Tories to look at pensions.
Could well be time to do a runner and start drawing your pension before the rug gets pulled from under your feet.
Financial crisis or not, whoever is in power at the time would be advised to think long and hard about putting military pensions up to be chopped. For one, there does seem to be some sort of groundswell of pro-Forces opinion amongst the more intelligent / reasonable members of society. Look at what happens when politicans make ill thought out decisions to save a quick buck or appear populist - they generally backfire.
Secondly, as has already been stated many times on this thread, the Armed Forces have already moved over to 05. If there is any justice, other public bodies will be in line for pensions readjustments before they have yet another go at the Forces pensions.
Finally, and most importantly, the primary duty of any government is the defence of the country and its people. That would be very difficult to do when large tranches of your most experienced and capable individuals walk because you have just destroyed what is for many the only reason they are staying in. Many who want to leave are caught in the pensions trap; if you spring the trap for them, they will just walk and then where will we end up?
Financial crisis or not, whoever is in power at the time would be advised to think long and hard about putting military pensions up to be chopped. For one, there does seem to be some sort of groundswell of pro-Forces opinion amongst the more intelligent / reasonable members of society. Look at what happens when politicans make ill thought out decisions to save a quick buck or appear populist - they generally backfire.
Secondly, as has already been stated many times on this thread, the Armed Forces have already moved over to 05. If there is any justice, other public bodies will be in line for pensions readjustments before they have yet another go at the Forces pensions.
Finally, and most importantly, the primary duty of any government is the defence of the country and its people. That would be very difficult to do when large tranches of your most experienced and capable individuals walk because you have just destroyed what is for many the only reason they are staying in. Many who want to leave are caught in the pensions trap; if you spring the trap for them, they will just walk and then where will we end up?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The principle of the military pension is that it is unfunded and the amount needed is set aside by what is called a “Prerogative Instrument”. It does not need the approval of, neither can it be annuled or amended by Parliament. The Prerogative Instrument for the RN and RM is an Order in Council under the Naval and Marine Pay and Pensions Act 1865, for the Army, it is the Army Pension Warrant 1977 and, for 'us', QRs. Of course, the terms of the principle may be varied and if it wasn't for the fighting in Afganistan and Iraq and the swell of public support for the troops, it would probably already have been fettled again by now.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Melchett, that is all well and good, but public support for the military and our pensions will last until NHS waiting lists go through the roof and granny gets told by NICE that the latest and greatest cancer drugs are unaffordable due to Jock's 4 star pension.
VR - at which point, then maybe the NHS will think about their latest £12Bn+ IT system which seems to be overdue and unwanted. That is very roughly half the annual Defence budget for a year on one IT system.
I think there are plenty of other organisations and people that need to look at their own afairs before criticizing the military's.
I think there are plenty of other organisations and people that need to look at their own afairs before criticizing the military's.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: England
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VR - at which point, then maybe the NHS will think about their latest £12Bn+ IT system which seems to be overdue and unwanted. That is very roughly half the annual Defence budget for a year on one IT system.
I think there are plenty of other organisations and people that need to look at their own afairs before criticizing the military's.
I think there are plenty of other organisations and people that need to look at their own afairs before criticizing the military's.
Agree otherwise
OP
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hope They Don,t
I for one would walk tomorrow if they start messing with my pension even though I have only just over 3 yrs to my 55 and on the 05 scheme. I am still better off than on the old scheme
If, and it's quite a big if, this country ends up in so much financial pooh that the IMF steps in then the British government (of whatever colour) will have pretty much no choice but to do what it is told. If that includes reducing all public sector pay and pensions, then they will have to do so. That gentlemen is how serious it could get/is getting.
Any consequences of such actions will simply have to be bourne, even if that includes mass resignations in the whole public sector, and no doubt the British government will try to blame the IMF for forcing actions upon them, and, if it is a Tory government, the actions of previous Labour administrations for getting us to this point.
That is how badly things could end up if the politicians of all parties don't grasp the nettle of government debt reduction - and not being honest about the scale of the problem in the PBR, on the basis there is an election looming and you don't want to frighten the voters, is, in my opinion, totally dishonest, typical of NewLiabour and possibly of all politicians.
