Defence Review Result at End of October
It should remain at least until the current children are 18 for existing claimants
However, on a tangent, what about continued payments for those children of servicemen/women made compulsory redundant....? No more different than removing CEA from someone still serving who doesn't actually need it because they never move units but still claim the allowance ....
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: bath
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Point 1 - Be objective.
Point 2 - Ask whether CEA contributes and enables a better force. For example, there are many personnel from all services who will and have departed to interesting areas at a moments notice in support of HMG, safe in the knowledge that when, and if, they return, there is some small chance that their children are able to have a stable education despite numerous postings and ops. If the military employment routine is to change to fewer postings and or disruption then re-examine. Furthermore, spare a thought for those serving couples and single parents who are able to deploy on active service and be moved around with little fuss because of this system - is that value for money?
Point 3 - Make sure that if you change the process you do not alienate and drive out those loyal and hard working people who help to make military delivery work. Furthermore, make sure the rules cater for those who abuse the system.
Discuss
Point 2 - Ask whether CEA contributes and enables a better force. For example, there are many personnel from all services who will and have departed to interesting areas at a moments notice in support of HMG, safe in the knowledge that when, and if, they return, there is some small chance that their children are able to have a stable education despite numerous postings and ops. If the military employment routine is to change to fewer postings and or disruption then re-examine. Furthermore, spare a thought for those serving couples and single parents who are able to deploy on active service and be moved around with little fuss because of this system - is that value for money?
Point 3 - Make sure that if you change the process you do not alienate and drive out those loyal and hard working people who help to make military delivery work. Furthermore, make sure the rules cater for those who abuse the system.
Discuss
what about continued payments for those children of servicemen/women made compulsory redundant....?
Once redundant there is no need to move around so schooling can be stable......therefore no need for a boarding school.
Its not necessarily there to gain a better level of schooling, merely to deal with the mobile aspect. The fact that comps are generally $hite ( I should know) in comaprison won't matter.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the overall scheme of things to come, I suspect that a tightening of CEA rules will be lost in the noise.
Trident Replacement Delay Expected - Monday, September 27, 2010
Trident Replacement Delay Expected - Monday, September 27, 2010
Putting off plans to replace the Trident nuclear weapons system until after the next general election, and drastically scaling down plans to build two new aircraft carriers, are expected to be among key decisions agreed at a meeting of the government's national security council next week, well-placed sources have told the Guardian newspaper.
The Navy will pay for the limited carrier project by agreeing to severe cuts in the number of its surface ships, defence officials say. The RAF will lose many of its fast jets, mainly Tornado and Harriers, and tens of thousands of Ministry of Defence posts, civilian and military, will be axed. A proposed 20% cut in the size of the army - a loss of some 20,000 soldiers - will be put off because of political sensitivity at a time British troops are fighting and getting killed in Afghanistan, according to sources familiar with the negotiations.
For once I agree with Mr Annoyed re the hot potato thing.
There will be cuts, I think everybody has absorbed that, but they need to be able to sell the cuts to the electorate.
It depends on whether they can spin this or not. My guess is they probably could, but it has quite a high chance of backfiring in a big way.
It is easy to sell it as an expensive perk to which many of our colleagues in the private sector are excluded - right up to the point were some Cpl from the Parachute Regt* with an MC is in the Daily Mail with his kids having been removed from private school and getting bullied in a state school. Throw in a couple of pictures of him carrying an afghan kid to safety and hey presto, the electorate are 'off message'.
* insert favourite unit of the month.
There will be cuts, I think everybody has absorbed that, but they need to be able to sell the cuts to the electorate.
It depends on whether they can spin this or not. My guess is they probably could, but it has quite a high chance of backfiring in a big way.
It is easy to sell it as an expensive perk to which many of our colleagues in the private sector are excluded - right up to the point were some Cpl from the Parachute Regt* with an MC is in the Daily Mail with his kids having been removed from private school and getting bullied in a state school. Throw in a couple of pictures of him carrying an afghan kid to safety and hey presto, the electorate are 'off message'.
