Shameful cowardice

[sadoksevoli]

We are still a nation overburdened with a bloated, inefficient and in several areas (not all by far I admit) overpaid public sector. The "bonfire of the quangos" was more propaganda than fact - there are still fatcats out there - some got 6 figure redundancy payouts and promptly got on whatever other taxpayer funded gravy train that was still rolling. Meanwhile the unions and the left paint the "cuts" as destructive even though there doesn't seem to be a significant reduction in what we spend. Meanwhile we still spunk out money hand over fist in benefits left right and centre, with no real, proper reform in sight (yes I know IDS is doing something but its too little too late). The Government seems to be in hock to a morbid fear of the media, the unions and a public with which it can't seem to persuade to recognise the dire state of the public finances.

However, there is one area that can face cuts and redundancies without fear of losing votes, civil unrest or crippling union action, one area where there is no recognisable victimhood to be claimed, where redundancy is just another fact of life: the armed forces, and today the slimey, weasel politicians punish around 2000 people for the stupidity, fecklessness and waste of the Labour government and those who voted for them repeatedly:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/873...

And to cap it all the Ghurkas seem to be in line for a disproportionate number of redundancies - in a time when perhaps we should be thankful that we can find a solid, dependable source of good soldiers.

[turbobloke]

Agreed. I know who we need.

Calling Joanna Lumley

[sharpfocus]

Seems odd for the Ghurkas to be disproportionately cut. I'm desperately trying not to see that as a cynical move to engender a public backlash.

[sadoksevoli]

sharpfocus said:

Seems odd for the Ghurkas to be disproportionately cut. I'm desperately trying not to see that as a cynical move to engender a public backlash.

I presume you mean a cynical move on the part of the people making the selection in order to get their bosses into hot water... possibly but I think not, anyone independent who stands up for the Ghurkas would need to stand up for all those being made redundant.

[Dixie68]

Today is the day my ex-colleagues in the RAF find if they still have a job or not. Despite fighting in wars for this country for decades (Bosnia, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan) some will have their jobs taken away. This to make savings that are required yes, but to do so while still spunking away money on foreign aid, the benefits culture etc etc sticks in the throat somewhat.
Next month it will be the turn of my ex-colleagues in the Army.
Most of the guys I know are middle to senior NCO ranks and have the kind of experience the Forces desperately need, yet every one of them has applied for redundancy, and if they don't get it they will be resigning anyway. The reasons are many, but the lack of morale, political support and equipment head a long list.
Good luck lads.

[Randy Winkman]

As you say, there are significant "cuts" taking place and they are a very big issue to some people, irrespective of whether the Government is spending more or less than the previous one.

And all big decisions are made by politicians, not civil servants.

[anonymous-user]

Dixie68 said:

Today is the day my ex-colleagues in the RAF find if they still have a job or not. Despite fighting in wars for this country for decades (Bosnia, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan) some will have their jobs taken away. This to make savings that are required yes, but to do so while still spunking away money on foreign aid, the benefits culture etc etc sticks in the throat somewhat.
Next month it will be the turn of my ex-colleagues in the Army.
Most of the guys I know are middle to senior NCO ranks and have the kind of experience the Forces desperately need, yet every one of them has applied for redundancy, and if they don't get it they will be resigning anyway. The reasons are many, but the lack of morale, political support and equipment head a long list.
Good luck lads.

+1 Too fking right.

[Randy Winkman]

Strange the way a topic like this dies a death under a Tory PM.

[davepoth]

sadoksevoli said:

And to cap it all the Ghurkas seem to be in line for a disproportionate number of redundancies - in a time when perhaps we should be thankful that we can find a solid, dependable source of good soldiers.

On the plus side, many more Gurkhas working in private security should help the anti-social behaviour problem.

[johnfm]

Randy Winkman said:

Strange the way a topic like this dies a death under a Tory PM.

Has the PM suddenly started deciding military staffing numbers???

[WhoseGeneration]

Randy Winkman said:

Strange the way a topic like this dies a death under a Tory PM.

Well, let's ressurect it.
Miltary, tell me the unions that represent them, the civil servants in the relevant Ministry that would rather their jobs should go, or the senior officers who would prefer to stand down in favour of the front line.
It's all about protecting one's position.
Under whatever Government.
I do agree with your implied suggestion though, CMD should have cut benefits before cutting the Military, especially when demanding so much from them.
That, though, won't retain votes.
Politicians eh, all bds.

[s3fella]

To be fair, all sectors both private and public are cutting numbers. Why should the Armed Forces be any different? MOD's waster many hundreds of millions in recent years, so I can understand their "staff" being miffed by job losses, but what's the alternative?

