Dear Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I'm afraid to tell you there's no money left. Signed, Liam Byrne (Outgoing Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury. May 2010)
Taking a breather from family stuff Mrs R has had a quick scan of the online newspapers and noticed that the Mail seems to be maintaining the pressure with regards to the possibly mysterious death of Dr David Kelly. It would seem that more and more 'experts' are calling for a Coroner's Inquest, something that was denied the family at the time.
Some seem to think the Hutton 'Inquiry' was better than an inquest, but fail to acknowledge that, at the time, Mr Straw was calling for secret inquests that not even the family of the deceased would be able to attend, with results hidden for ever. None of those satisfied with Hutton have ever offered more than the most risible of explanations outlining the need for the 70-year embargo imposed by Falconer.
So, maybe, it shouldn't come as a surprise to read this small paragraph - which seems to have nothing to do with Dr Kelly.
Tolstoy’s defence against the libel action was seriously hampered when the Ministry of Defence removed vital papers from the Public Record Office which Tolstoy needed to fight his case – while Aldington found his access to war records unimpeded.
It would, Mrs R thinks, be interesting to know how often 'public' records are (or were) quietly removed from the public eye to suit the needs of one agency or another.
Coventry North East MP Ainsworth, who spent the 11 months up to the General Election in the cabinet, was rarely able to secure one-to-one meetings with Mr Brown and when the two did get together Ainsworth says his views on defence policy were generally ignored, he has revealed.
“It’s no secret that Gordon and I are not each other’s greatest fans,” he explained. “I found him very difficult to work with. Impossible really.”
In his first major interview since resigning as Secretary of State, Ainsworth admits he is struggling to get used to “normality”. He’s gone from a cossetted life, whisked around the world with first class travel accompanied by a retinue of support staff and armed security guards, to the role of a backbench constituency MP.
Why on earth did he, or indeed any government minister, need all that? It does, though, help explain this profligacy. Since 2008 (Fausty)
The number of students joining the Army Officer Training Corps has more than halved since their pay was withdrawn as part of a cost-cutting programme.
A BBC reporter kindly, and often erroneously, explains (my bold):
The army's University Officer Training Corps offers first year students the chance to train alongside the Territorial Army at least one night a week with no obligation to join the forces afterwards.
They were paid a small sum for a weekly drill and up to £60 per day while taking part in military exercises.
But at the end of last year the payments were ended as part of a £54m cost-cutting scheme.
Senior army officials removed all but travel and subsistence costs.
The figures, released by the government in a written Commons answer, showed that in February 2009, 2,946 students took part in the scheme compared with 1,387 in the same month this year. The monthly average for last year was 2,250.
Let's unpick this a bit, and also note the suggestion that around 2,000 UOTC Cadets previously cost the MoD a whopping £54m.
First of all this appears to be the question and answer the BBC refers to, dated 16th Mar 2010 : Column WA362
Asked by Lord Astor of Hever
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many officer cadets serving in the Officers' Training Corps (a) regularly attended training prior to the suspension of their pay, and (b) regularly attend training currently. [HL2596]
The Minister for International Defence and Security (Baroness Taylor of Bolton):
The number of officer cadets serving in the University Officers Training Corps (UOTC) that regularly attended training prior to the temporary suspension of pay was 2,250. This is the average attendance figure for October 2009. The average attendance figure for February 2010 was 1,387.
UOTC attendance patterns are to some degree predictable. For example, many first-year students do not sustain their interest in cadet activities beyond the first term. Second term attendance figures are therefore always lower. Attendance is also usually weak during examination periods.
We'll look at those figures later, but first let's backtrack to, and correct, things mentioned in the BBC article.
"first year students"?
A moment or two on the Army's UOTC information pages will show:-
The basic requirements you must meet to join us are that you must have 2 years of an undergraduate degree left to study, be a full time student in our catchment area, satisfy our medical, fitness, and nationality requirements, and be selected on our selection board (September/October).
alongside the Territorial Army Nope!
Even though UOTC is classed as part of the TA for funding, and some TA staff will train UOTC, cadets rarely come into contact with TA proper.
OTC members are classed as Officer Cadets (OCdt) and are "Group B" members of the Territorial Army, paid when on duty. As part of "Group B" they are neither trained nor liable for mobilised (active) service.
UOTC training offers a carefully worked out three year syllabus (Army link).
The rates of pay for OCdts varies between £35 and £57 a day depending on time served and qualifications/rank gained.
The maximum amount that could be paid for " ... training over 8 hours and proportional rates are awarded for specific shorter periods" - to those who are suitably qualified. Bear in mind that a weekend exercise covers more than 16 hours.
All these payments were removed, every penny. UOTC cadets have not received any wages since returning to their training in October 2009, and nor have some of their trainers.
"Senior army officials"
Who, in the Army, is expected to make decisions? Would they expect a private, fresh out of initial training, to have the nous to make fairly crucial financial decisions?
The Army was given a budget, an allowance, for the juniors then that budget was reduced. Somebody, or a group of people, had to make drastic cuts yet also try to be able to function as an organisation.
They had to make the least worst cuts - something that no other department has been forced to make, and which no other department has been willing to volunteer, and they did it without shouting from the rooftops too, it's been down to others to state their case in Parliament and on blogs and on internet forums.
