MoD 'breaches Military Covenant' with £250 million allowance cuts

#3
“This Tory-led Government is slashing allowances and bonuses for the brave men and women of our Armed Forces but taking no action on billion-pound bankers’ bonuses. They really must get their priorities straight.”
Hmm, allowances paid by the (broken by Labour's reckless over-spending) government are somehow equated to contractual payments by public companies. Oh, sorry, that was the "Shadow Defence Secretary" - the last lot were well known for their strict adherence to the "Military Covenant". They were so meticulous observing it the that RBL had to set up a campaign to remind them of it.
 
#4
Why are they saying a cut in allowances is a breach of the Military Covenant? Whats the link?
 
#5
Hmm, allowances paid by the (broken by Labour's reckless over-spending) government are somehow equated to contractual payments by public companies. Oh, sorry, that was the "Shadow Defence Secretary" - the last lot were well known for their strict adherence to the "Military Covenant". They were so meticulous observing it the that RBL had to set up a campaign to remind them of it.
Just goes to show that none of them give a ****.
 
#6
From Wikipedia:

The Military Covenant is a term introduced into British public life to refer to the mutual obligations between the nation and its Armed Forces. According to the Guardian, "it is an informal understanding, rather than a legally-enforceable deal, but it is nevertheless treated with great seriousness within the services".[1] It was coined with the publication by the Ministry of Defence of the booklet ‘Soldiering – The Military Covenant’ in April 2000, and has now entered political discourse as a way of measuring whether the government and society at large have kept to their obligations to support members of the armed forces.
 
#8
From Wikipedia:

The Military Covenant is a term introduced into British public life to refer to the mutual obligations between the nation and its Armed Forces. According to the Guardian, "it is an informal understanding, rather than a legally-enforceable deal, but it is nevertheless treated with great seriousness within the services".[1] It was coined with the publication by the Ministry of Defence of the booklet ‘Soldiering – The Military Covenant’ in April 2000, and has now entered political discourse as a way of measuring whether the government and society at large have kept to their obligations to support members of the armed forces.
So not really much to do with a cut in allowances, especially as a sizeable chunk of the country is in the same boat.
 
#9
No surprise really, this was on the cards from the minute the government said they value the military. Yet again our illustrious leaders lie and wriggle to self justify a scandalous decision. I accept money needs to be saved and I accept there is waste but why hit the lower paid ranks. Why does a pilot/navigator of air rank still recieve top rate flying pay when the last aircraft he flew was numerous years ago and probably no longer in service, is he still likely to jump into a jet and fly it- never. Specialist pay should stop when the recipient no longer fulfills that role.
As the government have decided all troops home from Germany this decade then why not leave LOA in place until it stops naturally, this saving could easily be found elsewhere in the system so that troops dont get hit in their pockets.
Politicians are all fork tongued lying barstewards.
 
#10
As the government have decided all troops home from Germany this decade then why not leave LOA in place until it stops naturally, this saving could easily be found elsewhere in the system so that troops dont get hit in their pockets.
Really? Such as where?
 
#11
Why does a pilot/navigator of air rank still recieve top rate flying pay when the last aircraft he flew was numerous years ago and probably no longer in service, is he still likely to jump into a jet and fly it- never. Specialist pay should stop when the recipient no longer fulfills that role.
Which it has done for a while and, in fact, one of the announced cuts was that it would stop sooner? Or is there an exception to the rules for crab-air?

I checked - and you don't seem to get it above Air Commode. And they get it at under a third of the top rate?
 
E

EScotia

Guest
#12
Fortunately none of the savings affect me. Makes me wonder though why the Government of the day decided to reign in allowances for the civil service and the armed forces before it even considers putting its own House in order!

I wonder if I can just wander in off the street and order a meal in one of the tax payer subsidised bars/restaraunts in the House of Commons?
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#16
I accept that cuts have to be made and that where ever they are they are mot going to be nice nit there are a couple of things that I think are 'unfair' in this package.

The HTD limit being raised to 9 miles. The argument that this is the average journey made by civilians is irrelevant. What is effectively happening is that a member of the Armed Forces who is already penalised by being dumped in unsuitable accom is going to have to pay for the privilege. Although it does not affect me personally there are lot of people in crap accom in Birmingham who live within 8 miles of RCDM who have to use public transport to get to work who are going to be significantly out of pocket.

The other area of unfairness: We've moved 6 times since 1999. Only once has the DA covered the cost. Particularly galling as the last one was a year after the previous one and we have moved to dump in Birmingham.

I fully take the point that Dingger making and accept that compared to some we're still very comfortable.


Sent from my iPhone using ARRSE so please excuse fat fingers and slips of the keyboard.
 

Fugly

ADC
DirtyBAT
#17
Peanuts.

Good old Tommy hasn't been hit that hard in the big scheme of things.

Unfortunately, the MoD track record of keeping a tight eye on the pennies, and pissing the pounds away, is sure to continue. The biggest problem is procurement. The UORs in theatre have been fantastic, but that is only because of direct demand from theatre for certain equipment with certain capabilities. Meanwhile, millions and millions of pounds have been wasted on contracts for kit completely unfit for purpose, simply because "Brigadiers daddy owns the company" and similar other backscratching scenarios.
 
#18
I doubt anyone in this Coalition knows, or cares, what the Military Covenant is. Certainly, nobody in the last dreadful apology for a government knew nor cared.

Shame Cameron - Shame Clegg - Shame - Osborne.
 
#19
I doubt anyone in this Coalition knows, or cares, what the Military Covenant is. Certainly, nobody in the last dreadful apology for a government knew nor cared.

Shame Cameron - Shame Clegg - Shame - Osborne.
Or, we were getting money for things we didn't really need and the Government is making tough decisions. CEA is still there (under review, but not gone), LOA is reduced but still there (after all, we're still paid when in Germany!), incidental expenses were always a bit of a freebie and other allowances (especially FIA) were frankly a joke.

To be honest, the allowance cuts aren't that bad. I still earn more than most of my mates, I'm in a secure job for years to come, LSA is still there if I'm out on exercise or on tour AND the tour bonus is pretty good.

I don't really know what everyone is moaning about. I'd rather see the allowances cut than frontline resources for soldiers cut. I say "good work Mr Cameron". It could have been a lot worse.
 
#20
Nickhere, you are absolutely right. No one in the real world gets an allowance for buying a newspaper. The low pay of private soldiers is much more of an issue than allowance cuts.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Top