It might not be right for Dannatt to go public, but he is right

JR

"If we wish to remain a frontline nation, then we are going to have to significantly increase the defence budget."

Why would we increase the wages of soldiers? I ask this as a genuine question. There's no economic reason to do so, much like other public services at different times you will still be able to recruit soilders - so it it must be for a moral or political reason. But to pretend we have to do it "to remain a frontline nation" is rubbish and ignores the history of the British armed forces.

Support and supplies investment is a seperate issue.

mart

James, such a senior soldier deserves the utmost respect. Seriously. If he feels compelled to appeal direct to the British public like this, we should be very concerned about the relationship between the services and the government.

I, for one, would assume propriety from this gentleman and would not entertain any spin that he is stepping outside protocols. He presumably feels he has no other recourse.

The government as of course increased the income tax that is payable by these folks. They deserve support and veneration for their service, not a slap in the face.

I agree with your concluding remarks.

Kevin GIlbert

Absolutely right, the concept of a traffic warden being paid more than a private in the army is idiotic.

Max

"If we wish to remain a frontline nation". James, if we wish to have any sensible armed forces at all we need to adequately pay and equip the men who will be employed doing the job. £12k after tax is below the "poverty" line.

Add to that the fact that this government has chosen to send our armed forces off to invade foreign countries.....

Safeguarding national security, energy security and food security are government's three most important roles. Gordon Brown is leading a government which is failing in all three.

Max
http://theerrorlog.blogspot.com

Rachey Roo

This government has deliberately run down the Armed Forces because that's the natural instinct of the British Left: anything that defends this country's values is rubbish.

ryan

wait a minute chaps, you're forgetting that a private's food and lodgings are completely taken care of. once these costs are factored in, i think you'll find the private doesn't do that badly.

Andrew Spencer

I don't really see that it is wrong for General Dannatt to speak out. Other members of public services are allowed to lobby in public for their members (see Jan Berry's monstering of Jacqui Smith last week on behalf of the Police) so why not the Armed Forces. Labour is lucky that the Forces have been so muted in public in their criticism when one hears what they have to say in private.

On the broader point, James is absolutely right to say that if want to remain a frontline military power we have to increase the defence budget significantly. The problem is a disconnect between Labour's interventionist foreign policy and a defence policy that is unwilling to pay for it.

Richard North

Once again, the Chief of General Staff, General Sir Richard Dannatt, seems to be intent on putting his foot in it.

In fact, Pay scales for qualified soldiers start at level one (of seven), with Privates getting £16,226.76 a year. On operations, they get and additional £2,320 tax free operational allowance. Paras – who are currently on operations - get an additional £1,898 for parachute pay.

Paid at a rate of £375 per month, this is entirely additional to existing allowances and funded out of the reserve, rather than the Defence budget – a payment which, incidentally, was opposed by Dannatt.

On the other hand, soldiers pay £3.89 charges for meals each day and for accommodation they pay £14 per week for Grade one standard (single, en suite room) or £4.76 for Grade 4 (less than a packet of cigarettes). They do not pay for meals or accommodation when on operations. The have no travel costs and get free uniforms (right down to their underpants).

The “lowest paid soldiers” are trainees, who currently receive £13,012.80. This goes up to £16,226.76 the moment they qualify – which they must do in order to go on operations. The £12,572 a year figure cited by The Sun is out of date.

Furthermore, soldiers are on a salary spine which guarantees them annual increments, bringing their pay to £25,181.88 annually after seven years – with additional qualifications. They are also in a hierarchical system where there are opportunities for promotion. Potentially, they can earn as much as £44,587.80 a year as a WO1, assuming they do not go for a commission, which many do.

Whatever else, soldiers are not badly paid. Taking into account their deductions, they are much better off than many occupations and, at the end of their service, they qualify for a non-contributory final salary pension scheme, plus resettlement bonuses, which is the envy of the private sector.

One can, of course, expect crap research out of The Sun and other hacks, but one would expect Dannatt to know better. What does he think he is playing at?