The armed forces are not allowed to make ripples. Mrs R understands that no member of any branch of the regular forces is allowed to be an active member of any political party (for obvious reasons) - but this government seems to believe that every soldier and every army officer is a potential Tory voter, and treats the Army with derision and contempt - including the junior volunteers.
Mr Brown has even lied to Chilcot and Parliament when asked about overall military spending, whether this was because he was ashamed of being spendthrift during a war, or whether he was deliberately trying to hide the truth, is something we will never know.
So, yes, UOTC travel and subsistence costs were removed by the Army, the decision was made by Senior Army Officials, but it was made only because MoD funding was taken away from the junior volunteer services at the same time as it was removed from TA. This was a 'least worst' cut they could make.
Funding for TA was, in part, reinstated, but it was not reinstated for UOTC or ACF. The Army merely tried to keep UOTC (and ACF) going, against all the odds. The financial effects are confirmed in this response to a written question/answer 5th January 2010:-
Mr. [Mark] Lancaster: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what categories of service personnel train at the Officer Training Corps; and which of those categories (a) receive and (b) do not receive payment while undertaking such training. [307272]
Bill Rammell: The categories of service personnel involved in training at the Officer Training Corps are as follows:
Permanent Staff Regular Army staff;
Permanent Staff Group A Territorial Army (TA) staff; and
Territorial Army (TA) Group B Officer Cadets (Students).
Following the temporary in-year savings measures introduced in October 2009, the only categories currently receiving pay are Regular Army personnel, group A TA staff and those group B officer cadets who are TA second lieutenant instructors delivering military leadership development programme levels 1, 2 and 3 training. Bursars are receiving their bursars grants but are unpaid for officer cadet activity.
All remaining officer cadets have temporarily had their pay suspended.
Bear in mind, if you will, that the UOTC 'year' commences in October.
Freshers' Fairs are at the end of September/beginning of October, selection is at least a couple of weeks later. The cuts were announced at the end of October - after selection, so new recruits may well have thought they'd been duped, tricked into applying for what they thought was a good 'job' only to find it offered no wage for at least six months.
It would appear that the timing was carefully chosen, to have maximum impact and to demoralise new recruits who would find it almost impossible to attend UOTC meetings - because they couldn't afford to get to the training centre, but it hasn't worked, because some of them have been so enthusiastic that they've gone without other things (e.g. food) in order to be able to get to their training.
These are, you must remember, young people who are away from home for the first time in their lives, who have to fend for themselves and make their own choices and decisions. Most first year university students are 18 years old - and this is how government treats them. Compare this with how the feckless and fecund are showered with money.
Fair play to Mark Lancaster, he's been plugging away with similar questions again, and again, and so have other MPs, but they don't get a straight answer to a question. All they get are more fudged numbers trying to make things look good, on the surface, whilst their empty words are kept as a permanent record of broken promises, written down in Hansard for all to see, and cross-reference.
Here's another example dated 22 March 2010. (A mere seven days after the Lords answer quoted above, which gave the February 2010 figure of 1,387 UOTC Cadets)
Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had on (a) the funding and (b) the participation of students in officer training corps units at universities; and if he will make a statement. [322613]
Mr. Kevan Jones: The Government fully recognise the value of the University Royal Naval Units, The Officer Training Corps, The University Air Squadrons and the Defence Training Undergraduate Scheme. They allow individuals to develop skills that are extremely valuable in a future career either within the armed forces or without.
Each of the services is looking at how best to support the University Training Units; until those decisions are finalised I cannot speculate about future funding levels.
No University Training Units have closed as a result of changes to funding during this financial year. Despite some reduction in attendance by Officer Cadets at University Officer Training Corps they remain oversubscribed against their establishment. The average actual strength in 2009 was around 3,500. This is against an establishment figure of 2,946.
The Defence Undergraduate Training Scheme, for example, is a completely different thing, and 'actual strength' includes the funded URNU and ACF alongside UOTC.
Note Kevan Jones' very careful use of language, suggesting there are too many enthusiastic undergraduates and too many UOTC centres, more than they want - so a little hint that funding can be further reduced? After all, UOTC has carried on without any money, so they don't really need it.
Kevan Jones' staff knew the exact numbers, and he should have to explain why he quoted figures from 2009, not 2010.
The numbers he should have quoted are written down - it's something the Army does particularly well, and it's a good habit because it means they don't lose anybody in a dangerous place and then have to waste time trying to find them again.
Also, Bill Rammell quoted figures in a written answer in January 2010 when he also said, as earlier quoted :
A number of UOTC commanders have reported reduced attendance since the suspension of cadet pay.
It's hardly surprising is it?
People doing voluntary work tend to get paid expenses, and their 'work' is protected by laws and rules, these rules apply to students who carry out voluntary work - nobody is exempt.
It's hard to imagine that anybody truly expects even the most decent and reliable undergraduate - who, if English, is already burdened with huge compulsory debts to pay for hefty tuition fees and accommodation/subsistence - to pay (out of their overdraft) for being a member of a voluntary group, to fund their own travel to a designated meeting place that could be 50+ miles from their own University, and to give up evenings and weekends also for free?
Bill Rammell thinks they should, because he also said, in January 2010
Our intention is to restore cadet pay in the next financial year and we hope that the majority of officer cadets will be able to ride out this temporary difficulty.
