Armed Forces Federation (Merged)

[JessTheDog]

After perusing the "why are people leaving in droves" thread, and chancing upon a debate on the ARRSE website, I thought it worth raising here.

Is it time for an Armed Forces Federation, with the necessary prohibitions on withdrawal of labour etc that would maintain military capability?

My view is that there is enough disquiet at cutbacks to generate some momentum towards a move. Membership of such a federation would not be contrary to QRs and the establishment of such a body was recommended by the Council of Europe, so even if the MoD opposed such a unilateral move, their scope for action would be limited. Naturally, at the outset, office-holders would be best limited to ex-serving and reservists, and those with careers in terminal decline!

Of course, the ideal solution would be for the MoD to set up such a body, but the prospect of an alternative viewpoint without rose-tinted specs would perhaps not appeal...

Any thoughts?

http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=28859/start=75.html

[L J R]

The ADF has had one for a while. May not be everyone's cup of tea, but look here to see what it is all about nowerdays


http://www.arffa.org.au/



membership is voluntary and not against the law.

[FOMere2eternity]

Sensationalism apart I think the idea has a great deal of merit.

On the one side the boys and girls would have a recognised body to address their concerns to apart from - dare I say it - Pprune! This would allow the Service to have instant access to information on what's causing the troops to allegedly 'leave in their droves', without having to pay a consultant to tell them the bleeding obvious! More sensitive trends could be dealt with in-house without the need for the Sun et al to fish for headlines here.

Inclusion of a non-strike clause would keep everyone happy, but a federation would also be able to speak for the masses on pay, conditions etc. With a small membership fee it could even fund itself so it's a win-win!

This of course presumes anyone gives a stuff - to which the evidence is leaning (no pun intended) to 'not'.

[Shagster]

This would be an ideal role for RAFA. They already have a structure in place and as welfare is bankrolled by the RAF Benev' Fund, it would give RAFA a better defined role.

[L J R]

Unfortunately, whilst I am a fan of the activities of RAFA, the hierarchy may be a little out of touch (my opinion only). I have seen other 'interested' parties 'go in to bat' with all good intention (ie RSL of Aus) only to ruin the 'modern' wishes of the masses by adopting a policy and stating an opinion that was antiquated & not necessarily those of CURRENT serving members.

[Shagster]

Unfortunately, whilst I am a fan of the activities of RAFA, the hierarchy may be a little out of touch (my opinion only).

I agree. However the hierarchy are an elected body. There is now a large "serving" representation on the committee and an established network of RAFALOs. If they do not satisfy the electorate then they are replaced. A constitution that satisfies the modern serviceperson would need to be constructed and voted on. And RAFA would be charged with representing the concerns of its members through mediation with the AFB.

This would have to be a totally new direction for RAFA and possibly its saving grace. With dwindling membership and duplication of effort (RAFBF), RAFA is already struggling for survival.

[Clockwork Mouse]

Servicemen and women nowadays need a voice with clout. The chain of command no longer looks after their welfare and aspirations adequately. A federation of some sort is an interesting possibility.

Just as important is their representation in parliament. I always felt disenfranchised while I was serving. If I was able to use a postal or proxy vote, the MP in question never had relevance to or interest in me. I believe the services are a large enough constituancy to merit having their own MPs. It would then not matter that we have no fixed abode and we would be properly represented by someone who would be held accountable at the ballot box and who might also understand something about service life and ethos.

[BEagle]

And perhaps 'federation reps' would be able to assist those victimised by the various kangaroo courts of dubious legitimacy which still exist in the military? For example, they can write all sorts of untruths which they use as 'evidence' and yet the victim isn't even allowed a copy. Even if proven untrue by direct proof, such 'evidence' will still be used against the victim; tehcnically it is surely libel if proven untrue and slander if also stated in front of any witness?

[Gainesy]

Nil Nos The Spear Chucker would be a good rep methinks. That'd put a cat amongst the silk curtains.:E

[Impiger]

Sadly I think the time may be fast approaching where a Federation becomes essential. I have always been against such a move but the tide is turning. It needs to be Tri Service so no to RAFA (which is really an old comrades association). It needs primarily to voice concern over terms and conditions of Service, and act on behalf of its members rather than become a political lobby group pushing to maintain the size of the Forces or preserve a particular role or capability. To be successful it must be clearly apolitical.

In the past we have always allowed the Personnel Staff to act as both poacher and gamekeeper - on the one hand looking out for our interests in the AFPRB debate and on allowances and then on the other 'policing' the application of policy to make sure nobody kicks the ar$e out of the system through abuse. Now, with Service Personnel Policy being firmly in the hands of the Civil Service, I believe we need an idependent voice.

Whether it should be extended to righting the perceived wrongs that BEags mentions is another issue. Once again there is a role here (and some professional sub groups such as ATC have used their Guild to good effect in fighting cases) but whether this is for the 'Federation' or some other body I'm not so sure. This route begins to question the professional judgement of the chain of command - and while the Boss ain't always right he is always The Boss! To move off that rather simplistic tenet spells the end for military discipline so I would prefer to see a Federation that, initially at least, sticks to arguing our case in the personnel forum.

Some form of Professional body is inevitable - the powers that be would do well to embrace the concept early on and shape it.

[airborne_artist]

As some will know, my old man served in the Dark Blue. He was keen on a union of sorts throughout his career, which is probably why he did not make Flag rank. I've got a letter somewhere that he wrote to their Warships in about 1960, making some very valid compalints about his Ts and Cs, particularly about pay. He and my mum had to live like church mice (and him a Lancastrian) on his Lt's pay - as he only had his pay to live on....

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Update (sort of) here. (http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=30482/postdays=0/postorder=asc/start=0.html)

[Blacksheep]

Church mice airborne_artist? You should have seen how we lived on a Yeoman of Signals pay! Dad loved the Navy dearly, but left for the family's sake: in civilian life he became a staunch member of the TGWU and served for years as the local branch secretary. (He'd have become a full time official if he hadn't been too left wing for the Union Leadership's liking.)

All three arms of the military have needed representation for many years. As Shagster pointed out, the RAFA have a ready made organization but regardless of the increase in serving members, we (I include myself) are far too out of touch with present conditions to be of any real help. The only way you're going to get a federation is to organize yourselves. There is the rub.

[Ginseng]

Thought you guys might be interested to read this topical Parliamentary Question and Answer, from the HoL on Monday.

Armed Forces: Welfare
Lord Garden asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether there is any bar to serving members of the Armed Forces forming an association along the lines of the Police Federation. [HL3245]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Drayson): The Police Federation of England and Wales was established by the Police Act 1919, under which it has a statutory responsibility to represent its members in all matters affecting their welfare and efficiency. There is no similar basis under which members of the Armed Forces could form an association along these lines.

There are however a number of alternative processes in place to ensure members of the Armed Forces can express their views on matters which affect their service or their welfare. There are regular surveys to monitor welfare matters, and it is an integral part of the duty of our chain of command to look after the welfare and well-being of their people. Individuals have the right to complain about any matter relating to their service to the Defence Council. Further modernisation of the complaints process is being proposed, including the introduction of an independent element as part of the Armed Forces Bill.



Make up your own minds!

Regards

Ginseng

[airborne_artist]

Blacksheep

I'd be guessing that my Dad was earning not much more than a YoS. He was an RN Lt at the time, with about 4 years seniority. I know that by the time I was in the Andrew a Fleet Chief was on almost exactly the same as a Lt Cdr on promotion.

As an aside, at the beginning of my second year as a Midshipmite my pay went from £2,600 to £4,500 - not because the Admiralty valued my (non-existant) skills, but because Maggie gave us the entire 35% pay award in one go - and I started getting the training rate of flying pay.

[ORAC]

Grauniad has picked it up... Angry soldiers demand 'trade' federation (http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,1695004,00.html)

[BEagle]

It seems that the UK isn't alone in suffering overstretch or facing recruiting and retention problems....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4649066.stm

[Pontius Navigator]

The Retired Officers Association is a tested model that could be used.

It is triservice and has volunteers who are elected to various offices. ROs are all in employment by the crown, same as regulars, and many wear uniform and perform identical functions to their regular colleagues.

The difference is they are outside the military food chain and can operate on behalf of their members regardless of which TLB their member works for.

If the regulars had a similar association you might have a Naval 4-ring who could be approached by an army officer who had a problem. You then have a disinterested party who can tackle the appropriate command.

Where this model may breakdown is the sheer size of the regular manpower pool and the potential for enough cases to become a full time job. That being the case the Association might have to pay for full-time staff too.

There is no case however for 'union meetings' 'do we agree to fight or shold we tippytoe away type.' 'Or but the S'nt Major told me to get me 'air cut, its an infringement of me human rights.'

The role of the association would be limited to ensuring that the current rules, as writ, are fair and properly applied. Where a properly written rule is patently unfair then the association could challenge it.

[endplay]

It is getting harder for the mass of the RAF to get general messages across to the heirarchy. Redress is too specific and relates to an individual. It's also a big step to take. PVR is a mixed message. The CGAT gets the answers to the questions that it sets itself and has no personal touch. The disbandment of the AFBLT and it's replacement by a CAS forum (1 to date, I believe, to a selected audience) only serves to widen the gap. From the many open straw polls I have been involved in the general view has always been opposed to a federation (reflecting my own view) but there is an inevitability about this and we owe it to ourselves and future Servicemen/women to make sure we get it right. A rabid dog or toothless tiger will serve no-ones interests.

[sooms]

Interesting debate this one..

We do need some kind of representation, I thought the CASWO was supposed to fufill this function for the OR side but to date I've never seen or heard of him doing anything. Don't even know who he is.

Ultimately, will the policy makers and bosses take a blind bit of notice of anything the 'Federation' says. Very unlikely when it has no way of putting pressure on said bosses and policy makers. I also feel that anyone within the service would find life very uncomfortable should they try to set one up unless it was under 'guidance' from the powers-that-be. We are all aware of the fear culture prevalent in the service nowadays (must toe the party line, must swallow the management speak, mustn't rock the boat) that anyone attempting to set this up would be committing career suicide.
Certainly PVR is not the weapon it used to be, especially not for OR's and SNCO's. I think that 'they' are actually trying to encourage it amongst the more experienced members of the service.

Nice idea, but I don't think anything will come of it.

Anyone know anything of the 'work to rule' that supposedly happened in the 70's at some RAF Bases. Some old sweats told me about it but I was never sure whether it was true or not?

[FOMere2eternity]

sooms

I think it would take a brave man to stick his head up and, even in 2006, effectively challenge the establishment, although I would bet that he/she would get surreptitious support from 'a few good men' who have made it to the Stars, seen the need, but not wanted to risk their careers.

I've said before that if the Service is clever they could influence the way a Federation is formed, rather than just put up with something that is one day inevitable. With vision (there's some bait) the command chain could positively benefit from a two-way communications structure that could avoid embarrassing newspaper articles and bypass career-obsessed middle managers who fear for their futures were they to report bad news. I can't help thinking some 'stretched and deficiency' new stories are actually welcomed at times by the hierarchy as I doubt they have a great deal of two-way debate with the cabinet.

No matter how we look at the need, we can do business better - our people are being treated consistently badly, be it domestically in the state of Public accommodation, or professionally with ill-conceived fads like IiP et al. We're also locked in an eternal battle of change for the sake of change where some see any change as a qualification for promotion, paying scant regard to longer-term harm after they have gone - we have to arrest that trend! If nothing else a federation could improve communication both ways rather than misunderstanding the issue with U Need 2 Know - I want to know about real issues affecting ME, not read propaganda about helicopter ops at Boscastle. UN2K quickly turned into just another means to transmit RAF News-type stories, losing readership and thus the initiative.

Most command decisions are, I believe, extensively thought out but its clear from the cross-topic posts on Pprune that an intelligent audience is being starved of anything except 'you will now all do A because we say so'. In fact Pprune has been my primary - certainly most consistent, timely and accurate - source of intra-service information for a few years now! We must market ourselves internally too and not just spend with gay abandon on short-term external recruitment programmes that will leave those who fall for it wondering what they've been sold. Today's recruits may initially be fooled, but the magic won't last and they won't stay.

Much as it is easy to criticise 'them', the RAF(TM!) is still made up of a majority of talented individuals who, no matter their misgivings, are keen to get the mission done. But extraneous nonsense is not the mission. Unless we radically assess our organisation as a whole - almost go back to Year One and restructure with the end product the main focus - our primary role will remain 50% harder than it necessarily needs to be. Peripheral activities, introduced by those with vested interests, must not be allowed flourish at the cost of manpower and resources diverted from air operations. When I go - and I'm convinced I have to now - I'll miss the people and their enthusiasm, including the oft-maligned yoof, but worry for their futures.

A federation can say things like this - capture the intangible mood on the streets of our bases - and report back so policy can be developed consultatively when situations allow, reducing the number of occasions that command's well-conceived ideas result in just another session of eye-rolling in workplaces across the UK.

[endplay]

Sooms
IIRC it happened at Kinloss and Lossie when elements of TG5 where downbanded following a pay review. Again, IIRC there was a spate of 24hr postings.
There is a similar issue now with pay 2000 where a JSJET pay evaluation results in some trades such as FS TG11 being put in the low band and their Sgts in the high. A 2 thou or so pa pay difference. One FS asked me what offence he could commit to get busted as it would mean a huge pay rise.
Then theres the new pension, (see also the thread on PAS,) where the maximum transfer on 6 Apr this year is 35 years. Personnel with more than that behind them have simply lost it.
But a taste of the issues that need addressing by someone, somehow.

[covec]

What would the European Courts decide? That EFFECTIVE representation WITHOUT fear of punishment SHOULD be " a basic human right?

Even members of the Armed Forces are still citizens in the end...

[[email protected]]

I'd like to see an Armed Forces' MP. Not somebody from the constituency I reside in temporarily, who has absolutely no interest whatsoever in his/her short-term population. Someone with a nationwide responsibility to represent the interests of servicemen/women at Westminster. After all how many of us are now serving in the constituency they voted in at the last election?

[Pontius Navigator]

One route I have seen used in the past has been the distaff route where hubby can deny all knowledge.

