• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Where else could the TA save money?

#1
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?
 
#3
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.
 

The_Duke

LE
Moderator
#4
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....
 
S

swampmonster

Guest
#8
Shiny_pips said:
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.

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
The_Duke said:
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.
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
extechstmn said:
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!!!!
Already happened mate....
 

Command_doh

LE
Book Reviewer
#15
StabTiffy2B said:
bibo_boy said:
extechstmn said:
How about stopping camps abroad
Already happened mate....
Nope. Our LAD are off to boxhead land again.
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.
 
#16
Command_doh said:
StabTiffy2B said:
bibo_boy said:
extechstmn said:
How about stopping camps abroad
Already happened mate....
Nope. Our LAD are off to boxhead land again.
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.
BUZZZZZ. You are incorrect. :) (for sigs)
 
#19
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....
This is about Opportunity Cost. Paying bounties to people who have no intention of deploying on operations under the current system of Intelligent Mobilisation at the expense of those who do aspire to go makes about as much sense as investing in a massive fleet of fast jets and a couple of super carriers when we're on a footing designed to win a war in coaltion with the Americans in a landlocked country. :oops:
 
#20
Shiny_pips said:
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....
This is about Opportunity Cost. Paying bounties to people who have no intention of deploying on operations under the current system of Intelligent Mobilisation at the expense of those who do aspire to go makes about as much sense as investing in a massive fleet of fast jets and a couple of super carriers when we're on a footing designed to win a war in coaltion with the Americans in a landlocked country. :oops:
And so we return to the insurance policy vs maintenance plan argument.

This thread asks how else the TA can save the £XXm it has been asked to.

How about reducing the number of vehicles held? Or replacing the 25m range which we cannot use with the .22 and the A2 with a DCCT for APWTs?

msr
 

Latest Threads

New Posts