* insert favourite unit of the month.
there is no need to move around so schooling can be stable......therefore no need for a boarding school
And to counter the Daily Mail line you can expect the Mirror to come up with "if CEA is good enough for Servicemen who are not mobile then why aren't the Nurses / Firemen (insert any public servant) getting CEA as well" or worse "ConDem Education system not good enough for our brave lads and lasses" thus accelerating the removal of CEA to prove the state system is good enough, despite (as RA puts it) there not being enough money for :
new schools in a number of locations
attendant 'all up' costs of teachers
There are far worse things to worry about than the future of CEA I would suggest!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: South Oxon
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think its awful to keep cutting our armed forces in general, and i think Cameron and his brigade should look into the future and realise we need a decent level of services support - not to reduce it. If its going to be bad as people fear it could be, then why not all 3 services just 'down tools' and strike 
then he'll have a problem.
Seriously i hope we don't end up with a force thats less than capable of holding its own (which i guess it won't come to that), its such a shame to see continual closures and disbandments.
As regards the Puma non upgrade & scrapping as well halving the new Chinook order as was reported in one of the papers, i thought the idea for SHF was to increase the levels of helo support as that is why we took on additional Merlins from the Danes? (that is right isn't it??).. sorry just my pennys worth - just feel sorry for you all!
then he'll have a problem.Seriously i hope we don't end up with a force thats less than capable of holding its own (which i guess it won't come to that), its such a shame to see continual closures and disbandments.
As regards the Puma non upgrade & scrapping as well halving the new Chinook order as was reported in one of the papers, i thought the idea for SHF was to increase the levels of helo support as that is why we took on additional Merlins from the Danes? (that is right isn't it??).. sorry just my pennys worth - just feel sorry for you all!
There are far worse things to worry about than the future of CEA I would suggest!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blimey aeronut-grab it while you can! that's almost 100k gross just to send the children to school!
I suspect that it will go, and if they're sensible (a big if, given £140m p.a. cost), those in school should be allowed to finish their current set of exams (ie GCSEs or A Levels) or the end of this year. It would also be interesting to see how many of the smaller private schools go to the wall over this - to be taken over by the free state system, possibly.
S41
Far far cheaper is the RN method of "base porting", where a sailor can stay in a married quarter in a particular area, even though he may be posted elsewhere. e.g. Plymouth house posted to a Portsmouth based ship or you could haver RAF Airman allowed to keep his family in Cott/Witt area even though he has a 2 year posting to Lossiemouth. This gives the family stability, allows the wifey to work and build a career, allows the child continuity of education in the local area and incidently, improves the demographic in said local comprehensive. (my local comp is in the top 5% of state schools in the country) Saves a whack on CEA and also on Disturbance and removal expenses, improves retention. NO BRAINER!!! Unfortunately, in all the noise, this innovative system that has been in existence for many years will probably get trashed as well. So that those that have taken the P*** ruin it for everyone.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"If CEA goes, then so will I"
No you won't. Here's why.
If it goes you have 2 options. Leave the services and keep the kids in the same school and pay it all yourself, which will mean a huge outgoing and lower disposable income on an equivalent job in civvy street. And if the stability is so important to you, you'd do exactly that now without the threat of CEA being taken away.
Or
Leave and put the kids in the local comp. The only thing that has changed is that you are now "seeking employment"
I see very few people that use the CEA for what it's there for and as many others have said, it's people who have been in one place for ages taking the advantage of CEA to avoid a state school.
Do the kids a favour. Show them what life's really like and send them to a comp
(I went and it never hurt me.......)
(Yes I have kids. Yes they will go to a Comp school when they are old enough )
No you won't. Here's why.
If it goes you have 2 options. Leave the services and keep the kids in the same school and pay it all yourself, which will mean a huge outgoing and lower disposable income on an equivalent job in civvy street. And if the stability is so important to you, you'd do exactly that now without the threat of CEA being taken away.
