Cameron Sacks 'Independant' Armed Forces Pay advisor

#2
Looking at this bit:
Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, said that the MoD could not afford the
additional pay rise, which officials estimate could cost up to £40 million.


“The AFPRB’s recommendations are to be accepted in full, except for the
recommendation to increase X-factor, which would result in costs for which the
department has not currently budgeted.


Does this mean they had already put aside enough for a 1% increase, what if the AFRB had advised a 0.8% increase would we have still got the budgeted for 1% increase.........only i think if it was decided to be a vote winner - so probably no

It does somewhat smack of 'Prof Smith isnt doing what we want, lets not keep him on; see if we can find someone more malleable.'
 
#3
I thought that part of the responsibility of the review board was to ensure affordability of any recommendations.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
 
#4
On another note, the 'Project Vanguard'contract is up for grabs this year, at a cost of almost 1 Billion. How much of that will find its way into shareholders bank accounts as opposed to providing facilities and training for UK Forces?
 
#6
I thought that part of the responsibility of the review board was to ensure affordability of any recommendations.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
From AFPRB Website Office of Manpower Economics - Armed Forces' Pay Review Body:
In reaching its recommendations, the Review Body is to have regard to the following considerations:
  • the need to recruit, retain and motivate suitably able and qualified people taking account of the particular circumstances of Service life;
  • Government policies for improving public services, including the requirement on the Ministry of Defence to meet the output targets for the delivery of departmental services;
  • the funds available to the Ministry of Defence as set out in the Government' s departmental expenditure limits;
  • and the Government' s inflation target.
The Review Body shall have regard for the need for the pay of the Armed Forces to be broadly comparable with pay levels in civilian life.
The Review Body shall, in reaching its recommendations, take account of the evidence submitted to it by the Government and others. The Review Body may also consider other specific issues as the occasion arises.


My underline - does this mean that they are always going to be hamstrung by whatever the MoD budget has previously decided to do? Or am i getting confused?
 
#7
Well, it makes perfect sense from a political viewpoint. It is far more worthy to spend however many millions on the Free Syrian Army who, are so popular, that 2 years later they are in a total stalemate (if not getting their arses handed to them on a plate) by the hated Assad regime (How does that work then?)

And, as for you lot, well, I'm sorry but it's worth a drop in your standard of living, pay and the equipment just as long as Dave can go home to Sam and say "Hey, guess what I did today!"
 
#8
I'm just pissed off with "call me Dave" telling us we're all in this together, when he and 23 of his 29 member cabinet are multi-millionaires. He has never had to worry about or budget his money in his life!!
 
#9
It ceased to be independent the day the government decided to stage the pay rises. The message to the AFPRB was quite clear - you stick to the spending guidelines the Treasury give you or we won't implement your recommendation.
 
#11
At least we'll be getting something, it's better than nowt
UK Inflation is currently running at a steady 2.7%!

A 1% pay rise, which the government can't afford, is therefore actually a 1.7% pay cut in terms of purchasing power.

If it looks like a shafting, smells like a shafting and you have a large foreign object rattling about up your arse, it's a shafting!
 
#12
The same government that smugly accepts its own pay rises as they've been decided by another 'independent ' review body. Even though those who vote against it ( pretending to hold the moral high ground knowing that the vote will pass anyway) are happy to accept their 30 pieces of silver. Politicians- I wouldn't urinate on them if they were on fire.
 
#14
The same government that smugly accepts its own pay rises as they've been decided by another 'independent ' review body. Even though those who vote against it ( pretending to hold the moral high ground knowing that the vote will pass anyway) are happy to accept their 30 pieces of silver. Politicians- I wouldn't urinate on them if they were on fire.
At least in this they haven't been hypocritical and share the same award:

"HM Government has announced that public sector pay deals will be held to an average of one percent for the two years following the current pay freeze. MPs’ pay has not been increased since April 2010 and so, like many other public sector workers, they have been subject to a pay freeze since then. We therefore proposed to increase MPs’ pay by 1% in April 2013 and another 1% in April 2014. We do not propose to increase salaries in April 2015, because we anticipate the new remuneration package will be implemented in May 2015, following the general election."

Taken from here:http://parliamentarystandards.org.u...ng MPs' Pay and Pensions - A First Report.pdf
 

TheresaMay

ADC
Moderator
DirtyBAT
#15
Do you know what - I'm fed up of hearing "at least it's something" or "it's not all bad" when every single member of the Armed Forces will receive a paycut. You might as well just bend over at the same time your saying "thanks for my 1%", whilst forgetting about inflation and increases to SFA etc.

Oh and don't forget as of Apr 13 the 40% tax threshold will come down yet another couple of grand to £32,011 a year. Of course the allowance has increased to just over 9K - ensuring the low paid will be better off, and the 50% rate becomes a 45% rate so the fat cats and people in his back pocket are looked after for their continued Tory support. Everyone else though, will simply get royally shafted (again).

