Military Gap Year to Boost Defence

[SS427 Camaro]

Your thoughts ladies and gents.

[Bill]

How will having to babysit a load of reluctant teenagers boost defence??

[Mr E]

Bill said:

How will having to babysit a load of reluctant teenagers boost defence??

/thread.

[valiant]

Only a thousand a year when it gets up to speed so hardly taxing to those that have to train them and why would they be reluctant? They still have to volunteer and sign up except it’s for a far shorter period to gain a taste of what service life is.

Who knows that some may decide that forces life is a good option that they previously wouldn’t consider?

[Collectingbrass]

It's a sop to those who want conscription brought back, despite never having had to it themselves. Labour should grow some balls and take the fight to oppose Reform, not ape it and adopt it halfheartedly

[gregs656]

I think it’s a good idea in principle. I was a Reservist prior to moving abroad and a number of people I knew went into regular service once they had a taste of it.

I can see this being a similar funnel.

[John D.]

gregs656 said:

I think it s a good idea in principle. I was a Reservist prior to moving abroad and a number of people I knew went into regular service once they had a taste of it.

I can see this being a similar funnel.

How I see it too.

[dai1983]

Could be seen as increasing the 6th month early termination period to a year. Will be difficult making it worth someone's while without also allowing them to just leave after a year after gaining qualifications.

[DrDeAtH]

There was a phone in on LBC about this yesterday. An ex military guy called in and explained that this scheme isn't new... its been running since the 1980s

[Spare tyre]

I think it would have done me good, getting away seeing a different view point

But yes, many will just feck about

[HTP99]

Spare tyre said:

I think it would have done me good, getting away seeing a different view point

But yes, many will just feck about

It is voluntary, one would assume if someone joined up to the scheme, they wanted to do it, hence they wouldn't "feck about"

[Wills2]

Some strange stuff going on, first we get the Chief of the Defence Staff saying "And more families will know what sacrifice for our nation means." this from a man that has never been in harms way.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62vd7dkdpyo

Followed up by an announcement of a new, not new military gap year, I really do think that they have a rude awakening coming.

[98elise]

valiant said:

Only a thousand a year when it gets up to speed so hardly taxing to those that have to train them and why would they be reluctant? They still have to volunteer and sign up except it s for a far shorter period to gain a taste of what service life is.

Who knows that some may decide that forces life is a good option that they previously wouldn t consider?

How would your business cope with 1000 extra people bought in to be babysat for a couple of years?

The forces don't have a recruitment problem, they have a retention problem. It needs to pay better than civilian equivalent jobs if you want to keep people, thats before you get to the conditions you're expected to live in, and the hours you're expected to work.

[BOR]

Apparently there are plenty of patriots at a loose end, so why not sign them up as cannon-fodder first?

Presumably The Flaggy People would love the chance to shoot at foreigners.

[Bright Halo]

This is just the start to make it acceptable. I’m sure the numbers will be ramped up as and when.
The forces also have to get used to training the not so eager as well.

[valiant]

98elise said:

How would your business cope with 1000 extra people bought in to be babysat for a couple of years?

The forces don't have a recruitment problem, they have a retention problem. It needs to pay better than civilian equivalent jobs if you want to keep people, thats before you get to the conditions you're expected to live in, and the hours you're expected to work.

If my company already had over 180000 personnel and well established training centres, I’d expect it to manage quite well.

It seems just an extension of existing schemes anyway so they are hardly ‘babysat’ more so than participants of the existing schemes.

[98elise]

valiant said:

98elise said:

How would your business cope with 1000 extra people bought in to be babysat for a couple of years?

The forces don't have a recruitment problem, they have a retention problem. It needs to pay better than civilian equivalent jobs if you want to keep people, thats before you get to the conditions you're expected to live in, and the hours you're expected to work.

If my company already had over 180000 personnel and well established training centres, I d expect it to manage quite well.

It seems just an extension of existing schemes anyway so they are hardly babysat more so than participants of the existing schemes.

Those training centres are already training recruits.Theres no point having civilians taking up training spots and instructors time when you could be training actual recruits.Spend the money on keeping your already trained and in some cases highly qualified personnel.

My Navy training was over 4 years full time. After qualifying I served less than that doing the actual job. All bar one of the mates I joined/trained with left prematurely. Pay amd opportunities were just better in civilian life.

[Agent57]

SS427 Camaro said:

Your thoughts ladies and gents.

Defence. Not Defense.

Had to say it.

[gareth h]

98elise said:

Those training centres are already training recruits.Theres no point having civilians taking up training spots and instructors time when you could be training actual recruits.Spend the money on keeping your already trained and in some cases highly qualified personnel.

My Navy training was over 4 years full time. After qualifying I served less than that doing the actual job. All bar one of the mates I joined/trained with left prematurely. Pay amd opportunities were just better in civilian life.

I guess you will always have to fill up from the bottom as people leave from the top (notwithstanding the accommodation / conditions issues) , it could be a succesful policy, lots of youngsters can’t afford to leave home, given the opportunity for a bit of excitement, sort of join the Army / Navy and see the world (well at least Catterick and Plymouth!)

[SS427 Camaro]

98elise said:

valiant said:

Only a thousand a year when it gets up to speed so hardly taxing to those that have to train them and why would they be reluctant? They still have to volunteer and sign up except it s for a far shorter period to gain a taste of what service life is.

Who knows that some may decide that forces life is a good option that they previously wouldn t consider?

How would your business cope with 1000 extra people bought in to be babysat for a couple of years?

The forces don't have a recruitment problem, they have a retention problem. It needs to pay better than civilian equivalent jobs if you want to keep people, thats before you get to the conditions you're expected to live in, and the hours you're expected to work.

They Do have a recruiting problem. We all know about the witch hunts of our servicemen years down the line. Who in their right mind would want the thought of something that they did in the heat of battle is going to come back and haunt them…..