What other sector of the population has quietly, and without a fuss, tried to "ride out this temporary difficulty"? Certainly not MPs, whose generous expense allowances would more than adequately cover the costs of UOTC. Certainly not the wannbe-striking rail workers and certainly not Unite members of BA.
Looking aside, briefly, at ACF, which tends to draw from the poorer sections of the community. Many of these young people would, at university, aim to join the more senior voluntary group - UOTC. This suggests that all UOTC members are not from wealthy families.
The UOTC (and ACF) appear to be being treated as a very special case by this government, and seems to be being deliberately starved of cash.
We're already into the next financial year but there's been no announcement regarding reinstating of UOTC funding - just the BBC article that hints at how well-off UOTC cadets used to be, and how few of them there are now.
It's a pity that the BBC is so often used to soften up the public before an unpleasant government announcement.
Despite the government's best efforts, and despite the government continuing to fund both the URNU (Navy) and UAC (Air Force), over 1,300 young men and women continued with their UOTC training.
These young people should be applauded, because they are both dedicated and determined to succeed - against all odds.
Raedwald carries a piece highlighting that the public sector is spending 52% of GDP, based on a release of pre-budget figures in the Times. This is unsustainable.
Not many people seem to be able to understand that government and government departments don't generate an income, they just push money around in circles.
Subrosa explains the frugality of the MoD, budgeting a mere £3.45p a day to feed a soldier. (Maybe some people also remember the Monty Python menu.)
Last year, Channel 4 carried a programme explaining how MPs can eat a full meal for less than £2.50, with the most expensive meal at "The Terrace" costing £3.80 - for a grilled rump steak. So, maybe, if MPs etc never eat anywhere else, never do any shopping, they might think the 52p budgetary limit for a soldier's breakfast is reasonable.
Those same MPs, however, can claim up to £400 a month in 'meal expenses' - which, over 365 days is around £13 a day. And they can visit restaurants and supermarkets, something soldiers tend not to be able to do when they're fighting.
It's the same old story - "somebody" must be frugal, "somebody" must cut expenditure - but it mustn't hurt MPs, and indeed it mustn't hurt any "public servants".
Perhaps the MPs and MoD chiefs would like to try living solely on military ration packs for a week or two - in a sandy place where they're also fighting real opponents, who use guns, not words. It might, umm, focus their thinking a little, and might make them consider spending less MoD money on the Met Office and more on soldiers.
This is the sort of thing the government won't want us to read in the run up to the election. It's a good story, telling of selflessness, bravery and one heck of a lot of luck.
Here's the beginning :-
A soldier of 3 RIFLES has been talking about his decision to pick up a live Taleban hand grenade and throw it back in an attempt to save himself and his comrades.Rifleman James McKie from Recce Platoon, 3rd Battalion The Rifles was under fire from three directions when the hand grenade hit his Platoon commander and landed at his feet.
“My first thought was I hope this doesn’t hurt too much” he said. “That, and I’ve really only got one chance to do this. If it fails, either way, doing nothing, I’m going to get the same amount of hurt. ...
You'll have to go over to Helmud Blog to read the rest.
It still seems unreal that there are people in authority in Britain who can order a news blackout, a total news blackout and a 'sanitising' of websites to 'prevent bias'. Nothing can change the past, nothing, but it can be concealed and we Brits have always frowned into our cornflakes when we've read of such things happening elsewhere in the world. We've chuckled to ourselves when we've seen pictures of Stalin and chums, heavily edited to remove those who have fallen out of favour. Not for one moment did any of us imagine the past could be edited here in Britain, yet it appears that's what is proposed by the MoD - and the claim is to ensure 'impartiality', to make sure nobody can be seen in a bad light in the run up to a general election.
Mrs R has no idea how the rest of the world will receive the news of this proposed media blackout, although she does plan to ask one or two overseas friends to see what they think. She has a fairly good idea they won't believe it, because they knew the BBC of many years ago, and they've heard the tales of "broadcast and be damned" and how the BBC was the one shining light of impartial information, telling the truth to those living in occupied Europe.
You see, nobody could stop the BBC broadcasting. No foreign dictator or despot, no matter how determined, could ever pull their plug and cut off their transmissions when they were safely based here in Britain, surrounded by a rather large moat. Who could ever imagine that there are those who believe that that same moat will prevent news getting into Britain from overseas, especially now, when there's the internet. It really is a Victor Meldrew moment - inconceivable, and unbelievable.
During the last war people risked their lives to listen to the BBC and, apparently, "The BBC was keen to safeguard its reputation and refused to broadcast 'dirty propaganda'." The BBC World Service pages still say this
The BBC Aims :
To be the world's first choice among international broadcasters for authoritative and impartial news and information, trusted for its accuracy, editorial independence and expertise.
We are the world’s leading international broadcaster providing programmes and content for radio, television, online and mobile phones in English and 31 other languages. Hundreds of reporters and specialist correspondents bring impartial news reports, documentaries and analysis from around the globe.
So let's take a look at some of the stories of the past week, stories the BBC would not be allowed to report if the MoD has its' way and the military media blackout in the run up to the election goes ahead.
It will be interesting to know how the rest of the world reacts when the BBC has to admit, as it surely must, that it isn't allowed to tell the people of Britain what is happening to their friends and relatives who are serving in the armed forces in Afghanistan, and tries to explain why - because so far they have been remarkably quiet, not a peep, nothing, they haven't admitted that it will happen.