Mountbatten was shafted by a linney's wife at Cottesmore - she contacted the Sun and M had to miss a two-week fishing jolly. Stn Cdr at Cottesmore was livid as he got it in the neck too. Shame :}

Then kipper fleet Flt Eng's partner managed to get a PQ. Didn't do the chap any good but he built my daughter a rocking horse (no **** major) while waiting for his papers.

And another kipper fleet pilot converted to Shacks. She kicked up a stink but again it made no difference.

In each case it went to the top but only the Sun route worked.

[Impiger]

The 'Armed Forces' MP' role that you describe is actually part of the remit of the House of Commons Defence Committee - and by and large they do a good job. If you're really interested look up the records of their proceedings in Hansard or as reported in the better newspapers.

[[email protected]]

The 'Armed Forces' MP' role that you describe is actually part of the remit of the House of Commons Defence Committee - and by and large they do a good job.
B0ll0cks. The House of Commons Defence Committee is a completely different beast. It does nothing to protect the interests of the individual soldier, sailor or airman. That committee is full of people with a general interest in 'defence' but not with a commitment to the individual. Please don't patronise me with the kind of reply one would expect from the 'House'.

Grunt

[JessTheDog]

HCDC is a very positive voice on behalf of the men and women in dark/light blue and green.

However, it is largely ignored by HMG. For example, HCDC have pressed for an independent complaints commission for the Armed Forces and have been ignored. HCDC were also very critical over the pension changes and the lamentable lack of consultation. I believe that Committee member (and much-missed) Rachel Squire MP used the term "stabbed in the back" with reference to a certain (unlamented) former Secretary of State.

There is little effective Parliamentary scrutiny over the Armed Forces and the forthcoming Bill seeks to lessen the limited oversight (offered by the annually-renewed Service Discipline Acts) even further.

[Impiger]

Hey Grunt - raw nerve or something? Have you ever spoken to any member of the HCDC? I have and believe me they do 'by and large' do a good job for the collective welfare of soldiers sailors and airmen - no they don't do individual casework - which your MP might - but they do have our best interests at heart. Jess the Dog is right about their comments on the new Pension - they also comment on the quality of our kit, and the absence thereof. Go read some of their reports and then see if you still hate them!

[mbga9pgf]

Read all about it here -

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2190144,00.html

Now, I am not one of those pinko softie left wing commie striking types, but does anyone else feel that this is a thourghly good idea? :ok:

More here :

http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=30482/postdays=0/postorder=asc/start=0.html


The 10 Point Plan.

1. A professional staff association is to be formed for members of Her Majesty’s Forces under the provisional title of the BRITISH ARMED FORCES FEDERATION (BAFF).

2. Comparable bodies have for years served the armed forces of allied countries such as the United States and Australia, with official cooperation and no negative impact on operational effectiveness or military discipline. The proposed federation is, however, designed to be a specifically British solution for the British armed forces. It will reflect and respect the ethos and robust traditions of the three fighting services. It will meet all requirements of British military and other law, including international conventions adopted by the United Kingdom.

3. The federation’s mission shall be to represent, foster and promote the professional, welfare, and other legitimate interests of all members of the federation in their capacity as serving or retired personnel of the fighting services of the United Kingdom, and in so doing help to maximise operational efficiency and improve the retention of trained personnel.

4. The federation will be a democratic representative institution answerable to its members. Membership of the federation will be open to all personnel irrespective of rank, branch of service or gender. The main membership categories will be Ordinary Membership (Regular), Ordinary Membership (Reserve Forces) and Veteran Membership. In responding to the requirements of its members, the federation will act in the interests of all serving personnel and veterans but will not countenance any pressure on individuals to join.

5. Within resources, the activities of the federation may include:

(a) professional and career development by the provision of education and information;

(b) liaison, monitoring and response to proposals or developments within the Services, in Parliament, in the provision of public services or in the commercial sector which have a specific impact on forces personnel;

(c) appropriate advocacy and consultation to protect and improve the conditions of service life including pay, accommodation, medical and welfare services, resettlement and all other areas of personnel support;

(d) appropriate support to personnel facing court martial or other legal proceedings in connection with their service (the federation will not normally comment on any specific case within the systems of military justice and administrative discipline); and

(e) the negotiation for members of a range of insurance, financial and other benefits, discounts or affinity deals.

6. The federation will not be beholden to any political party, pressure group, or defence industry interest. While supporting the cross-party consensus on the need for robust, adequately-funded but cost-effective forces serving the Nation as determined by the Government of the day, the federation will not be a defence pressure group. The federation will not take a view on matters of defence strategy or operational decisions, although it may raise legitimate subsidiary matters affecting personnel. Parliamentary liaison will be strictly on a cross-party basis.

7. The federation will not be a trade union and, above all, it will not conduct or condone any form of industrial action or insubordination within the armed forces. The federation affirms the vital role of the Armed Forces chain of command in representing the interests of its personnel. The federation will seek to agree with the Ministry of Defence appropriate mechanisms for the exchange of information with the chain of command as well as centrally. A code of conduct will be adopted, and potential disagreements will normally be raised centrally to avoid placing serving personnel in difficulty with their chain of command, or vice versa. The federation will act to protect serving members in their federation-related activities within the agreed code of conduct.

8. The federation will not seek to supplant the role of any existing charity or other agency involved in service welfare. Where appropriate the federation may help to direct members to appropriate sources of advice or assistance.

9. Work is already under way on matters such as the structure and legal format of the federation, and staffing. A business plan is being prepared.

10. This draft statement of intent outlines the basic principles established so far. Work continues on detailed aspects of the proposals with a view to wider consultation throughout the armed forces community, and with the Ministry of Defence.

[BellEndBob]

I think the idea is excellent but have little confidence in the execution. Another 'Joint' venture 'run' by the Army, does not sound too great so far. Very broad agenda, is it feasible? How is it going to be funded? How will it be policed? We don't need a Trade Union type disaster where it is hijacked by the militants. Don't let the good Mr Collins near it as it would spell disaster for the RAF types. (Don't dismiss it, I can see him being a prime candidate from the Army point of view).
Slightly depressing TV 'launch' with serving personnel hiding their identity.

Cynical? Definitely but a sound idea and I wish them/you luck.

[mbga9pgf]

I think the idea is excellent but have little confidence in the execution. Another 'Joint' venture 'run' by the Army, does not sound too great so far. Very broad agenda, is it feasible? How is it going to be funded? How will it be policed? We don't need a Trade Union type disaster where it is hijacked by the militants. Don't let the good Mr Collins near it as it would spell disaster for the RAF types. (Don't dismiss it, I can see him being a prime candidate from the Army point of view).
Slightly depressing TV 'launch' with serving personnel hiding their identity.

Cynical? Definitely but a sound idea and I wish them/you luck.


Not to get anyone confused, I am not involved in the org, but as with yourself, find the idea a breath of fresh air, as I have increasingly felt of late that the front line guys are lacking a significant voice in terms of equipment and more significantly welfare of troops on det,.especially in this politically correct pseudo press led world we live in. Just thought the wider PPrune audience would like to know about scheme and that it appears as if its off the ground.

[Green Flash]

Does BAFF have a website yet?

[Blacksheep]

Andrew Gilligan discovers disturbing new evidence of how wounded Iraq veterans are being abandoned,Nothing new about that. It happened after WW1 and WW2 as well. Even more recently, I know a chap who served in the Paras in N.I. A young lad of just 19 at the time, he was blown up by a bomb and badly injured. After a year recovering from his physical injuries he was discharged as medically unfit. His mental injuries were never treated and he still sometimes wakes up at night screaming and occasionally wets the bed. Tossed aside when no longer useful, he's never received a penny in compensation for the injuries he received 'at work' and he's never found employment. He doesn't complain and works for himself doing odd jobs - window cleaning, painting and decorating. He gets on with it as they say, but even though he's content with his lot, his treatment angers me.

If this 'Federation' has anything to contribute to such situations, then its probably worthwhile. But I'm reminded of the expression...

"Be careful what you wish for. You might get it."

[JessTheDog]

There is considerable interest in this issue on the ARRSE website. Many think "enough is enough" and are fed up of being told by MoD spin doctors and deceitful ministers that all in the garden is rosy, when the Mk 1 eyeball can detect quite clearly it is not.

The public and Parliament will listen to an independent voice, which will provide a counterbalance to cost-cutting spin which sees TA soldiers without the medical care they deserve, the penny-pinching refusal to fit suppressive foam systems and so on. The Parliamentary Armed Forces Bill Committee and the House of Commons Defence Committee are interested in this initiative, as minutes of their meetings indicate. There is also keen media interest (and there has been since earlier this year).

The 10 point plan indicates the direction of the Federation - not a union - which should encourage all in uniform - at least, those who don't have their snouts in the Whitehall trough! MoD cannot prevent this initiative from happening and have admitted as much, and the Bett report of some years back recommended a Federation if there was demand.

Go for it! :)

[[email protected]]

Where do I sign up? :D

[nigegilb]

Setting up of BAFF appears quite timely. Proposed legislation on desertion in Armed Forces Bill;

Clause 8: Desertion
60. Under this clause desertion is committed if a person subject to service law is absent without permission and either intends:

not to return at all, or
to avoid service on operations against an enemy, service abroad on operations to protect life or property or service on military occupation of a foreign country or territory.
61. It is an offence whether the person has the necessary intention at the time of going absent or develops the intention later.

62. The maximum sentence for desertion is generally two years' imprisonmentin the second bullet above, or if his intention is to avoid such service.. But the maximum is life imprisonment if the offender deserts when on service, or under orders to go on service, of the types described

Are they getting a bit twitchy? Life imprisonment for avoiding the Iraq war? Nice one. I can think of one politician who deserves life imprisonment ahead of any soldier.

[RELIABLE SOURCE]

A BAFF is long overdue - and its an organisation that the new boys are going to need far more than the old hands - once upon a time all servicmen had a degree of respect from the government! Now we're just the toys of a spoilt leadership who is more likly to throw the broken pieces away rather than try to fix 'em! :*

[dallas]

Potentially a very useful organisation - not just for the membership.

Presuming the very highest senior officers do give a sh!t they can both listen to the Fed in the absence of middle management telling them the truth and potentially then get a grip of the situation earlier!

Provided it's not politicised or, dare I say it RAFA-cised, with little relevance to today's RAF, it can only do good. By that I mean long-term good as opposed to brushing over issues in the tabloids.

I'd join tomorrow and certainly not because of the rebel shock factor.

[SirToppamHat]

It will be a sorry day when we have to rely on a federation to represent us. Whether that day has arrived I am not sure, but what concerns me is that any sort of organisation that 'represents us' may simply be used by those with an interest to distract from the real source of our gripes.

Who is responsible for the fire brigades' debacle? We may think it's the Gov't, but many (judging by this Forum) blame the FBU (or at least their former leader). Just a thought.

How soon would problems in the military be attributed (at least in part) to the 'Federation'?

STH

[dallas]

STH

There is always the potential for an organisation to be hijacked or politicised - you could argue that's exactly what Tony did to our forces today in Baghdad when they posed for yet another photo opportunity...however...

Perhaps the BAFF could lead the way in showing how representation should be done. Ironically our lack of Fed until now could allow us to get it right in these 'enlightened' times, learning from the FBU's and miner's mistakes.

As for it being a sorry day, I agree. But that day is here. People from all backgrounds are suffering from a lack of representation in issues ranging from wing foam to MQ tenancy agreements, capped actuals to Leaning. The Service hasn't got the resources to deal every issue, nor often the exposure to the right people to put at least some things right; I even occasionally get the feeling some of the critical pieces that make the headlines may even be welcomed some of the higher echelons, whose hands are often firmly bound.

But as a bottom line, is there much left to lose?

[Green Flash]

Dallas

Many thanks, you've just seemed it up for me. A sad situation we find ourselves in, but almost inevitable. I hope wise counsel will prevent things ending in tears.

[McDuff]

Dallas
Many thanks, you've just seemed it up for me. A sad situation we find ourselves in, but almost inevitable. I hope wise counsel will prevent things ending in tears.

Well, there is nothing like a well-run military with security of employment, excellent terms of service, above-average medical care and administration to keep a soldier, sailor or airman happy ... and the MOD has none of these going for it!

Lead on ...

[rafloo]

This is a great idea but I have this awful feeling it will be run by a couple of retired Generals, the odd Air Vice Marshall and a doddery old Admiral and it will end up as a club for crusties... any chance of a few young people on the board

[Compressorstall]

It is indeed a sad day when we are considering such measures, but I have seen the increasing politicisation of a service I am proud to be a part of. A long time ago when I joined, senior officers would happily stand up for their troops whereas now they worry about reaching the next rung and the ones that do stand out are singled out as mavericks. The Armed Forces boasts how its people are its strongest asset, and it's true they are, but it is fact that has been forgotten by many. It will be a fine balance however, since we also run the risk of becoming too 'cuddly' and our business is war - not politics.

[Zoom]

rafloo
You'll see from the first link above that the BAFF is intended to be a federation for lt cols and below, not the crusty air/general ranks you mention. That would be a maximum age of 40 or maybe 45. But that begs the question of what happens when these lt cols, etc get promoted. Do they then hang up their quills and let the next level take over, or does the power struggle begin? Or if they don't get promoted, will they bear an extra grudge because they have been passed over and so be the wrong men for the post? Also, will a junior NCO feel any more able to take his gripe to a senior officer than he does now, and will the procedures for doing so deter him further. Finally, how will confidential reports be affected when the reporting officer finds out that one of his underlings is a BAFF member? Just a few things to look at.

[TheInquisitor]

Quickest way to career suicide if you ask me. Either that, or it will go the way of every other Union / Federation before it - ie it will end up representing it's OWN interests, and those of it's major players. Either way the organization will have no teeth of any consequence for the man on the 'shop floor'.

Unfortunately we are not here
to represent, foster and promote the professional, welfare, and other legitimate interests of all members of the federation
- we are here to do the job, and that job has always been to be used as a political tool at the disposal of the incumbent administration.

[dolphinops]

Why bother. Just get your Ministers on Pprune and Arrse.:ok:
Any takers?

