Where else could the TA save money?

Discussion in 'Army Reserve' started by msr, Aug 12, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. msr

    msr LE

    There must be more to saving money than raping the MTD budget... so let's hear it: How would you drive efficiencies within the TA?
  2. Define efficiency.
  3. msr

    msr LE

    The TA has been told to make an £XXm in-year saving. This has been done by clamping down on MTDs. I am convinced there must be a better way to achieve this level of savings.
  4. The_Duke

    The_Duke LE Moderator

    There is nothing wrong with rapng the MTD budget as long as it is targetted. AT, ceremonial, "admin" days for the numerous "enablers" etc should all be the first to go as already implemented.

    Followed by increasing the MATT standard, not reducing it. Make that £1600+ something you have to work hard to get, rather than just turning up to get the lowest level of boxes ticked. If we are supposed to be on a campaign footing, we have (corporately) missed a trick in making it even easier for the useless bluffers to meet the criteria to stay in and get their bounty with no real incentive to those who work hard to keep professional standards.
  5. Having re-read this, I thought it wise to preface with the caveat that this is not meant to be a dig at reservists in general, and that I am very well aware of the large number of excellent TA soldiers supporting current operations. Rather, it is a case for how the taxpayer could derive better value for money in line with the query above.

    Understood. But before allocating resources (or removing them), we would need to conduct a Mission Analysis.

    For example, I would argue that efficiency should be dictated by an operational imperative, and therefore focus spending on support to operations, at the expense of the more "social club" aspects. This would not necessarily mean a reduction or even rebalancing of MTDs. The Bounty, for example, is ripe for re-examination, in that it is being paid year in, year out to a number of individuals who could legally be compulsarily mobilised, but who choose not to put themselves forward. While I am all for Intelligent Mobilisation, there is a case here for linking the bounty to a "prepared to go" mentality, particularly given the pressure on the wider Defence Budget.

    Depending on the constraints of your definition of "efficiency", this might fall outside the scope of what you mean.
  6. How about stopping camps abroad, chef's "shopping" days, double MTD's for waiting on, reducing adventure training to one a year per person (I know of several who have done 2 or 3 AT trips in one year at MTD expense) and only then when bounty qualified, binning gash camps when useful courses would be more appropriate etc. etc. etc. The list is endless unless of course you are a budget manager, when MTD's is the easy option!!!!
  7. I'm intrigued why the taxpayer shouldn't feel they have "value for money" out of men and women who have committed to give up their safe civilian lives and lay down their lives for the country, with no particular reward other than "casual labour" rates of pay....

  8. Your Bold...Yes not prepared to go on op's...? no bounty for you then!..lets be honest we all have a few "enablers" who do bugger all except t.w.a.t about on weekends chewing through MTD's with no plans what so ever to head out to the sand pit or anywhere else over a two week camp....
  9. I smell what you are cooking. The reduction to level 3 was a poor choice in my eyes. People have pass at level 2 and never go near 50 days. The only money it saves is a cut back in range weekends. Units will still book the ranges a least once a year so no savings there. There should be one MATT level and that is MATT 1.

    The only way I can see is to move more than one unit a TAC. Parade nights would then be Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. Each would get a weekend to train on a rota. The units would share vehicle's if possible eg L/R;s and 4 tonners and white fleet. Less locations and less NRPS wages. I can see that RTD would go up as people travel more.

    Its not perfect but it would be better than losing whole units. Cut the running costs.
  10. Already happened mate....
  11. Nope. Our LAD are off to boxhead land again.
  12. Must be sigs only (again!)
  13. msr

    msr LE

    It is, and are you surprised?

  14. No...

    Just waiting to be told that potential recruits will have to buy their own uniform.....

    Sorry I forgot, we are not allowed to have potentials anymore
  15. Command_doh

    Command_doh LE Book Reviewer

    BFG isn't really abroad though, is it? For us its routine year in, year out work.

    I was thinking more along the lines of sacking those jollies to Gibraltar (Marble Tor) and other 'holiday' destinations.