No other country will be banned from reporting what is happening to our troops, so we in Britain will be dependent on others for our news.
Maybe we will find out what's happening via Forces Twitter, maybe we will have to visit sites such as this one or this one to learn of fatalities.
We won't be allowed to read anything from Afghanistan or about the military in UK published newspapers, we won't be allowed to hear it on UK-based television or on our radios, and we won't be allowed to read it on internet sites run by the British press - and all this is because there is to be a general election - an election when we Brits are meant to be able to exercise our democratic right, our freedom, to vote to choose the government of our choice.
Odd, isn't it, how things seem to be turning topsy turvy.
edit:
Oh, and ...
Go and read Cold Steel Rain, and take the time to watch the video.
The Ministry of Defence threatened to bankrupt a Royal Marine war hero by forcing him to pay back money earned from his memoirs.
The Royal Marine in question is a member of the reserve forces, who only gets paid by the MoD when he's in uniform.
This Royal Marine Commando, Lance Corporal Matthew Croucher, did three rather brave things whilst wearing his uniform in Afghanistan, and was awarded the George Cross.
You can't eat a medal, not even a George Cross. So, to tell his story and hopefully make some money that would help fund his new business, this Marine decided to write a book about his experiences. It would seem that
'Matt got permission from his commanding officer. He sent the book to the MoD's D-Notice Committee to make sure he was not revealing any secrets.
That would have been all right then, wouldn't it?
He took advice and he followed the rules, he crossed all the Ts and dotted all the Is - no problem.
Seems not, because ...
... - on the eve of publication - the bureaucrats in Whitehall put Matt under formal investigation.
So somebody, somewhere within the MoD, started a chain of events that might have made the MoD about £90k richer, and would have made Matthew Croucher a criminal, possibly no longer able to be a Royal Marine Reservist - even though he had carefully followed the rules.
Mrs R wonders if, if successful, the individual would have got a financial bonus - and if so, how much.
"Throughout December 2007 and January 2008, Forward Operating Base ROBINSON, an International Security Assistance Force/Afghanistan National Army location situated 10 km to the south of Sangin, had been targeted relentlessly by an enemy seeking to inflict death and grievous injury on Coalition Forces.
"Complex and highly effective improvised explosive devices had been deployed by the Taliban throughout the Forward Operating Base's area of responsibility with deadly success. Movement around the Forward Operating Base location was fraught with danger and exceptionally high risk for troops, whether vehicle borne or operating on foot.
"Tasked with conducting both overt and covert patrolling to disrupt and interdict enemy forces, 40 Commando Battle Group was determined to regain the initiative.
"Lance Corporal Croucher was deployed to Helmand Province, Afghanistan as a reconnaissance operator in 40 Commando Group's Commando Reconnaissance Force, elements of which were operating from Forward Operating Base ROBINSON.
"On 9 February 2008, the Commando Reconnaissance Force was tasked to conduct reconnaissance of a compound in which it was suspected that Taliban fighters manufactured Improvised Explosive Devices.
"Lance Corporal Croucher's section was deployed on this highly dangerous and challenging operation. In the early hours, utilising night vision devices and under constant threat of attack from Improved Explosive Devices or enemy ambush, the Commando Reconnaissance Force successfully negotiated the complex and varied terrain between the Forward Operating Base and the suspect compound, and established an over-watch position to observe for any sign of activity.
"In order to determine conclusively that the compound was an Improvised Explosive Device manufacturing site, the decision was made to send a small four man team, which included Lance Corporal Croucher, forward to conduct a very high risk 'close target reconnaissance'.
"This required the team to enter the compound. It was believed to be occupied. The team moved forward with extreme caution and stealth and successfully gained entry into the compound without incident.
"After 30 minutes on task, and having identified numerous items that could be used by insurgents to manufacture Improvised Explosive Devices, the team commander gave the order for the team to extract back to their pre-arranged rendezvous point with the remainder of Commando Reconnaissance Force.
"Lance Corporal Croucher was at the head of the group as they commenced the extraction; behind him, approximately 5 metres away, the Team Commander and another Marine were in the open and fully exposed, with the fourth team member a short distance behind them.
"As the team moved silently through the still darkened compound, Lance Corporal Croucher felt a wire go tight against his legs, just below knee height. This was a trip-wire connected to a grenade booby-trap, positioned to kill or maim intruders in the compound. He heard the fly-off lever eject and the grenade, now armed, fell onto the ground immediately beside him.
"Instantly realising what had occurred, Lance Corporal Croucher made a crucial and incredibly rapid assessment of the situation. With extraordinary clarity of thought and remarkable composure, he shouted 'Grenade', then 'Tripwire' in an attempt to warn his comrades to find cover before the grenade exploded. It was clear to him that given the lack of cover in the immediate vicinity, he and the other team members were in extreme danger.
"Due to low light levels, he was unable to determine the type of grenade and therefore had no way of knowing how long the device's fuse would take to function. With his comrades totally exposed and time running out, Lance Corporal Croucher made the decision not to seek cover or protection for himself, but to attempt to shield the other members of his team from the impending explosion.
"In an act of great courage, and demonstrating a complete disregard for his own safety, he threw himself on top of the grenade, pinning it between his day sack, containing his essential team stores, and the ground. Quite prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice for his fellow Marines, Lance Corporal Croucher lay on the grenade and braced himself for the explosion.
