Armed Forces Federation (Merged)
Champagne anyone...?
True enough. If no one signs up then it will indeed be a toothless organisation. Alternatively, we all join it and give it some clout.
Best off not bothering - they might fix things and then we'd have nothing to whinge about
Best off not bothering - they might fix things and then we'd have nothing to whinge about
Call me an old cynic but I think it will turn into nothing more than an 'Anti Officer/management' outfit.
The 1.5 Million will be spent on glossy brochures and multi cultural outings to Mosques, 'consultants' and such like.
Bah Humbug.
The 1.5 Million will be spent on glossy brochures and multi cultural outings to Mosques, 'consultants' and such like.
Bah Humbug.
Just had a look at the BAFF website - all seems a bit Army-centric. The only page that has an RAF-type of pic is the 'links' page, with a shot of the Reds on it - hardly front-line stuff...
Also, all of the Executive are Army (or ex-Army); what does that say about support from RN and RAF?
Also, all of the Executive are Army (or ex-Army); what does that say about support from RN and RAF?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact of the matter is that the armed forces have a large amount of support from the population of the UK but there is no one who is focusing this support into action.
Headlines in the papers highlighting the appauling treatment of those that have been hurt in action is all very well but this publicity adds up to nothing without someone focusing this public support into political action.
I think that it has to be worth the £30 punt to see what happens, afterall the alternative is to do nothing.
Headlines in the papers highlighting the appauling treatment of those that have been hurt in action is all very well but this publicity adds up to nothing without someone focusing this public support into political action.
I think that it has to be worth the £30 punt to see what happens, afterall the alternative is to do nothing.
. On the links page, they only have a link to the ARSSE, not this site... Shall we all just join the army then?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK, sometimes!
Age: 74
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MadMark!!!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Englandshire, mostly.
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure about the £30 either, perhaps a financial plan from BAFF would assure some of us that we are not paying for an office to be furbished with chairs at £1000 each!
BAFF will only work if we get behind it so, they've got some serious convincing to do IMHO.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BAFF has a link to ARRSE as that is where it was born. It was as a direct result of a thread about action and the means of which Armed Forces personnel could or couldn't provoke and help themselves and there comrades.
That is why the link exists and was/is predominantly Army centric, this will only change by the involvement of both the RAF and RN and I am sure that should you ask they would link to this site too, but I would caution you that you might be swamped by non military aircrew types whom just want to bait.
That is why the link exists and was/is predominantly Army centric, this will only change by the involvement of both the RAF and RN and I am sure that should you ask they would link to this site too, but I would caution you that you might be swamped by non military aircrew types whom just want to bait.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I joined. I got out 2 years ago as a flt lt and could see where things were going. BAFF is the only answer. The only time the politicians listen is when a fuss is kicked up in the media. Jackson protested in private when CGS and it got him nowhere. Dannat as CGS spoke up in public and the media were in uproar - cages were seriously rattled. Think what BAFF will achieved. This is the only way change will be effected.
If you do not attempt to change anything, you will change nothing. Lives have been lost because of the MoD head-in-the-sand attitude. Change will save lives.
If you do not attempt to change anything, you will change nothing. Lives have been lost because of the MoD head-in-the-sand attitude. Change will save lives.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Armed Forces Federation Bill - Kevan Jones.
Its become an almost annual event. Jones puts it forward and it gets knocked back. Today though, it has got through on a 10 minute Bill hearing first reading again. No wonder he looked so proud when he presented it. Again. 
In light of all the eqpt f#ck ups and losses of life, and welfare issues, do our troops finally need a Federation? It could also be a useful conduit and outlet for senior military opinion. This is what he said last year (or was it the year before?) which wasn't a world away from what he said again today anyway. It won't help useless knackers get out of fitness tests, but it might get decent living quarters, and it will add weight to issues affecting retired personnel.
"I am pleased to have the opportunity to introduce this Bill today. Last year, I had the pleasure of serving on the Committee that considered the Armed Forces Bill. During consideration in Committee, I moved new clause 23, which would have established the formation of an armed forces federation open to serving and retired members of Her Majesty’s armed forces, both regular and reserve. I have to say that I was neither surprised nor disappointed that the new clause was not accepted, but our consideration of it allowed the Committee to discuss the issues surrounding it.
I now believe that there is a groundswell of opinion among the public as well as among members of the armed forces that it is time that those members should have an independent voice to represent their interests. Recent controversies surrounding accommodation, the treatment given in medical facilities to injured personnel returning from Iraq—and, of course, the scandal at Deepcut—have highlighted the increasing need for members of the armed forces to have an independent voice and to ensure that it is heard.
There is also increasing evidence that members of Her Majesty’s armed forces need to have access to independent legal advice. In the previous Parliament, I also served on the Committee that considered the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Act 2004. It was clear from those deliberations that members of Her Majesty’s armed services needed independent employment advice and advice about their pensions. I propose not a trade union but a federation along the lines of the Police Federation. I want to build on the excellent work already done by the British Armed Forces Federation, which was set up in 2006, has recently been incorporated as a company limited by guarantee, and is now recruiting members. The work of Douglas Young and his team at the BAFF has been important in raising awareness of such issues among members of the armed forces. The Bill would put the federation on a formal recognised footing with the Ministry of Defence.
The aim of the Bill is to encompass the 10-point plan put forward by the BAFF, which states:
The activities of the federation would cover five main areas: first, professional and career development through the provision of education and information; secondly, liaison, monitoring and response to proposals or developments within the armed forces and in Parliament, and the provision of services in the public or commercial sector for armed forces personnel; thirdly, advocacy and consultation to protect and improve the conditions of service life, including pay, accommodation, medical and welfare services, resettlement packages and all other areas of support for armed forces personnel and their families; fourthly, support to personnel facing court martial or other legal proceedings in connection with their service; and finally, negotiation of commercial benefits for armed forces personnel and their families.
It is important that the federation is seen to be independent, and is not beholden to any political party, pressure group or defence interest. While the federation needs robust and adequate funding, it is important that it is not seen as just another pressure group for defence interests. The federation will not take a view on defence strategy or operational decisions, although it may raise individual, legitimate concerns affecting its members. To clarify, I reiterate that the federation will not be a trade union for the armed forces. It will not conduct or condone any form of industrial action or insubordination within the armed forces. The federation will seek to work with the Ministry of Defence to put in place a form of understanding that could deal with such issues. It will also recognise the importance of the chain of command. If we look at the BAFF’s website, we see that it clearly reinforces the point that the chain of command is to be recognised, not overridden.
The proposal might be seen as radical and dangerous by certain members of the armed forces, and possibly by some Opposition Members. But may I point out that many other nations, including the United States and Australia, already have such federations, which have the support of the military command in those countries? The proposal, however, is not to copy those, but to bring forward a British solution for the British armed forces. It will reflect the ethos and robust traditions of the three fighting services, but it will also meet the requirements of men and women who are serving in our armed forces.
The best example that I can give is that of the Armed Forces Federation of Australia. It is an independent voice on pay and allowances and represents members of the armed forces on employment issues. It also gives legal advice, financial assistance and advice, and allows for discounts and savings schemes nationally for all members of the Australian armed forces. The federation is controlled and structured by its members and is independent of the Australian military, although it has the backing of senior military figures. In the introduction to its latest handbook, Air Chief Marshall Houston says:
The Bill would not set up an armed forces federation; it already exists. Instead, it would allow the BAFF to be recognised by the Ministry of Defence and be valued for providing a voice for ordinary members of our armed forces. The BAFF has already stated that if legislation, such as this Bill, were introduced, it would look to work with the Government and stakeholders to develop the appropriate structures for the representation of members of our armed forces. The Bill provides just that opportunity, and I urge the House to support it."
In light of all the eqpt f#ck ups and losses of life, and welfare issues, do our troops finally need a Federation? It could also be a useful conduit and outlet for senior military opinion. This is what he said last year (or was it the year before?) which wasn't a world away from what he said again today anyway. It won't help useless knackers get out of fitness tests, but it might get decent living quarters, and it will add weight to issues affecting retired personnel.
"I am pleased to have the opportunity to introduce this Bill today. Last year, I had the pleasure of serving on the Committee that considered the Armed Forces Bill. During consideration in Committee, I moved new clause 23, which would have established the formation of an armed forces federation open to serving and retired members of Her Majesty’s armed forces, both regular and reserve. I have to say that I was neither surprised nor disappointed that the new clause was not accepted, but our consideration of it allowed the Committee to discuss the issues surrounding it.
I now believe that there is a groundswell of opinion among the public as well as among members of the armed forces that it is time that those members should have an independent voice to represent their interests. Recent controversies surrounding accommodation, the treatment given in medical facilities to injured personnel returning from Iraq—and, of course, the scandal at Deepcut—have highlighted the increasing need for members of the armed forces to have an independent voice and to ensure that it is heard.
