Two weeks left to give your comments on Defence Green Paper

[defenceheadquarters]

You have two weeks left to give your views on the Defence Green Paper.

You can find out more about the Green Paper here (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/ModSetsTheBigQuestionsForStrategicDefenceReview.htm).

You can download the complete text of the document here (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/ConsultationsandCommunications/PublicConsultations/TheDefenceGreenPaper2010Discussion.htm).

If you have any comments to make on any part of it, you can have your say using the tool on this site (http://defenceconsultations.org.uk/). This tool gives you the opportunity to pick any chapter and provide your comments. It also means you can give your answers on the 7 key strategic questions (http://defenceconsultations.org.uk/category/key-strategic-questions).

This was posted by the Ministry of Defence.

[sidewayspeak]

No desire on making comments on the Green Paper. However, whoever posted this from MOD - please tell us why you didn't give us the opportunity to comment on the revised redundancy terms for the military?

The new Redundancy package - if I understand correctly - means that post 2013 I can be made redundant with just 3 months pay (on top of my gratuity and pension), yet you expect me to wait 12 months (now 6 months) if I wish to leave.

Quite frankly, it stinks. I would love to hear from you, and I'm sure my serving colleagues feel the same - but I don't expect to.

MOD - government puppets who have slipped in another crushing change to our employment conditions without consultation. Interesting to see that the Civil Servants are striking over the plans to change their redundancy package.

[defenceheadquarters]

The changes to the Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS 75) redundancy terms were announced back in 2005 and originally detailed in DIN 2005DIN02-093, they were also referred to in the OTT (offer to transfer) booklet. The Statutory Instruction which was published recently provides the legal framework for what was announced in 2005.

The redundancy terms agreed in 2005 were as a result of MOD working closely with the single Service Representatives and had the endorsement of the three Principal Personnel Officers.

[c-bert]

...so there. ;)

[sidewayspeak]

The changes to the Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS 75) redundancy terms were announced back in 2005 and originally detailed in DIN 2005DIN02-093, they were also referred to in the OTT (offer to transfer) booklet. The Statutory Instruction which was published recently provides the legal framework for what was announced in 2005.

The redundancy terms agreed in 2005 were as a result of MOD working closely with the single Service Representatives and had the endorsement of the three Principal Personnel Officers.


Oh why didn't you say so earlier... the Principal Personnel Officers all thought it was ok, so it must be. :ugh:

Aside of the fact that they - like the snivelling pigs at the trough MPs - have a big fat pension anyway and have nothing to worry about if made redundant. The rest of us mere mortals don't have that luxury.

So my final verdict to this incidious piece of staffwork - B*ll*x.

P.S Any Russians/Chinese out there want to know any secrets about sweeping hangar floors, a crisp £5 note and I'll tell you everything I know. :E

[DFM]

I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that as recently as 09? the JSP reference (and therefore the document that has primacy after QRs) for redundancy was still a "work in progress" piece of work. All enquiries to Admin world, certainly at station level, confirmed this and the only comment was, "just don't expect it to be as good as the last tranche".

So where did the 3mths severance pay come from and why are certain people claiming the AFPS75/AFPS05 crossover occured in parallel with a change to redundacy terms for HM Forces?

Suppose it is a rumour network though. :E

[DFM]

Read the DIN again, and under AFPS05 terms you clearly still get 12mths salary (not as good as last tranche) on top of gratuity and pension if you have 4+ years to option point. But only 3 mths compensation with <1 yr to go......guess the significant question is, how difficult would it be for the Service to force compulsory redundancy on an unwilling individual with <4 yrs service to their contracted exit point?........especially when being pushed early will have a massive impact on pension terms!

I take it a redundancy payout is also taxed?:{

Anyone know if the QR or JSP has been written yet?.....or is business via DINs the accepted norm now??