"Meanwhile, the Team Commander, upon hearing the initial shouted warning, dived to the ground. The rear man in the team was able to take cover by stepping back around the corner of a building; the other team member was unable to react quickly enough and was still upright, fully exposed within the lethal range of the grenade.
"As it detonated, the blast effect of the grenade was absorbed by Lance Corporal Croucher and the majority of the fragmentation was contained under his body.
"Miraculously, his equipment and protective clothing prevented any lethal shards hitting his body and he suffered only minor injury and disorientation from the effects of the blast. Lance Corporal Croucher's day sack was ripped from his back and was completely destroyed; his body armour and helmet were pitted by grenade fragments.
"A large battery being carried in the side pouch of his day sack, for his team's Electronic Counter Measures equipment, also exploded and was burning like a flare as a result of the grenade fragments breaching the outer case. Incredibly, the only other injury was a slight fragmentation wound to the Team Commander's face.
"The others escaped unscathed. Without question, Lance Corporal Croucher's courageous and utterly selfless action had prevented death or serious injury to at least two members of his team. Immediately following the explosion they manoeuvred tactically back to their rendezvous location.
"After confirming with the Troop Commander that no significant casualties had been sustained, the decision was made to interdict enemy forces attempting to conduct a follow-up to the incident. As anticipated, enemy activity was observed by Commando Reconnaissance Force and Lance Corporal Croucher, having refused to be evacuated, along with other members of his team, engaged and neutralized one enemy fighter.
"Throughout his service in Afghanistan, Lance Corporal Croucher has served with the utmost distinction. His actions on 9 February 2008, when he willingly risked his own life in a most deliberate act of self-sacrifice to save his comrades from death or serious injury, were wholly typical of the man.
"During a previous engagement at Forward Operating Base Inkerman on 9 November 2007, Lance Corporal Croucher helped save the life of a fallen comrade who had received a serious gunshot wound to the chest during a ferocious fire-fight with the enemy.
"For twenty minutes, whilst the company medical assistant was pinned down by enemy fire, he applied life-saving first aid which stabilised the wounded man until medical assistance arrived and the casualty could be extracted.
"Meanwhile, on 16 November 2007, whilst providing intimate security to a night air drop in the desert near Forward Operating Base Inkerman, Lance Corporal Croucher was injured in a road traffic accident.
"Evacuated to the UK with a suspected broken leg, he was determined to return to theatre and, following intense physiotherapy, he returned within a matter of weeks to resume his duties with Commando Reconnaissance Force.
"That he was willing to risk all in order to save the lives of his comrades is indisputable; that he possesses an indomitable fighting spirit is abundantly clear.
"Lance Corporal Croucher is an exceptional and inspirational individual. His magnificent displays of selflessness and gallantry are truly humbling and are the embodiment of the finest traditions of the Service."
Today's reports in the media of closing RAF Cottesmore to pay for a few helicopters seem to have met with a little irritation, if comments in The Mail or on ARRSE are anything to go by.
What cuts can be made to balance a stretched defence budget? In which areas should defence spending be concentrated?
So that's a fait accompli then! No real need to discuss whether there should be defence cuts, merely where they should be!
What the newspaper articles are saying is that 22 new Chinooks have been ordered - because they're needed in Afghanistan. The first ten might be ready for 2013, so will be a little late because we've already been told we'll be out of Afghanistan before then. There's no hint of when the next 12 might be ready, perhaps it will be sooner than those helicopters we've already got, but that might never fly because they've got the wrong software.
Anyhow, apparently there isn't any money in the Defence Budget to pay for these lovely helicopters so Mr Ainsworth has decided it will be a good idea to get rid of a whole RAF base, the one at Cottesmore in Rutland.
The MoD obviously thinks that will save the country a lot of money because it means they, the MoD, won't have to pay lots of wages and it won't have to pay for lots of equipment. They haven't thought outside their little financial box, and haven't realised that making people redundant will take money out of the national coffers - even though it's a different section of the rattlingly empty national coffers, because when, and if, the base closes the local supportive infrastructure will crumble and a lot of people will lose their jobs - and will claim unemployment benefit.
Also tucked away in the Mail's article is this gem
Two Royal Navy vessels will also be withdrawn from service in an effort to balance the books
So not only has the Navy got a lovely new boat that can't use its' weapons, it's going to have to lose some of those it's already got.
Phew, this is almost too much to take in all at once - maybe that's why it's all being said at once, because it's hard to focus on more than one tiny part of this news.
Moving swiftly backwards in time, to Sunday 13th December 2009.
What hasn't been referred to in today's reports is the news that was slipped out in an article inThe Times last Sunday, maybe it was published when everybody was asleep because it has only four comments.
The article outlines other areas of cuts, and lays the blame fairly on the head of General Sir David Richards, who studied Politics and Economics at Cardiff University, because it says that,
The new head of the army [Gen. Sir David Richards] has ordered a cull of more than 300 senior officers, including two major-generals and up to 32 brigadiers.
and
Two major-general posts will go, one at 4th Division in Aldershot and the other at 5th Division at Shrewsbury. However, this is just two out of a total of 43 major-generals.
The closure of these divisional headquarters will also see the loss of a number of other staff officers, plus redundancies for civilian staff.