I heard somebody say something the other day that struck a chord with me. The government of the day (currently Labour) don't own the country. They merely have stewardship of it for 5 years, and all their actions and decisions should be made in the best interests of the country and all its inhabitants not their own political party and traditional voters! Sound like a good principle to me, just a pity they don't follow it!
Any consequences of such actions will simply have to be bourne, even if that includes mass resignations in the whole public sector, and no doubt the British government will try to blame the IMF for forcing actions upon them, and, if it is a Tory government, the actions of previous Labour administrations for getting us to this point.
That is how badly things could end up if the politicians of all parties don't grasp the nettle of government debt reduction - and not being honest about the scale of the problem in the PBR, on the basis there is an election looming and you don't want to frighten the voters, is, in my opinion, totally dishonest, typical of NewLiabour and possibly of all politicians.
I heard somebody say something the other day that struck a chord with me. The government of the day (currently Labour) don't own the country. They merely have stewardship of it for 5 years, and all their actions and decisions should be made in the best interests of the country and all its inhabitants not their own political party and traditional voters! Sound like a good principle to me, just a pity they don't follow it!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: wiltshire
Age: 58
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everyone is barking up the same tree, namely reduction of costs to the public purse!!
primarily through attacks on our pensions. It makes me 
angry now we are having the fickle finger of fate wagging in our direction!!
Maybe, just maybe we could examine the route of increased personnel taxation ONLY FOR THE SHORT TERM to get us away from Bankrupcy Central. simplistically a covenent with the government (agreed by all colours) i.e 2 years at an extra 10 % should do the trick PROVIDED ALL LOOP HOLES THE SLIPPERY RICH ARE USING AT PRESENT ARE CLOSED and tax avoidance is more seriously pursued. This is very simplistic and could be modified with increased personnel tax allowances to help lower income earners and protection offered for home owners?MIRAS? Married persons allowance?Scrapping of taxes on savings? after the two years tax goes back to it's present value. This may proove un-palatable for many but would avoid the insisdious Fiscal Drag that will affect us for decades with the present policies and would keep the experience and recruitment going in the public sector. I've no doubt that the smug bankers will harp on about re-locating to the Cayman Islands or similar; LET THEM GO and take away their British Passports on the way out- there is enough talent in the UK who would relish the chance to replace them.
We must not become the Pariah figure of the Economy as the political parties and more worringly the National press is turning us into.
primarily through attacks on our pensions. It makes me angry now we are having the fickle finger of fate wagging in our direction!!Maybe, just maybe we could examine the route of increased personnel taxation ONLY FOR THE SHORT TERM to get us away from Bankrupcy Central. simplistically a covenent with the government (agreed by all colours) i.e 2 years at an extra 10 % should do the trick PROVIDED ALL LOOP HOLES THE SLIPPERY RICH ARE USING AT PRESENT ARE CLOSED and tax avoidance is more seriously pursued. This is very simplistic and could be modified with increased personnel tax allowances to help lower income earners and protection offered for home owners?MIRAS? Married persons allowance?Scrapping of taxes on savings? after the two years tax goes back to it's present value. This may proove un-palatable for many but would avoid the insisdious Fiscal Drag that will affect us for decades with the present policies and would keep the experience and recruitment going in the public sector. I've no doubt that the smug bankers will harp on about re-locating to the Cayman Islands or similar; LET THEM GO and take away their British Passports on the way out- there is enough talent in the UK who would relish the chance to replace them.
We must not become the Pariah figure of the Economy as the political parties and more worringly the National press is turning us into.
I am suspicious, but not too worried. I dont think Cameron will allow any of his party to tinker with the inner workings of the Military. He knows its almost broke, and that the public are watching. His offer to double op allowance if elected is a recognition of that.
However, if we pull out of Afg, and public attention is switched to something else.................
However, if we pull out of Afg, and public attention is switched to something else.................
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
His offer to double op allowance comes on the back of the fact we wont be getting any pay rises during the next parliamentary term. "We support our forces with a doubling of op allowance", forgetting to mention that poor old squaddy will be having his pay eroded by inflation and National Insurance increases for the next 5 years.
And if you think Cameron is the saviour of the public sector, than think again. I think it more likely we get pulled out of Afghanistan vis a vis the canadians in 2011 than us see the interests of Defence preserved.
