Originally Posted by
pba_target
What I would say (again) is that while there is seemingly a focus on Officers' accommodation in the media (including the letter above) I believe I am correct that the policy is instituting a broadly similar accomodation standard regardless of rank based on family circumstances.
While I'd happily argue that this should involve raising all standards to those that the officer corps currently enjoy, that clearly is out of financial reach of the MOD. To complain that one's living standards are being downgraded to allow one's troops a better quality of life is an understandable reaction but not really befitting of the mantra 'Weapon, Men, Self'.
While I agree that this is a win for the juniors with bigger families, it is another erosion of "the offer" for officers who have traditionally upsized houses with rank slides (better for hosting garden parties!). I don't really apply the "First the horses, then the men" methodology, because otherwise it's a race to the bottom and we'd all end up living in a leaky hangar just to prove we are great leaders. There has to be a privilege with rank, otherwise what's the point in trying?
I've always found military accommodation to be a broad spectrum of size and quality, having lived in everything from a 4 man room in a 1930s former German Army barracks to a 4 bedroom bungalow as a singlie in the Far East. With the demise of "Mess life" I decided to take myself out of the equation, committed to choosing a large base where I'm unlikely to be posted away from and used FHTB to buy somewhere close enough to commute by bicycle. If the FHTB was withdrawn then there would be a similar exodus/brain drain from the younger/junior ranks as the senior officer cohort may/are experiencing.