Or
Leave and put the kids in the local comp. The only thing that has changed is that you are now "seeking employment"
I see very few people that use the CEA for what it's there for and as many others have said, it's people who have been in one place for ages taking the advantage of CEA to avoid a state school.
Do the kids a favour. Show them what life's really like and send them to a comp
(I went and it never hurt me.......)(Yes I have kids. Yes they will go to a Comp school when they are old enough )
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Another S**thole
Age: 51
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot of people seem to think that with fewer bases people won't be moving so therefore no requirement for CEA.
However - here's a example of recent career structure:-
2.5 year co-pilot tour in the South West
6 month CFS course Lincolnshire
2.5 year CFS tour North Yorkshire
Captain tour South West
ME Instructor tour with move to new super-base
Promoted into 2.5 year staff tour in Buckinghamshire
Flt Cdr Tour in Oxfordshire
IPT in Bristol
So in a relatively short time (15 or so years - school age) 7 moves which would involve 7 school changes.
Even with the reduction in bases the staff and HQ tours still exist.
Removal of CEA will only serve to add to the breaking of the military covenant.
I agree it needs to be tightened up and maybe gradually phased out over time - it is still a major factor in retention.
And I do use CEA and I personally have to contribute £11000 per school year the 90% is actually a bit of a mis-leading quote.
Parental contribution is a minimum of 10%.
However - here's a example of recent career structure:-
2.5 year co-pilot tour in the South West
6 month CFS course Lincolnshire
2.5 year CFS tour North Yorkshire
Captain tour South West
ME Instructor tour with move to new super-base
Promoted into 2.5 year staff tour in Buckinghamshire
Flt Cdr Tour in Oxfordshire
IPT in Bristol
So in a relatively short time (15 or so years - school age) 7 moves which would involve 7 school changes.
Even with the reduction in bases the staff and HQ tours still exist.
Removal of CEA will only serve to add to the breaking of the military covenant.
I agree it needs to be tightened up and maybe gradually phased out over time - it is still a major factor in retention.
And I do use CEA and I personally have to contribute £11000 per school year the 90% is actually a bit of a mis-leading quote.
Parental contribution is a minimum of 10%.
BP
Yours is not an untypical posting path patterns and one that CEA is there to 'support'. And there will be a lot of individuals from all sorts of branches who will follow similar patterns. But unfortunately there are also a number that don't move (but could if they wanted to / were forced to and so therefore meet the current rules) who claim CEA that are perceived to be 'kicking the ar$e out of it'. This is no more obvious than at places like High Wycombe where people bounce (by choice) between Group / Air and Manning postings without having to actually move. At a push they may commute to a posting into MOD to 'refresh' there mobility certificate.
If CEA does go one of the 'secondary' effects will be more 'voluntary' unaccompanied tours as people settle families in areas where high quality secondary education is available - and if your going to be seperated better in your own house than in a random (and probably crap!) married patch. May even have to adopt the RN working week of Monday lunchtime - Friday lunchtime to avoid peak time travel
Yours is not an untypical posting path patterns and one that CEA is there to 'support'. And there will be a lot of individuals from all sorts of branches who will follow similar patterns. But unfortunately there are also a number that don't move (but could if they wanted to / were forced to and so therefore meet the current rules) who claim CEA that are perceived to be 'kicking the ar$e out of it'. This is no more obvious than at places like High Wycombe where people bounce (by choice) between Group / Air and Manning postings without having to actually move. At a push they may commute to a posting into MOD to 'refresh' there mobility certificate.
If CEA does go one of the 'secondary' effects will be more 'voluntary' unaccompanied tours as people settle families in areas where high quality secondary education is available - and if your going to be seperated better in your own house than in a random (and probably crap!) married patch. May even have to adopt the RN working week of Monday lunchtime - Friday lunchtime to avoid peak time travel
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Update
Cameron Said to Have Not Yet Made Decision on Scope of U.K. Defense Cuts.