[dallas]

White and Green Papers (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmwib/wb070303/wgp.htm)

"WHITE PAPERS are issued by the Government as statements of policy, and often set out proposals for legislative changes, which may be debated before a Bill is introduced. Some White Papers may invite comments.
GREEN PAPERS set out for discussion, proposals which are still at a formative stage."

It would appear that members of HMF have had imposed on them the sort of unconsulted changes to their employment contract that the likes of BA cabin crew saw fit to strike over. Seems to me like another example of presumed ownership of HMF personnel, whose obedience and waiver - or rather devolution (to senior officers) - of union rights has come to bite them in the ass again.

[Whenurhappy]

Sometimes I get really cross,

The MOD in its attempt to be inclusive have let PPruners know that a Green Paper is calling for comment and submissions, in anticipation of a SDR in the Autumn (signed up by the three parties, by the way). Ppruners, it seems, don't give a damn about the direction our foreign and security policy will go (and therefore how HM Forces will be configured) - but rather, are more concerned about vagaries of the pension system.

The SDR is likely to be as influential as Options for Change and SDR 98 were - so instead of wondering what your pension might have been worth if your had stayed a little longer, or how the Gummit can't do this, or can't do that, or how great the NAFFI was in StellenGrossBach in 1958,or seem to be obssesively interested in the lox bay thrunge flange torque settings on a Mk XVIII B1(a) Canberra based in Luqa in 1967 - how about contributing to the narrative?

I have.

WP

[MATELO]

You have two weeks left to give your views on the Defence Green Paper

I dont have any to be honest, but the Captain on the V-Boat (Glossy photo, Page 10 of the SDR) may have a view on the lack of MPA cover for the next 2 years.

[VinRouge]

When,

I am not actually that naeive to believe they will give a **** about what I think anyway.

We have some pretty heavy cuts heading our way, to pay for the increasing life span of our purple rinsers and make sure waynetta has enough nappies for her chain smoking chav babies.

We all know what is necessary. We need to cut the MOD CS to the bone, cut the number of star rank and get new blood in there. But that is politically untenable, so will simply not happen. Far more likely a couple of over budget projects will be cut with significant cuts in capability, followed by further expansion of the EU Defence force.

[MATELO]

MATELO, speak to vecvechookblahblah

No thank you sir, I respectfully decline.:ugh:

[Whenurhappy]

European Defence Force? That plan failed in the early 1950s. Do you mean UK forces assigned to ESDP/EUMS led operations? Unless something has changed in the last few weeks, the UK does not have forces solely earmarked for EU operations only; any forces we do have are double or triple hatted(ie NRF, EUMS, Cont Ops).

Time to kill off this Urban Myth of an EU Defence Force - even if the Daily Outrage give it frequent oxygen. Even the most Europhile Frenchman doesn't believe in a pan-EU force.

[sidewayspeak]

The MOD in its attempt to be inclusive have let PPruners know that a Green Paper is calling for comment and submissions, in anticipation of a SDR in the Autumn (signed up by the three parties, by the way). Ppruners, it seems, don't give a damn about the direction our foreign and security policy will go (and therefore how HM Forces will be configured) - but rather, are more concerned about vagaries of the pension system.


whenyouarehappy, you are absolutely right. In comparison to the 'vagaries of my pension', I couldn't give one monkey's t*** for the direction of the SDR. The Pension will put food on the table, the SDR will just slash even more of the Defence pot.

This from a government that receives £146 Bn in income tax, then spends £196 Bn on Social Security!! Even the most basic householder understands that if you spend more than you earn, the result becomes painful.

I refuse to engage in petty personal accusations; suffice to say that I have already given over 20 years to the UK, and I believe that it should stand by what it promised when I joined. The fact that it has bankrupted itself as a world Health organisation and a luxurious teat to the lazy is not an excuse to then remove more from those of us who have already put our fair share in.

:mad::mad::mad:

[VinRouge]

When,

Thats a shame, because I do.