[WhoseGeneration]

s3fella said:

To be fair, all sectors both private and public are cutting numbers. Why should the Armed Forces be any different? MOD's waster many hundreds of millions in recent years, so I can understand their "staff" being miffed by job losses, but what's the alternative?

Are you serious?, just look at all the arenas that our Military are currently engaged in.
Don't forget the stuff that isn't greatly in the news.
"Waste" is in the area of procurement, because the politicians are st at managing.

[sharpfocus]

Randy Winkman said:

Strange the way a topic like this dies a death under a Tory PM.

As opposed to all those topics raging on about the effects of Labour cutting spending? Funny that.

[JMGS4]

sharpfocus said:

Seems odd for the Ghurkas to be disproportionately cut. I'm desperately trying not to see that as a cynical move to engender a public backlash.

No, a cynical move not to allow ex-Ghurkas to settle in GB, by some left leaning trouser-polisher in Whitehall. These damn lefties want feckless people whose vote they can buy, and I doubt if any loyal Ghurka would ever vote for the left.

[JMGS4]

s3fella said:

To be fair, all sectors both private and public are cutting numbers. Why should the Armed Forces be any different? MOD's waster many hundreds of millions in recent years, so I can understand their "staff" being miffed by job losses, but what's the alternative?

The trouble is that the real wasters are civilians in procurement and other non-jobs, multplied by 3 as there are different depts for RN, RAF and Army. These wasters won't chop themselves as the majority are unionised and left leaning, due to targetted employment policies by Labour in the last 15 years!

[sadoksevoli]

s3fella said:

To be fair, all sectors both private and public are cutting numbers. Why should the Armed Forces be any different? MOD's waster many hundreds of millions in recent years, so I can understand their "staff" being miffed by job losses, but what's the alternative?

For a start you're assuming the military is just the same as every other department - it most definitely is not.
Yes the MOD has made a fine art of being able to waste gargantuan amounts of money and is institutionally shabby and "not fit for purpose" (the MOD mind, not the actual armed forces although they do play a role in the bureaucratic chaos and propcurement blunders). Anyway the original post was about making members of the armed forces redundant - people who would play an active part in operations or training for ops, the have completely different terms of employment to the bureaucrats, cannot be members of the union, have no recognised spokesmen (apart from retired generals, some of whom have their own agendas).
The cull of the bureaucrats is a separate matter.

The alternative is spend more on defence but make the sweeping reforms that gets the money spent properly - after a while a more efficient MOD would need less money unless a new threat emerged.
And where could the money come from - where do I start?

Of course there's another angle to this - Call-Me-Dave is a fake eurosceptic - the Euro-army, navy and air force is where the money will go.

[Apache]

JMGS4 said:

sharpfocus said:

Seems odd for the Ghurkas to be disproportionately cut. I'm desperately trying not to see that as a cynical move to engender a public backlash.

No, a cynical move not to allow ex-Ghurkas to settle in GB, by some left leaning trouser-polisher in Whitehall. These damn lefties want feckless people whose vote they can buy, and I doubt if any loyal Ghurka would ever vote for the left.

Yup, what's more important 2000 voters or 56,000? that's all that matters to a politician.

to quote myself...bad form I know

"I've said it before...we have decisions that need to be made now to avert a disaster and they can only be made by Politicians....trouble is the decisions that need to be made are difficult and politically off message, in other words they have painted themselves into a corner, they simply can't make the correct decisions because it will be political suicide and a Politicians first loyalty is to himself, not his Country.

We are extremely vulnerable because we need men of courage, honest and patriotic men and we have seen that Whitehall is wanting, badly"

[shauniebabes]

turbobloke said:

Agreed. I know who we need.

Calling Joanna Lumley

Well what used to happen was:

A Ghurka left the service and went back to Nepal on a small pension and enough savings to live very well in Nepal. Cost to the tax payer, very little.

Then Joanna Lumley came along

Now

A Gurka has full settlement rights for himself and his familly. They need housing, medical care, state pension, education, child benefit. Cost to the UK tax payer, an absolute fortune.

It makes perfect sense to reduce the numbers of Ghurkas in the army and Joanna Lumley is the one responsible.

[grumbledoak]

shauniebabes said:

A Gurka has full settlement rights for himself and his familly. They need housing, medical care, state pension, education, child benefit. Cost to the UK tax payer, an absolute fortune.

Have you ever risked your life on the front line for this country? I'd rather the Gurkas got those rights than the growing army of feckless sts we are breeding.