Don't get me wrong; I don't approve of a flying training course which consists of very little real-world flying. I would far rather the balance of aircraft to simulator was much more in favour of aircraft for one major reason - fear. All pilots need to have experience of understanding that the consequences of getting it wrong are - or could be - fatal. That just does not come across in a simulator, and never will. Als, as you say, real-world skills deteriorate quickly. I would put money on there being very little pure handing time in the proposed MPL syllabus - simulators are too expensive to 'waste' on fault-free flying!
However, I dispute your contention that military pilots' training is irrelevant to the civilian system. Training for command is exactly why more time should be spent under instruction; under the current system you are expected to train yourself during your hour-building, which is at best inefficient and at worst bloody dangerous. It's rather like leaving a child to discover that a fire can burn by letting them try it rather than telling them beforehand and then supervising them when they are actually near a fire, and training them how to avoid being burned while getting all the advantages a fire offers. One of the advantages (and thus appeal to airlines) of the integrated courses now available from the major FTOs is that this flying time is structured, though, thanks to the rules, it is not used as productively as it might be.
There is a great deal of room for improvement in the system used to prepare pilots for an airline career. The MPL, however inadequate, is at least a recognition that things need to change.
Scroggs