A meeting of the National Security Council today chaired by the prime minister agreed that more work needs to be done, according to the person familiar with the discussions, who declined to be named because it was a private meeting.
The panel, which included Defense Secretary Liam Fox, Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne and the incoming armed-forces chief, General David Richards, agreed in principle that the U.K. will make operations in Afghanistan its priority, the person said. The army is the lead force in the country, rather than the air force and navy.
Cameron also made it clear that the review should be genuinely strategic, rather than just about spending, and that greater efficiencies in defense need to be found, the person said. The defense ministry won’t be able to afford between a third and half of the equipment it plans to buy over the next decade, with a 38 billion-pound ($60 billion) shortfall in its budget
The panel, which included Defense Secretary Liam Fox, Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne and the incoming armed-forces chief, General David Richards, agreed in principle that the U.K. will make operations in Afghanistan its priority, the person said. The army is the lead force in the country, rather than the air force and navy.
Cameron also made it clear that the review should be genuinely strategic, rather than just about spending, and that greater efficiencies in defense need to be found, the person said. The defense ministry won’t be able to afford between a third and half of the equipment it plans to buy over the next decade, with a 38 billion-pound ($60 billion) shortfall in its budget
The report states that "...more work needs to be done...", does this mean that:
1) The results of the SDR won't be available to be anounced when the general overall government spending review is published around 20 Oct 10.
or
2) A defence review that many people already consider to have been rushed is re-hashed in an even tighter timescale?
1) The results of the SDR won't be available to be anounced when the general overall government spending review is published around 20 Oct 10.
or
2) A defence review that many people already consider to have been rushed is re-hashed in an even tighter timescale?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Here, there and everywhere
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And without wishing to start yet another bun fight, when did the Army become "the lead Service"? What does that mean for CDS and the central staff? I thought we all brought something to the party but this sounds like the Army will get its way at the expense of the other 2. Granted, we may be committed to a large ground war in Afghan but what are the long-term considerations for an island nation when that conflict ends?
As a member of the light blue, I actually find myself batting for the RN on a strategic basis rather than Army or RAF; carriers and JSF are a strategic must, surely, never mind the necessary ships (frigates, destroyers and MCM vessels) to protect our SLOCs when we clearly import a high percentage of our goods. When will the strategic plans stop getting beaten with the operational Afghan stick?
Rant off..
As a member of the light blue, I actually find myself batting for the RN on a strategic basis rather than Army or RAF; carriers and JSF are a strategic must, surely, never mind the necessary ships (frigates, destroyers and MCM vessels) to protect our SLOCs when we clearly import a high percentage of our goods. When will the strategic plans stop getting beaten with the operational Afghan stick?
Rant off..
Twon, as far as the Army being the 'lead' service, I think this is just another bit of poor journalism. I think it would be fairer to say that the Army is the 'supported' service in Afghanistan whilst the RAF and RN and the 'supporting' services. In my view, that would be more accurate, because there are plenty of areas of Defence where the Army are most definitely not the lead service.
However, what is vaguely worrying is the sheer number of Brown Jobs occupying the top seats in Defence. Off the top of my head, and CGS aside, CDS, VCDS and Chief of Defence Materiel are all held by Army personnel. Assuming that the RAF and RN get royally mugged by the Army in the coming SDSR, one does have to ask how much of that mugging was down to the fact that the Army occupied a disproportionate amount of senior seats in a supposedly Joint environment?
However, what is vaguely worrying is the sheer number of Brown Jobs occupying the top seats in Defence. Off the top of my head, and CGS aside, CDS, VCDS and Chief of Defence Materiel are all held by Army personnel. Assuming that the RAF and RN get royally mugged by the Army in the coming SDSR, one does have to ask how much of that mugging was down to the fact that the Army occupied a disproportionate amount of senior seats in a supposedly Joint environment?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Liam Fox letter to the PM (Torygraph):
Dear David
We are nearing the culmination of the work we promised to deliver on our approach to national security; the NSC meeting tomorrow is a key opportunity to set out the risk and consequences of that work for our NSC colleagues. This is not a letter I am copying to others ahead of tomorrow’s NSC but I wanted to let you know my views, which are shared by my Ministerial colleagues.
