Await the attendent increases in food charges, accommodation charges, National Insurance contributions, family quarters rates.... Whatever Buff says, 3% is derisory. If we're working so hard, why do we continue to get a paltry pay rise that will be wiped out by increases in statutory reductions, same as we did before PTARMIGAN, FRESCO, TELIC, et al? I'll wait for Hoon to p**ss off forever before leaping with joy.
Speaking of which, given his rapturous welcome for our pay "rise", I wonder how much he'll be getting this year for sitting on his sanctimonious arse and decimating our armed "forces"? Prat.
So, how's about a little bit of analysis from someone who actually cares how much we're paid? All based on the AFPRB's report.
Precis of Chapter 4 (pg viii):
"We recommend tapered increases to accommodation charges, with no increase to the charges for the poorest quality accommodation,. We recommend a 2.7 per cent increase to food charges in line with the Catering grouping of the RPI, which reflects the costs involved in producing meals."
The RPI was HMT's primary method for determining economic rates until it adopted the EU's CPI in 2004. This index traditionally produces lower rates than the RPI, since it does not include the housing element which dominates the UK's consumer economy. In Jan 05 the RPI stood at 3%, whereas the CPI was at 1.5% - if the AFPRB had been consistent with HMG's statistical policy, it would have considered the CPI's catering and services basket, whose rate stood at 1.2% for much of last year.
Para 1.13 (pg 3/4):
"The Government urged us to be guided by the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) target rate of 2 per cent alongside RPIX and other relevant factors including recruitment and retention and the need to be generally in step with other public sector pay awards."
Is this fair? The AFPRB has been influenced by HMG in that it has considered their economic targets for public sector pay, instead of taking into account the evidence provided and making an independent decision prior to referring their recommendations to Buffy. In addition to this, they have been advised to consider evidence with reference to the CPI for pay, yet they have considered the higher-rate RPI for charges! Where is the consistency? This is poor economics.
Para 1.14 (pg 4):
"We are more concerned about failure to meet targets for the Single Living Accommodation (SLA) upgrade, particularly the removal of 12,400 bed spaces from the Project SLAM upgrade target for 2013. Almost half of all occupied SLA is of the lowest grade with all the inconvenience and discomfort that implies for personnel in what is essentially their home."
There is no context to alter this passage. Let's be clear about this: Project SLAM is failing. It is, in fact, almost completely devalued by the removal of 12,400 bed spaces, when the stated aim of the project is for ALL SLA-based personnel to live in high-grade en suite accommodation by 2013. And almost HALF of all occupied SLA is of the lowest grade. And they're still justifying an increase in accommodation charges across the board?
Paras 1.15 through 1.18: Briefly, these paras conclude that the Services' rates of pay and remuneration packages compare favourably with those of 10 other countries' armed forces. Apparently only Canada and France do better than the UK's Services. The 10 countries include the USA.
Who agrees that we are better-paid than the Americans? With the notable exception of the very lowest ranks, this is simply not true (for posterity, in the US private soldiers, junior ratings and junior airmen are in some states dependent upon Social Security payments to suppliment their meagre income - their accommodation and food are free, however, and of a higher quality than that which is provided to our most junior personnel). In fact, Britain is the only G7 country that makes its Armed Forces pay income tax on operational detachments. How about stopping this tax as a means of rewarding personnel actually engaged in operations? Oops - silly me. I forgot that our SofS is a spineless yes-man who cannot stand up to HMT and demand a better package for the Armed Forces.
Para 2.4 (pg 7):
"The Defence context for our deliberations emphasised the challenges facing the Services and the Ministry of Defence.... and budgetary pressures including the need for the Department to achieve efficiencies of £2.8 billion by 2007-08. Against this background, MOD told us that an award in excess of inflation would impact on the Department’s ability to fund other areas of the Defence budget."
So, the 'independent' AFPRB has been "told" by MOD that an award in excess of inflation would be undesirable due to its impact on funding of other areas. The AFPRB has been scuttled! Okay, so we do have a higher-than-inflation pay if you consider the RPI (inflation = 1.5%)... but aren't our charges based on the RPI? In that case, we have an on-inflation pay rise of 3%. An interesting economic sleight of hand. Noting the need to "achieve efficiencies of £2.8 billion", the question arises: why should efficiencies have anything to do with an 'independent' board? It should be up to MOD to work around the board's recommendations. How about reassigning some of the £2.8bn to the pay bill? And how does this compare with 'New' Labour's claim to be increasing the Defence budget? Well, let's see what Gordon "Jobless" Brown has to say on March 16.
Para 2.60 (pg 20):
"We are required by our terms of reference to have regard to the affordability of our recommendations. The Government’s evidence stressed the pressures on the Defence budget, including the need to make significant efficiency savings. The Secretary of State reinforced this in oral evidence. He reminded us that MOD had a “finite” budget and that any award in excess of inflation would have to be funded from savings elsewhere in the overall package for personnel. He was aware, however, as we are from our visits, that the level of the award sent a message to personnel about how they were valued by their employers."
Hm. So Buffy didn't ever want us to gain more than an inflationary pay-rise, presumably based on the CPI or RPIX (a differently-weighted version of the RPI, which discounts some of the RPI's elements - RPIX stood at 2.2% in November 2004). Do I detect an implied threat - and an economic loophole in the statement that, "any award in excess of inflation would have to be funded from savings elsewhere in the overall package for personnel"? What about the £2.8bn efficiency savings? Where are these coming from? Why is it acceptable to make these savings, yet the addition of more than £216m to the Defence budget is uncceptable? Also, consider the fact that a net reduction of 20,000 trained personnel by 2007-08 (the target FY for the efficiency savings) amounts to a more than 10% reduction in the trained strength of HMAF. Against this, why is 3% such a wonderful pay-rise when the Department could, in fact, afford more? Incidentally, I think a lot of soon-to-be-redundant personnel will be somewhat p***ed off at being included as "efficiency savings". The AFPRB could easily have recommended more - indeed, they probably would have done so - had it not been for sustained pressure from HMT to reduce the Department's spending.
Okay, I'm getting bored now. You get the point - the AFPRB's recommendations are unduly influenced by HMT's and Buffy's requirements and targets, and a lot of it is based on dodgy economics. It uses more than one price index (3, in fact, RPI, RPIX and CPI) to calculate awards and deductions, and it provides very little for the Armed Forces to be overly thankful for. Yes, it's a pay-rise, and it is welcome. But I think a lot of people will agree that it does NOT recognise the increased strain placed on the Services in the light of recent operations and - er - future commitments by fewer personnel.
Forgive any value judgments in my analysis, btw!