Armed Forces Federation (Merged)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
One thing for sure, if BAFF takes off, UK armed forces will change forever.
. 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.....
... 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.....
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.....
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.....
Last edited by nigegilb; 13th Sep 2006 at 13:58.
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.....
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.....
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!
"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!
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
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.
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."
"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."
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!
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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!
Nixor ut Ledo
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: In a Beaut of a State
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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!
Nixor ut Ledo
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: In a Beaut of a State
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chugalug I did not say that the CoC should be a popularity contest.
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!"
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.
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!"
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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?
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?