Frankly this process is looking less and less defensible as a proper SDSR (Strategic Defence and Strategy Review) and more like a “super CSR” (Comprehensive Spending Review). If it continues on its current trajectory it is likely to have grave political consequences for us, destroying much of the reputation and capital you, and we, have built up in recent years. Party, media, military and the international reaction will be brutal if we do not recognise the dangers and continue to push for such draconian cuts at a time when we are at war. I am very grateful to Peter Ricketts and Jeremy Heywood for the help they have given officials who have worked strenuously to bridge a gap that is, financially and intellectually virtually impossible. I am concerned that we do not have a narrative that we can communicate clearly.
On 22 July the NSC endorsed the ‘Adaptable Britain’ posture because we decided that it was impossible to predict what conflict or global security scenarios may emerge in the years ahead. That meant ensuring the maintenance of generic defence capability across all three environments of land, sea and air – not to mention the emerging asymmetric threats in domains such as cyber and space –with sufficient ability to regenerate capability in the face of these possible future threats were it required.
How do we want to be remembered and judged for our stewardship of national security? We have repeatedly and robustly argued that this is the first duty of Government and we run the risk of having those words thrown back at us if the SDSR fails to reflect that position and act upon it.
I suggest we start tomorrow’s discussion by asking whether we are really prepared to see Defence spending reduced to this level. The impact on capability, particularly in the maritime domain, would be more substantial than one might imagine from the paper.
Our decisions today will limit severely the options available to this and all future governments. The range of operations that we can do today we will simply not be able to do in the future. In particular, it would place at risk:
The reduction in overall surface ship numbers means we will be unable to undertake all the standing commitments (providing a permanent Royal Navy presence in priority regions) we do today. Assuming a presence in UK waters, the Falklands and in support of the deterrent is essential we would have to withdraw our presence in, for example, the Indian Ocean, Caribbean or Gulf.
Deletion of the amphibious shipping (landing docks, helicopter platforms and auxiliaries) will mean that a landed force will be significantly smaller and lighter and deployed without protective vehicles or organic fire. We could not carry out the Sierra Leone operation again.
Deletion of the Nimrod MR4 will limit our ability to deploy maritime forces rapidly into high-threat areas, increase the risk to the Deterrent, compromise maritime CT (counter terrorism), remove long range search and rescue, and delete one element of our Falklands reinforcement plan.
Some risk to civil contingent capability, including but not limited to foot and mouth, fire-fighting strikes, fuel shortages, flu pandemics, Mumbai style attacks and the 2012 Summer Olympics.
The potential for the scale of the changes to seriously damage morale across the Armed Forces should not be underestimated. This will be exacerbated by the fact that the changes proposed would follow years of mismanagement by our predecessors. It may also coincide with a period of major challenge (and, in all probability, significant casualties) in Afghanistan.
Even at this stage we should be looking at the strategic and security implications of our decisions. It would be a great pity if, having championed the cause of our Armed Forces and set up the innovation of the NSC, we simply produced a cuts package. Cuts there will have to be. Coherence, we cannot do without, if there is to be any chance of a credible narrative.
Yours
Liam Fox
Dear David
We are nearing the culmination of the work we promised to deliver on our approach to national security; the NSC meeting tomorrow is a key opportunity to set out the risk and consequences of that work for our NSC colleagues. This is not a letter I am copying to others ahead of tomorrow’s NSC but I wanted to let you know my views, which are shared by my Ministerial colleagues.