[Almost_done]

A nice read on the First Post (http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=501) about this, apologies if it's already been mentioned.

[FOMere2eternity]

Almost_done

Another interesting article. I tend to agree that a federation might be one of the few ways of recruiting, retaining and keeping the forces viable. We've always been presumed to be robots and to some degree that has to be the case, but an increasing number of issues seem to be swept under the carpet because we have no ability to represent our views and concerns.

Senior commanders cannot understand the daily pressures to achieve the task because it's not their job to manage at the coalface. A federation could shoulder the responsibility of the SO2 level who can, in real terms, change very little, nor give honest opinions without being labelled negative or trouble makers. The frustrated faces I see at work every day are increasing and across the ranks. And before anyone says 'its their job to flag-up problems', that would be why you bravely say that from behind a career-protecting pseudonym, right?

The 'success' of JPA should be a catalyst to asking questions about how we do business, before a similar 'success' is achieved with more life-threatening equipment, against a competent opponent.

We need to think the unthinkable...

[Elmlea]

Does BAFF have a website yet?

Apologies for bringing this thread back, but I just had someone at work point me towards this page. (http://www.baff.org.uk/Home.html) Further apologies if anyone's posted it before!

[SASless]

The link will take you to a long list of US Military Associations....will give you an idea of what goes on this side of the salt water divide. As many times as not, retirees and former Military personnel are members of the associations.

http://www.fas.org/man/assoc.htm

[Green Bottle 2]

What has happened to BAFF? Their website hasn't changed for months, although they seem to be quoted every now and again in the media. Arrse and PPrune threads seem to have gone quiet as well.

Anyone out there with some info as to whether this is going to get off the ground or has it just fizzled out?

GB2

[Chugalug2]

Almost_done


Senior commanders cannot understand the daily pressures to achieve the task because it's not their job to manage at the coalface. A federation could shoulder the responsibility of the SO2 level who can, in real terms, change very little, nor give honest opinions without being labelled negative or trouble makers. The frustrated faces I see at work every day are increasing and across the ranks. And before anyone says 'its their job to flag-up problems', that would be why you bravely say that from behind a career-protecting pseudonym, right?

The 'success' of JPA should be a catalyst to asking questions about how we do business, before a similar 'success' is achieved with more life-threatening equipment, against a competent opponent.

We need to think the unthinkable...

I left the RAF in 1973, I had excellent bosses who would go out on a limb for their guys. If it wasn't for the Pprune rules on anonymity, I would embarrass them all by naming them! Suffice it to mention one instance. The NAAFI sent out a senior manager from the UK to Changi because our boss had set up a separate deal with a local contractor to provide 24 hour refreshments for his first line servicing guys as the NAAFI wouldn't provide out of hours cover. The boss stood his ground, was supported by the Stn/Cdr and the practice continued long after my time, and I think until we pulled out! Why did these two officers risk their careers? Because it was their job to do so! You shouldn't need a federation if the right people were selected to command. One assumes they are not!

[JessTheDog]

I believe that there is quite a bit of behind-the-scenes work going on, with announcements to be made fairly soon. This is likely to be quite a complex undertaking by volunteers who are keen to ensure that all bases are covered. After all, we all know the relative importance that Whitehall places on conditions of service compared to bean-counting and they would surely love to cut anything like BAFF off at the knees (at the taxpayers expense).

[Green Bottle 2]

Chug,

my personal experience is that the commanders at the local level are indeed doing their job right. It is however a fact that we do not have a voice on a national political level. Yes CAS, CDS et al could rock the boat, however they work for the government who can at that level sack them on a whim. You can throw yourself on your sword but once. Having a body that can represent the service personnel in open forum and fight their corner without being politically manipulated would I think be an advantage to those serving.

Jess,

I suspect you are right. Better they get their plan watertight from the beginning. I was just a little concerned that they might have withered out.

GB2

[Chugalug2]

quote=Green Bottle 2;2845290]Chug,
my personal experience is that the commanders at the local level are indeed doing their job right. It is however a fact that we do not have a voice on a national political level. Yes CAS, CDS et al could rock the boat, however they work for the government who can at that level sack them on a whim. You can throw yourself on your sword but once. Having a body that can represent the service personnel in open forum and fight their corner without being politically manipulated would I think be an advantage to those serving.GB2[/quote]

GB I’m afraid I profoundly disagree; the voice of the RAF at a national political level is the CAS, and his senior commanders. Yes, they can be sacked on a whim, and yes, they can throw themselves on their sword only once, and should the occasion demand, that is exactly what they should do. That is their compact with those that they lead, and their responsibility. Political interference in the chain of command, the scandal of kit shortages and shortcomings, the impositions of PC laden investigations replacing COs summary powers, all should have resulted in resignations in protest, but they didn’t! We are promised a long hard struggle ahead by the SoS for Defence, 10 years has been mentioned, which probably means double it and add some! At times like this you have to be ruthless, the deadwood needs cutting away to be replaced with those who know their responsibilities. We are at war, and bypassing the chain of command, thus pointing up its inadequacy, without reforming it will be bad for morale and bad for discipline. Don’t treat the symptoms treat the cause!

[Kitbag]

Chugalug, I agree on the whole with what you say, except that there is no voice to make it known that the body is sick. Treating the cause is, of course, what should be done, however who is there to administer the cure? The government of the day won't because essentially they want compliance in helping them achieve their political aims (which may or may not be the cause of the current dissatisfaction). Those in service cannot because we all believe in military discipline and the chain of command. Those outside the services with the best will in the world don't understand so they just don't have a say in the matter. The shame is that the chain has let us down time after time, this is not one VSO, but many, and presumably they are influential in the promotion of people with similar views and aspirations.

I wonder which is worse for morale, the possibility that we get guys at the top whose loyalty is to the crown and the interests of the country (outside of politics), or knowing that sometime in the near future you are going to get shafted?

[Green Bottle 2]

Chug,

you have highlighted the fact that the chain of command in has been found wanting and therefore is not working for the sailor/soldier/airman on the ground.

It has only been by the publicity of cases (highlighted not through the chain of command) in the media about equipment shortages that has forced the system to react. Whilst some might disagree, I personally have seem a massive improvement in the quality and quanitity of kit I have been issued since 2003 Gulf War. This is one role that a federation could fulfil.

Also who gives advice to personnel who wish to seek redress / legal action outside of the QR system? At the moment I would be confused who could provide that. I could consult a lawyer, but which one is good at dealing with such specialist cases. I have no doubt if I needed to find out I could, but I wager there are many thousands out there who would struggle financially or otherwise.

I think there are advantages and disadvantages to both ways (i.e. with and without a federation), but on balance my money is on with.

GB2

[nigegilb]

I agree with GB2. Balance with. Other mature democracies have something similar and it works. Not unlike BALPA in the airlines. Someone to represent outside chain of command, advice on law, working hand in hand with management. Highlighting areas for improvement and of concern. Even, maybe insisting on minimum levels of equipment.

Seems to me the most contentious area would be "military risk" on ops. Something like BAFF has been discussed in the past, but never as seriously as now. This can only be because of a general feeling that leadership at high levels is not there. One would imagine that if the chiefs got back to fighting tooth and nail for their men then talk of a need for BAFF would melt away.....

[Green Bottle 2]

Nige,

I agree with your point about military risk on ops. This is an area where a federation should work closely with the chain of command, making them aware at the highest levels of any issues at the coal face. With a pragmatic approach, this relationship could be a real asset to the top military commanders.

I would emphatically shy away from the federation publically criticising the decisions made by the operational commanders in theatres. This would begin to undermine discipline and would lead to an even more risk averse culture, with commanders having one eye on the battle and another on the views of the federation.

GB2

[Kitbag]

In light of the argument being presented above, surely a 'federation' could be seen to be advantageous to commanders. It must not interfere with operational decision making, and I doubt that the ethos of most prospective members would ever let that happen, but imagine if pressure could be brought to bear on government, not the commanders, to ensure that the troops are properly equipped. I personally think that would be a good thing.

[Green Bottle 2]

Kit,

I agree. The important role here would be to emphasize where the man at the coalface is being let down by the system (often due to financial constraints placed on the hierarchy). Lack of correct kit would be the classic example, which if highlighted early enough could lead to additional funding to buy the kit.

It is equally important, as you say, not to affect the operational decision making.

GB2

[nigegilb]

Pragmatism and tact. But sometimes you have to be bloody minded. Should BAFF insist on minimum time periods between deployments being enforced? If it is not to be toothless it probably has to impinge on ops when they are poorly managed by the chain of command. Therein lies the rub. Chiefs will not want to cede any of their power over decision making, I think they have to for it to work. The advantage for the chiefs is there will be a separate body to pressure the Govt of the day. With the right people on either side could be a powerful and positive force. Hey I am talking myself into a job here. I love having a pop at the Govt!

[Wader2]

Should BAFF insist on minimum time periods between deployments being enforced?

Or proper compensation as can occur in civil employment such as double pay?

A proper financial incentive could be a double incentive. It would serve as a sweetener fo someone given excessive deployments but more importantly concentrate the minds of the bean counters if Man A's compensation if hitting the budget and Man B has not been OOA.

Hey, might even have a bearing on physical fitness too.:)

[nigegilb]

You could have a strong pay incentive combined with a volunteer element. Some singlies are happy to spend chunks of time away, more family orientated might prefer to stick to a minimum time. It was obvious from the ops that I did that the same faces were doing all the work. Would be a good idea to incentivise the system and would help with retention by keeping partners on side. Lets face it most of the Blair wars have been wars of choice. Tax free pay is finally rearing its head. Quite right to. If you do the dirty work you should be rewarded immediately. Most other nations have this kind of system.

One thing for sure, if BAFF takes off, UK armed forces will change forever.

[Chugalug2]

. Not unlike BALPA in the airlines. Someone to represent outside chain of command, advice on law, working hand in hand with management. Highlighting areas for improvement and of concern. Even, maybe insisting on minimum levels of equipment.
... Something like BAFF has been discussed in the past, but never as seriously as now. This can only be because of a general feeling that leadership at high levels is not there. One would imagine that if the chiefs got back to fighting tooth and nail for their men then talk of a need for BAFF would melt away.....

Hi Nige! I seem to be a lone voice on this one, but I shall try to serve as devil's advocate, if nothing else. I don't think BALPA is such a good model, we were taken over by BA and our FOs were promptly kippered as their seniority, ie their buggins turn for command, was reduced to zero, and every BA FO was automatically ahead of them for command in our stand alone, separate AOC operation. Why? Because BALPA wanted that way and all men (OK and women) are equal in BALPA, some more than others. We resigned in protest and became the only pilot group represented by the TGWU! I may not know the present reality of service life, but by the same token those inside do not know the downsides of being "represented" by people with an agenda. Be careful of what you wish for, you may just get it. As in many things other countries may have different answers, it does even mean it is best for them, let alone us. The British armed forces have a great reputation of aggressive and effective action, honed in tradition and leadership. If that is beginning to appear wanting it must be sorted not with a sticking plaster, but the required surgery. You will let those wanting off the hook by doing their work for them, for your welfare is THEIR responsibility. How are they brought to book, by their superiors, as always, and if they are found wanting, by theirs, and so on. So who gets the ball rolling? The man at the top! I understand the present CAS is already preparing to leave, you may be sure his replacement is already being considered, by those in the corridors of power. The need for a "good" man is glaringly obvious, for many are already voting with their feet. There are good men and now is their time to come forward for the sake of the Service!

[nigegilb]

Interested by your comments about CAS preparing to leave. He has only just taken over has he not?

With ref to your comments I believe that former chiefs of staff sitting in the Lords would absolutely agree with you. Some of them have publically stated that what is needed now is strong leadership, someone prepared to march over to Downing Street and bang on the table. Have to say I have been impressed with Sir Richard so far.....

[Chugalug2]

Interested by your comments about CAS preparing to leave. He has only just taken over has he not?

With ref to your comments I believe that former chiefs of staff sitting in the Lords would absolutely agree with you. Some of them have publicly stated that what is needed now is strong leadership, someone prepared to march over to Downing Street and bang on the table. Have to say I have been impressed with Sir Richard so far.....
Sorry, Nige, as usual I appear to be behind the ball, which is now well and truly in CAS's court (and my head hurts!). Unless he embarks on a root and branch reform of the higher echelons, as well as establishing a line in the sand that the politicians and civil servants respect, we are on a downward slide. That is the crux of the issue, and BAFF, or any other such creature is merely a diversion. Have an organisation that is complementary to the chain of command, which can give specialist advice or pastoral care, viz SSAFFA etc, by all means. What must not happen is to take away the power and responsibility of command. It is because that has, to some extent, already been allowed to happen that the RAF finds itself in its present predicament. I speak only of the RAF. I believe passionately in an independent air force, albeit one that cooperates with, and alongside, the other two services. Administrative convenience and savings by scale must not compromise that.

[ZH875]

And the latest is:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5351436.stm

Its that good, even ARRSE gets a mention.

[Wrathmonk]

Love the last paragraph in the above BBC article :

"But Lib Dem peer Lord Garden, a former Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff, said the federation offered a way of airing issues that would previously have been grumbled about in the Naafi canteen or sergeants' mess".

Because of course there is never any grumbling in the Officers Mess, FJ crewrooms!;)

[Two's in]

And the other quote made me smile;

The new federation has not gained the backing of Tory MP Andrew Robathan, a former officer in the Coldstream Guards.

"I am generally not keen on such an organisation," he said.

"Any concerns should be looked at by the chain of command and politicians. I would rather re-establish the trust [of servicemen and women] from below."
Because Officers of the Guards Division have such a close bond with the men and women serving under them, no doubt being able to swap tips on the best place to buy a flat in Chelsea and Polo pony purchases.

[cokecan]

though to be pedanticlly fair - did he not spend some time with, err... THEM?

(not an OPSEC issue, i've certainly seen it in newspapers...)

[Chugalug2]

And the other quote made me smile;
Because Officers of the Guards Division have such a close bond with the men and women serving under them, no doubt being able to swap tips on the best place to buy a flat in Chelsea and Polo pony purchases.