More to the point, what do you think you are playing at?

Chuck Unsworth

@ Ryan.

Are you serious? What on earth do you know about the armed forces. Have you even heard of PAYD? Have you seen the state of most soldiers' accommodation?

For that matter, does 'not doing that badly' include getting shot at 24/7 for weeks/months on end in hot sandy places? How many traffic wardens experience that in the course of a normal day?

How utterly crass.

Charlie

The post 1968 middle class socilaist has no time for the virtues displayed by the Armed Forces. As Labour appears to contain no working class MPs who have worked in the mines, on the trawlers, steelworks or construction sites undertaking dangerous work in difficult conditions and /or are former servicemen , ( i.e Healey, Callaghan and Concannon) they have no understanding of esprit de corp. If one wants to compare salaries, a constable in London can earn £41K with overtime and there are plenty of people in local government on £30k/yr plus, 30-35 days holiday, 36 hour weeks and flexitime. It is time the government published a list of the remuneration packages of all employees to include pay, pension( whether index linked), holiday time, hours worked , child care arrangements and flexi-timre options. We can then see who is offering value for money.

Pat

ryan

Soldiers food and lodgings are, as you put it, 'taken care of' only whilst they are on operations. Your assertion that a private doesn't do that badly is one made by those who have absolutely no idea of military life and conditions and more often than not made from the comfort of a sofa in front of the TV.

Paul

Wait a minute Ryan, you're forgetting that all soldiers' food and accomodation is paid out of their wages - i.e. the starting salary mentioned above.

One of the most unhappy elements of food and dreadful accomodation is called 'Pay as You Dine' which means the soldiers swipe for each meal they take, and the cost is deducted from their wages.

That it is known as 'Save as you Starve' indicates how much of the money they receive as pay they can choose to spend in the cookhouse.

Once these costs are factored in I think you'll find the Private is doing very badly in comparison with anyone else who is in anything like a comparable situation.

Hysteria

As an ex-serviceman I actually have supoort for both arguments in this one.

On the one hand the normal supply/demand curves for staff do not apply - there are other forces at play in the reason why people join the flag - not only (or evan at all) pay.

Also - if you factor in the benefits received (lodging, uniform, non contrib pension, indulgence flights on military aircraft ect) then the grossed up figure is quite different (Lets debate the standard of food, housing etc in a separate discussion)

Arthur

You are wrong to say General Sir Richard Dannatt is not right to "go public". As Chief of the General Staff he has two conflicting loyalties: government and the Army.

It is a balancing act that is very difficult to get right but of these two duties his first is to the Service. When presented with such idiots in government, he would not employ to wash out the guardroom, he is left with little else but to go to speak out. If he does not then who will?

Arthur

Ryan (12:53)
A soldier's food and lodgings are not "completely taken care of". All soldiers pay food and accommodation charges that are deducted at source.

THX1138

I'm with JR why put the money up until you have a problem with recruitment any extra money in the pot should be spent on better kit.

Nicholas

Ryan, I believe you are wrong. "Pay As You Eat" was introduced for serving soldiers who are not actually on active service and many of them are finding it difficult to cope, having to borrow advance salary to pay their food bills. I am not sure if they now have to pay for their accommodation but I would be surprised if there were not some form of charge.

One of the problems is that many of the traditional "all found" aspects of remuneration have been gradually stripped away, including dedicated medical care, in a drive to cut costs within the armed forces. Unfortunately this drive is not being mirrored in the spending on other public services where profligate waste is rife.

John Page

Oh dear, Richard North has actually done the numbers.

http://defenceoftherealm.blogspot.com/2008/06/who-will-rid-me-of-this-turbulent-chief.html

The Laughing Cavalier

Whilst Tony Blair was sending our Forces hither, thither and yon to fight his wars Gordon Brown, whom your colleague Mr D'Ancona describes elswhere as "a man of principle", was busy undermining his PM and ensuring that the Services were significantly underfunded whilst pouring money into pet projects that he hoped would help him get the top job in due course.

