Should a elected member of arrse stand for parliament

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by armadillo, Aug 24, 2005.

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. Member of arrse to stand for Parliament

    Should there be someone representing the British Armed Forces other the Secretary of state for defiance?

    I think someone from this forum should stand for election and the forum be recognised as a party. We obviously cannot have a union and a federation for the armed forces is impossible to start up.

    Answers on a ballot paper to 10 Downing street

    Nuff said.
     
  2. I remember some talk prior to the last (re-)election , that PTP's name was bandied about.
    Dunno if that helps.
    Doubt they'd listen anyway, more base closures, regiment amalgamations etc,
    ah the peace dividend !!!
     
  3. Surely part of the SoS Defence's job is to support the armed forces? Otherwise how about Shadow SoS? - what is his role?
     
  4. I'm sure we've done this...........
     
  5. I read this very quickly and wondered what a secretary of state for deviance would do?!! I suspect there would be no shortage of volunteers for that particular post.




    Note to self: r e a d s l o w e r ! ! !
     
  6. ViroBono

    ViroBono LE Moderator

    There are some MPs who do take a serious interest in military matters, as there are members of the House of Lords. It would be very difficult to have an 'MP for the military' because everyone is spread out over many constituencies, and most don't get to vote/don't vote anyway. This is explained in greater detail (and probably more clearly) in Hackle's excellent paper to the Electoral Commission.

    As far as a union or federation is concerned, clearly a traditional type of organisation would probably not be desirable, even if it were allowed. However, maybe there ought to be an Armed Forces Ombudsman, to ensure that MoD deal fairly in matters such as medical discharge, manning control, bullying and so on. I also think there is a place for a body to represent the views of service personnel and inform politicians; such a body could be made up of ex-servicemen (with the relevant professional advisers) but be accessible (in confidence) to serving personnel. In fact, something very similar to how ARRSE works. SSAFA and the RBL are unsuitable for the role in my view, because they already provide many diverse services; both also have a significant part of their resource focussed on ex-service personnel, and SSAFA are contracted to provide services (apparently) to Mod, which would be a conflict of interest. In the case of both an Ombudsman and a representative body, many of those involved need to be ex-junior ranks and SNCOs; too often the grass root level is not considered, yet it is precisely these people who are the backbone of the armed forces.

    I would certainly be interested in taking part; anyone else?
     
  7. The only problem is that what you are describing is beggining to encroach upon what could resonably be termed a trade union. As far as im aware (wlling to be corrected) there are laws against the armed forces and to a lesser extent the emergency services forming or being a member of a trade union.

    Obviously it could be argued that it wasn't a trade union (The fact that there would be no ability to withdraw your service/labour) by giving it a limited scope, but this would inevitably on one hand lead to the govt attempting to severly restrict the organisations powers and on the other hand, accusations of it being a 'union in disguise'

    Other than that it is a fantastic idea! :D
     
  8. ViroBono

    ViroBono LE Moderator

    AS - noted, but my idea is that the actual body would be made up of ex-servicemen; no serving personnel would be members, so even if it were classed as a union, they could not be members and so no rules would be broken. Serving personnel would, however, be able to make contact in confidence, so that their views can then be put across on their behalf; indeed, opinions on important issue would be canvassed. Funding would come from donations.
     
  9. Ahh, ok. See where your coming from.

    Only issue is the donations. I presume serving soldiers (et al) would be excluded from contributing as this could be construed as donating to an organisation with a political agenda (or ar they allowed to do that?)

    A_S
     
  10. How about, taking one person from arrse (a MOD) making him the head of the party. Then one person from every area stands in the next elections but they must be ex-forces. Obviously the advantage of this is that they would have some political pwer, a knowledge of the forces and it would also probably be very well voted for. If you think about it if you take allt he surviving forces folk plus all those that are all with an active interest still, it would have an amazing turn out. I bet you even Rose Genital (deliberate spelling mistake) would vote for us, so would most forces families and those that have lost sons/brothers/husbands in conflicts, simply because they would know that we would have loads better understanding of what actually happens.

    I bagzy edinburgh North.
     
  11. Service personnel can join a trade union or similar organisation, but they cannot take an "active" part (I assume that means holding office) and they are forbidden from withdrawing their labour.

    Also, just because something hasn't been done before doesn't mean it can't be done. The Police Federation was formed as the result of a dispute between the government and policemen:

    The spooks also have a union, despite Margaret Thatcher's efforts.

    So, if ex-serving and serving got together and set something up, with a prohibition on strike action and (initially) ex-serving office holders, then there's not much MoD could do about it. I'm sure it might be career suicide for anyone sticking their head up...at least in the early stages.
     
  12. The third way:

    1) Take an interest in politics. 1m people walked in London to say a big "no" to war in Iraq. How many wrote to their MP about it to demand he/she represent their views?
    2) Really get interested - stalk your MP. Seriously though, make sure your MP knows who you are and that you are intelligent/passionate.
    3) Leave the Army. Join an existing party.
    4) Get interested in local politics.
    5) Run for local office - have you seen some of the Cretins that become town Mayors. It's easy!
    6) Get involved in the party, start working on important members. Adopt an appropriate stance for your area - (eg watch demographics).
    7) Get selected as the next parilamentary candidate.
    8 ) Get elected on a balanced, moderate ticket (hard part).
    9) Once an MP, THEN take an interest in the Army.......

    .......start the rot from the inside ;)
     
  13. Or we could just hold a coup.
     
  14. All of the former Chiefs of Staff said their piece in the Lords recently over criminal charges against service personnel in Iraq.

    Would some be willing to lend their good offices to a professional organisation that represented the views of the men and women in uniform?

    Then, if someone from MoD spouts cr@p about "rebalancing" or "stretch not overstretch", a plain-speaking and trustworthy spokesperson (ex-serving, elected by their peers) will shoot them down in flames! I know who the public would believe!

    All it takes is a bit of organisation.
     
  15. Just catching up with this very interesting discussion.

    Darth_Doctrinus said recently in another thread 'More free calls for UK prisoners than Black Watch':
    I agree 90% with Darth, but am not sure it is fair to expect the chain of command to identify and address all proper concerns.

    Australia has a parliamentary commissioner for the armed forces (aka ombudsman) and the USA has a number of professional military associations or federations representing the interests of personnel. Not trade unions. Anything which could involve the withdrawal of labour, or agitation within the ranks, would obviously be completely incompatible with the military obligation.

    The electoral paper mentioned by ViroBono does stress the importance of the chain of command.