Frankly this process is looking less and less defensible as a proper SDSR (Strategic Defence and Strategy Review) and more like a “super CSR” (Comprehensive Spending Review). If it continues on its current trajectory it is likely to have grave political consequences for us, destroying much of the reputation and capital you, and we, have built up in recent years. Party, media, military and the international reaction will be brutal if we do not recognise the dangers and continue to push for such draconian cuts at a time when we are at war. I am very grateful to Peter Ricketts and Jeremy Heywood for the help they have given officials who have worked strenuously to bridge a gap that is, financially and intellectually virtually impossible. I am concerned that we do not have a narrative that we can communicate clearly.
On 22 July the NSC endorsed the ‘Adaptable Britain’ posture because we decided that it was impossible to predict what conflict or global security scenarios may emerge in the years ahead. That meant ensuring the maintenance of generic defence capability across all three environments of land, sea and air – not to mention the emerging asymmetric threats in domains such as cyber and space –with sufficient ability to regenerate capability in the face of these possible future threats were it required.
How do we want to be remembered and judged for our stewardship of national security? We have repeatedly and robustly argued that this is the first duty of Government and we run the risk of having those words thrown back at us if the SDSR fails to reflect that position and act upon it.
I suggest we start tomorrow’s discussion by asking whether we are really prepared to see Defence spending reduced to this level. The impact on capability, particularly in the maritime domain, would be more substantial than one might imagine from the paper.
Our decisions today will limit severely the options available to this and all future governments. The range of operations that we can do today we will simply not be able to do in the future. In particular, it would place at risk:
The reduction in overall surface ship numbers means we will be unable to undertake all the standing commitments (providing a permanent Royal Navy presence in priority regions) we do today. Assuming a presence in UK waters, the Falklands and in support of the deterrent is essential we would have to withdraw our presence in, for example, the Indian Ocean, Caribbean or Gulf.
Deletion of the amphibious shipping (landing docks, helicopter platforms and auxiliaries) will mean that a landed force will be significantly smaller and lighter and deployed without protective vehicles or organic fire. We could not carry out the Sierra Leone operation again.
Deletion of the Nimrod MR4 will limit our ability to deploy maritime forces rapidly into high-threat areas, increase the risk to the Deterrent, compromise maritime CT (counter terrorism), remove long range search and rescue, and delete one element of our Falklands reinforcement plan.
Some risk to civil contingent capability, including but not limited to foot and mouth, fire-fighting strikes, fuel shortages, flu pandemics, Mumbai style attacks and the 2012 Summer Olympics.
The potential for the scale of the changes to seriously damage morale across the Armed Forces should not be underestimated. This will be exacerbated by the fact that the changes proposed would follow years of mismanagement by our predecessors. It may also coincide with a period of major challenge (and, in all probability, significant casualties) in Afghanistan.
Even at this stage we should be looking at the strategic and security implications of our decisions. It would be a great pity if, having championed the cause of our Armed Forces and set up the innovation of the NSC, we simply produced a cuts package. Cuts there will have to be. Coherence, we cannot do without, if there is to be any chance of a credible narrative.
Yours
Liam Fox
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Age: 54
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Liam Fox is right of course although I doubt that he will be happy that the letter leaked because the leak weakens his position.
We need some proper strategic thinking to serve as the foundation of the review and, in my view, we have seen very little of that. Defence capabilities need to be fit for the conflicts of the 2040s and these, it seems to me, will be over access to resources more than they will be about anything else. Command of maritime trade routes will be the single most important capability for an island nation that can't feed itself. The UK scarcely needs a standing army at all, which is why I think the Army has been careful to get itself properly mired in Afghanistan - it's all a question of survival.
We need some proper strategic thinking to serve as the foundation of the review and, in my view, we have seen very little of that. Defence capabilities need to be fit for the conflicts of the 2040s and these, it seems to me, will be over access to resources more than they will be about anything else. Command of maritime trade routes will be the single most important capability for an island nation that can't feed itself. The UK scarcely needs a standing army at all, which is why I think the Army has been careful to get itself properly mired in Afghanistan - it's all a question of survival.