He has already made too many ringfence promises that due to Tory history he cannot renage; The NHS being my biggest bugbear. We are not going to see cuts to the NHS, spending is going to become increasingly tight, to the extent Job losses across the public sector will be neccessary, indeed, much of the real "Pain" (other than the significant overstrech and defence spending as a % of DGP falling) of the recession has been bourne only up to this stage by the private sector. We as public sector servants cannot escape the fact that up to now have escaped the "pain", but be assured, its coming by the fistful once the election is over. You only have to see musings of a single point tory lead causing a run on the pound; we are not going to escape further economic devistation without significant cutbacks to the public sector, that, by and large, has been well taken care of for the past 10 years. The fact that defence has been fistf*cked for the past 10 years will not feature into calculations by the next government. In some ways, I wonder if CAS going early with the cuts was a faux pas; our current reduction in capability will be a mere distant memory by the time the next round hits.
And if you think Cameron is the saviour of the public sector, than think again. I think it more likely we get pulled out of Afghanistan vis a vis the canadians in 2011 than us see the interests of Defence preserved.
He has already made too many ringfence promises that due to Tory history he cannot renage; The NHS being my biggest bugbear. We are not going to see cuts to the NHS, spending is going to become increasingly tight, to the extent Job losses across the public sector will be neccessary, indeed, much of the real "Pain" (other than the significant overstrech and defence spending as a % of DGP falling) of the recession has been bourne only up to this stage by the private sector. We as public sector servants cannot escape the fact that up to now have escaped the "pain", but be assured, its coming by the fistful once the election is over. You only have to see musings of a single point tory lead causing a run on the pound; we are not going to escape further economic devistation without significant cutbacks to the public sector, that, by and large, has been well taken care of for the past 10 years. The fact that defence has been fistf*cked for the past 10 years will not feature into calculations by the next government. In some ways, I wonder if CAS going early with the cuts was a faux pas; our current reduction in capability will be a mere distant memory by the time the next round hits.
Scuffer,
This is a thread about military pensions - hence my comments about them, but no sane politician will claim that reductions in public sector pensions are the "primary" means of reducing public sector borrowing!
LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THE PROBLEM!
The government is borrowing about £180Bn (billion) more than it earns this year. Under Labour plans that ANNUAL deficit will be reduced by half in 5 YEARS!! That means in 5 years time they will only be borrowing about £90Bn more than they earn!!!! Assuming a roughly even decrease this means borrowing £160Bn, then £140Bn, £120Bn, then £100Bn then £90Bn. So, in 5 years we have halved our annual borrowing, but built up a debt of £610Bn (160+140+120+100+90) IN ADDITION TO THE £800Bn ish we already owe. So we will then owe £1,400Bn, and are still not even running an even budget!!! We will potentially be in a worse financial position than we were at the end of WWII, when we were flat broke. We will need to get a budget back into balance, then credit, and pay off about £800Bn of accrued debt to be back in the position we were in before the credit crunch started in 2008.
In 2008-09 the government made about £155Bn through income tax, at rates of say 20 and 40%. Your idea of increasing income tax by 10% would raise, being generous, about £50Bn a year extra for 2 years under your scheme. This would be painful for many, and while it obviuosly would help, will be nowhere near enough on its own, or applied for long enough.
You can expect widespread cuts across the whole of government once the general election is over, and the politicians start to come clean. As some examples, perhaps say £3Bn off the defence budget, less money for councils, capital projects (e.g. motorways, etc), 10% reductions everywhere except the NHS, etc, for the next 10 to 20 years to get out of this mess. That is the true scale of the situation.
Just remember, when the politicians talk about reducing government debt, they are referring to the ANNUAL figure, not the OVERALL figure. It's no real secret, and not hard to confirm all this, at least the basic numbers, just do some searching using google!
This is a thread about military pensions - hence my comments about them, but no sane politician will claim that reductions in public sector pensions are the "primary" means of reducing public sector borrowing!
LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THE PROBLEM!
The government is borrowing about £180Bn (billion) more than it earns this year. Under Labour plans that ANNUAL deficit will be reduced by half in 5 YEARS!! That means in 5 years time they will only be borrowing about £90Bn more than they earn!!!! Assuming a roughly even decrease this means borrowing £160Bn, then £140Bn, £120Bn, then £100Bn then £90Bn. So, in 5 years we have halved our annual borrowing, but built up a debt of £610Bn (160+140+120+100+90) IN ADDITION TO THE £800Bn ish we already owe. So we will then owe £1,400Bn, and are still not even running an even budget!!! We will potentially be in a worse financial position than we were at the end of WWII, when we were flat broke. We will need to get a budget back into balance, then credit, and pay off about £800Bn of accrued debt to be back in the position we were in before the credit crunch started in 2008.