I think you are showing the lack of tolerance to contrary views that an organisation like BAFF promotes. "Those not with us are against us",etc. I wasn't in the Guards and am profoundly opposed to a Federation. You will delight the minions in Whitehall by making the military staffs even more biddable to their demands to resist this common enemy! When BAFF comes to an accord over some issue (Pay, Allowances, PVR?) you may be sure that many will shout sellout! Then someone will have the bright idea of starting a rival Federation (Provisional BAFF?), and then Sir Humphrey can divide and conquer! The only 'federation' that has ever worked in the UK Forces has been the Chain of Command. It would seem right now that is not the case. That is a major scandal that must be addressed. Someone with cajoles in the top echelons has to stop scoring points off the other two services, and together make a unified stand against the apparatchiks and their political masters who are fomenting this crisis. It should never have started in the first place, and the senior officers who did not make a stand when the line in the sand was crossed have betrayed their subordinates, their service and their country. To misquote OC, they have been to long in this place, and in the name of God should go!

[JessTheDog]

The CoC simply does not work with regard to welfare issues, and will never work again in the way it did in the past. The days of the CO of a unit "enjoying" paternal responsibility for almost all functions of his unit are long gone. Housing, for example, is now the responsibility of a faceless executive agency and the powers of the CO to effect changes are limited.

Budgets come down from on high with associated targets and there is simply not enough to go round, even for essentials.

Pensions have been changed to the disbenefit of the majority. There was a sham "consultation" carried out with leaflets being distributed on an approximate scale of 1 per unit!

Voting arrangements were changed with little thought as to their impact. It took a grassroots campaign to restore these.

There are other issues as well (continual breaching of tour interval thresholds, etc) and the CoC cannot represent the interests of the soldier, sailor or airman. Many bad decisions have been made at the political level, and there is no means of influencing this process - the Commons Defence Committee often has its concerns dismissed by the MoD.

BAFF is necessary if serving personnel wish such representation, and the indications are that they do. MoD are vehemently opposed to the organisation as it will undermine the ability of MoD to simultaneously cut everything to the bone and spin the "everything is OK" message.

Finally, there are no provisions in QRs or the single-Service Acts to prohibit such an organisation, or membership thereof. BAFF is happening.

[Chugalug2]

OK Jess, a long and depressing list, and no doubt just the tip of the iceberg! So BAFF is going to happen, you may well be right, but what difference will that make to the depressing scenario that you paint? If it was a conventional union it could use the threat of industrial action to 'persuade' management of the efficacy of its arguments. But it isn't, so it can't! It will become a talking shop, and boy can Sir Humphrey and his chums talk! You imply that there once was an answer to such problems, the Chain of Command that existed in my time, and I agree. You have to reform the existing system to re-empower the CoC. The armed forces are not M&S, with munitions, they are disciplined services subject to military law and the Chain of Command. Tamper with that and the genie comes out of the bottle, as I suspect is now happening. The crux of the matter, as I see, it is that the CoC has to work, not just to pay, house and feed you, but to win wars, which seem to be multiplying around us! I don't say that going back in time is the answer, but see how it worked then, and use that to make it work now. You don't want BAFF you want BOFs!Commanders must lead, that means going out on a limb, taking a chance, risking your career. Not the quiet life you expected? Then get out now before you are pushed. We are at war and there is no room for passengers!

[allan907]

There will always be those in the senior ranks that appear to have left their backbone at Flt Lt/Captain/Lt level. The annual confidential report ensures that they seek to please those one or two levels above and this becomes even more important after the levels previously mentioned because from those points the possibility of a "glittering" career with enhance pay and pension rights becomes possible.

With some kind of federation the 'wheels' have the possibility of being 'reported' on by those whose lives they affect - perhaps not a cheering prospect to some. In those instances where deleterious decisions are made because of justifying circumstances pertaining which may not be known about by the masses then any leader worth his/her salt will be able to counter the criticisms levelled at them - the bullsh*tters will stand out as the plonkers that have been over-promoted that they are.

[Chugalug2]

But surely that will work in complete opposition to what is needed? You don't want popular commanders, you need good ones! They may be the biggest B's ever, but if they lead from the front, stand their ground against undue pressure and stand up for their subordinates, they will ensure the CoC is effective, up and down. The boss I instanced in an earlier post did not curry favour with his men, but nonetheless went out on a limb for them. It was only because I was dep. adj., as a secondary duty, that I knew what he was doing for them, and made sure they knew! It is for Senior Officers to decide who fills what post and for how long. How do they know how well it is being filled? It is their job to know, not to be gratuitously told, but to find out. That is how a CoC works, or is supposed to. Now I readily admit it often ends up with square pegs, God knows I've known enough of them. That just comes under the headings of rough and smooth! As long as the system functions reasonably well, that is as good as you can expect. It seems now that even the good ones are hamstrung by a lousy system, so change the system! With the discontent apparent in this and other threads on this Forum, I would say that their Airships have a full blown crisis on their hands! They have no option but to grasp the nettle and initiate an urgent inquiry leading to a necessary reform. Yes its going to cost, Gordon, so start putting the money aside now. There is no such thing as a cheap military, it will always cost, one way or the other, and other, it seems, is what we will have to go for. Where does that leave BAFF? Thats up to you guys. The RAF is the responsibility of its commanders, and a right pig's ear they seem to made of it, while my back was briefly turned for a mere 33 years!:=

[allan907]

Chugalug I did not say that the CoC should be a popularity contest.

In those instances where deleterious decisions are made because of justifying circumstances pertaining which may not be known about by the masses then any leader worth his/her salt will be able to counter the criticisms levelled at them - the bullsh*tters will stand out as the plonkers that have been over-promoted that they are.

If unpopular decisions have to be taken then they should be taken for the best of reasons - and if any new system decides that they have to account for those decisions (by dealing with a BAFF) then it will winkle out the bullsh*tters who are merely trying to cover their backside while sucking up to their superiors. Conversely it will aid the 'good' guys in that, hopefully, the masses will be able to see the reasoning behind the crap decisions.

Although I still see ar*e covering:

"Why did you recommend the Sproggs Mk 15 fighter to the PM Air Marshal?"

"Ah, well. It went through the normal staffing process and a paper written by Sqn Ldr Bloggs recommended it"

Sqn Ldr Bloggs......"But, but , but that was what I was directed to recommend........Sir!" :ugh:

[Pontius Navigator]

While I favour the idea of non CoC representation - worked for me - I wonder if it would actually be what people here hope it would be?

Lord Garden's statement might be the rub. Would it be one federation for all ranks and all three services? Would the Officers be comfortable having their issues addressed by a Men's Association?

There are models out here that seem to suggest that one size does not fit all. The Police have a Federation but the Chief Constables have another.

The Civil Service has two trades unions but the senior civil service has another and Retired Officers yet another.

Maybe what is needed is not one federation but several. Naturally the Officers' Association would carry more weight (brass) but be numerically smaller than the Mens (run by NAAFI?). The Army Representative would naturally expect more say than his dark blue colleague. Would they speak the same language even?

Who would pay and how much? Dues of £10 per month and a critical mass would be necessary to recruit and operate an full-time, professional body and pay for premises.

One federation might achieve critical mass but might not please everyone. Several organisations might please more people, and cost more, but would this then allow Sir Humphrey to divide and rule?

[JessTheDog]

A federation has to be uniform - all ranks, from the newest recruit to the crustiest admiral/general/air marshal. It should also be supported by those who support the Armed Forces - families, veterans.

There appear to be three broad strands of opinion:

1. No need for a Federation, everything is working fine. This opinion is held genuinely by a handful of ministers and civil servants, and cosmetically by the top brass. These can be categorised as "ostriches" for obvious reasons.

2. There are problems in representing the interests of the Armed Forces but this should be the sole role of the CoC and a Federation may undermine the CoC. This view is not unattractive - if anyone had mentioned a Federation to me when I joined I would have been scornful myself - but there is so much that simply cannot be undone - the civilianisation/privatisation of so many support services, for example. This is perhaps a "traditionalist" view.

3. There are problems in representing the interests of the Armed Forces and a Federation (with certain restrictions - no strike action and no comment on the conduct of operations) is the only way of addressing the situation. This view has been a minority view in the past, with most taking the "traditionalist" view. Until recently. I believe there is a majority now interested in a Federation, due to various defence scandals - the lack of CBA, manning control, changes to the pension scheme, increase in quartering charges, overstretch. There is a perception (I believe an accurate one) that decision-making is driven by political expediency and cost cutting, in the knowledge that complaints will be suppressed and spin can be used to deal with public perceptions. This is possibly a "modernist" view.

I don't believe there are many substantial differences between the views of the "traditionalists" and the "modernists" - both camps recognise there are problems. Throughout military history, there have been those who have wanted to keep things the way they are (or were) and those who have wanted to change things. Both camps have been wrong on many occasions (the relaxation of the rules on homosexuals led to no outbreaks of buggery in the trenches to my knowledge, air power alone is not a replacement for boots on the ground) and I believe that the evolution of the Armed Forces is best served by a balance between both camps - one foot in the past, one foot in the future. I recently finished reading Dusty Warriors by Brig Richard Holmes, and I was struck by how the private soldiers and junior NCOs - products of a modern generation - rose to the challenge by drawing inspiration from the longstanding traditions of the British Army in a way that would have made their WW2 counterparts enormously proud. I don't think that a Federation would undermine this ethos, and modernisation can be accommodated and complemented by tradition - and vice versa.

[tgarden]

Wrathmonk & Pontius Nav
Although the BBC summary online might sound as though I was advocating the BAFF as other ranks, that is not my position. I was actually comparing reading PPruNE or ARRSE to being poked in the chest in the bar on a Friday night. It is worth listening to the whole programme.
If a Federation is to work it must be drawn from all levels and all Services. The problems occur at any rank.

[allan907]

Lord Garden - as a retired member of the RAF (and our paths crossed inconsequentially a couple of times) may I be possibly the first to say thank you for appearing on this forum. Your views are appreciated and I think it is incredibly valuable for serving members (and some retired ones) to be able to have access to you and perhaps, in some small way, to have our views heard.

[Pontius Navigator]

Sir, can I add my thanks to Allan907.

The point trying to make was the potential issue of one-size fits all and the fact that many organisations have several different representatives for instance doctors, surgeons, nurses etc.

Yes representation is needed but it must be the right representation, acceptable to all.

[GlosMikeP]

Lord Garden - Perhaps the greatest benefit of all is that you can say in public what the serving 3 and 4 stars can't. There's lots of useful ammo here and much that should be said.

For heaven's sake don't stop!

[Chugalug2]

Chugalug I did not say that the CoC should be a popularity contest.
...- and if any new system decides that they have to account for those decisions (by dealing with a BAFF) then it will winkle out the bullsh*tters who are merely trying to cover their backside while sucking up to their superiors. Conversely it will aid the 'good' guys in that, hopefully, the masses will be able to see the reasoning behind the crap decisions.


No A907, you didn't say that, but I implied that your 'new' system could result in a tendency to try to be popular. If any decision made was liable to 'review' by BAFF, officers who had made ones declared to be unpopular or 'deleterious' would find themselves abandoned by the CoC to 'account' for them on their own. So the answer would be to make no decisions, or constantly defer them, ie a paralysis of command. Of course the power of BAFF would rise accordingly as it felt obliged to fill the vacuum resulting from this paralysis. A CoC that doesn't command and 'workers representatives' who increasingly take over more and more of the day to day running of the operation. In next to no time the British Armed Forces could stand proudly by the other commanding heights of the Nationalised Industries that were named British (Rail, Transport, Steel, Gas, Telecom etc). Well include me out, and I suspect any one else that discovered that their career in them could be subject to formal assessment by ones subordinates and superiors alike. I've said it before, if it's broke, fix it. Anything that has been done can be undone, or changed. The powers taken away from local commanders should be reinstated. The British Armed Forces are disciplined services, or are supposed to be. If you don't like discipline, get out, if you can't command, get out, and for God's sake CAS fix it!

[JessTheDog]

A CoC that doesn't command and 'workers representatives' who increasingly take over more and more of the day to day running of the operation. In next to no time the British Armed Forces could stand proudly by the other commanding heights of the Nationalised Industries that were named British (Rail, Transport, Steel, Gas, Telecom etc).

How negative! The same people who are interested in a representative Federation are those who are relied upon to do their duty in unpleasant places at great risk to life and limb. If they cannot be trusted to represent their own interests with regard to terms and conditions of service, then how can they be trusted to carry out their duties? That smacks of an anachronistic view of the Armed Forces dating back to the height of the Cold War! Our people deserve better.

I don't think the CoC necessarily has a negative view. A Federation could raise legitimate welfare issues outwith the CoC without impinging on operational effectiveness, to the material and morale benefit of all. When officers of the calibre of Air Marshal Lord Garden support the concept, the idea that the CoC will have an automatic opposition to a Federation is simply not tenable. The main opposition will be from politicians and senior civil servants/special advisors who will object mainly because a Federation may provide a contrary view to the Panglossian corporate communications machinery of Whitehall. Events in Afghanistan have demonstrated that what is spun by the MoD can be somewhat different from reality and, when there is a monopoly on media contact, there is little that can be said to the contrary (although the new CGS appears to be made of sterner stuff than his predecessors when it comes to telling uncomfortable truths!)

These are the 10 Points that form the core values of BAFF:

1. A professional staff association is to be formed for members of Her Majesty’s Forces under the provisional title of the BRITISH ARMED FORCES FEDERATION (BAFF).

2. Comparable bodies have for years served the armed forces of allied countries such as the United States and Australia, with official co-operation and no negative impact on operational effectiveness or military discipline. The proposed federation is, however, designed to be a specifically British solution for the British armed forces. It will reflect and respect the ethos and robust traditions of the three fighting services. It will meet all requirements of British military and other law, including international conventions adopted by the United Kingdom.

3. The federation’s mission shall be to represent, foster and promote the professional, welfare, and other legitimate interests of all members of the federation in their capacity as serving or retired personnel of the fighting services of the United Kingdom, and in so doing help to maximise operational efficiency and improve the retention of trained personnel.