[minigundiplomat]

I understand.


I too understand.

[Siggie]

I am the only one to find it ironic that the MOD has officially asked for comment on the green paper on a Rumour Network?

I didn't know Pprune was a channel of communication between the MOD and it's personnel in the Forces.

If that is the case, would the MOD please provide answers to the many less palatable questions that have be directed at them on this forum.

[dallas]

Notwithstanding the apparent thread hijack, I do think Whenurhappy has his priorities slightly wrong. My opinions on the strategic defence priorities of the United Kingdom will be incomplete, lacking the full picture and ultimately ignored - that is because the subject matter is the realm of the defence chiefs. My employment conditions are not - certainly not without my consultation.

Defence reviews are ten a penny - but the subtle and unannounced erosion of the employment conditions of unrepresented members of HMF could prove far worse for this country if left unchecked; much of the wise money has already left and, despite the recession, is increasingly being followed by the 'lifers'. Go SDR that!

[Easy Street]

Dallas - I believe it's you who has your priorities wrong. I have argued a very similar point to this on the "Which party favours defence?" thread, but will set out my position again.


the subject matter is the realm of the defence chiefs.True, the defence chiefs are indeed the experts on military strategy. They use their expertise to execute the defence policy written by civil servants in the MOD. Policy is written under the direction of the Government. And ultimately, the Government is answerable to the electorate.

My opinions on the strategic defence priorities of the United Kingdom will be incomplete, lacking the full pictureSo what? Are you saying that the defence chiefs should be able to decide for themselves what they want to do, and crack on? That kind of attitude prevails in places like Sri Lanka and Pakistan; hardly what a nation of our history should be aspiring to. Your opinions on the strategic defence priorities of the UK are exactly what the Government is asking for, regardless of how ill-conceived they are. That is exactly what democracy is based upon - representation of the views of the majority of the people. Given that Defence is not typically a deciding issue at general elections, this consultation is effectively your only chance for 10 years (!) to get your opinion across. And I would hope that you, as a serviceman, would value your own opinion on military matters above that of the average Sun reader - get your voice heard, because they will!

The Government don't want to know what you think about individual procurement projects, or the closure of RAF Cottesmore, or whether we have a big enough fleet to defend our lovely new carriers. They definitely don't want to know what you think about your terms of service, which are decided by the defence chiefs (experts in their field, remember) in order that the services recruit and retain the right people to execute Defence policy. Servicemen get consulted on such issues totally separately through internal processes such as the AFPRB. Examples of what the Green Paper does want to know might be:
How important is it that the UK has a high profile in global defence matters?
Should we maintain a contingency "full war" capability to support our position on the UN Security Council?
Should we abandon pretence of being a world power and concentrate on homeland defence whilst providing specialists to EU or NATO forces for foreign activities?
And, most importantly, how highly do you prioritise these things against schools, hospitals, the environment, transport...I am sure there will be many replies shouting me down to the effect of "but they won't listen, so why bother?". Dallas' position is, sadly, representative of the disengagement people feel with politics in this country; hence, people vote only to secure their own direct interests. As any politician's primary goal is to get elected, this leads to Governments whose overriding interest is in building a "client" group of reliable voters - and this expensive activity doesn't leave much of the budget for broader issues. If you want to avoid this, you need to (1) get your opinions on the "big" issues like defence strategy heard (so, reply to the Green Paper now!), and then (2) vote for the party whose manifesto offers the best overall match to your views - NOT for the party who promises to bung you £300 in this-or-that tax credit, or whatever particular wheeze they've dreamt up for your target group.

However much distrust and dislike you may have for politics and politicians, remember the quote "democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others". It's the only system in which your opinion matters a jot. The cynics who would abandon big-picture decision-making to a ruling group of experts, without any input from below, are effectively advocating the kind of government seen in China or the former Soviet Union. Your opinion on the big issues does count, so reply to the Green Paper!