There is also increasing evidence that members of Her Majesty’s armed forces need to have access to independent legal advice. In the previous Parliament, I also served on the Committee that considered the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Act 2004. It was clear from those deliberations that members of Her Majesty’s armed services needed independent employment advice and advice about their pensions. I propose not a trade union but a federation along the lines of the Police Federation. I want to build on the excellent work already done by the British Armed Forces Federation, which was set up in 2006, has recently been incorporated as a company limited by guarantee, and is now recruiting members. The work of Douglas Young and his team at the BAFF has been important in raising awareness of such issues among members of the armed forces. The Bill would put the federation on a formal recognised footing with the Ministry of Defence.
The aim of the Bill is to encompass the 10-point plan put forward by the BAFF, which states:
- “The federation’s mission shall be to represent, foster and promote the professional welfare, and other legitimate interests of all members of the federation in their capacity as serving or retired personnel of the fighting services of the United Kingdom”.
The activities of the federation would cover five main areas: first, professional and career development through the provision of education and information; secondly, liaison, monitoring and response to proposals or developments within the armed forces and in Parliament, and the provision of services in the public or commercial sector for armed forces personnel; thirdly, advocacy and consultation to protect and improve the conditions of service life, including pay, accommodation, medical and welfare services, resettlement packages and all other areas of support for armed forces personnel and their families; fourthly, support to personnel facing court martial or other legal proceedings in connection with their service; and finally, negotiation of commercial benefits for armed forces personnel and their families.
It is important that the federation is seen to be independent, and is not beholden to any political party, pressure group or defence interest. While the federation needs robust and adequate funding, it is important that it is not seen as just another pressure group for defence interests. The federation will not take a view on defence strategy or operational decisions, although it may raise individual, legitimate concerns affecting its members. To clarify, I reiterate that the federation will not be a trade union for the armed forces. It will not conduct or condone any form of industrial action or insubordination within the armed forces. The federation will seek to work with the Ministry of Defence to put in place a form of understanding that could deal with such issues. It will also recognise the importance of the chain of command. If we look at the BAFF’s website, we see that it clearly reinforces the point that the chain of command is to be recognised, not overridden.
The proposal might be seen as radical and dangerous by certain members of the armed forces, and possibly by some Opposition Members. But may I point out that many other nations, including the United States and Australia, already have such federations, which have the support of the military command in those countries? The proposal, however, is not to copy those, but to bring forward a British solution for the British armed forces. It will reflect the ethos and robust traditions of the three fighting services, but it will also meet the requirements of men and women who are serving in our armed forces.
The best example that I can give is that of the Armed Forces Federation of Australia. It is an independent voice on pay and allowances and represents members of the armed forces on employment issues. It also gives legal advice, financial assistance and advice, and allows for discounts and savings schemes nationally for all members of the Australian armed forces. The federation is controlled and structured by its members and is independent of the Australian military, although it has the backing of senior military figures. In the introduction to its latest handbook, Air Chief Marshall Houston says:
- “As an independent representative body for military personnel, I welcome the Federation’s continued contribution to the development of personnel policies for the ADF”.
The Bill would not set up an armed forces federation; it already exists. Instead, it would allow the BAFF to be recognised by the Ministry of Defence and be valued for providing a voice for ordinary members of our armed forces. The BAFF has already stated that if legislation, such as this Bill, were introduced, it would look to work with the Government and stakeholders to develop the appropriate structures for the representation of members of our armed forces. The Bill provides just that opportunity, and I urge the House to support it."
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Transiting the M27
Age: 50
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Al R,
It's a noble idea and worth the effort, particularly from Defence Select Committee member Jones. Interesting list of roles and responsibilities, BTW!
However for advisory group under the more recent governments see also the word "Quango".
Independent, non-government organisations advising government are in danger of being overrun by ex-MPs and former lobbyists with special interests and party political games to play. If the BAFF is to work, it needs that special mix of ex-Service personnel, ex-policy types (to manipulate the system!), lobbyists and some PUBLICLY onside MPs.
I think a good move is to have a Defence Select Committee with more bite. There needs to be a Gwynneth Dunwoody type who, terrier-like, has enough bark and bite to pull both the MoD and HM Treasury into line. Those of us who have ever worked in the central system know that the real power lies with the select committees in Parliament, and open questioning and throwing out of half cooked policy from both departments is a quick way forward.
