25%+ cut in allowances!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The sandpit
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Nip,
You are correct, undoubtedly we do all have a choice and it's certainly something that we will all have to make, no matter how difficult it may be. In the example I mentioned, I just feel that it is pretty harsh to say to a couple(both wholly committed and wishing to remain in the service) that one of them should leave in order to live together, otherwise commute for SERVICE NEEDS and receive bugger all in HTD. It's a difficult one.
I'm at ISK right now and if what I think comes out with regard to allowances in the next few months, I believe morale will reach a dangerous point.
Joe
You are correct, undoubtedly we do all have a choice and it's certainly something that we will all have to make, no matter how difficult it may be. In the example I mentioned, I just feel that it is pretty harsh to say to a couple(both wholly committed and wishing to remain in the service) that one of them should leave in order to live together, otherwise commute for SERVICE NEEDS and receive bugger all in HTD. It's a difficult one.
I'm at ISK right now and if what I think comes out with regard to allowances in the next few months, I believe morale will reach a dangerous point.
Joe
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well if you ask me there is no morale left anymore in the RAF. I knew things would be bad but I did not expect us to get hit as bad as this yet again 
I just cant be bothered to argue anymore, my decision to pull the black and yellow is already made.
I just cant be bothered to argue anymore, my decision to pull the black and yellow is already made.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: england
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MB / Melchett,
I agree entirely with both your viewpoints.
Just for my benefit could someone explain the meaning of 'recruitment and retention incentives'?
In fact I think I understand the retention part, if you don't want to / need to retain people, stop paying the incentive. But if that person has been recruited under the premise of receiving a specialist pay incentive monthly / annually for filling a specific position, isn't it slightly offside to renege on the deal?
If you dangle a carrot you have to let the mule eat it eventually. Pull it away and the mule will stop trusting you and probably bite you instead!
Another whiskey methinks.
I agree entirely with both your viewpoints.
Just for my benefit could someone explain the meaning of 'recruitment and retention incentives'?
In fact I think I understand the retention part, if you don't want to / need to retain people, stop paying the incentive. But if that person has been recruited under the premise of receiving a specialist pay incentive monthly / annually for filling a specific position, isn't it slightly offside to renege on the deal?
If you dangle a carrot you have to let the mule eat it eventually. Pull it away and the mule will stop trusting you and probably bite you instead!
Another whiskey methinks.
Last edited by Quazzi; 6th Dec 2010 at 21:44. Reason: whiskey induced grammar
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Melchett - just to continue with the advocate work...
So an implicit rather than explicit directive you 'followed' to buy a house, then live in it. You can be in the housing ladder and not live in the house, as many military people do. You made a choice.
The family factor is an issue - don't say it isn't. I don't know of that many sub-standard quarters as you put it - sub to what standard? Remote? We put airfields there - not much choice there.
Balanced life? That'll be family then?
'with the Desk'? Don't tell me you believed for a minute that view might extend beyond the tenure of the incumbent? Makes no difference to the Desk anyway, you go where they need a bum on a seat - as you've found out.
You don't have to - but you chose to live outside a system that is provided for you so are accommodated where you work.
I happen to agree with 'what is best for the family' and, were my future different to the one planned, probably do exactly the same as you. I suppose you flew a certain type and were fortunate to be based somewhere for a good duration. Very lucky if you were. Most other Branches don't have that luxury so would never expect to have a house and live in it without travel, and know it was their choice to do so.
Rather than any specific scheme, I was thinking more in the round of the MOD wanting to get as many people off base and into their own homes to reduce the costs of having to provide facilities to house them etc.
They can't have it both ways. From a personal perspective, the family factor isn't an issue, but I'm damned if I am going to spend the best part of my life living in largely sub-standard accommodation on a remote base, that I would frankly be embarrassed to invite friends to stay at.
In the interests of a balanced life, I chose to buy a house in a location that was close to the majority of likely postings;
this was done having discussed career and personal aspirations with the Desk so they were well aware of my thoughts and intentions.
But I refuse to subsidise the MOD because of where it chose to post me in relation to my permanent home address.
I happen to agree with 'what is best for the family' and, were my future different to the one planned, probably do exactly the same as you. I suppose you flew a certain type and were fortunate to be based somewhere for a good duration. Very lucky if you were. Most other Branches don't have that luxury so would never expect to have a house and live in it without travel, and know it was their choice to do so.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Another S**thole
Age: 51
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In terms of cutting specialist pay - would that not be a change to terms of service?
If so - do we not have to agree to a change to our terms or can we take the MOD to court if it enforces the changes without giving us the option?
