The Dannatt Factor

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Cholmondley-Warner, Sep 11, 2006.

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. Interesting bit in the Independent today. General Dannatt is once again sticking his head above the parapet and saying it like it is.

    Arguments continue to rage over how troops should be properly recompensed for their work. An hourly rate probably isn't the way forward, but interesting to see the business about paying tax whilst deployed is now entering the arena as a serious option.

    Or am I just falling for the latest attention grabbing spin by the fcukwits who claim to be 'running' this country?
     
  2. I have never understood that about people working in public service, military and so on having to pay tax.
    The wedges are coming out of the public purse so why not pay salaries minus the tax. Would that not be more simpliar, with less paper work.
     
  3. "The armed forces were to be brought into the minimum wage structure by the incoming Labour Government in 1997. But the idea was dropped after pressure from the then Defence Secretary, George Robertson, who claimed it would put the military into a financial and legal straitjacket"

    Good old George.... bless his cotton socks.
     
  4. I think anybody in any armed service around the Globe should be tax exempt full stop!.
     
  5. Can't someone nice at AFPAA simply "forget" to deduct tax and NI for a few months, to see what happens? Then it is the system's fault!
     
  6. It stops civvies coming up to us and saying "We pay your wages".

    Well, I pay the same tax on my salary as you do, chopper.
     
  7. The Ministry of Defence is looking at a series of options to boost the income of soldiers. They include proposals that soldiers will no longer pay tax while on operations overseas

    Whilst out playing sandcastles until last month, we were warned off for a visit by the AFPRB, we had an insight from someone who used to work for them and were advised what subjects to bring up and what not to say and not paying tax on ops was was one of the 'definately never going to happen' subject so we were advised to target things that we could improve. Therefore the above quote form the article is utter b*lloc*s! Unless 'looking at' means straight to file 13!!
     
  8. Hmm. Or it could be the 'rabbit from the hat' which is meant to suprise us all when it comes flying in from the left field. But you're probably right - more chance of Shergar winning the next Derby.
     
  9. Perhaps I'm being hopelesly thick and naive, but how hard do they have to look? A well above inflationary pay rise should do the job nicely. As for the AFPRB, I was under the impression that they are supposed to be independent. Having read through their verbose reports, it appears that they are anything but. Constant references to dreadful accommodation, X factor increases etc but it appears that they are given the maximum inrease figure and stick to it. Show some balls gentlemen please! Recommend a decent figure and let the chancellor argue why he won't honour your findings!
     
  10. It was something in a paper for D Inf that was written in Jun according to the weekend press.

    AFPRB would be the wrong forum to bring the issue upto as they do not have influence over it. The AFPS and HCDC are better avenues of approach on this issue as well as direct through the PAOs for each service (2SL, AG, AM PTC).
     
  11. 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

    Since this is an independent body reporting to only the PM and Sec State for Defence why should it not make recommendations outside of points 3 & 4 in order for the bean counters in the Centre to then work the affordablity calculations and advise accordingly. The Governments inflation target has no bearing on military capability and should be discounted in the ToR, however it is there because if the AFPRB were to make a recommendation that soldiers should be paid in line with the firefighters they so often backfill it would set a precedent for substantial rises across the public sector (could itbe that these would curtail MPs ability to award hemselves more pay?)
     
  12. Spot on

    Why can't the AFPRB make their recommendations free of Govnt imposed constraints (as a fair and impartial body) :?

    Then the MOD can front up and explain why.

    It sound like Gordon has shackled the AFPRB and it is now so emasculated as to be useless :twisted:
     
  13. How very interesting, if hardly surprising, about the AFPRB visit process and the way participants are being prepared for it.

    BAFF will be involving itself in the AFPRB process by submitting properly-researched evidence, as and when when it is in a position to carry out or commission the appropriate research. AFPRB makes a point of being "evidence-based", and will not wish to refuse to take such evidence into consideration.

    BAFF has never proposed to replace AFPRB with a system of collective bargaining. The situation may, of course, evolve over time and BAFF policies would evolve with it.