So more people out of work, because the MoD can't balance its' books.
Further into the article is a comment by Major-General Jonathan Shaw, the Colonel-Commandant of the Parachute Regiment, who "warns in the latest edition of the regimental journal Pegasus that
other infantry units are attempting to see its role axed."
The Times goes on to justify this because
No British paratroopers have dropped into battle since Suez in 1956. There are suggestions that the regiment should be broken up and used as forward reconnaissance units for the army’s frontline brigades.
So they've decided that, because an important regiment hasn't been used very often we don't need to keep it? The Paras? Surely not.
It's an unusual way to plan a defence strategy.
Is it any wonder that soldiers prefer to salute their officers than shake somebody's hand - visit Dizzy's place to see the video.
And maybe the military should be allowed to officially declare war on CO2, that way it might be able to claim some of the money that's obviously lying around because Mr Brown has just given away £1.5 million - to help other countries beat "Climate Change".
.
The Sun doesn't pull any punches in this piece about the Army, Afghanistan and the MoD.
The Sun is proud to be the Forces' paper. We admire their astonishing courage and weep for their dead and injured.
But they need the right kit. They need money. They need to feel their Government is behind them.
Our heroes have been abandoned and are dying. This Government must remember that there is a bloody war on. A war that they chose.
If the Prime Minister will not take charge and take responsibility for the war, he should resign and be replaced with a Premier who will lead from the front.
Gordon's response is make a "surprise" visit to Afghanistan, where during the two hours he spent at Lashkar Gah he hinted that more troops may be sent to the front line.
“Why is it wrong to ask questions? They’re perfectly proper questions. It is perfectly proper for members of parliament to table questions asking for information about the use of public money and resources.”
Of course he's right.
We do have the right to know where our money is being spent, and we were understandably irritated when we discovered that the political classes, of all colours, are being rather free with our hard earned cash. Some of us continue to be annoyed, and ask why those who spent rather too much of our money on themselves are still in their jobs.
And that's where the comparison stalls.
Lord Foulkes needs to understand that the military have a very rigid set of rules that cannot be manipulated, bent or broken - unlike the parliamentary Green Book's flexible regulations that appear to be very flexible, more especially if there's a few quid left in an individual MPs "allowances" account.
A General is not a Member of Parliament. A General is a senior officer in the Army. A General is selected for promotion simply because they are the best person for the job - end of.
This may be something that our politicians, and especially Labour politicians, find terrifically hard to understand and relate to - because so many of them have reached their own position of authority not because of what they are capable of doing but because of what they look like, where they grew up, who their best friends are, which God they worship, and even which gender they prefer to have sex with.
It's increasingly rare for a politician to be chosen because of their outstanding ability, intellectual capacity, background knowledge, suitability for high office or love of their country. In fact these values can be, and often are, derided and scorned as being snobbish or "Upper Class".
Mrs Rigby thinks that people like Lord Foulkes and his as yet un-named supporters, might be looking at their own experience in an attempt to undermine the character of somebody they don't like. Maybe they don't know why they don't like him - beyond knowing that General Dannat has asked some questions about defence procurement and the provision of suitable, and adequate, equipment for his troops that have made them look bad.
It is sometimes said that the best form of defence is attack, but it's surely best to choose the right weapon.
To use the weapon of "personal" spending against a General may be rather unwise.
If they took a moment to stop and think they might realise that it isn't his spending at all, it's spending he is required to make because he is a General and as part of his job he is required to be in 'x' place at 'y' time to meet 'z' people to discuss whatever they are meeting to discuss - a meeting that will have been arranged by the Foreign Office, NATO and so on. General Dannatt's meetings won't ever have been month long fact-finding missions to Mauritius.
General Dannat is not, and will never have been, allowed to make personal gain from his expenses - because it is all regulated by the MoD - and we know how tight-fisted the MoD is, because they won't spend the money to make sure our troops have the right equipment.
I wish Lord Foulkes, and others, well in their quest to undermine those at the head of the Army, but I think they would be wise to listen to Corporal Fraser, because I think their quest is "Doomed, I tell you, doomed!"
And in the meantime, whilst they expend so much energy in finding ways of avoiding having to provide equipment for our troops, another two soldiers have died. .
.
Mrs Rigby wasn't going to say anything more about the horrible mess that's being made, or that is appearing to be made, of supplying our troops with the equipment they need, but she read something today that made her very angry.
"Pleaded for more resources to defeat the Taliban and said British forces could not operate 24-hour surveillance in the most dangerous areas of Afghanistan"
This means, at least I think it means, that the Taliban can take their time to plant their explosive devices, which then blow our young men to smithereens.
The newspaper goes on to report that Lord Guthrie, former Chief of the Defence Staff, said,
"Bob Ainsworth appears to be a thoroughly decent man who is miscast as Secretary for Defence, particularly at a time when the nation is involved in war.'
Seems quite a polite way of putting it to me, nothing offensive there.
So what do our esteemed politicians do in return?
Do they rush off to do the decent thing and do their utmost to try to hurry along the equipment that might save some soldiers' lives?
Do they heck!
The newspaper tells us in glorious detail that,
"Senior Labour MPs have submitted a series of Freedom of Information requests - urged on by an MoD minister - hoping to expose wining and dining bills at the Army boss's home in Kensington, West London.