4. The federation will be a democratic representative institution answerable to its members. Membership of the federation will be open to all personnel irrespective of rank, branch of service or gender. The main membership categories will be Ordinary Membership (Regular), Ordinary Membership (Reserve Forces) and Veteran Membership. In responding to the requirements of its members, the federation will act in the interests of all serving personnel and veterans but will not countenance any pressure on individuals to join.

5. Within resources, the activities of the federation may include:

(a) professional and career development by the provision of education and information;

(b) liaison, monitoring and response to proposals or developments within the Services, in Parliament, in the provision of public services or in the commercial sector which have a specific impact on forces personnel;

(c) appropriate advocacy and consultation to protect and improve the conditions of service life including pay, accommodation, medical and welfare services, resettlement and all other areas of personnel support;

(d) appropriate support to personnel facing court martial or other legal proceedings in connection with their service (the federation will not normally comment on any specific case within the systems of military justice and administrative discipline); and

(e) the negotiation for members of a range of insurance, financial and other benefits, discounts or affinity deals.

6. The federation will not be beholden to any political party, pressure group, or defence industry interest. While supporting the cross-party consensus on the need for robust, adequately-funded but cost-effective forces serving the Nation as determined by the Government of the day, the federation will not be a defence pressure group. The federation will not take a view on matters of defence strategy or operational decisions, although it may raise legitimate subsidiary matters affecting personnel. Parliamentary liaison will be strictly on a cross-party basis.

7. The federation will not be a trade union and, above all, it will not conduct or condone any form of industrial action or insubordination within the armed forces. The federation affirms the vital role of the Armed Forces chain of command in representing the interests of its personnel. The federation will seek to agree with the Ministry of Defence appropriate mechanisms for the exchange of information with the chain of command as well as centrally. A code of conduct will be adopted, and potential disagreements will normally be raised centrally to avoid placing serving personnel in difficulty with their chain of command, or vice versa. The federation will act to protect serving members in their federation-related activities within the agreed code of conduct.

8. The federation will not seek to supplant the role of any existing charity or other agency involved in service welfare. Where appropriate the federation may help to direct members to appropriate sources of advice or assistance.

9. Work is already under way on matters such as the structure and legal format of the federation, and staffing. A business plan is being prepared.

10. This draft statement of intent outlines the basic principles established so far. Work continues on detailed aspects of the proposals with a view to wider consultation throughout the armed forces community, and with the Ministry of Defence. This update was added in May 06:

A. The detailed organisation and functions of the federation will naturally depend to some extent on whether it is established under legislation, or as an entirely independent body.

B. The BAFF Steering Group welcomes recent parliamentary support for the federation concept. If legislation is put forward in the future, the Steering Group will be pleased to work with all stakeholders on the development of detailed provisions.

C. As matters stand the Steering Group is not unilaterally seeking the abolition of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, or the direct involvement of the federation in Administrative Action or Redress of Grievance procedures. The initial service and communications structure of the federation will not be dependent on a comprehensive network of local representatives.

http://www.baff.org.uk/10%20Point%20Plan.html

[Chugalug2]

[quote=JessTheDog;2865419]How negative! The same people who are interested in a representative Federation are those who are relied upon to do their duty in unpleasant places at great risk to life and limb. If they cannot be trusted to represent their own interests with regard to terms and conditions of service, then how can they be trusted to carry out their duties? That smacks of an anachronistic view of the Armed Forces dating back to the height of the Cold War! Our people deserve better./quote]

'How negative!', well,yes,contrary view usually are! I should have perhaps included a further name in my 'British' list, British Airways, which I had personal experience of (after privatisation, but old habits die hard!). I found a weak and vacillating pilot management had surrendered the allocation of seniority for command to the BALPA Base Councils. The result was that copilots due for command were overtaken by others favoured by the BALPA reps. Now these reps were all volunteers, giving freely of their time and efforts on behalf of their members. They weren't the problem, but the supine management that let them take over their function. Given the scenario, painted by yourself and Allan907, of the RAF today, it's deja vu all over again! Please don't imply that I would denigrate 'our people'. I care passionately for the RAF, and therefore for the men and woman who serve in it. However, unlike myself, they do not, for the most part, have experience of being represented where the CoC is wanting. BAFF is not a panacea for the ills of the RAF.
You damn my views as being anachronistic and dating back to the cold war. You are probably right! But at least it was in the main a COLD war, and we had a CoC that worked. The opposite would seem to apply in both cases now. You guys will have to attend to the first, the RAF command must see to the second. My point, still to be addressed, is that the shortcomings, detailed so ably by yourself and Allan907, of the Chain of Command have to be rectified as a sine qua non. BAFF is not, and cannot be, an alternative to that.

[dallas]

Chug

The problem is the lack of interest in people's welfare is inherrent in the CoC now - it's not a minority - most are only in it for themselves - many will even say so! Additionally, when the likes of John Reid speak for me and claim there is no sign that our various wars are unpopular among the troops, my blood boils - how dare the government forfeit my freedom of speech and then speak for me!

But above all it's not operational matters that will be threatened by the BAFF - I suspect I will be in a majority who will not be part of an organisation that truly endangers UK defence by interference - it is the non-operational aspects of service life that are being erroded as politicians et al take advantage of our obedient and disorganised silence. JPA and AFQ charge rises just to name a couple off the top of my head.

We need a one-way CoC when we're being shot at, but I didn't sign away my rights to everything when I joined up - in particular reasonable treatment by my employer when we're not being shot at. It's always presumed we're looking after people but increasingly - and routinely - we're not!

I for one will volunteer as much time as I can to the BAFF in an attempt to steer it in this direction, not so it becomes a forum for people to bleat about trivia.

[nigegilb]

Chug, I absolutely admire your defence of the status quo, no doubt borne by your own experience in the service. However, I think you would be shocked by how much things have changed. A friend of mine is close to leaving. He did Sierra Leone, Afg, Iraq and Afg again. All in a few years. He handed back his RAF ID a few days ago and collects his pension soon. His relief is palpable. He fought with JPA to the end. Numerous attempts to get what he was entitled to on his resettlement. It is still not approved, his claim must go to a higher level. He is so glad to be going. He overheard a conversation the other day between 2 pilots. One actually said "I only have 9 years to go." A Chief of Staff visited his station and said, guys if you are not happy with trivia or you are getting bogged down, tell me about it. We are on operations you know, I don't want you getting distracted. Or words to that effect.. As soon as his back was turned the very same man slated 2 stations in the South of England for being the only ones complaining about JPA. One can't help but think that if said Chief had consulted with an organization like BAFF, JPA would not have been brought in in such a hamfisted way when so many people were serving abroad.

Exceptional times call for exceptional measures. If the Chiefs are seeing their own men as part of the problem, well I do believe that BAFF's time has come.

[Chugalug2]

Chug, I absolutely admire your defence of the status quo
Nige, after what you and others have revealed on this thread, the last thing I wish for is the status quo! I am profoundly shocked and saddened at what I have read, and agree absolutely that things must change dramatically. It seems to me that the RAF (I don't and can't speak for the other services, but would be interested to hear if their situation is as dire) needs root and branch reform. Indeed I would go so far as to suggest a total rebuild! Another Lord Trenchard must be found who believes in Air Power and the existence of an Independent Air Force. I say this because, in the main, the other two services have never fully accepted that, and in these times of stringent cuts would happily devour it to satisfy their own needs. People, especially brave noble people, look after their own. BA BALPA reps shafted us because we were outsiders. The only people who can and must defend the existence of the RAF, full time, are its Staff Officers. They are instead letting it whither by neglect. Someone has to step forward and change that, wouldn't you agree CAS?
I quite understand the anger and bitterness that you allude to, I would feel the same, I am sure. But the solution to these ills must lie in the hands of the very people who have been found wanting in the higher command, they must be sacked and replaced if necessary, and quickly. By all means form your association, but it will always be ancillary to the urgent need to reform the Chain of Command, all of whose functions have an operational effect, be it Money, Mail or Meals!
Nige, please urge your newly retired friend to add to this debate. I am, as all can see, an ancient BOF, and what is needed is up to date testimony. That is not to betray the service, that has already been done by those in command, but to lift the lid on this putrid mess prior to cleaning it out!

[JessTheDog]

Even if there is opposition to BAFF, I think that only a minority believe that the status quo is acceptable. My view is that the situation is too far-gone thanks to the overriding cost-cutting imperative and the civilian management practices that have permeated the Armed Forces, which view cost-cutting and short-term targets as more important than any "military covenant". If this situation was reversed, then a Federation may not be necessary. However, in the current climate, it is desperately needed. The terms and conditions of service of Armed Forces personnel are as vulnerable as turkeys in December and no-one is doing anything about it except for the promoters of a Federation.

[Green Bottle 2]

Chug,

whilst I agree these issues probably could and definately should be sorted out by the chain of command, how do those of us at the coal face achieve that? Who is going to put the right people in place? Certainly not the politicians as this would be a rod for their own backs. The only option open to those of us at the coal face is to take some action that we have some influence over - a body that will publically represnet our views. I belive that is a federation.

GB2

[Chugalug2]

GB2, I respect and understand your views entirely, and for that matter everyone else who calls for a Federation. I think we are, understandably perhaps, concerned with different problems here.
You guys are being messed around by a seemingly dysfunctional Chain of Command and need some order back in your lives, You see your best bet to achieve that in BAFF. I would have my reservations as to what BAFF might achieve and, from my experience in the outside world, feel that representation can be a two edged sword. But hey, it's your call, and I can only wish all of you, and with all sincerity, the best of luck.
My concern as a BOF is that same dysfunctional CoC, and the adverse effects it has had, is having, and will continue to have on the RAF. If it is not urgently reformed, I see nothing but trouble ahead. I know that everyone will strive to maintain standards in the best traditions of the service. But the nagging effect on morale as the most basic administrative functions like housing, pay, etc are seen by local commanders as the equivalent of "Not my job,mate" will be profound. This cat's cradle, woven over the years no doubt by myriad consultants, has got to be unpicked, and power returned to local commanders.
The only real commanders that ever existed in the RAF were really at unit/squadron/station level. Above this they are really functionaries in a pyramid with CAS at the top. Lots of policy to implement, but little else to do except claw their way up an ever narrowing career path. So the CoC that counts is at the base of the pyramid, and that is what has to be revitalised. Can you guys at the base effect this? No, it has to be from the top down, ie a CHANGE OF POLICY, all the way down from CAS. Why should he be bothered, seeing as you guys will carry on doing your best? Because it is not about you per se, it is about the future of the RAF. It's broke, so fix it CAS! Rant ends!

[JessTheDog]

Join! "They" cannot prevent it, some are even sympathetic.

Have a public voice regarding your conditions of service.

Independent
Armed forces get a voice on their pay and conditions
By Terri Judd
Published: 11 December 2006

The first professional staff association in the history of the modern British military will be launched today, amid mounting levels of dissatisfaction with pay and conditions in the era of the "war on terror".

The birth of the British Armed Forces Federation (Baff) comes at a time when many in the Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force believe they are being overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan by political masters who have failed to back them with sufficient support and funding.

In a sign that the Army hierarchy is moving to address rank-and file grievances, it was revealed yesterday that troops injured in Iraq and Afghanistan are to awarded millions in compensation after a Government ruling that they are victims of crime.

While servicemen and women continue to engage in combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the official cessation of hostilities - in May 2003 in Iraq - gives them the legal right to criminal compensation.

In series of test cases likely to pave the way for many more, 40 servicemen have been awarded up to £500,000 each. Compensation is expected to range from £1,000 for injuries such as small facial scars to half a million for loss of limb. The new scheme will apply to troops remaining in the military who have been injured in terrorist attacks such as roadside bombs but is expected to exclude those wounded in offensive operations against insurgents.

Last week, retired General Sir Mike Jackson, the former head of the Army, accused the Government of failing to give the forces "whole-hearted support" or adequate funding. He said failure to deliver improvements to living accommodation, pay and equipment threatened the "ethos of soldiering" which made them willing to put their lives at risk for their country.

The care of injured soldiers will be a key issue issue on which Baff will campaign. The idea of a virtual "union" was came up in a blog on the unofficial Army Rumour Service website in January. Under the name "Glad it's all over", a former senior NCO, Henrik Kiertz-ner, wrote: "There seems to be a gap in the market for a body which could lobby on behalf of the serviceman/woman, and address some of the more dimwitted ideas our lords and masters come up with."

Douglas Young, the chairman of Baff, said it was not a trade union and would not condone industrial action. "People in the armed forces work only by co-operation with others and that is the spirit with which we will go forward," he said.

Membership will cost about £30 a year.



http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article2064764.ece

http://www.baff.org.uk/Join.html

[The Helpful Stacker]

I fired my membership application off earlier today.

It'll be interesting to see what the initial take-up is like. A bit more publicity on units would be good.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Pray tell why I am going to give £30 of my hard earned dosh to fund some completely toothless group formed out of an act of misguided PC madness who will not "change the price of fish" by one iota:ugh: :ugh:

I was born at night but not last feckin night:rolleyes:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[tablet_eraser]

ABIW,

I quite agree. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that NuLabour is going to pay any notice to BAFF. A Government that has systematically betrayed its armed forces, scrapped over a hundred aircraft and a third of the Royal Navy, is not going to care one jot about SAC Grubscrew's appalling housing conditions, CPO Fishhead's appalling pay problems with JPA, or Pvt Grunt's fourth operational tour in 3 years, no matter who tells them.

I'll keep my £30 for a few pints and a whinge with my mates in a pub. It won't achieve any more than BAFF, but I'll have a far better time doing it. :ok:

[Two's in]

But come the Revolution Brothers, and anyone without a membership card will be put up against the wall...

[ZH875]

Yet another bunch of ******* led by a Scotsman.

How many more ways can there be of the Scots dominating the UK.

[StopStart]

True enough. If no one signs up then it will indeed be a toothless organisation. Alternatively, we all join it and give it some clout.

Best off not bothering - they might fix things and then we'd have nothing to whinge about :ugh:

[Ali Barber]

I was just wondering; if a quarter of all serving personnel join and pay their £30 per year, what will they all get for the approximately £1.5 million?

