SFFP
Please excuse me if this was covered in an earlier post, but have either you or Innocent Man served on an overseas tour in the last, say, 10 years? I'm not talking RAFG in the 1980s, or Cyprus in the 1990s.
I've covered this in other post and other threads...yes it is (generally) great to serve abroad and I think less of my colleagues from my Branch who have chosen not to. However, in most cases, overseas tours (especially to NATO appointments) are career-limiting, often based on out-of-date perceptions by desk officers and senior personnel (and peers who haven't been there) of the work rate, job content and heavily coloured by 'lifestyle' aspects.
To illustrate this, a colleague of mine worked directly for a US ambassador for several years in a very niche but high profile role. His OJARs were glowing but initially sent back by the desk officer because Ambassador was not regarded as a rank (he was a 2* equivalent) so a random Gp Capt who worked many hundreds of miles away had to provide the 2RO commentary. Similarly, some of the loan service and exchange postings can be very sensitive (politically) and the 1st RO might struggle with being sufficiently effusive in English, ultimately disadvantaging the SP.
In my own case, my 2 tours in MB were directly influenced by my previous experience overseas and (I hope) defence output was enhanced by this. Subsequent foreign staff college course allowed me to become an SME on that region.
Great, you say.
Now to the money. I agree with you that LOA or COLA should be limited to covering the additional expenses of living abroad. There are many commercial assessors of global shopping baskets (as used by OGDs) but the MOD pushes its own, out of date agenda, using a team based in Glasgow to assess what it costs to maintain a similar lifestyle abroad. Added to that was a directive to substantially cut the 'benefits package' and as a result there are unbalanced and irrational decisions made, largely based on the spending habits of an Inf Cpl as a marker. Anomalies are legion: for example, if you serve on a well-found base in Germany (eg USAF Ramstein) where there are a host of heavily subsidies welfare, sporting, food and shopping outlets etc, LOA is more than if you serve in an ISODET in a major city, eg Munich, where cost of living is substantially higher.
I quote from an Army paper prepared a year ago in response to the first round of LOA cuts:
The cuts seem to most to be disproportionate, unfairly targeted and with little logic or justification.
HQ 1 (UK) Armd Div show that over the period Dec 09 to May 11...the biggest overall loser proportionally will be a married SSgt who will expereince a reduction of 35% in net income over the period....the biggest monetary value reduction for a non-commissioned rank will be married WO1, who with 2 children will lose GBP 815 a month compared with Dec 09 - matched only by Lt Cols and above.
Getting on the property ladder in UK now requires two incomes to service a mortgage for the majority of SP. The limited opportunities for spousal employment overseas [read none in many places], exacerbated by cuts to civilian posts, adds to the financial pressure our people are under. The perception that LOA compensated for this in the past may have been misguided but tightening of LOA calculations has brought this issue into very sharp focus...Again, the choices are stark - stay in the UK or serve M[arried] U[naccompanied]. If we want out people to serve accompanied overseas we must ensure that they are not out of pocket.
Both of you might find it amusing to snipe at these comments, but I wager that neither of you have faced such drastic cuts to income - ever. Given that there are about 18,000 SP abroad, there are a significant number who are in penury becaue of political decisions, and, if they are Army, certainly didn't volunteer for RD in Germany. It is clear by the tone of correspondence from MPs and Ministers, those serving overseas should suck it up and be greatful!
My own circumstances are changing and I won't need to worry about the vindictive cuts to LOA and to the rest of my 'package' (ooo - err), but RAF personnel serving overseas suffer the double jeopordy of jealously translated into less-competative assesments on Promotion Boards, and savagely reduced incomes.
ps: Any spelling errors are mine!