In 2008-09 the government made about £155Bn through income tax, at rates of say 20 and 40%. Your idea of increasing income tax by 10% would raise, being generous, about £50Bn a year extra for 2 years under your scheme. This would be painful for many, and while it obviuosly would help, will be nowhere near enough on its own, or applied for long enough.
You can expect widespread cuts across the whole of government once the general election is over, and the politicians start to come clean. As some examples, perhaps say £3Bn off the defence budget, less money for councils, capital projects (e.g. motorways, etc), 10% reductions everywhere except the NHS, etc, for the next 10 to 20 years to get out of this mess. That is the true scale of the situation.
Just remember, when the politicians talk about reducing government debt, they are referring to the ANNUAL figure, not the OVERALL figure. It's no real secret, and not hard to confirm all this, at least the basic numbers, just do some searching using google!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggus,
That, of course assumes that someone wants to buy £610 billion of government debt over the next 5 years. Any idea of where that is coming from?
Its not coming from the Bank of england, thats sure. They BOUGHT more gilts this year than they sold, but that's unsustainable. We have a big problem on the horizon, one the politicians are not talking about for a reason.
Scuffer, you can let all the high rate tax payers go, but once you are left with a nation of benefits claiming immigrants and 4th generation dole-ites, who pays the bills?
That, of course assumes that someone wants to buy £610 billion of government debt over the next 5 years. Any idea of where that is coming from?
Its not coming from the Bank of england, thats sure. They BOUGHT more gilts this year than they sold, but that's unsustainable. We have a big problem on the horizon, one the politicians are not talking about for a reason.
Scuffer, you can let all the high rate tax payers go, but once you are left with a nation of benefits claiming immigrants and 4th generation dole-ites, who pays the bills?
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF pension?
Having PVRed from a Dec B post 75 defense cuts, I have never taken in to account any pension that MIGHT come from HMG. To do so with the current shower in charge and with the bills that they have run up would be unwise!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Out East
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AI R
"Prerogative Instrument" or not, the Service pension is certainly not unfunded. When pay increases are discussed and comparability tables consulted, pay is rebated by a certain amount (4-5%?). So you (I'm retired, thank goodness) are "contributing" that amount.
Given the opprobrium justifiably heaped upon MPs for their fiddling expenses and setting themselves up with the best pension (in terms of return for years spent in the job), I like to think any government that tries to tinker with Service pensions in isolation is on to a HUGE loser.
Of course, I may be wrong!
Pip pip
ON
"Prerogative Instrument" or not, the Service pension is certainly not unfunded. When pay increases are discussed and comparability tables consulted, pay is rebated by a certain amount (4-5%?). So you (I'm retired, thank goodness) are "contributing" that amount.
Given the opprobrium justifiably heaped upon MPs for their fiddling expenses and setting themselves up with the best pension (in terms of return for years spent in the job), I like to think any government that tries to tinker with Service pensions in isolation is on to a HUGE loser.
Of course, I may be wrong!
Pip pip
ON
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Elsewhere on pprune I read with interest the informed comment on an alleged surplus of officers at Squadron Leader rank and above. If numbers of officers were cut at such levels - ought this not help to pay for the pensions of remaining personnel ?
I worked in the private sector and my pension was wrecked when I was made redundant in my fifties whilst friends in the public sector left at the same age but walked with a full pension having had the extra years made up. I don't really want to get involved in the public v. private debate but I know too many who have moved across to the public sector and the general comment is that it's a doddle.
Pay those in uniform well and give them a good pension but let's get stuck in to reducing costs amongst the millions who have benefited from Gordon's years of "investment" across the bloated public sector.
I worked in the private sector and my pension was wrecked when I was made redundant in my fifties whilst friends in the public sector left at the same age but walked with a full pension having had the extra years made up. I don't really want to get involved in the public v. private debate but I know too many who have moved across to the public sector and the general comment is that it's a doddle.