[Wyler]

Call me an old cynic but I think it will turn into nothing more than an 'Anti Officer/management' outfit.

The 1.5 Million will be spent on glossy brochures and multi cultural outings to Mosques, 'consultants' and such like.



Bah Humbug.

[countdeblades]

Wyler..........You old cynic!!!!!:}

[snapper41]

Just had a look at the BAFF website - all seems a bit Army-centric. The only page that has an RAF-type of pic is the 'links' page, with a shot of the Reds on it - hardly front-line stuff...

Also, all of the Executive are Army (or ex-Army); what does that say about support from RN and RAF?

[A and C]

The fact of the matter is that the armed forces have a large amount of support from the population of the UK but there is no one who is focusing this support into action.

Headlines in the papers highlighting the appauling treatment of those that have been hurt in action is all very well but this publicity adds up to nothing without someone focusing this public support into political action.

I think that it has to be worth the £30 punt to see what happens, afterall the alternative is to do nothing.

[stickmonkeytamer]

Army slant- noooooooo:= . On the links page, they only have a link to the ARSSE, not this site... Shall we all just join the army then?

SMT

[Kitbag]

SMT, I thought e-goat was dedicated to RAF, this site is for Military Aviation, try not to get confused. :ok:

[Mad_Mark]

SMT, I thought e-goat was dedicated to RAF, this site is for Military Aviation, try not to get confused. :ok:

Actually this SITE is for all aviation and aviation related subjects, civilian and military. This particular FORUM "is for Military Aviation, try not to get confused" ;)


MadMark!!! :mad:

[Tombstone]

Call me an old cynic but I think it will turn into nothing more than an 'Anti Officer/management' outfit.

The 1.5 Million will be spent on glossy brochures and multi cultural outings to Mosques, 'consultants' and such like.



Bah Humbug.

Perhaps not an 'Anti Officer/Management' outfit but certainly an 'Anti Air Officer/MP' outfit. They are the chaps that are letting us all down each & every day.

I'm not sure about the £30 either, perhaps a financial plan from BAFF would assure some of us that we are not paying for an office to be furbished with chairs at £1000 each!

BAFF will only work if we get behind it so, they've got some serious convincing to do IMHO.

[mutleyfour]

BAFF has a link to ARRSE as that is where it was born. It was as a direct result of a thread about action and the means of which Armed Forces personnel could or couldn't provoke and help themselves and there comrades.

That is why the link exists and was/is predominantly Army centric, this will only change by the involvement of both the RAF and RN and I am sure that should you ask they would link to this site too, but I would caution you that you might be swamped by non military aircrew types whom just want to bait.

[Kitbag]

MM, apologies must be getting senile I did mix up 'Site' and 'Forum'

Confused Holdall :ok:

[JessTheDog]

I joined. I got out 2 years ago as a flt lt and could see where things were going. BAFF is the only answer. The only time the politicians listen is when a fuss is kicked up in the media. Jackson protested in private when CGS and it got him nowhere. Dannat as CGS spoke up in public and the media were in uproar - cages were seriously rattled. Think what BAFF will achieved. This is the only way change will be effected.

If you do not attempt to change anything, you will change nothing. Lives have been lost because of the MoD head-in-the-sand attitude. Change will save lives.

[Al R]

Its become an almost annual event. Jones puts it forward and it gets knocked back. Today though, it has got through on a 10 minute Bill hearing first reading again. No wonder he looked so proud when he presented it. Again. :E

In light of all the eqpt f#ck ups and losses of life, and welfare issues, do our troops finally need a Federation? It could also be a useful conduit and outlet for senior military opinion. This is what he said last year (or was it the year before?) which wasn't a world away from what he said again today anyway. It won't help useless knackers get out of fitness tests, but it might get decent living quarters, and it will add weight to issues affecting retired personnel.

"I am pleased to have the opportunity to introduce this Bill today. Last year, I had the pleasure of serving on the Committee that considered the Armed Forces Bill. During consideration in Committee, I moved new clause 23, which would have established the formation of an armed forces federation open to serving and retired members of Her Majesty’s armed forces, both regular and reserve. I have to say that I was neither surprised nor disappointed that the new clause was not accepted, but our consideration of it allowed the Committee to discuss the issues surrounding it.

I now believe that there is a groundswell of opinion among the public as well as among members of the armed forces that it is time that those members should have an independent voice to represent their interests. Recent controversies surrounding accommodation, the treatment given in medical facilities to injured personnel returning from Iraq—and, of course, the scandal at Deepcut—have highlighted the increasing need for members of the armed forces to have an independent voice and to ensure that it is heard.

There is also increasing evidence that members of Her Majesty’s armed forces need to have access to independent legal advice. In the previous Parliament, I also served on the Committee that considered the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Act 2004. It was clear from those deliberations that members of Her Majesty’s armed services needed independent employment advice and advice about their pensions. I propose not a trade union but a federation along the lines of the Police Federation. I want to build on the excellent work already done by the British Armed Forces Federation, which was set up in 2006, has recently been incorporated as a company limited by guarantee, and is now recruiting members. The work of Douglas Young and his team at the BAFF has been important in raising awareness of such issues among members of the armed forces. The Bill would put the federation on a formal recognised footing with the Ministry of Defence.

The aim of the Bill is to encompass the 10-point plan put forward by the BAFF, which states:

“The federation’s mission shall be to represent, foster and promote the professional welfare, and other legitimate interests of all members of the federation in their capacity as serving or retired personnel of the fighting services of the United Kingdom”.That will help to maximise the operational efficiency of our armed forces and improve retention and training.

The activities of the federation would cover five main areas: first, professional and career development through the provision of education and information; secondly, liaison, monitoring and response to proposals or developments within the armed forces and in Parliament, and the provision of services in the public or commercial sector for armed forces personnel; thirdly, advocacy and consultation to protect and improve the conditions of service life, including pay, accommodation, medical and welfare services, resettlement packages and all other areas of support for armed forces personnel and their families; fourthly, support to personnel facing court martial or other legal proceedings in connection with their service; and finally, negotiation of commercial benefits for armed forces personnel and their families.

It is important that the federation is seen to be independent, and is not beholden to any political party, pressure group or defence interest. While the federation needs robust and adequate funding, it is important that it is not seen as just another pressure group for defence interests. The federation will not take a view on defence strategy or operational decisions, although it may raise individual, legitimate concerns affecting its members. To clarify, I reiterate that the federation will not be a trade union for the armed forces. It will not conduct or condone any form of industrial action or insubordination within the armed forces. The federation will seek to work with the Ministry of Defence to put in place a form of understanding that could deal with such issues. It will also recognise the importance of the chain of command. If we look at the BAFF’s website, we see that it clearly reinforces the point that the chain of command is to be recognised, not overridden.

The proposal might be seen as radical and dangerous by certain members of the armed forces, and possibly by some Opposition Members. But may I point out that many other nations, including the United States and Australia, already have such federations, which have the support of the military command in those countries? The proposal, however, is not to copy those, but to bring forward a British solution for the British armed forces. It will reflect the ethos and robust traditions of the three fighting services, but it will also meet the requirements of men and women who are serving in our armed forces.

The best example that I can give is that of the Armed Forces Federation of Australia. It is an independent voice on pay and allowances and represents members of the armed forces on employment issues. It also gives legal advice, financial assistance and advice, and allows for discounts and savings schemes nationally for all members of the Australian armed forces. The federation is controlled and structured by its members and is independent of the Australian military, although it has the backing of senior military figures. In the introduction to its latest handbook, Air Chief Marshall Houston says:

“As an independent representative body for military personnel, I welcome the Federation’s continued contribution to the development of personnel policies for the ADF”.He acknowledged the federation’s “ongoing commitment and contribution” to the Australian armed forces.

The Bill would not set up an armed forces federation; it already exists. Instead, it would allow the BAFF to be recognised by the Ministry of Defence and be valued for providing a voice for ordinary members of our armed forces. The BAFF has already stated that if legislation, such as this Bill, were introduced, it would look to work with the Government and stakeholders to develop the appropriate structures for the representation of members of our armed forces. The Bill provides just that opportunity, and I urge the House to support it."

[Beatriz Fontana]

Al R,

It's a noble idea and worth the effort, particularly from Defence Select Committee member Jones (http://biographies.parliament.uk/parliament/default.asp?id=25525). Interesting list of roles and responsibilities, BTW!

However for advisory group under the more recent governments see also the word "Quango".

Independent, non-government organisations advising government are in danger of being overrun by ex-MPs and former lobbyists with special interests and party political games to play. If the BAFF is to work, it needs that special mix of ex-Service personnel, ex-policy types (to manipulate the system!), lobbyists and some PUBLICLY onside MPs.

I think a good move is to have a Defence Select Committee with more bite. There needs to be a Gwynneth Dunwoody type who, terrier-like, has enough bark and bite to pull both the MoD and HM Treasury into line. Those of us who have ever worked in the central system know that the real power lies with the select committees in Parliament, and open questioning and throwing out of half cooked policy from both departments is a quick way forward.

List of current committee members are here (http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/defence_committee/defence_committee_members.cfm).

Sadly, Bills have a habit of being time constrained, and Parliamentary time for such things has a habit of "running out".

[gashman]

If a federation is adopted, it is highly likely that we would lose our effectiveness almost overnight. If we each stuck rigidly to the rules which govern us or the guidelines set in place (adhering to the requirements for leave for example), we would certainly highlight to those higher up the decision ladder that our can-do-attitude often gets jobs done, and the flexibility offered to commanders is invaluable. If we stick to those regs and have a community voice to back up the individual, then we stifle that can-do attitude and the overstretch suddenly becomes apparent.

Ironically, because of this, I'd suggest that it is unlikely that a bill would be accepted with our current state of affairs.

By bringing the threat of it up though, I only hope that it fires a shot across the bows of those who take the p1ss out of the good will of those in HM Forces.

But I doubt it.

[Al R]

Gashman,

It certainly won't turn the Armed Forces into something full of truculent recruits, threatening to sue nasty instructors for shouting at them during basic training (anyway, the RAF has had that since 1987) and it won't allow groundcrew the right to demand not to go out in the wet and cold (.. 1918).

But it will act as an interface between the men (at all levels) and the g'ment, and society. It won't be a political party, it won't campaign (by stature I think) on matters relating to pay etc, but it will crystalise a massive range of issues ranging from depemdents having their married quarters fixed whilst the serving member is deployed, to an independent eye on matters such as resettlement and JPA performance. If you think thats gonna smash effectiveness overnight, you've possibly got a different take on it to me.

Lord Garden saw a need for it, as has Tim Collins. But as Beattie so rightly points out, it needs to be more than a job club for retired Starships and PUSs, and it needs to be able to go straight to the heart of the matter.. the committees where the warhorses stalk and where they take a perverse pride in clobbering their own side (as long as the opposition isn't doing it too!). BAFF needs to be able to strike the right chord, have the right credibility and for that, I imagine, it needs people like Mike Jackson, Chris Patten, Geoff Hoon, Paddy Ashdown maybe.. Robin Gibb.. people who care and people who have nothing to gain apart from doing the right thing. People like this wouldn't allow it to become a soap box ship for idiots, so I wouldn't worry unduly.

But if things did change, so what? I am against the idea in principle of simplification so that Forces life is like Civvy Street simply for the sake of it and so a few wets can say its all 'equal' (if anything, Civvy Street should raise its game, and not compel the Forces to dilute its), but change shouldn't be feared. I always thought that the idea that a 21 year old could impose child impacting financial penalties and incarceration on a 40 year old family man, simply because he went to Cranwell for a few months, completely absurd. But that doesn't mean that I'm against strict Forces discipline that is different from what an ASBO ignoring chav might get.

This will hopefully increase efficiency, raise morale, maximise retention, attract more recruitment and as soon as the system knows that its under the spotlight, it raises its game too. God knows what might have been different if we had BAFF 5 or 5 years ago. We need to look ahead.. if things are this bad now, what might they be like in 30 years?

http://www.tgarden.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

(Hi Beattie.)

[JessTheDog]

A Federation is inevitable, and necessary to stop the rot. The only reason the government gets away with the disgraceful state of affairs at present is that they have a media monopoly on the Armed Forces. The DIN attempted to turn the screw further and gag comments on all aspects of Service life (including terms and conditions) and use of internet posting boards. BAFF will provide an independent voice for sailors, soldiers and airmen with regard to terms and conditions of service - overstretch, lack of harmony time, shoddy FQs, low pay for junior ranks etc. The BAFF model is designed to avoid straying into operational issues, in order not to undermine operational effectiveness. However, that area is now nicely covered by the Collins ruling which gives personnel some legal protection, and should lessen the chance of future deaths occuring through non-existent or unfit equipment.

[Al R]

Jess,

Agreed. And you can change something so much, that in the end it bears no resemblence and has none of the benefits the original example had anyway (if a frog had wings, it wouldn't keep bumping its arse, but it wouldn't be a frog anymore). So I'm not sure if another pressure group like BAFF wil be the ideal model in the long run. Formed with the best intentions and with very capable people, the easiest way to ignore something is to give it quasi official status, a seat at the table and then ignore it or suffocate it. The old adage 'I'd rather have the enemy inside the camp, pissing out, than outside pissing in' springs to mind.

Darling's budget last month would have made 66,000 servicemen worse off, and the make up of the ground force being what it is, that brunt would have been felt most by the Toms and LACs and SACs serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And what would have happened if we had had a pressure group? With the greatest respect to the RBL which does a fantastic job, (and as Beattie says) we simply don't need another mid level lobbying task force which is great at hammering on doors but just as used to having them slammed in its face. The troops need heat, not light - every man and his dog has a single issue policy group being paid to hammer away for them at Westminster now. And their impact is diluted. Another bog standard Federation would have got its salary justifying teeth stuck into the issue of losing the men 3/6 a month, and thats what the g'ment will have wanted. They can bat that sort of issue and problem away all day long - its used to it by now. And it'd tie BAFF up in knots until the cows came home. This new body needs to rise above that and be able to think long term.

