didin't get to do any of the fun stuff like fighting the fire of course (or at least I didn't), but they always found a use for you as a packmule or on a handpump.

Of course in these enlightened times the firemen cannot accept your offer of help in case you injure yourself and sue them. Maybe there's no need for an organised 'crisis force' for floods at least - maybe we just need to rediscover the true meaning of the word 'volunteer' and you'll have thousands of enthusiastic would-be sandbag fillers and movers.
 
#8
Is this the same bunch of crooks who cut the Services by 40% in the 1990s when they were warned that they were cutting too deeply and too quickly?

I believe that a properly funded and manned Armed Forces would allow us to undertake crisis management and intervention in the UK and have sufficent slack to help with disasters elsewhere in the world. And, in the long run, that would be of far greater benefit to GB than invading anyone who upset HMG over breakfast.

How much of an impact would we have made on the Pakistanis, and the ROW, had we been able to put a large number of troops on the ground immediately after the 2005 earthquake?

2005 earthquake

It's an interesting question! Should the Armed Forces be on call for civilian crises? Or are we there solely to wave the big stick of Government diplomacy? (aka sorting out the Government's mistakes).

Litotes
 
#9
Bert,

Are you really forwarding the idea that you should help your fellow neighbour?

Very retro and 1960's esq not sure it would work with todays culture.

People would rather adopt the thousand yard stare than stop and help those in need! Present company excluded.
 
#11
What has happened to the Civil Contingencies Reaction Force (CCRF)? It was launched with a big bang and more than a little investment five or six years ago. Has it’s ability deploy been critically undermines by the scale of Reserve Mobilisation for Ops?
 
#12
Ned_Seagoon said:
What has happened to the Civil Contingencies Reaction Force (CCRF)? It was launched with a big bang and more than a little investment five or six years ago. Has it’s ability deploy been critically undermines by the scale of Reserve Mobilisation for Ops?
That's an easy one. Iraq and Afghanistan and one extra cut back on manpower
 
#13
According to the BBC website: Linky

The policy group on national security is warning that the UK's armed forces are overstretched and there is not enough military capability to help civil authorities during a crisis.
Which I think we all agree with?

And:

The report also states that the government has overstretched the armed forces, leaving them without sufficient reserves.
The report calls for a four-yearly defence review to ensure that military capabilities match up to missions.
Its report says defending the UK should be a priority for a future Conservative government.
All points which have already been aired on here, so I think pretty good!!
SP
 
#14
A crisis force, sound's well sexy. What are they going to call it?

"TEAM AMERICA - WORLD POLICE"

I think Dave has been watching too many DVD's on his flight to Rwanda.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#15
Ultimate Farce!

Cue fattening bald blokes with short mothers wot say "Get aaarrttaaa maaahh paaaabbb!"
 
F

fozzy

Guest
#16
Ned_Seagoon said:
What has happened to the Civil Contingencies Reaction Force (CCRF)? It was launched with a big bang and more than a little investment five or six years ago. Has it’s ability deploy been critically undermines by the scale of Reserve Mobilisation for Ops?
Ah yes, the CCRF. It all went to Iraq and Afghanistan as it was also the enduring ops reserve, aka TA. So its b*ggered.

The simple answer is:

1) Increase the size of the Army by around 20 000

2) Revamp the Civil Defence Corps (disbanded in 1968)
 
#17
Litotes said:
Is this the same bunch of crooks who cut the Services by 40% in the 1990s when they were warned that they were cutting too deeply and too quickly?
I believe that a properly funded and manned Armed Forces would allow us to undertake crisis management and intervention in the UK and have sufficent slack to help with disasters elsewhere in the world. And, in the long run, that would be of far greater benefit to GB than invading anyone who upset HMG over breakfast.

How much of an impact would we have made on the Pakistanis, and the ROW, had we been able to put a large number of troops on the ground immediately after the 2005 earthquake?

2005 earthquake

It's an interesting question! Should the Armed Forces be on call for civilian crises? Or are we there solely to wave the big stick of Government diplomacy? (aka sorting out the Government's mistakes).

Litotes
How tedious of you to bring that up! :D Anybody can make a mistake but they did it Spades. Just as they were beginning to sound good too - not!

B-AB - spot on. She had/has more balls than the whole lot of this shower in Parliament put together - and I wasn't her biggest fan either.
 
#18
After the reserve it's already the long term reserve until 65 ( Home guard ) Frankly I'm surprised this hasn't already been penciled by Browns lot. Manning UK barracks etc
 
#19
Are the current mob of Tories the "same bunch of crooks who cut the Services by 40% in the 1990s when they were warned that they were cutting too deeply and too quickly?"

Most of that lot have either died, retired, gone to the Lords, been booted out of parliament by the electorate or hold almost no influence in the party now. The only ones who could be said to have any influence of any sort are Tom King [the guilty party with 'Options', of course!] and Malcolm Rifkind. King's influence is in intelligence matters rather than party policy, and Rifkind is that 'respected senior party figure' - i.e. he has gravitas, but is ignored when the leadership don't agree with him.

Bear in mind that at the time, there were more than a few Labour MPs who suggested that the government hadn't gone far enough. I forget whether it became Labour policy under Kinnock, but there was certainly a move towards cutting £9,000 million from defence if a Labour government got in.
 
#20
I'm sure when the Tories cut the army back they didn't envisage an egomaniac deciding he knew the answer to all the world's problems and after another cost/manpower cutting exercise start sending troops everywhere that the Americans thought needed invading . The 1997 size army was big enough for the tasks it was given and even allowed for a bit of sport and leisure.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads