Petition at 10 Downing Street for pay for ALL servicemen

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by Blondie, Sep 19, 2007.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Signed with pleasure

  2. Ditto :thumright:
  3. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    Signed. Can't wait for the weasel words of the official brushoff which will follow, drafted by an MoD civilian.
  4. Signed :rendeer:
  5. Though I have signed I do believe that going to war is what we who have served in the armed forces are trained to do. It is what we sign up to do and we know the pay and conditions of service.
    My main concern is that OUR services are supposed to be for the defence of OUR country, at present we have young men and women being killed defending causes that they may not believe in.
  6. Slim

    Whilst in principle I broadly agree with the sentiment I'd argue that the T&Cs are best suited to someone who doesn't actually move around within whichever service they belong to. The realities of moving between jobs, leading to, for example, a higher frequency of deployment than is planned is not well compensated by the current reward system. Of course it could be said that the same dynamic allows others to do somewhat less than the planned frequency.

    I think the reality is that after years of below inflation pay awards the rewards system is significantly less attractive than it was since the last big shake-up. Servicemen and women have lot parity with their peers in other public sector areas.

    Notwithstanding all of that I don't see an improvement any time soon. The Comprehensive Spending Review is due out soon, and I anticipate it won't look good for most departments.
  7. Actually I almost agree with slim on this one.Thing is the link actually says ''FRONTLINE'' troops. I totally agree with that.I dont think servicemen/women sat in the rear or bobbing around on a T42 in the gulf count as frontline troops.Where as troops be they sailors,soldiers or airmen risking there life everyday in Helmand or down town Basra should get more pay.
  8. The problem with to days conflicts are that basically they are nothing to do with the UK
    During the Falklands our troops were fighting for a British protectorate and Brutish citizens.
    Problems first arose during the first Gulf war. If Kuwait had not got oil would we have gone in?
    Same with the second gulf war and what are we doing in Afghanistan?
    We have a British military to protect British interests.
    So how is it that more cocaine is being exported from Afghanistan than ever before?
    We would be better pulling out and reinforcing the European borders to control the illegal drugs business.
    Same with Iraq, we are not wanted there so get the troops out and let the Iraqis have their civil war.
    British troops for British conflicts.
    I would not however be against an action against Mugabe.
    After all it was the British who sold the Rhodesians out.
  9. I'm not a big fan of the idea of differential pay, but I perhaps wasn't clear enough in my comments above. I think that the whole package needs a thorough review, the real value of service salaries and the reward system have reduced in real terms since at least the early 90's.
  10. I think that's a whole different issue which has little to do with the concept of differential pay. Although the public perception of current operaitons possibly inform the current concerns over T&Cs for service personnel.

    I think one of the issues is where one assesses British interests lie and how best to intervene with respect to them. Energy security is certainly a huge issue and it's worth noting that recovery costs in the North Sea are nearly double that in most other areas, according to some discussion on R4 Today a few days ago. Bergen may be able to elaborate further on that point.

    I'd suggest that Afghanistan is similar, there was a clear and growing threat with that region as an epicentre. My personal view is that we should have focussed on that and not bothered with Iraq, having selected, but not maintained, our aim we have allowed Afghanistan to turn into what it is today.

    The drug source, and it's worth noting that it's Heroin which is grown in Afghanistan not Cocaine, is a secondary issue IMO. If security in the country was stable I'd suggest that a legal market for opium poppies would fairly quickly establish itself.

    Sticking plaster over the symptoms IMO, the globalised economy is a good thing(tm) and anything w do to undermine that is not strategically sensible.

  11. To be a Devil's Advocate, you pick your branch, you take your chance. When you join up, you are aware that you may be sent to a conflict by our Lords and Masters. It isn't a surprise that some of those are in the name of the various international organisations that the UK is a part of, including the UN, the EU and NATO. So the British Forces fighting for British interests extends to their obligations under the many treaties that the UK has signed.

    Yes the op tempo in Afghanistan and Iraq is higher than it has probably been since Korea, but that is the nature of the game. The X-factor in service pay is designed for this unpredictability. So it is not a question of paying more to those on the "front line" just because they are under fire and more active than those on WIGS or WAGS. That's the nature of being in the Forces. If you don't like it, resign. Or vote for a different political party that won't send you halfway around the world - and enjoy having a Belgian Navy.
  12. Frontline troops in Iraq and Afghanistan already receive more pay than the rest due to the Operational Allowance. This amounts to about £12 a day (all ranks). Is that not enough?
  13. Is that not enough?

    Well no it isnt!

    We get screwed over every year in terms of pay (and conditions).
  14. That is a different question then, one looking at whether the recompense for Service life is adequate. It is not a question of whether there should be "warfighting pay". And that question then feeds off of the debate on the National Covenant, and the annual debate on pay levels.
  15. I remeber the introduction of the 'Military Salary' by H Wilson many moons ago, which was intended through the 'X' factor to average out the need for compensation for operational actvity over ones service, giving both the reward, and stability in pay. This was very much in response to a recruiting short fall at the time caused a lot by the transfer from conscription to volunteer service, without a real review of the total package.

    It rpobabkly is time for a real review of pay and conditions, many of the benefits I recieved have gone, yet there does not seem to have been a real rescaling of pay to compensate.

    Of course they all know that a real review will result in a big extra bill, and they don't want that so they continue to tinker round the edges.
  16. Although oft given as the panacea for every gripe we have; is the first comment above true? I think not, I joined at 16 and the furthest I thought I was going was NI. That will be the same for tens of thousands of other (formerly) young people as well. Did the majority of the current RM really consider that they would be fighting intensive campaigns in either Iraq (given the flawed end to GW1) or Afghanistan? I would suggest they did not and the same is true of the blue RN but to a lesser extent as the RN has always had long deployments. However, these, in contrast to RM/Army/RAF (generalisation), deployments have probably gotten shorter over the years. Now I accept that those that have joined in the last 4-7 years will have a different perception to that which I had but even so what is happening in both countries could hardly be called the stuff of AFCO interviews and presentations. Perhaps Ninja_Stoker can comment on how often this comes up in the recruiting process and whether it is the applicant or staff that raise it?

    Acknowledging I know nothing of your Operational service and being devil's advocate aside, the latter comment annoyed me. It is one of those throwaway lines that slip so easily from the tongue (or onto the page), yet it tries to make the sound, smell, pressure, danger and fear of incoming fire seem so everyday and matter of fact. It is a comment I would normally associate with someone that has not had the pleasure and I believe it is disingenuous to dismiss the experience of close combat in such a way.

  17. I disagree - when you join up, you expect to be deployed, and face that there is a chance that you will go somewhere "hot". When I joined up, on the first day we had a senior officer come in and say: "for the last 100 years, there has been a major fight involving the RN roughly every 10 years; that means that all of you should expect at least one warfighting situation in your careers". Yes, the previous resident of Downing Street sent the Forces to more sticky situations than was previously thought likely. Yes, the pressure in Afghanistan is huge and I wouldn't enjoy it if I were there. However, the UK has an operational, blue water, goes-where-there-is-trouble armed force, and if anyone is so naive as to think that they won't go further than UK shores and have cosy trips on the Old Grey Funnel Line, then I've no sympathy. It's what we (UK Armed Forces) do. I don't want to be condescending, but feel quite strongly about this.

    I agree that it is high time that a full and comprehensive review takes place of Service pay and allowances (not the annual bunfight led by the AFPRB and Treasury), but a true, warts and all review to see exactly what everyone gets and whether it is just.

Share This Page