Gurkha regiment under threat by spending cuts

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-dig-deep.html

One of Britain's most famous Army regiments could be sacrificed under drastic defence cuts. Ministers risk being forced to take the axe to the Gurkhas in an attempt to save millions of pounds. One military expert warned that the 'writing was on the wall' for the Nepalese soldiers, who have been part of the Army for nearly 200 years.

Chancellor George Osborne has ordered the Ministry of Defence to make cuts of between 10 and 20 per cent of its £36.9 billion budget as he attempts to claw back Britain's multi-billion-pound deficit. Public support for the Gurkhas was highlighted last year when actress Joanna Lumley spearheaded a successful campaign to force the Labour government to give retired veterans the right to settle in the UK. Her fight was backed by David Cameron, the Tory leader, and his Liberal Democrat counterpart Nick Clegg.

But the campaign has made the Gurkha regiments - which have 3,640 personnel - more vulnerable to the axe by increasing their costs. Gurkha veterans who move to Britain are entitled to full pensions, whereas those back home receive around a third of what former British soldiers are paid. Patrick Mercer, a Tory MP and a former army officer, said: 'The first people to go will be the Brigade of Gurkhas, probably in their entirety. 'In the past, the Gurkhas' existence was guaranteed by the fact they are cheaper to run than British troops, and that there was a shortage of British troops. Recent changes mean they are now just as expensive, and recruitment is extremely healthy at the moment. I am afraid the writing is on the wall.'

The recruitment of Gurkhas was placed under review by the MoD in January last year. It came as Army chiefs scrapped the active recruitment of foreign troops in favour of Britons during the credit crunch. The number of Britons joining up rose by 1,000 in 2009 compared with the previous year, and taking foreign and Commonwealth soldiers was seen as a 'lesser requirement'. The Prime Minister and his deputy in the Coalition Government, are now among the leading politicians who have ordered cuts in a bid to drag the UK's finances back into the black. Defence chiefs may be forced to cut deeper if Mr Osborne insists that the replacement of the Trident nuclear deterrent submarines is paid for from the MoD's budget.

A spokesman for the Gurkha Welfare Trust, which provides support for ex-Gurkhas and their families, admitted that they were vulnerable. He said: 'The Government has made it clear there are no sacred cows.' Britain's elite Special Forces suffered a blow after MoD officials scrapped rules which allow the crack troops to serve until the age of 45. The move to bring the SAS into line with the regular Army by imposing an age limit of 40 was last night branded 'madness'. Almost 40 men will be affected by the move. Former SAS figures warned it would mean the loss of some of the most experienced fighters, whose participation in missions to kill or capture Taliban leaders in Afghanistan has been invaluable.

Yes, and this is coming from the patriotic Tory Party - which just as most other issues with the Conservatives, has turned out to be a total sham. The Tories aren't patriotic, nor are they economically competant, nor are they eurosceptic or in any way a 'alternative' to the Labour Party or the Liberal Democrats. The Tories are cutting our schools, our armed forces - just about everything. Now yes, the debt was run up by Labour and yes it does need to be tackled but anyone with any priorities would put foreign aid/EU contributions/global warming schemes and red tape at the forefront of the cuts before cutting education, the military and other parts of the state.

Maybe next time when people come to vote, they'll vote for a party that will put Great Britain first.

Thoughts?

[Nixt]

In fairness in reading this it seems to be that this is, at the moment, purely speculative. David Cameron in particular is driven by political success and appearing to the public a patriot who is making difficult but necessary decisions. This would be political suicide, as the article explains by highlighting the support the Gurkhas recently received RE: Joanna Lumley's campaign. Until it is confirmed I won't hold my breath as to this happening, as I don't think it will and I think if it were to happen opposition would be fierce and the government would back track.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The government hasn't denied or shyed away from Patrick Mercers comments and the MoD is already at breaking point - let's hope the Gurkha regiment is not cut but I won't hold my breath. Afterall, the Tories have already back-tracked on foreign defence, the EU and crime/justice & punishment. The military budget should be increased and we can afford it by prioritising - the military is worth every penny providing the MoD & government could become economically competent again when issuing contracts.

Meet the new manager, same as the old.

[FlyingJesus]

Patrick Mercer, a Tory MP and a former army officer, said: 'The first people to go will be the Brigade of Gurkhas, probably in their entirety. 'In the past, the Gurkhas' existence was guaranteed by the fact they are cheaper to run than British troops, and that there was a shortage of British troops. Recent changes mean they are now just as expensive, and recruitment is extremely healthy at the moment. I am afraid the writing is on the wall.'

Failing to see the problem here. If they cost us the same and we don't need extra soldiers why is it a bad thing to drop the brigade? That's like saying no-one should ever be made redundant for financial or overstaffing reasons - whoops, my bad, redundancy is entirely about such reasons and although a tragic situation, should always be an option for any company. The armed forces shouldn't have to hold on to any brigade, regiment, company or even single soldier if they are no longer needed.

Also:

The move to bring the SAS into line with the regular Army by imposing an age limit of 40 was last night branded 'madness'. Almost 40 men will be affected by the move.

OH GOD NO PLEASE DON'T LOSE 40 MEN

[MrPinkPanther]

It's the MoD's choice. Not the governments. The MoD must face cuts just like all other departments. £37 Billion is ridiculously high for a defence budget and it's completely unsustainable. What you clearly haven't realised is that despite our relatively small population we have the third largest military expenditure in the world after the US and China, when we are cutting virtually all government departments why should we ring fence defence which is only so large because Britain still has delusions of grandeur?

[Technologic]

it's called a recession. deal with it