Cant afford the extra £40m? Why not take it out of the Foreign Aid pot - it's not like it'll even make a dent. Or even spend some time on the issue Mr Cameron, or are you getting sidetracked by your higher priorities such as minimum alcohol pricing and gay marriage?

What planet is this guy on?

Call it a wasted vote as much as you like - but given the choice between Cameron and Millipede - I'm voting UKIP. Out of protest, maybe - but mainly because of their sheer incompetence and it's about time these people got hit where it hurts them the most. In the ballot box.

All in it together my arrse...




Post #1000 for me - never thought I'd see the day, given the 'burning' of my previous 2 usernames!
 
#16
Oh and don't forget as of Apr 13 the 40% tax threshold will come down yet another couple of grand to £32,011 a year. Of course the allowance has increased to just over 9K - ensuring the low paid will be better off, and the 50% rate becomes a 45% rate so the fat cats and people in his back pocket are looked after for their continued Tory support. Everyone else though, will simply get royally shafted (again).
You do know the 45/50% rate kicks in at £150K plus and it's introduction less than a month before the 2010 General Election saw a slump in High earners income tax take from £116Bn to £87Bn

The 50% tax rate was a cynical, hypocritical sorched earth policy by the worst Chancellor and PM since the big bang and had nothing to do with rasing money and everything to do with scoring petty, childish points pre and post election that a corrupt and morally bankrupt party knew they'd lose.
 
#17
At least in this they haven't been hypocritical and share the same award:

"HM Government has announced that public sector pay deals will be held to an average of one percent for the two years following the current pay freeze. MPs’ pay has not been increased since April 2010 and so, like many other public sector workers, they have been subject to a pay freeze since then. We therefore proposed to increase MPs’ pay by 1% in April 2013 and another 1% in April 2014. We do not propose to increase salaries in April 2015, because we anticipate the new remuneration package will be implemented in May 2015, following the general election."

Taken from here:http://parliamentarystandards.org.u...ng MPs' Pay and Pensions - A First Report.pdf
I'd be interested to see if allowances and all the other bits and bobs were locked as well.
 
#18
The AFPRB's recommendation to increase the X-factor shouldn't have come as a surprise.

The Board reviews the X-factor at 5 year intervals, relative to other aspects of pay, and it clearly indicated at para 6.19 of LAST year's report that it would be undertaking that review:

We also intend to progress some important work on our programme of regular reviews. In particular: ... We will undertake our five-yearly review of X-Factor
To give a fuller quote from last year's AFPRB report (2011/2012):

Our next Report

6.17 We have reflected on our role following the Government’s announcement of two further years of public sector pay restraint after the pay freeze ends. We note the emphasis the Secretary of State placed on the scale of the economic challenge facing the country and the need to make sacrifices to secure the conditions for economic growth in future. However, we are also conscious that Service personnel regarded the two-year pay freeze as exceptional and made clear they wanted us to resume our normal role in 2013.

6.18 We hope therefore that our usual remit will be restored for next year, allowing us to exercise our judgement against the full range of issues relevant to setting the pay of the Armed Forces. Our terms of reference as an independent review body require us to take account of a range of considerations. The Government’s pay policy, and the severe affordability constraints on MOD, will continue to be important factors bearing on our recommendations. We will want to assess carefully the evidence on recruitment, retention and motivation. We will also want to return to looking at broader trends on pay comparability as this is an element in our terms of reference which takes account of the unique position of the Armed Forces. However, we recognise that significant changes to military pay in a single year would be very difficult to reconcile with MOD’s financial position. Our recommendations to Government will need to reflect careful and balanced judgements, taking account of the full range of evidence available to us as well as the constraints of Government pay policy.

6.19 We also intend to progress some important work on our programme of regular reviews. In particular: .... We will undertake our five-yearly review of X-Factor; ...
 
#19
Just to add to that, the Telegraph story says that
It is understood that No 10 made the decision even though senior figures in the MoD had wanted Prof Smith to serve another term.
Independent members of the pay body have also written to Mr Cameron to raise concerns about Prof Smith’s removal.
It also quotes BAFF as NOT jumping on the outrage bus or complaining of "betrayal" - it generally leaves that kind of language to the usual suspects:
Douglas Young, the chairman of the British Armed Forces Federation, said the decision to remove Prof Smith from his post seemed “vindictive”. “If Prof Smith’s appointment is not being renewed when he is happy to go on serving in the post, it does raise questions about the independence of the AFPRB and is a cause for deep concern.”
 
#20
Please inform Philip Hammong that from now on I will implement in full I all orders I receive (except for the ones I don't like). Weasle wording tosser.
 

Latest Threads