List of current committee members are here.
Sadly, Bills have a habit of being time constrained, and Parliamentary time for such things has a habit of "running out".
It's a noble idea and worth the effort, particularly from Defence Select Committee member Jones. Interesting list of roles and responsibilities, BTW!
However for advisory group under the more recent governments see also the word "Quango".
Independent, non-government organisations advising government are in danger of being overrun by ex-MPs and former lobbyists with special interests and party political games to play. If the BAFF is to work, it needs that special mix of ex-Service personnel, ex-policy types (to manipulate the system!), lobbyists and some PUBLICLY onside MPs.
I think a good move is to have a Defence Select Committee with more bite. There needs to be a Gwynneth Dunwoody type who, terrier-like, has enough bark and bite to pull both the MoD and HM Treasury into line. Those of us who have ever worked in the central system know that the real power lies with the select committees in Parliament, and open questioning and throwing out of half cooked policy from both departments is a quick way forward.
List of current committee members are here.
Sadly, Bills have a habit of being time constrained, and Parliamentary time for such things has a habit of "running out".
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a federation is adopted, it is highly likely that we would lose our effectiveness almost overnight. If we each stuck rigidly to the rules which govern us or the guidelines set in place (adhering to the requirements for leave for example), we would certainly highlight to those higher up the decision ladder that our can-do-attitude often gets jobs done, and the flexibility offered to commanders is invaluable. If we stick to those regs and have a community voice to back up the individual, then we stifle that can-do attitude and the overstretch suddenly becomes apparent.
Ironically, because of this, I'd suggest that it is unlikely that a bill would be accepted with our current state of affairs.
By bringing the threat of it up though, I only hope that it fires a shot across the bows of those who take the p1ss out of the good will of those in HM Forces.
But I doubt it.
Ironically, because of this, I'd suggest that it is unlikely that a bill would be accepted with our current state of affairs.
By bringing the threat of it up though, I only hope that it fires a shot across the bows of those who take the p1ss out of the good will of those in HM Forces.
But I doubt it.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gashman,
It certainly won't turn the Armed Forces into something full of truculent recruits, threatening to sue nasty instructors for shouting at them during basic training (anyway, the RAF has had that since 1987) and it won't allow groundcrew the right to demand not to go out in the wet and cold (.. 1918).
But it will act as an interface between the men (at all levels) and the g'ment, and society. It won't be a political party, it won't campaign (by stature I think) on matters relating to pay etc, but it will crystalise a massive range of issues ranging from depemdents having their married quarters fixed whilst the serving member is deployed, to an independent eye on matters such as resettlement and JPA performance. If you think thats gonna smash effectiveness overnight, you've possibly got a different take on it to me.
Lord Garden saw a need for it, as has Tim Collins. But as Beattie so rightly points out, it needs to be more than a job club for retired Starships and PUSs, and it needs to be able to go straight to the heart of the matter.. the committees where the warhorses stalk and where they take a perverse pride in clobbering their own side (as long as the opposition isn't doing it too!). BAFF needs to be able to strike the right chord, have the right credibility and for that, I imagine, it needs people like Mike Jackson, Chris Patten, Geoff Hoon, Paddy Ashdown maybe.. Robin Gibb.. people who care and people who have nothing to gain apart from doing the right thing. People like this wouldn't allow it to become a soap box ship for idiots, so I wouldn't worry unduly.
But if things did change, so what? I am against the idea in principle of simplification so that Forces life is like Civvy Street simply for the sake of it and so a few wets can say its all 'equal' (if anything, Civvy Street should raise its game, and not compel the Forces to dilute its), but change shouldn't be feared. I always thought that the idea that a 21 year old could impose child impacting financial penalties and incarceration on a 40 year old family man, simply because he went to Cranwell for a few months, completely absurd. But that doesn't mean that I'm against strict Forces discipline that is different from what an ASBO ignoring chav might get.
This will hopefully increase efficiency, raise morale, maximise retention, attract more recruitment and as soon as the system knows that its under the spotlight, it raises its game too. God knows what might have been different if we had BAFF 5 or 5 years ago. We need to look ahead.. if things are this bad now, what might they be like in 30 years?
http://www.tgarden.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
(Hi Beattie.)
It certainly won't turn the Armed Forces into something full of truculent recruits, threatening to sue nasty instructors for shouting at them during basic training (anyway, the RAF has had that since 1987) and it won't allow groundcrew the right to demand not to go out in the wet and cold (.. 1918).