Pay those in uniform well and give them a good pension but let's get stuck in to reducing costs amongst the millions who have benefited from Gordon's years of "investment" across the bloated public sector.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Ned,
I meant that it didn't have to be funded by market performance, sorry.
Vin Rouge,
The State will stop buying its own Gilt in Feb/March 10 and that'll be the interesting time. No one believes Darling's forecast for 3.5% growth to 2011 and with inflation and interest rates set to rise, you watch medium index linked values go up in Spring. After Latvia and Ireland, we have the highest deficit in the EU as a share of GDP and our yield on Gilt is pretty close now, to those Italian 'Treasuries' that we all used to smirk at. Almost 30% of our National debt is ownded by foreigners who still seek solace in our AAA rating. If we lose that, they'll simply sell up cheap and park their cash instead in Turkey, Brazil, or India. I read before Xmas, that Chile FFS, has already undercut British debt yields on some maturities.
Last year, Watson Wyatt guesstimated the Public Sector pension deficit at almost £1 trillion.. where is that going to come from? If not us, then our children. I read that the deficit of a small quango was £112 millions, all on its own. With regards to the military pension, lets remember what it was for. It was supposed to provide funds for those who returned from fighting to have a roof over their heads. The military pension was not intended to allow us all to retire at 40 or 55 in shelf stacking or sunny golk filled comfort and if we are getting down to the nitty gritty, that what we all want it for. Yes, I have a pension and I am ready to be bombarded for hypocrisy
, but I certainly didn't join up for the pension. I joined up for the job and the craic. I also made provision for my own financial future and not enough people currently are, and thats a big part of the problem.
The military pension HAS to change, thats the bottom line. It is all unsustainable, it might make for unpalatable reading but I suspect that those who say they will walk if things change, will be invited to walk and see for themselves if the grass elsewhere really is greener. I read that Tandridge District Council staff were all entitled to a 2.8% pay rise in April 2010 as part of a two-year pay deal agreed before the recession began. They decided to forego that rise, completely. On the wider scale, if the military decides that it is exempt from the day to day realities of the good people of Tanbridge who it stepped forward to protect, then the shift in perception will change. Such is the fickle double edged sword nature of becoming a fashionable cause.
I am not suggesting that we cut and run or absolve ourselves from responsibility for those who step forward to protect us. It might be that the war pension improves so that money is targeted where it is MOST needed, but surely, the extra allowances we give troops have to go some way towards the troops taking on a greater sense of responsibility for their own futures as well? The challenge is one of education and culture as much as anything. All we are doing by treating our pension as a sacred cow is hiding our heads in the sand and passing the buck to our children and grandchildren. Its such a difficult issue - but I think the final solution involves people, everyone, at some stage in the future (perhaps not us) biting a financial bullet. If matters continue for very much longer, then we are fked. Trouble is, none of us wants it to be us.
I meant that it didn't have to be funded by market performance, sorry.
Vin Rouge,
The State will stop buying its own Gilt in Feb/March 10 and that'll be the interesting time. No one believes Darling's forecast for 3.5% growth to 2011 and with inflation and interest rates set to rise, you watch medium index linked values go up in Spring. After Latvia and Ireland, we have the highest deficit in the EU as a share of GDP and our yield on Gilt is pretty close now, to those Italian 'Treasuries' that we all used to smirk at. Almost 30% of our National debt is ownded by foreigners who still seek solace in our AAA rating. If we lose that, they'll simply sell up cheap and park their cash instead in Turkey, Brazil, or India. I read before Xmas, that Chile FFS
, has already undercut British debt yields on some maturities. Last year, Watson Wyatt guesstimated the Public Sector pension deficit at almost £1 trillion.. where is that going to come from? If not us, then our children. I read that the deficit of a small quango was £112 millions, all on its own. With regards to the military pension, lets remember what it was for. It was supposed to provide funds for those who returned from fighting to have a roof over their heads. The military pension was not intended to allow us all to retire at 40 or 55 in shelf stacking or sunny golk filled comfort and if we are getting down to the nitty gritty, that what we all want it for. Yes, I have a pension and I am ready to be bombarded for hypocrisy
, but I certainly didn't join up for the pension. I joined up for the job and the craic. I also made provision for my own financial future and not enough people currently are, and thats a big part of the problem. The military pension HAS to change, thats the bottom line. It is all unsustainable, it might make for unpalatable reading but I suspect that those who say they will walk if things change, will be invited to walk and see for themselves if the grass elsewhere really is greener. I read that Tandridge District Council staff were all entitled to a 2.8% pay rise in April 2010 as part of a two-year pay deal agreed before the recession began. They decided to forego that rise, completely. On the wider scale, if the military decides that it is exempt from the day to day realities of the good people of Tanbridge who it stepped forward to protect, then the shift in perception will change. Such is the fickle double edged sword nature of becoming a fashionable cause.