If you had independant 12 men and women, representing the interests of the soldiers, sailors and airmen, which had inroads into power at a level that you can't buy and can't be won by votes and one which wouldn't undermine the Chain of Command and which had sufficient balance, weight and gravitas, one which could quietly say 'Hang on Air Chief Marshall - the Hercs need ESF and the men need paying on time, please sort your life out. Will April of the year after next be sufficient time?', you'd be happy wouldn't you? Or conversely, to be able to testify as easily to the Select Committees 'Look - those aeroplanes need replacing and the houses need fixing and we really think you should do it quickly because there's an election coming up', then you'll be on the right lines.

The upper echelon of the (MoD) Civil Service has been far too heavily politicised for its own good. By way of a loose example, when the BBC Trust speaks, even the Mandarins take note because it hardly ever utters, but when it does, the world stops. Perhaps thats a model? The BBC had a board of Governors who together regulated the Beeb and represented the interests of the public, but not the employees. It was independent of the DG and the rest of the Executive Team. They had no direct say in programming, but were nevertheless accountable to Parliament (and us) for the BBC's actions. It now has the BBC Trust and the BBC Executive Board, which sets an overall strategic direction and exercises a general oversight. Clearly too, thats no good in itself, because the MoD is thankfully, unique and priceless. But its the sort of lines along which this new legislation should be thinking. God help the MoD if it does nothing and ends up with a version of the Nurses or Police Federation, which as we saw the other month, are inneffective and only make their members look like tw:mad:ts. Either way, if the MoD does nothing and hides its head in the sand, it'll end up with something it probably won't like or want. It has to engage in this process properly, now.

[Tricorn]

I noticed this in the middle of Derek Twigg's report yesterday.......


The Defence Select Committee report also recommends the need for an Armed Forces Federation. We remain unconvinced however that an Armed Forces Federation is consistent with the ethos and traditions of the British Armed Forces.


The Bett report also recommended this many years ago and it was quietly dropped. I want to know why 'they' remain unconvinced.:confused:

[dallas]

The traditions and ethos of the British Armed Forces include lining up and walking slowly towards machine guns, building accommodation out of toilet rolls because none has been provided and generally being silenced by politicians when they can't afford to fund us properly.

With the BAFF making it quite clear they'll not interfere with machine gun tactics etc, that leaves them representing us on the latter 2 points. Of course there's no tradition of British Forces being represented, but you could also argue that creating such a body, to raise legitimate concerns, might prevent people leaving in such numbers, even at a time of economic downturn! Moreover, if we've never had it so good, as some ministers claim, the government have nothing to fear from the BAFF.

[Vortex_Generator]

It already exsists:
British Armed Forces Federation. Representing the Professionals. (http://www.baff.org.uk/)

[Tricorn]

Yes, but as far as I am aware it is independant and not officially endorsed by the MoD, and also requires an annual subscription.

But, I may be wrong..................


BAFF is independent of HM Government, the Ministry of Defence, and the Service Chain of Command.

[Al R]

The only problem with granting recognition to something, either by Charter or in Statute is that once you start making it tangible, you start making it a target, and once it has become part of the system, even though it will publically and perhaps rightly represent itself as something completely the opposite, then its effectiveness is reduced. The g'ment is able to deal with tPF, because thats what g'ment is good at doing - dealing with organised public bodies.

Look at the Police Federation. The g'ment has been handling the rozzers now for 40 years or more through this and because the issues have become tangible, because they have been synthesised, are we any better off? Jacqui Smith completely ignored the Independent Police Arbitration Tribunal reccomendations and as a result, the Police Federation is faced with either calling ever louder for industrial action (as it is now doing in Scotland), or losing authority and influence with the public, its members and with the g'ment. The Police Federation started off by calling for better capes, louder whistles and half decent health benefits for walking about in smog, but then.. before it knew where it was, it was campaigning for changes to the death penalty, shorter working weeks and in the Winter of Discontent, knowingly undermined an elected g'ment by walking out of the Police Council.

So, do we want a Federation that is able (perhaps not now, but perhaps in 10. 20 years) to call HM Forces out on strike, or to restrict working practice? We have to establish that principle here and now, because sure as eggs is eggs, thats what will be happening in the year 2028.. the issues and principles of today will get diluted and people in jobs on salaries dependant on members will be inclined to listen to the noisier members especially if their mortgages are dependant on it. Who now, in the Police Force, would be able to relate to the spirit of the original Police Federation? Not many, would be my guess. So, where do we want to be in 20 years time? Politicised, activated?

What are the options? Certainly not to roll over and die. But in the first instance, is BAFF the answer to a problem that doesn't exist? Yes, we have still have too many skuzzy quarters, shabby medical care in places and there are excessive demands on men, women and eqpt that makes me relieved I'm not around to see it - the qualities of today's servicemen are probably higher than they were in my day, although if faced with the same challenges, I'm sure we would have met them too. But many of the problems are being faced and addressed, perhaps not quickly enough, but lets face it - there is only so much money to go around for everyone. It would be suicidal in the long term for Servicemen to be seen to be getting a disproportionately bigger slice of the pie than say, kids in Inner Cities, elderly patients within a crappy NHS or even 1300 sacked Northern Rock workers. Thats the bottom line, obtaining and maintaining public support is vital and that will be the powerbase for ANY improvement in terms and conditions, not frankly, a Federation. The Fire Service might have got itself a few extra quid, but when it realized that it no longer had public support, back in Fresco, it was forced into submitting itself to many long term concessions and firefighters lost a massive amount of public support and respect. If HM Forces stops learning from mistakes like that, then we run the risk of going down the same route.

Its groundswell that creates change - not committee meetings and minutes, and the mandate for any continuing improvement for the Forces has got to be almost nebulous – personalising it will be to offer it the Establishment lingering and silky kiss of death. So what to do? We do lots of right, already. We do that, not by things like ‘London Salutes’ (or whatever it was called) because all the effort goes into that and as soon as its done, the organisers are too knackered to do anything else and the g’ment can say ‘Hey, we’ve done our bit!’ and it slips off the radar. In a similar way, so too will Forces Day, or whatever its called, soon become a burden and eventually, a counterproductive embarrassment. We need to continue to raise the estimations of the Forces in the public eye, and we do that by getting 40 and 50 year old ABCs onside, and we do that by making sure there are more of their children serving. If society has no respect for itself, then how will it respect those in jobs, working out of sight? We need to see respect and change for The Forces as only a segment of a larger picture and we

This has to be looked at, top down. There is a place for Help for Heroes and there is a place for Clarkson pressing the flesh, but that only cures the symptom, and not the disease, and we lose sight of that fact at our peril. In Germany, an Engineer is a Doctor, here – he’s a spanner monkey and so too, are Service personnel regarded in a particular light – we can’t change that. Ultimately, Joe Public will ALWAYS say ‘Well sorry guys, but no one forced you to join up’ and ultimately, g’ment knows that too. So, its quite happy to fob matters off to the likes of the Royal British Legion because the RBL has a Charter, a committee and as we are now seeing, it is being forced to compromise itself bt hammering at the g'ment with its Covenant campaign. But we need to give the British Legion less responsibility, not more, so that it can concentrate fully on what it was set up to do.. its core function and not always engaging with the g’ment at 4000 metres because thats what the g’ment wants it to do. G’ment is happy when it deals with committees – it can send along a PUS of similar footing and everyone goes home feeling happy, or hopefully, happier.. but the problem isn’t solved, addressing it is only delayed until the next oak lined board meeting.

Last week, I had a letter from a Labour Baroness who offered me soothing platitudes, but essentially said: 'sorry, not me Chief, airfames - go and speak to the British Legion’. At the ultimate level, she was simply able to alleviate herself and her government of State Responsibility - responsibility which should be exercised in the name of the people for the people, and until then, we’ll continue to see the likes of SSAFA having to campaign like mad for Grays Lane and we’ll continue to see the likes of HfH raising money for a swimming pool at Headley. G’ment knows that the people involved with these things are doing it because, yes they care deeply, but also because they get a sense of fulfillment out of it. I help out with various things and I do it because yes, I care but also because it makes me feel worthy and good about myself truth be told – I’m no angel. The g’ment knows that, half of its battle is already won.. can you imagine what would happen if overnight, there was absolutely no need anywhere for charity, for campaigning? It’s a society thing as much as anything and as a result g’ment can only be ‘defeated’ when it does what it wants to do, and it does what it wants to do only when it knows it has to do it. It didn’t give a damn about the outcry of going to war in Iraq, about the waste of money with 2012, about Lisbon so why should it give a daMn about BAFF?

The ONLY way you’ll get any bureaucracy like g’ment which doesn’t give a damn about anything (especially one like Labour which chucks statutes onto the books left right and centre) is to make it part of a process that it fears.. an administrative process at that. Think. What has been the only thing within the UK that has caused Tony Blair to worry? The electorate? Snort. The Parliamentary Labour Party? Guffaw. Parliament? Do me a favour! Public Enquiries? Yeah, right. No - it was the Board of Governors of the BBC (don’t all laugh at once) and why?

Because for decades the BBC Board built up an almost godlike reputation for striving for perfection and doing what was RIGHT and not giving a damn about who they bollocked or who they told. They sneaked into our psyche by the back door and that was why Blair chopped them and made them ‘Trustees’, answerable to the g’ment in return for a handout of public money. In its heyday, when The Board spoke, g’ment listened and although its still going through that post coital stage of pretending to give a damn about The Trustees, things will never be the same again. After Hutton, Gavyn Davies resigned.. he actually went out AND DID THE DECENT THING and that sort of stuff scares the crap out of g’ment which would rather lose its collective fingernails than be seen to be the first to resign. Thatcher dropped Marmaduke Hussey in, to be her poodle and he promptly decided that actually, he didn’t like what he was supposed to be doing, and when she got Special Branch to raid the Beeb when it had a go at her, he decided bollocks to this.. he would take Special Branch to court and then her if need be. He was nobody’s fool, he wasn’t particularly clever, but he wasn't handled at mere paperclip counter level and his position carried a gravitas that Scottish Prime Ministers and smarmy Foreign Secretaries can only dream about.

So, where does that leave us? Please, not another pressure group. Instead, the MoD needs something like a Board of Governors.. not in the Chain of Command, not directing it, not supplicant to it, not reliant on it (or anyone) and certainly with little or no defence/ g’ment experience - effective establishment management is probably best practised by those with wisdom but not much technical knowledge. But they have to be a few people who represent ‘us’, people who did not seek the job and who did not want it, people who know they have unmitigated public backing and who understand that you can say so much more with a reproachful look and a raised eyebrow, and not a million words, an ad campaign, a press release or a great website.

[baffman]

Al R: "So, do we want a Federation that is able (perhaps not now, but perhaps in 10. 20 years) to call HM Forces out on strike, or to restrict working practice? We have to establish that principle here and now, because sure as eggs is eggs, thats what will be happening in the year 2028"

Why? That's in 20 years time. Presumably if any armed forces personnel were going to go out on strike it would be our cheroot-smoking, mustachio'd European cousins? And many of them have had representative associations for a lot longer than 20 years. Such as the Danes, fighting alongside British troops in Helmand.

Actually, the only verified example of industrial action in the armed forces of any advanced country involved some gendarmes (on non-deployed police duties but technically members of the French armed forces) on, I think, some Caribbean island.

The US Armed Forces have strong representative bodies like the Association of the United States Army - founded 1950.

This from British Armed Forces Federation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAFF) :

English language examples of military staff association
Dates of establishment are shown in brackets.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/Flag_of_Australia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Australia.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Australia.svg) Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia)

Defence Force Welfare Association (http://www.rdfwa.org.au/) (1959)
Defence Reserves Association (http://www.dra.org.au/) (1969)http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/Flag_of_Ireland.svg/22px-Flag_of_Ireland.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Ireland.svg) Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland)

Permanent Defence Force Other Ranks Representative Association (http://www.pdforra.ie/web/) (1991)
Representative Association of Commissioned Officers (http://www.raco.ie/) (1991)
Reserve Defence Force Representative Association (http://www.rdfra.ie/) (1991)http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/Flag_of_the_United_States.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_United_States.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_the_United_States.svg) United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States)

Association of the United States Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_the_United_States_Army) (1950)
Army Reserve Association (http://www.armyreserve.org/) (1993)
Military Officers Association of America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Officers_Association_of_America) (1929)
Non Commissioned Officers Association (http://www.ncoausa.org/) (1960)
Reserve Officers Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_Officers_Association) (1922)

[Al R]

Funnily enough, having just written that, I've just found this.

BBC NEWS | Education | Teacher union backs cadet forces (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7533512.stm)

A sign that the tide is turning? Hopefully, Establishment change from within will become a reality.

[dallas]

So, do we want a Federation that is able (perhaps not now, but perhaps in 10. 20 years) to call HM Forces out on strike, or to restrict working practice?
At face value no, of course we don't want that - British forces are too professional to do so anyway, although I acknowledge your point about any representative body needing teeth to be taken at all seriously by the government.

So, where does that leave us? Please, not another pressure group. Instead, the MoD needs something like a Board of Governors.. not in the Chain of Command, not directing it, not supplicant to it, not reliant on it (or anyone) and certainly with little or no defence/ g’ment experience - effective establishment management is probably best practised by those with wisdom but not much technical knowledge.
That's the million dollar question isn't it? The chain of command certainly doesn't work as they have a conflict of interest - I don't even mean that critically - but balancing the defence need with welfare of those you command has always been a balancing act. Equally, we don't want the chain of command hamstrung by any more Health & Safety type legislation than they already suffer, let alone a board of governors who can pull out a figurative 'yellow card' at any point.

Maybe it's just been like this all along and the string has never snapped, with successive governments simply seeing how far they can stretch it. Because the other central question on the subject of overstretch is what that actually means - in this world of performance indicators, what is the event or events that will actually mean the cuts have gone too far, or is it simply a wasting disease? But again, when is '48hrs to live'?

[Al R]

Baffman,

On a contingency basis if nothing else, would you be prepared to say its a possibility thats not worth even considering? And we're not The Danes, we're us - one size doesn't fit all (as the EU is discovering).