But it will act as an interface between the men (at all levels) and the g'ment, and society. It won't be a political party, it won't campaign (by stature I think) on matters relating to pay etc, but it will crystalise a massive range of issues ranging from depemdents having their married quarters fixed whilst the serving member is deployed, to an independent eye on matters such as resettlement and JPA performance. If you think thats gonna smash effectiveness overnight, you've possibly got a different take on it to me.
Lord Garden saw a need for it, as has Tim Collins. But as Beattie so rightly points out, it needs to be more than a job club for retired Starships and PUSs, and it needs to be able to go straight to the heart of the matter.. the committees where the warhorses stalk and where they take a perverse pride in clobbering their own side (as long as the opposition isn't doing it too!). BAFF needs to be able to strike the right chord, have the right credibility and for that, I imagine, it needs people like Mike Jackson, Chris Patten, Geoff Hoon, Paddy Ashdown maybe.. Robin Gibb.. people who care and people who have nothing to gain apart from doing the right thing. People like this wouldn't allow it to become a soap box ship for idiots, so I wouldn't worry unduly.
But if things did change, so what? I am against the idea in principle of simplification so that Forces life is like Civvy Street simply for the sake of it and so a few wets can say its all 'equal' (if anything, Civvy Street should raise its game, and not compel the Forces to dilute its), but change shouldn't be feared. I always thought that the idea that a 21 year old could impose child impacting financial penalties and incarceration on a 40 year old family man, simply because he went to Cranwell for a few months, completely absurd. But that doesn't mean that I'm against strict Forces discipline that is different from what an ASBO ignoring chav might get.
This will hopefully increase efficiency, raise morale, maximise retention, attract more recruitment and as soon as the system knows that its under the spotlight, it raises its game too. God knows what might have been different if we had BAFF 5 or 5 years ago. We need to look ahead.. if things are this bad now, what might they be like in 30 years?
http://www.tgarden.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
(Hi Beattie.)
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Federation is inevitable, and necessary to stop the rot. The only reason the government gets away with the disgraceful state of affairs at present is that they have a media monopoly on the Armed Forces. The DIN attempted to turn the screw further and gag comments on all aspects of Service life (including terms and conditions) and use of internet posting boards. BAFF will provide an independent voice for sailors, soldiers and airmen with regard to terms and conditions of service - overstretch, lack of harmony time, shoddy FQs, low pay for junior ranks etc. The BAFF model is designed to avoid straying into operational issues, in order not to undermine operational effectiveness. However, that area is now nicely covered by the Collins ruling which gives personnel some legal protection, and should lessen the chance of future deaths occuring through non-existent or unfit equipment.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jess,
Agreed. And you can change something so much, that in the end it bears no resemblence and has none of the benefits the original example had anyway (if a frog had wings, it wouldn't keep bumping its arse, but it wouldn't be a frog anymore). So I'm not sure if another pressure group like BAFF wil be the ideal model in the long run. Formed with the best intentions and with very capable people, the easiest way to ignore something is to give it quasi official status, a seat at the table and then ignore it or suffocate it. The old adage 'I'd rather have the enemy inside the camp, pissing out, than outside pissing in' springs to mind.
Darling's budget last month would have made 66,000 servicemen worse off, and the make up of the ground force being what it is, that brunt would have been felt most by the Toms and LACs and SACs serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And what would have happened if we had had a pressure group? With the greatest respect to the RBL which does a fantastic job, (and as Beattie says) we simply don't need another mid level lobbying task force which is great at hammering on doors but just as used to having them slammed in its face. The troops need heat, not light - every man and his dog has a single issue policy group being paid to hammer away for them at Westminster now. And their impact is diluted. Another bog standard Federation would have got its salary justifying teeth stuck into the issue of losing the men 3/6 a month, and thats what the g'ment will have wanted. They can bat that sort of issue and problem away all day long - its used to it by now. And it'd tie BAFF up in knots until the cows came home. This new body needs to rise above that and be able to think long term.
If you had independant 12 men and women, representing the interests of the soldiers, sailors and airmen, which had inroads into power at a level that you can't buy and can't be won by votes and one which wouldn't undermine the Chain of Command and which had sufficient balance, weight and gravitas, one which could quietly say 'Hang on Air Chief Marshall - the Hercs need ESF and the men need paying on time, please sort your life out. Will April of the year after next be sufficient time?', you'd be happy wouldn't you? Or conversely, to be able to testify as easily to the Select Committees 'Look - those aeroplanes need replacing and the houses need fixing and we really think you should do it quickly because there's an election coming up', then you'll be on the right lines.