TomTom

The General swears his allegiance to The Crown not to Gordon Brown or the MoD. The Military is supposed to be answerable to The Crown and "The Crown In Parliament" through The Mutiny Act and The Bill of Rights.

Frankly the idea that the party commanding a majority in The House of Commons has an absolute oath of Omerta from Servants of The Crown is absurd and seems to correlate with centralised party machines thinking they can dragoon everyone into servile acquiescence.

The Chiefs of Staff in the British system have become ever more flaccid in defending their subordinates and ever more political and civil servant like in their duties.

The Defence of The Rengers, is not to be entrusted solely to politicians but to require military men to articulate dangers and failings - in fact it was W S Churchill who benefitted from leaks from War Ministry civilian staff to highlight deficiencies in the Baldwin/Chamberlain Governments' military preparedness after 1935....pity these warnings did not focus on deficiencies in the defences in Singapore

Perturbed Perry

The gallant General is an honourable man, one of humanity and integrity, qualities largely absent or unknown by those who collectively, and shamefully, affect to govern this land on our behalf.

I suspect that this is just one of the more pressing points on his mind. There must be many others.

Again, it is symptomatic of where priorities lie. A traffic warden paid more than a soldier? Surely not?

But in our topsy-turvy socialist paradise? Why yes, of course. Filling in forms, tick boxes, and control of the populace is more worthy than that of a career putting life, liberty, and land before that of self.

Oh dear. Might it all change soon?

Tom

Not at all correct that food and lodgings are taken care of. Complicated, but google army pay for details.

James Clarke

I'm Sorry Ryan but you are wrong - soldiers have to pay for their food and accommodation except when they are actually on operations (admittedly an incresing amount of time is spent on operations but given the hours worked, risks and hardship it would be churlish to bedgrudge an iso container for accommodation and the odd bag of rations).

philip from seaford

the extent of Brown's concern for our army is reflected in his choice of defence minister. a part time half wit. what an insult!!

Chris Gilmour

Can we pay traffic wardens less, and downsize their regiments?

AlanofEngland

The difference? Traffic wardens bring in income, so becoming an economic asset. Soldiers cost money, so are an economic liability. The Brown philosphy.

DC

On the supply and demand front - recruitment is reasonably but retention is bad and getting worse. The army as a whole is undermanned and it is getting worse. I suspect rising unemployment may do more to redress the balance than a small increase in pay.

JR

"But in our topsy-turvy socialist paradise? Why yes, of course. Filling in forms, tick boxes, and control of the populace is more worthy than that of a career putting life, liberty, and land before that of self."

Are you joking - the reason soilders get paid so little is because we live in a capatilist democracy! If we were in a socialist dictatorship you can bet the farm they'd be paid more for obvious reasons.

What you're saying is that you'd like the Conservatives if they come to power to increase soilders wages when they come in because there are wider qualities embodied in soildering which should be rewarded. Which is fair enough. Of course the Tories will do no such thing but there you go.

salieri

Just a thought, from an admitted position of complete ignorance: how much would it actually cost the government to exempt the armed services from income tax? I suspect not that much - given that the employees of the DWP and HMRC outnumber the Army, Navy and RAF combined.

They deserve every begrudged penny. It would be a handsome and very popular gesture, too.

dexey

ryan
June 5th, 2008 12:53pm
wait a minute chaps, you're forgetting that a private's food and lodgings are completely taken care of. once these costs are factored in, i think you'll find the private doesn't do that badly.

Total nonsense. That finished in the late '60's.