Dallas,

I don't think its a reflection of professionalism.. the Fire Service went on strike with a stated aim of protecting their professionalism. Of Hussey, it was said: '.. cleverer that he looks, but not as clever as he thinks' and this g'ment is like that, but surely even it must realise the laccy band is twanging. It knows it.. but like everything else, it'll be someone else's problem to sort out. :ugh:

[baffman]

Al R:

"On a contingency basis if nothing else, would you be prepared to say its a possibility thats not worth even considering?"

No. The BAFF Constitution is unique as the Memorandum and Articles of a British company, in expressly forbidding involvement in industrial action, disobedience, insubordination etc notwithstanding that such activities would be against service law anyway.

That's important. Industrial action within the armed forces IS against the law, and quite rightly so. Whatever you think of current UK politics, no major UK political party would wish to change that law.

The question remains: why on earth would BRITISH armed forces personnel want to involve themselves in industrial action, when the continentals have not?



Al R:

"And we're not The Danes, we're us - one size doesn't fit all (as the EU is discovering)."

Well, obviously. Please dont lecture, when we do know what the Danish armed forces look like on operations, and we also know what their representative military associations look like. I hope that this from the BAFF website will be helpful:

"The BAFF Constitution (http://www.baff.org.uk/documents/BAFF%20Constitution%20(2006).pdf) was drawn up in consultation with 50 personnel from all three services. A "specifically British solution for the British armed forces (http://www.baff.org.uk/about/baff-ten-point-plan.htm)", BAFF did not take any single organisation for a template, but its Steering Group researched or visited a wide range of organisations representing operational public service staff.

"These included representative military associations in Australia, the USA, and Ireland; the various Police Federations in the UK; and the GCHQ section of the PCS Union. BAFF itself is not a trade union."

[Chugalug2]

AlR, have just read your post #124- way to go Old Chap! Your incisive dissection of the body politic is indeed impressive. My worry re BAFF though is not the 20 years down the line metamorphosis that you envisage, rather a far more subtle and dare I say British outcome. My experience with union power was as an airline pilot. 21 years membership of BALPA culminated in being shafted by them, along with the other exDanAir pilots taken over by BA. That was when we discovered that all BALPA members were equal, but some were a good deal more equal than others. Briefly, as the details are now history, BA at BALPA's insistence changed our terms and conditions to advantage mainline BA pilots getting commands in our separate AOC airline, BA(EOG) Ltd, at the expense of our more senior co-pilots. They did this because our management was supine and powerless to stop it. If you consider the military equivalents, ie subordinate commanders versus civilian management, and BAFF versus BALPA, you might start to see my laborious point. If BAFF truly gets the influence it is looking for it will be at the cost of any remaining authority of junior commanders. They are the only commanders in the RAF that truly command, and always have been. Everyone above that level is really part of the RAF bureaucracy, discharging policy from above. Military discipline, and hence effectiveness, rests with those junior commanders. Usurp their powers, as is already rife, and you let the genii out of the bottle. If their decisions and summary actions are being constantly monitored and reported on by the "Baffmen" they will end up as hamstrung as the soviet commanders who had to concentrate on placating the commissars often at the expense of effective military action. My doom laden prognosis for 20 years ahead? Our Armed Forces will indeed become a mirror image of our continental cousins without even the threat of strike action!

[baffman]

Good old 'Dan Dare'! Sadly missed, at least by me in a purely self-loading-cargo capacity, since their demise in 1992.

Chugalug2, you have my sympathies over the injustice which you feel you as a civilian suffered at the hands of "union power" and "supine" management sixteen years ago. But the connection from your anecdote to "usurping the powers of junior commanders" seems tenuous. And the inference seems to be that not only would you not allow serving men and women to join a legal representative organisation, but you would not allow civilian aircrew to join BALPA if you had your way: otherwise the anecdote is pointless.

Where I think most or all BAFF members would agree with you is over the importance of junior commanders and the need to support them. As long as BAFF remains a membership-based all ranks organisation (as opposed to a universal organisation representing everyone, or everyone in a rank range) the majority of members are always going to be in the rank range Cpl to Flight Lieutenant, or equivalent.

"Commissars", "continental cousins", etc. Commendable attempt on a full set of stereotypes, although you forgot "battles stopping for tea breaks".:) With respect, your comments seem to be based more on how you imagine a representative organisation would operate within the military, rather than on anything BAFF has done, is doing or is proposing.

In your endorsement of AL R's post, you have yet to explain how organisations like the Association of the United States Army (http://www.ausa.org/Pages/default.aspx), the (US) Non Commissioned Officers Association (http://www.ncoausa.org/), the (US) Reserve Officers Association (http://www.roa.org/site/PageServer) founded by General Pershing in 1922, the (Australian) Defence Welfare Association (http://www.rdfwa.org.au/) or the (Australian) Defence Reserves Association (http://www.dra.org.au/html/s01_home/home.asp?dsb=48) are in your opinion tending to usurp the powers and effectiveness of junior commanders.

Sure, these are quite disparate organisations but after all that was my earlier point: there is NO "one size fits all".

[Chugalug2]

Baffman, I wouldn’t contemplate for one moment not "allowing" anyone to belong to any organisation they pleased, as if I could anyway! My concern is for the well being of the UK Armed Forces, and the RAF in particular. Your concern, presumably, is for the well being of the members of the Armed Forces, and those of BAFF in particular. I don't think those two concerns are necessarily synonymous. In my time in the mob I saw time and time again commanders going out on a limb for their subordinates' welfare. I understand from this forum that is a very rare event these days. Hence you would say the need for BAFF. Hence I would say return the powers of subordinate commanders. On another thread the scandalous neglect of UK Military Airworthiness has been revealed layer by layer. No-one would suggest a reaction to that by saying we'll never regain the old standards. We have to, and just as importantly we have to regain the prestige and powers of junior commanders. At best BAFF is a sticking plaster answer to that deficiency, at worst a blanket that will smother that ambition. The chain of command is bust and needs fixing, not bypassing.

[baffman]

..My concern is for the well being of the UK Armed Forces, and the RAF in particular. Your concern, presumably, is for the well being of the members of the Armed Forces, and those of BAFF in particular. I don't think those two concerns are necessarily synonymous...Indeed not, but neither are they necessarily in conflict.

Your concern "for the well being of the UK Armed Forces, and the RAF in particular" is admirable, but I hope you are not implying that the same concerns are not shared by BAFF members.

It is, of course, quite correct to say that constitutionally BAFF is focussed on the professional and welfare interests of its members.

The formal constitution (pdf document) (http://http://www.baff.org.uk/about/baff-ten-point-plan.htm) of the British Armed Forces Federation in late 2006 was preceded by the so-called Ten Point Plan (http://http://www.baff.org.uk/about/baff-ten-point-plan.htm), which has no legal force but remains a guide to the founding principles of BAFF, and was quoted in the recent House of Commons Defence Committee report on Recruitment and Retention in the armed forces (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmdfence/424/42407.htm#a44):

3. The federation's mission shall be to represent, foster and promote the professional, welfare and other legitimate interests of all members of the federation in their capacity as serving or retired personnel of the fighting services of the UK, and in so doing help to maximise operational efficiency and improve the retention of trained personnel. [my bold]

Your remarks about the chain of command being "bust" are striking.

I have been following the airworthiness debate from the start, and appreciate your contributions.

[Chugalug2]

Your remarks about the chain of command being "bust" are striking.
I have been following the airworthiness debate from the start, and appreciate your contributions.

Thank you for your kind remarks baffman. It seems we both deeply care for the Service and its People and are concerned about where both are right now. Do you believe that the CoC is bust? If so, what is your solution? I have been around this block before and been told that with the sale of quarters, the privatisation and centralisation of administrative services and general reduction in size and scope of support services, the means by which junior commanders can effect improvements and facilities at a local level are very limited, and their right to intervene in centralised services likewise due to DPA etc. If that is so my feeling is that most of what has been done to produce such a situation should be undone, so that junior commanders can once again be effective in the morale and well being of their subordinates. Impossible? No, keeping people from leaving in droves seems to be the impossibility, even with a recession biting. The RAF is fast heading towards manning meltdown. With all due respect I don't see that changing much if the only answer is BAFF, it may alleviate the symptoms but only structural reform to the RAF itself can be a cure, I believe.

[Al R]

Baffman,

I've just read your responses to me, thanks. I'll drop a reply later if thats ok.

[baffman]

This was in this week's Sunday Torygraph (29/09/08):

British soldiers want a federation to represent them, poll finds

Almost three quarters of British soldiers support the creation of an independent armed forces federation to represent their interests, according to a poll conducted by the Army.

By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent

Support for an armed forces federation has been growing for a number of years amid claims that the rank and file have been failed by the "chain of command", although this is the first time that the Army has polled its own members on the issue.

The clear support for an independent body will be a severe blow for Britain's top brass who have long argued that an armed forces federation is unnecessary and could damage military discipline and morale.

The survey was conducted on the Army's own website called "Armynet" which is restricted to use by troops and their families.

Readers were asked: "Should there be an Army Federation to represent the interests of ordinary soldiers?" Of the 3,500 respondents, 51 per cent answered "yes"; 22 per cent thought it was a good idea; 23 per cent were against the proposal and two per cent answered "don't know". ...

Full story at British soldiers want a federation to represent them, poll finds - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/3089383/British-soldiers-want-a-federation-to-represent-them-poll-finds.html)

I understand that the poll is still running, with a very similar breakdown of votes at present.

The poll is quite rightly about an ARMY Federation. I don't believe for a moment that a similar poll tomorrow of the RAF or RN/RM would produce similar results. (You would need another option for "Who?" or "Eh?"!) But it was still being claimed a year ago that a majority of contributors to an ArmyNet discussion were against the idea of a representative federation, and the poll gives a very different snapshot.

[Al R]

Back in August, Al R lied thus; Baffman,

I've just read your responses to me, thanks. I'll drop a reply later if thats ok.

:E


Baffman said; Al R:

"And we're not The Danes, we're us - one size doesn't fit all (as the EU is discovering)."

Well, obviously. Please dont lecture, when we do know what the Danish armed forces look like on operations, and we also know what their representative military associations look like. I hope that this from the BAFF website will be helpful:

"The BAFF Constitution (http://www.baff.org.uk/documents/BAFF%20Constitution%20(2006).pdf) was drawn up in consultation with 50 personnel from all three services. A "specifically British solution for the British armed forces (http://www.baff.org.uk/about/baff-ten-point-plan.htm)", BAFF did not take any single organisation for a template, but its Steering Group researched or visited a wide range of organisations representing operational public service staff.

"These included representative military associations in Australia, the USA, and Ireland; the various Police Federations in the UK; and the GCHQ section of the PCS Union. BAFF itself is not a trade union."

You underestimate how things evolve. I just don't think that the ethos of BAFF as it stands, is best served to achieve representation. I think that with proper management from politicians and proper leadership from within the military, much discontent will be allayed. I wonder if its not just a trendy thing to suggest? After all, what does anyone think they have to lose by going down this route, unless they look at the long term implications?

I accept that Britain's top brass who 'have long argued that an armed forces federation is unnecessary and could damage military discipline and morale' have no one but to blame but themselves by being thick and by not anticipating change. Don't get me wrong - I'm all for proper discipline, proper care and proper treatment of the troops and things need to be improved, but I don't think that somehting like this in general is the best way to proceed, and with respect, BAFF in particular isn't the way I'd embark on things.

WRT the poll, if the great British public was asked 'Do you want your savings on deposit to be backed with an unlimited 100% g'ment guarantee, I imagine that Mrs Moffet from 14 The High Street would nod her head. It doesn't mean she has given thought to the bigger picture though, or with the best will in the world has the long term interests at heart. I would also point out that 51% of the poll thought the idea would result in the troops being represented and I wonder how many of the respondants were families? Not that their views don't count of course, but aren't there military families federations anyway, and isn't this sort of poll only likely to attract those wives etc, who are polarised?

As an aside, are you able to make public any signed off BAFF accounts?

[baffman]

...WRT the poll, if the great British public was asked 'Do you want your savings on deposit to be backed with an unlimited 100% g'ment guarantee, I imagine that Mrs Moffet from 14 The High Street would nod her head. It doesn't mean she has given thought to the bigger picture though, or with the best will in the world has the long term interests at heart. I would also point out that 51% of the poll thought the idea would result in the troops being represented and I wonder how many of the respondants were families? Not that their views don't count of course, but aren't there military families federations anyway, and isn't this sort of poll only likely to attract those wives etc, who are polarised? ...


Al, that's quite a construct - all founded on the premise that significant numbers voting in the ArmyNet poll were families.

By the way it's not 51% in favour, it's reportedly still 73% in favour: "51% say 'long overdue', 22% say 'it could be useful') with more than 5100 votes cast." (Source: British Army Rumour Service > > Forums > > The Serious Bit > > Current Affairs, News and Analysis > > British soldiers want a federation to represent them (http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/p=2192232.html#2192232))

Your 'it was the families who voted' hypothesis seems to have been picked up by ArmyNet users:
That's right, and in fact 'the opposition' has now asked on another site how many of those voting for a federation are in fact just family members. Very few indeed, I'd have thought Hackle. I certainly never vote on any topic pertaining solely to regular soldiers for instance since it doesn't apply to me but happily voted on the BAFF poll and I’d imagine others are similar.

Really can't think that there had been any concerted campaign since the poll was very much under the radar before the newspaper report.

A handful of votes at best. Source: British Army Rumour Service > > Forums > > The Serious Bit > > Current Affairs, News and Analysis > > British soldiers want a federation to represent them (http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/p=2185606.html#2185606)

That was several days ago and no other users have challenged it. The "families" theory is a red herring.

I am travelling at the moment but will see later if there is anything to add. If there is, I won't keep you hanging on quite so long for a reply! :)

[JessTheDog]

I've asked BAFF to look into the latest data loss for me - well worth £30!

[baffman]

Link to a recent interview on BFBS Forces Radio in which BAFF announced their campaign for official recognition of a professional staff association for the armed forces:

BFBS Radio 2 (http://bfbsradio2.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=384820)

(downloadable mp3 podcast)