All the Services are contracting so of course outflow is higher than inflow whilst the Army will inevitably find it difficult to recruit - for both Regular and Reserve - as it has such a bleak mid-term future. Presumably you know why you (and Private Eye) chose the 2007-2014 stat range given the change of policy half way within that (RNR contracting prior to 2010 with focus on core civilian skills such as media rather than standardised branch training). But what I would say is look at WHO is being recruited. An Engineer is worth significantly more to any of the Services than a non-specialist branch. And certainly in the RNR there is a brand new Engineering branch. That alone is gold dust to the defence requirements of the UK.
No one sits in barracks all year long. Perhaps you should stick to something you know about?
Because missions like Libya were a huge success? Ok we all know you have a major beef with the army and you never supported the UN deploying a coalition in Afghanistan but can't you admit you were wrong?
Totally different situation. As I have pointed out there has been no expansion. None. This is despite multi million campaigns across the services.
Pick whichever years you like. The PDF is above. Millions spent, no change. And this with record numbers of people in numerous tranches leaving the services. What happens after that?
OOoo Exciting. A new engineering branch. Perhaps we might be able to make each guy left like a one man Boba Fett?
How you can say I was wrong when we have IS over running the Middle East and an army that can't be deployed because the nation is still in shock over a bloody campaign in Afghanistan which is increasingly looking like a folly.
I have worked with the army on many occasions during both Regular and Reserve service that spans back in excess of two decades. I have the upmost respect for them but to blindly support no cuts - especially when it is so clearly against the UK (and Army's!) interests - is not helpful.
2012-2014 - RNR numbers increased from 360 to 540. Rather proves my point. You can't use the Army Reserve as an example as nobody in their right mind would want to join that at present (IMHO).
Probably not - but perhaps it means we can get planes airborne and ships to sea?
Blair got involved with the US in 2003 which everyone thought was a bad idea. Once tanks were driving down Baghdad's high street he started recalling troops. Throw in lack of spending, getting involved with Afghanistan and other reasons all documented. If IS is your problem it's a bad place to start your argument. Most people think the reason IS is doing well is because the Iraqi army is useless and Western troops should be used.
As a result of big defence cuts which you supported. You thought the Reserves would increase and would be just as good as regular troops. Wrong on both counts. Part time workers have never been as good as professionals in any occupation. You backed the government thinking the ratio should be the same as the US with regular troops to national guard. I pointed out we weren't the US. No one wants to join the reserves. As I said at the time there was little support from companies. Oh companies would get a badge from the government! Remember? There was also an idea of reservists compulsory deploying for one tour with the regulars every five years. Also dropped. No one was interested in joining certainly most reservists don't want to go away anywhere. Then the age for the recruitment of reservists was raised. Still nothing. The only thing getting any interest from anyone is massive cash incentives and even that is barely doing anything.
As a permanent member of the UN our services did have to comply with a UN task. Don't blame the services for that. Besides I am not aware of any Afghanistan trained terrorists attacking us lately. That was the actual point.
That all? Is that when you developed your grudge, pretty clear in this thread wasn't it?:
British Army - When Can We Expect Value For Money? | AVForums
As I said before, the reservists would not make up the shortfall. They haven't. As I said before we were making cuts while the overseas aid budget was increased. I thought it was folly. You supported it. We made big cuts in Europe and now Russia has annexed the Ukraine. We have tried to do defence on the cheap. You like quoting The Telegraph. Here you go, your paper:
England sleeps again as our enemies rampage - Telegraph
By not spending enough on defence, Britain puts the West at risk - Telegraph
Michael Fallon admits government is struggling to recruit Army reservists - Telegraph
Army 'cannot defend Britain' nearly half of people think - Telegraph
Why having served Queen and country can harm your career - Telegraph
Stop the 'downward trend' in defence spending, America warns Britain and Nato - Telegraph
So your point is that after £5 million 180 people joined to get figures back to where they were in 2010 and previous. So what, around £28k for each man? Tell you what, quit the adverts and give each bloke a £28k handshake instead.
And this is your idea of successful recruiting? Your "expansion" (post 91) was getting back to pre-2010 levels?
And this after the redundancies?
Enough already...
Edit: neither can post in here for a couple of days, so the "discussion" has been cut off in mid flow, no-one has been given "the last word".
Put your life on the line, in the name of Queen and Country and if you are under 25, when you leave the armed forces, your not worth the living wage.
The pm is a downright liar, when questioned on QT he was asked,
Will your party now or in the future limit or cut working tax credit/child benefit his answer, no we do not want to do that.
A young couple with 2 children earning £20,000 will be over £1K worse off from 2016.
The party of one nation my arse.