The minister behind the smear this week branded Sir Richard a 'complete b*****d', after repeated clashes with the Army boss, who has 20 days to answer the questions."
So, rather than searching for ways of ensuring that our troops get the gear they need, our senior government ministers have decided to expend time, manpower and effort to find out what General Dannatt eats and drinks, and what he gives to his guests, in the hope that they can use his shopping bills as a weapon against him!
They give him 20 days to answer their questions, or ... what? Will he be subjected to a stop and search by by a PCSO? Will he be given an on the spot fine? Maybe he'll be thrown in the Tower?
It took these same ministers months and months of obfuscation and legal challenges before grudgingly letting us taxpayers see how they spend our money on themselves, their homes and their families. But even then they crossed out the bits they wanted kept secret - they were too late, we'd already read it all in the Daily Telegraph!
Ooh look! Bob Ainsworth claimed almost £6k for getting his house done up. His second house that is, the one we pay for. He had some nice beams, a lovely new fireplace and got rid of some walls and some nasty artex. He should have asked the Army, they've got a really clever way of getting rid of artex, and walls too, something called explosives.
These poor, stressed-out, government ministers (who swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown - the same sort of thing soldiers do, aged 16) must have been really, really, badly bruised by having their own expenses - oh sorry, they're called "allowances" otherwise they're taxed - published in the newspapers.
They must have been so terribly traumatized by being criticized and made to look like scoundrels for milking the public purse - to buy bath plugs, fancy porches, packets of crisps and DVDs - if they think it would hurt the feelings of any General for us to know how much he spends on a few of bottles of wine and a chicken or two. More especially when he, and we, know that the MoD wasted £259million on buying a load of fancy helicopters that won't work because they forgot to pay for the important computer bits.
These unhappy politicians were put on suicide watch, and were given counselling - paid for by the taxpayer - when details of their expenses were published, so it's hardly surprising that they think somebody who is only a General will be equally emotionally scarred by such an terrifically frightening experience.
Maybe they'd like to be a General? It sounds good, and it takes longer to say it than "MP". Trouble is, the rank isn't just dished out to your chums like sweeties after a birthday party or a seat in the Lords.
Let's see how easy it is to be a General. Simple! First you have to get into Sandhurst, by doing a bit more than turning up at the gate. Then you get trained as an Officer. Trouble is, it isn't a case of just attending a lecture or two and getting a shiny badge. If you're not good enough you do the training again - or go home and do something else with your life. I have a sneaky suspicion it's all a bit more difficult, and a lot more complex, than being able to sit on a bus.
Let's see what General Sir Richard Dannatt KCBCBE MC ADC Gen, did after he left Sandhurst. First of all he joined the Green Howards in 1971. Two years later he was awarded the Military Cross, which is for:-
"an act or acts of exemplary gallantry during active operations against the enemy on land to all members, of any rank in Our Armed Forces…"
There's more about him here, including details of his service in Cyprus, Bosnia, Kosovo etc.. He doesn't seem to have had a lot of spare time to sit on a yacht in the Mediterranean!
It also looks as if General Dannatt has had a bit more than mere words thrown at him as he worked his way from Lieutenant to General, using a combination of discipline and determination, along with a huge pinch of bravery. Real bravery that is, harder stuff than appearing on the X-Factor.
Have any of these high-ranking, money-grabbing, politicians any idea of what it's really like in the Army these days? Have they been near anything that makes more of a bang than a party popper?
Have they heard of horrid little bits of hard metal called bullets, or sharp, pointy stuff called shrapnel that can tear flesh apart? It's made worse if you aren't wearing body armour, or are in a vehicle that's badly designed and not fit for purpose.
Have our ministers heard of big explosive things that do more than go whoosh and make pretty patterns in the sky on bonfire night? They must, surely, have heard of bombs and rockets - and not just the big, posh, rockets that take men to the moon, or the little ones that come down to earth as an empty bit of cardboard on a stick and throw the Health and Safety brigade into such a panic.
There are bombs that are much, much bigger, and make much more noise - and they are being used against our young troops. These bombs make holes in the ground, holes so big that the Elfin Safety mob would have to have special meetings to formulate a strategy for dealing with them. These bombs make so much mess that fixed penalty fines for littering would generate enough cash to pay for the Olympics.
Our ministers should learn that while these bombs make their big, untidy, holes in the hard-packed ground they blow anybody unlucky enough to be nearby into lots of little pieces. Sometimes the little pieces have to be picked up, by people, and have to be carried back to the base and sent home in a box called a coffin.
Maybe our politicians should make a law against standing too close to an IED. That'd do the trick, it'd be cheaper than sending protective equipment and then they could fine the lawbreakers instead of having to pay compensation for injury.
Mrs R is truly astonished, and quite disgusted, to learn that the country is being run by individuals who will happily debase themselves by searching for what they think are dirty details, in an attempt to undermine the character of a General whose worst crime appears to be that of asking for more equipment for his men.
General Dannatt isn't somebody out of Oliver Twist, to be beaten by the Beadle for saying the wrong thing.
General Dannatt is trying to save lives, and he is also trying to get a job done properly because he's been told - by politicians - that it is important.
General Dannatt is, in fact, merely attempting to follow orders - something so alien to too many people these days, when doing as you're told seems to be an option, not a requirement, and behaving decently is something to be derided.