I am not suggesting that we cut and run or absolve ourselves from responsibility for those who step forward to protect us. It might be that the war pension improves so that money is targeted where it is MOST needed, but surely, the extra allowances we give troops have to go some way towards the troops taking on a greater sense of responsibility for their own futures as well? The challenge is one of education and culture as much as anything. All we are doing by treating our pension as a sacred cow is hiding our heads in the sand and passing the buck to our children and grandchildren. Its such a difficult issue - but I think the final solution involves people, everyone, at some stage in the future (perhaps not us) biting a financial bullet. If matters continue for very much longer, then we are f
ked. Trouble is, none of us wants it to be us.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So whilst no-one with half a brain should be under any illusions as to the state of the UK's finances, what exactly are we saying then?
Are we saying that AFPS 75 and 05 should to be renegotiated? Can they be, causing us all to loose out? Or are we saying that AFPS 10 is just round the corner and any change will affect those who join up from say, next year?
I have 4 years to my 16/38 point and rightly or wrongly want the pension that I was told I was going to get.
Are we saying that AFPS 75 and 05 should to be renegotiated? Can they be, causing us all to loose out? Or are we saying that AFPS 10 is just round the corner and any change will affect those who join up from say, next year?
I have 4 years to my 16/38 point and rightly or wrongly want the pension that I was told I was going to get.
Guest
Posts: n/a
One of the few remaining issues in the military that really raises my hackles - and my urge to post on this site - is the pension. I am now one of those remaining for the safe income stream and the pension at the end of the tunnel.
That said, I still do my bit as a Lincolnshire warrior, including time in the Stan. But the pension remains the last carrot of motivation. If that is 'fiddled with', it may well push more of us out.
However, it could also have the opposite effect - if we have to wait longer and work to 65 to collect it, then perhaps we will have to stay. But do you really want old folk like that on the front line!!?? My kneees and back are shot already and whilst I think will still be still deployable and active up to my departure at 55, others may not. We would end up with a very old and knackered RAF!
Even worse, what about our Army OR brothers who are 'retired' around age 40 (or 22 years service). If age legislation bites as hard as sex discrimination has, we could end up with a very old military.
Age and continued fitness to work will become the next generational mess - the military is not alone in wearing down its employees. Many other forms of employment require physical strength and/or dexterity (like construction, manual labour etc). All very well saying we are living longer, but are we still able to carry a bergan at 65, or hump a toilet cistern upstairs, or carry a bag of cement?
The issue is getting those of the appropriate age to work - not making those of us who do work, work longer. Or in daily Mail speak - get those scrounging, parasitic layabouts - from wherever they originate - out to work and off the social.
Time for another tea and shortbread.
That said, I still do my bit as a Lincolnshire warrior, including time in the Stan. But the pension remains the last carrot of motivation. If that is 'fiddled with', it may well push more of us out.
However, it could also have the opposite effect - if we have to wait longer and work to 65 to collect it, then perhaps we will have to stay. But do you really want old folk like that on the front line!!?? My kneees and back are shot already and whilst I think will still be still deployable and active up to my departure at 55, others may not. We would end up with a very old and knackered RAF!
Even worse, what about our Army OR brothers who are 'retired' around age 40 (or 22 years service). If age legislation bites as hard as sex discrimination has, we could end up with a very old military.
Age and continued fitness to work will become the next generational mess - the military is not alone in wearing down its employees. Many other forms of employment require physical strength and/or dexterity (like construction, manual labour etc). All very well saying we are living longer, but are we still able to carry a bergan at 65, or hump a toilet cistern upstairs, or carry a bag of cement?
The issue is getting those of the appropriate age to work - not making those of us who do work, work longer. Or in daily Mail speak - get those scrounging, parasitic layabouts - from wherever they originate - out to work and off the social.
Time for another tea and shortbread.