The upper echelon of the (MoD) Civil Service has been far too heavily politicised for its own good. By way of a loose example, when the BBC Trust speaks, even the Mandarins take note because it hardly ever utters, but when it does, the world stops. Perhaps thats a model? The BBC had a board of Governors who together regulated the Beeb and represented the interests of the public, but not the employees. It was independent of the DG and the rest of the Executive Team. They had no direct say in programming, but were nevertheless accountable to Parliament (and us) for the BBC's actions. It now has the BBC Trust and the BBC Executive Board, which sets an overall strategic direction and exercises a general oversight. Clearly too, thats no good in itself, because the MoD is thankfully, unique and priceless. But its the sort of lines along which this new legislation should be thinking. God help the MoD if it does nothing and ends up with a version of the Nurses or Police Federation, which as we saw the other month, are inneffective and only make their members look like twts. Either way, if the MoD does nothing and hides its head in the sand, it'll end up with something it probably won't like or want. It has to engage in this process properly, now.
Agreed. And you can change something so much, that in the end it bears no resemblence and has none of the benefits the original example had anyway (if a frog had wings, it wouldn't keep bumping its arse, but it wouldn't be a frog anymore). So I'm not sure if another pressure group like BAFF wil be the ideal model in the long run. Formed with the best intentions and with very capable people, the easiest way to ignore something is to give it quasi official status, a seat at the table and then ignore it or suffocate it. The old adage 'I'd rather have the enemy inside the camp, pissing out, than outside pissing in' springs to mind.
Darling's budget last month would have made 66,000 servicemen worse off, and the make up of the ground force being what it is, that brunt would have been felt most by the Toms and LACs and SACs serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And what would have happened if we had had a pressure group? With the greatest respect to the RBL which does a fantastic job, (and as Beattie says) we simply don't need another mid level lobbying task force which is great at hammering on doors but just as used to having them slammed in its face. The troops need heat, not light - every man and his dog has a single issue policy group being paid to hammer away for them at Westminster now. And their impact is diluted. Another bog standard Federation would have got its salary justifying teeth stuck into the issue of losing the men 3/6 a month, and thats what the g'ment will have wanted. They can bat that sort of issue and problem away all day long - its used to it by now. And it'd tie BAFF up in knots until the cows came home. This new body needs to rise above that and be able to think long term.
If you had independant 12 men and women, representing the interests of the soldiers, sailors and airmen, which had inroads into power at a level that you can't buy and can't be won by votes and one which wouldn't undermine the Chain of Command and which had sufficient balance, weight and gravitas, one which could quietly say 'Hang on Air Chief Marshall - the Hercs need ESF and the men need paying on time, please sort your life out. Will April of the year after next be sufficient time?', you'd be happy wouldn't you? Or conversely, to be able to testify as easily to the Select Committees 'Look - those aeroplanes need replacing and the houses need fixing and we really think you should do it quickly because there's an election coming up', then you'll be on the right lines.
The upper echelon of the (MoD) Civil Service has been far too heavily politicised for its own good. By way of a loose example, when the BBC Trust speaks, even the Mandarins take note because it hardly ever utters, but when it does, the world stops. Perhaps thats a model? The BBC had a board of Governors who together regulated the Beeb and represented the interests of the public, but not the employees. It was independent of the DG and the rest of the Executive Team. They had no direct say in programming, but were nevertheless accountable to Parliament (and us) for the BBC's actions. It now has the BBC Trust and the BBC Executive Board, which sets an overall strategic direction and exercises a general oversight. Clearly too, thats no good in itself, because the MoD is thankfully, unique and priceless. But its the sort of lines along which this new legislation should be thinking. God help the MoD if it does nothing and ends up with a version of the Nurses or Police Federation, which as we saw the other month, are inneffective and only make their members look like tw
ts. Either way, if the MoD does nothing and hides its head in the sand, it'll end up with something it probably won't like or want. It has to engage in this process properly, now.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Age: 70
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Armed Forces Federation
I noticed this in the middle of Derek Twigg's report yesterday.......
The Bett report also recommended this many years ago and it was quietly dropped. I want to know why 'they' remain unconvinced.
The Defence Select Committee report also recommends the need for an Armed Forces Federation. We remain unconvinced however that an Armed Forces Federation is consistent with the ethos and traditions of the British Armed Forces.