TGF UKIP

Several thoughts on this:
1) Wrong comparison General, you mention police and while that may well be relevant given all the crookeries and spanish practices of the Police Federation perhaps even more apposite would have been the Fire Service or perhaps, more apposite still the MOD Fire Service where, I have been reliably informed, after at two years service at the most nobody earns less than £30k gross thanks to all the special supplements and phoney overtime.
2) There is a manpower shortage in the Armed Forces so there is every economic justification for paying more. Indeed, the Forces like many private sector employers are facing the same recruitment problem in the face of so many competing overpaying public sector employers. All part of the Labour public sector employee voter recrtuitment strategy. They bribed the police but couldn't bring themselves to try to bribe the military so much do so many of them hate the military in principle.
3) Dannatt has a particular problem in following New Labour's favourite general, Mike Jackson, who was only to ready to keep stum and even join in the spinning. Jackson's tenure delayed and exacerbated this necessary fight over the Defence Budget and even more the proper treatment of servicemen.
4) What should be making all you Tories pause for thought before giving vent to your indignation on this issue is that Dave and the precious Boy George are committed to keeping to Labour's defence budget. On the other hand they are quite cheefully willing to talk about chucking another £28bn into the bottomless pit called the NHS - 10% of which sum would more than solve General Dannatt's problem. The focus groups have no doubt told Dave that the bottomless pit should be given more and Dave is above all else a focus group politician. Just a pity that all the focus groups seem to have been recruited in a small area of North London.

Max Kaye

Apropos Chuck Unsworth's comment @ 1:15pm:

"For that matter, does 'not doing that badly' include getting shot at 24/7 for weeks/months on end in hot sandy places?

I welcome the delicious notion of traffic wardens being shot at 24/7....

Some RPGs aimed at gatsos would also be welcome.

THX1138

TGF- I mostly agree coppers are the worst of the lot my mother in law's boyfriend is a Police Sgt in Sth Yorkshire he's just fixing to to take the dodgy early retirement due to a duff back and stress all on full pay so he can spend more time watching pirate videos & playing golf his back is ok for that it would seem. We certainly don't need to pay Firemen anymore money all the time we have 250 people competing for each job.

I think that the armed forces recruitment problem could be me more down to the fact that into today's army you have a bigger chance of getting killed in Iraq or Afghanistan than the money. On a a half serious note why not recruit Poles into the British army - We have the Nepalese why not the Poles, hard working brave people & they seem to have limitless capacity to except low wages.

I live in that part of North London your talking about & no one has asked me but I doubt that they would like the answer.

The real scandal in the NHS is the disaster that is NHS Connecting for Heath Computer system that is costing 12bn is four years late & the lead contactor Fujitsu walked out or was sacked depending on which side you own.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/30/nhs_it_analysis/

Why isn't the Coffee House talking about this, this really is a huge story of arrogant Government, bad planning, greedy contractors & big brother writ large.

THX1138

Today is D-Day lest we forget.

RMG

GB has for 10 years starved the armed forces of money and investment and equipment so it will be easier to join the european army IMO. Referendum on the EU (in or out) now please.

Perry

Thank you for that reminder THX. Yes indeed. Much to think about.

TrevorH

By all means discuss army pay but as Richard North points out - use the right figures.
He also points out in his blog that the traffic warden.
comparison is not valid either. Trafic Wardens are paid less escept in London.

I think Mr Forsyth you should amend you blog acordingly

Fiona and Graham Didlick

Many people are concerned that our country does not adequately recognise the courage and sacrifice of members of the armed services, except on special occasions such as Remembrance Day. We should be proud of the members of the armed services for their role in protecting us and their courage should be recognised on a daily basis. Business can help here. At our Shropshire pub we offer a 10% discount on food and accommodation for all serving members of HM Forces and we wish to encourage other businesses to do the same. But it is nigh impossible for military personnel to identify which outlets give discounts. We urgently need a nationally recognised symbol for businesses that offer a discount to the armed forces. We are currently petitioning the Prime Minister to establish such a symbol and we invite everyone concerned at the way we are treating our troops to sign the petition at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/forcesdiscount/

Peter Morgan

remember that soldiers accomadation are rubbish they are sent in to battle woth lack of equipment and out numbered by the enemy
we need to increase our budget
forget the stupid lefties
also they need to increase the pay out of compensation for soldiers who die or get injured defending this country !!!!!