After press speculation that the Government was starting to backpedal on its policy of reducing training for the TA, Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox was granted an Urgent Question on the topic by the Speaker at 3.30pm this afternoon. Unfortunately although it was televised, most of the debate was obsdured by Sky cutting to pointless talking heads in the studio before anything of substance was gleaned.

Defence Minister Bill Rammell told MPs a whole load of nothing, culminating in the nugget that “the MoD would not be pursuing a 6 month hiatus in training for units not deployed in Afghanistan, as part of a £20m cut to the TA budget and that instead, funding will be provided for monthly training sessions to take place”.

In response, Dr Fox wanted to know the answer to “three simple questions”:

“First, the Government has previously said that they ‘always finance our military commitments overseas out of the reserve’. The Secretary of State stated during the debate last week that: ‘we are adjusting the core defence budget to reprioritise Afghanistan.’ Some of us are surprised that it’s not already the No.1 priority, but if it is fully funded from the Reserve, why are they cutting the core budget of the TA by £43m?

Looks like someone is either being dishonest with the figures, is trying to cover up previous dodgy financial brinkmanship or is currently engaged in frantic budgetary deckchairs-on-Titanic shuffling. Or if we consider the cock-up not conspiracy angle, it could just be that they are bloody incompetent.

“Secondly, we know that due to the recession and the major recruitment drive in the past year there are more recruits in the Regular Army than there is money to train them. The Government have demanded savings from other places within the Army to fund this.  Why did the Government not plan to fund its own target numbers for recruitment—especially in a war?

This is pretty much a killer point. If you have a target for recuitment then all of the subsequent requirement have to be in place in advance too. Or are you factoring in the expectation of failure to reach those targets. In that case, why have targets at all? Someone was paid to produce the figures for those targets…why not sack them as their job is obviously pointless and spend the money on a smart top-hat to pluck random figures out of? If you are going to be dishonest about these things then at least do it with style.

“Thirdly, does the Government really understand the ethos of volunteering or the effect this could have on future available numbers? For many the TA is a habit: break the habit, break the TA.

This government do not understand the concept of volunteering or of selfless puvlic service. They only understand the enjoyment gained by sadists who apply for ‘elf’n’safety non-jobs in the Grauniad. Interesting ‘break the habit’ phrase….not really thought of it that way but TheEye has certainly found that to be true for other similar things and can well believe that there will be an effect.

“Pre-deployment training is only of use if you have the numbers to start with. Is it not the case that pre-deployment training is meant to augment and not supplant routine TA training, so routine training is just as important as pre-deployment training? Whether an individual is deploying on operations or not, regular and routine training is required to ensure medium and long term readiness levels in the TA for any future deployments to Afghanistan or somewhere else unforeseen.”

So they are double-counting the training. Take what should already be there, cut it, give it a new coat of paint and a different name, back down and shuffle some of it back into place…and Bob(Ainsworthless)’s your uncle. No-one’ll notice, Squire. You’ll see.

This is a scandal, which, as usual, will be shrugged off by our Government of metropolitan failed trades-unionists. There will be many more ex-Forces in the Commons after the next Election so we can expect a greater understanding of Defence requirements when a rump of surviving Labour MP’s are consigned to the Opposition benches.