Poll of Polls on Defence Matters

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by MrPVRd, Nov 26, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

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

  1. Yes

    0 vote(s)
  2. No

    0 vote(s)
  1. This is an attempt to start a "Poll of Polls" on defence, following much debate. If as many people as possible vote, it may get attention.

    "In your opinion - serving, ex-serving, Service family or supporter:

    Is the military covenant fundamentally broken, due to the under-funding of defence and the consequential neglect of terms and conditions of service and the over-stretch of the military?"

    As many posts as possible from serving will help counter the MoD's propaganda operation.
  2. It should be obvious from the sheer number of cases that MoD SpINOps claim are 'exceptions' that all is not rosy in the garden. How many specific, verifiable instances does it take to establish a precedent? Apparently one isolated instance does the job if it shows HMG in a good light.
  3. The mil covenant is NOT fundamentally broken. It is, however, under severe stress, and unless these stress points and imbalances are addressed with some urgency, it WILL soon be broken.

    Furthermore, the degree of 'brokeness' will be so severe that there exists a significant doubt whether mil effectiveness can be restored without a considerable period of recuperation and regeneration, during which time our forces are effectively neutered and out of commission.
  4. How can it not be considered broken when a charity is being required to prop part of it up?
  5. I agree. Whilst charities have always existed to make people's lives that bit easier / better, the charity Combat Stress does an enormous and incredibly important piece of work for veterans that (as far as I'm concerned) should be provided by the government because it's not just supporting people's lives, in many cases it's giving people back their lives.

    Government ministers should hang their heads in shame.
  6. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    Agreed. Part of the deal is there requires to be a degree of recognition and respect for the work of the forces by the politicians. I can't remember a time where the ruling party has shown more comtempt than now.

    Can you?
  7. CS,

    ..........because the mil covenant is not just about welfare, housing, pay, personal development and all those other extremely important TACOS. It's also about the duty of the nation to man and equip the military as a whole to a level sufficient to deliver the reqt. Taking this collective view, we are not yet 'broken'.

    I also note the important bit about the unique nature of land operations and the implication that the Army's needs should take precedence, presumably over air and maritime ops. It will be interesting to see if future allocation of resource reflects this.

    Extract from mil covenant:

    In return, British soldiers must always be able to expect fair treatment, to be valued and respected as individuals, and that they (and their families) will be sustained and rewarded by commensurate terms and conditions of service. In the same way the unique nature of military land operations means that the Army differs from all other institutions, and must be sustained and provided for accordingly by the Nation.
  8. The fact that you believe the Army, or any of the services, is adequately equipped at present to continue with the current level of Operations astounds me. I can say with confidence that the aspects of the Army that I work with are most certainly not "sustained" to the level that they should be.

    The covenant is undoubtedly broken.
  9. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator


    Trying to say that it isn't broke is, sadly, a mistaken perception.

    As HMG are representatives of The Nation, I refer you to my previous response.
  10. ITC, Goon, DB,

    I don't think there that there is much between us in difference of opinion. I merely state that it is not yet broken but soon will be unless the situation is urgently addressed.

    I agree whole-heartedly with all of your points, and I re-iterate that it's just the current point in the broken cycle that I have a problem with.
  11. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    It's only 'not broken' so long as we can rely on the septics to provide naval support, air cover, intelligence, ammunition and bombs, technology, satellite cover, missiles, nuclear weapons, new VSTOL fighters, stealth bombers . . . er . . . have I missed anything?

    The 'special' relationship is only in one direction. The septics make up for the shortfalls in forces funding to help out their 'special' friends. A bit like 'care in the globabl community'.

    If you disagree, then perhaps the boot is on the other foot. Call the UK 'minimi' for example.
  12. This appears to be the part that you feel is yet to be broken. Correct me if I am wrong.

    As I said, currently, there are definitely areas of the Army which I know for certain to be under-equipped. Therefore I think you might be mistaken, and as such, the Covenant is broken.
  13. The Military Covenant is not a menu that the Government of the day can pick and chose from. I'm afraid it's more binary than that; and it doesn't help us if we allow it to be 'greyed' at the margins.

    Read yopur own post again - "valued and respected". Tell me again how the Government 'values and respects' us if it is only to happy to allow a charity to provide for aftercare of injured personnel. That is a function of Government. Remember it was them that paid £1.8M to tell 25M families it had lost their details. How much does Headley Court need again?
  14. I surrender gracefully - if only HMG would do the same


    Afternote: With hindsight I should have qualified my statement as 'irrevocably broken'