Mrs Rigby reckons the politicians should spare just four short minutes of their lives to see the impact their penny pinching policies and political posturing is having on the people they are paid to represent.
They should watch this short video, and afterwards they should take a moment to think that John Thornton had been doing the job he was being paid for - and doing it unquestioningly, without thought for himself, as have more than 200 other young men and women whose lives have been lost in Afghanistan.
I'm coming to realise that I should not be surprised that none of our government ministers have the courage to go to and stand alongside members of the British Legion at Wooton Bassett!
.
Mrs Rigby notes that recently promoted to Secretary of State for Defence Mr Bob Ainsworth says that "criticism of the MoD is unpatriotic", and claims the public's "defeatist" attitude is letting troops down.
Mrs Rigby thinks that, as a politician, he should know better than to use the "patriotism" card against those he is supposed to represent.
Mrs R reckons she is as patriotic as they come. She is intensely proud of being British and staunchly defends Great Britain against all comers. She'd probably fight too, if necessary, but isn't suitable material for the military. But none of this means she thinks that everything about Great Britain, and the way it's being run, is perfect.
Here's an analogy.
The Rigby children know we love them dearly and are incredibly proud them - because they aren't drug-taking, hoodie-wearing thugs; because they are polite; because they study hard and have time to play; because they are reliable and, well, because they are nice and have nice friends too. Sometimes we pat ourselves on the back too, because we reckon we're doing a fairly good job of parenting.
The junior Rigbys know there are times when their behaviour is criticized. As they grow older they realise that this is because we love them so much, rather than the opposite, although it's sometimes tough love and causes arguments - that we all learn from.
They are coming to understand that all this is part of the learning process, part of our attempts to guide them in the right direction, so that as adults they will make a useful contribution to their country - and so that they will also be able to accept praise with dignity and learn from constructive criticism.
They are learning that praise means what it says, that they've done good, it isn't an empty gesture intended to placate.
They are also learning that nobody ever truly stops learning from others, that they too have a role in shaping the attitudes and opinions of us, their parents, and our own outlook on the world.
Some of our childrens' friends are planning to join the Army, others are planning to join the Navy, Air Force or Territorial Army. These are young people we have watched grow up alongside our own flesh and blood.
When we and these children's parents question the behaviour of government departments and politicians it isn't being unpatriotic, far from it, it's voicing an opinion intended to help make things better and improving the way the country is being managed. It is also done in the hope that somebody, somewhere, will listen to us and make sure they take appropriate action to ensure our young people are kept as safe as possible.
Those who join the military are not the dregs of society. Few, if any, of them would ever presume to be a burden on the state in civilian life and each and every one of them has sworn allegiance to the Crown, indicating a willingness to fight to the death for their country if need be.
The least the country can do in return is ensure that they are properly provided for, and offered the best possible equipment to do their job effectively and efficiently.
The ruling means that sending soldiers on patrol or into battle with clearly defective or inadequate equipment could breach their human rights.
We are now in August 2009.
Military chiefs, politicians and members of the public continue to voice their fears that the MoD is failing to supply front-line troops with the right equipment at the right time. Here are some of the things that have gone wrong.
* They have failed to supply enough bulletproof vests - a third are without protection at any one time.
* They have failed to supply enough helicopters - so supply movements are overland rather than airborne.
* They have failed to supply the new vehicles designed to withstand roadside bombs - even though those in use have known deficiencies and have resulted in loss of life. Some vehicles are held in Kuwait, awaiting transportation - but apparently there aren't enough British helicopters to carry them.
* They have failed to supply the right colour uniform - wearing sand-camouflaged gear some of our soldiers are sitting ducks, so they try to dye their own.
Mrs Rigby has read of other supply failures, but is satisfied that these examples are enough for now.
Last week a terribly injured soldier died from wounds, he was the 200th to die as a result of the conflict in Afghanistan. That his death marks this numerical milestone will not ease or reassure his grieving family and friends.
Those who have died overseas are repatriated through RAF Lyneham, their flag-draped coffins pass through the small town of Wootton Bassett, where townsfolk silently line the pavements in honour their sacrifice. During the summer many holidaymakers have taken time to do the same. If Mr Ainsworth has taken a break from his three month holiday from Westminster to join them it hasn't been publicised.
Mrs Rigby wonders if either Mr Brown or Mr Ainsworth have taken a moment to think beyond party politics to try to relate to the emotions of bereaved families when they learn that essential equipment, held in Kuwait or in storage here in UK, might have saved their sons or daughters lives or may have saved them from suffering terrible injuries - or have these men become too desensitised because so many have died, and are they too concerned about their own political future?
It is an unequivocal right of the electorate to question our parliamentary representatives, irrespective of their political persuasion, more especially if it appears that they are getting it wrong and failing in their duty to protect the interests, and lives, of those people who have signed on the dotted line - and whose job involves risking far greater injury than RSI of the wrist.
It is, surely, the duty of a responsible politician to listen to both the electorate and experts, and offer significantly more than platitudes or condemnation in return.
Mrs R cannot understand why the government isn't hurrying things along to respect the Human Rights of our troops - as is their right - in the same way as they ensure that people like this are properly provided for, and protected, by the state.
.
Mrs Rigby has no political affiliation whatsoever, but this survey reckons she's a "right social libertarian" Right: 5.2, Libertarian: 4.87 Political Spectrum Quiz