Just a thought.....
If so - do we not have to agree to a change to our terms or can we take the MOD to court if it enforces the changes without giving us the option?
Just a thought.....
overseas Tours
Melchett - do I detect a whiff of envy of those serving on 'sunshine' tours? Why should those serving abroad be financially disadvantaged by your suggestion of withdrawal of LOA (which has been slashed, btw)?
You have to accept that it does cost a hell of a lot more to live abroad, especially away from a PJOB/Garrison. For example, son is boarding in UK as there are no English-language schools within 100 miles.
This is my third overseas tour in 9 years because of my skill-set; other tours in between were INVOLSEP.
In sum, if you want people to fill overseas appointments, it is fair and reasonable to compensate them. And it is relevant, in my case, to compare my package w
ith those companies who send executives - and their families - abroad.
Oh, and for those criticising me being flown back to UK for a medical appointment - it is for specialist treatment not available in my HN.
You have to accept that it does cost a hell of a lot more to live abroad, especially away from a PJOB/Garrison. For example, son is boarding in UK as there are no English-language schools within 100 miles.
This is my third overseas tour in 9 years because of my skill-set; other tours in between were INVOLSEP.
In sum, if you want people to fill overseas appointments, it is fair and reasonable to compensate them. And it is relevant, in my case, to compare my package w
ith those companies who send executives - and their families - abroad.
Oh, and for those criticising me being flown back to UK for a medical appointment - it is for specialist treatment not available in my HN.
Last edited by Whenurhappy; 7th Dec 2010 at 05:54.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen,
Lets face it, whatever you/I/we think of it all, the government will do whatever they want to do and ignore the views of the rest of us. The cold fact is that without the backing of those at the top of the military trees, nothing will happen. And thereby lies the biggest fundamental problem facing all three services today, but especially the RAF.
I am often haranged on pprune for complaining about the quality of the airships we have and have had in recent times in the RAF, but the fact remains that none of them has been, or would be prepared to stand up publicly and say 'enough is enough' Without that type of support, all of your arguments are doomed to failure, simply because those at the top of government will never get to know the true amount of ill-feelng being generated here.
Most of the arguments on this forum are highly relevant and legitimate to those involved, and I have great sympathy for most of them. The fiasco of flying pay is one area however, where we have shot ourselves in the foot 'big time'
This utter nonesence about 'non aircrew' filling a 'flying related' post has done the flying community no favours at all. I know of FCs and even ATs who have kept their flying pay simply because someone has deemed that their 'new' posting is flying related. What a farce! I have heard and read the arguments that 'they may be required to rejoin the E-3 fleet therefore....' many times, and it is frankly a disgrace! There have been JO FCs (and a few senior ones also!) who are back in the ground environment, receiving more flying pay than front line aircrew on Op. The same goes for some ATs who have managed to cling onto their FP, and whatever your beliefs, that cannot be right. It is little wonder therefore that when the beancounters look at all of this, they rub their grubby little hands with glee at the prospect of making significant savings.
To those of you left in, my best wishes and I hope that you can salvage something from your already depleted allowances package. To those considering departing the datum, it really is NOT that bad outside, and the biggest and most refreshing thing you will find is that (providing you play fair) your new Boss will look out for you and stand up for you.........
unlike your current one!!
Lets face it, whatever you/I/we think of it all, the government will do whatever they want to do and ignore the views of the rest of us. The cold fact is that without the backing of those at the top of the military trees, nothing will happen. And thereby lies the biggest fundamental problem facing all three services today, but especially the RAF.
I am often haranged on pprune for complaining about the quality of the airships we have and have had in recent times in the RAF, but the fact remains that none of them has been, or would be prepared to stand up publicly and say 'enough is enough' Without that type of support, all of your arguments are doomed to failure, simply because those at the top of government will never get to know the true amount of ill-feelng being generated here.
Most of the arguments on this forum are highly relevant and legitimate to those involved, and I have great sympathy for most of them. The fiasco of flying pay is one area however, where we have shot ourselves in the foot 'big time'
This utter nonesence about 'non aircrew' filling a 'flying related' post has done the flying community no favours at all. I know of FCs and even ATs who have kept their flying pay simply because someone has deemed that their 'new' posting is flying related. What a farce! I have heard and read the arguments that 'they may be required to rejoin the E-3 fleet therefore....' many times, and it is frankly a disgrace! There have been JO FCs (and a few senior ones also!) who are back in the ground environment, receiving more flying pay than front line aircrew on Op. The same goes for some ATs who have managed to cling onto their FP, and whatever your beliefs, that cannot be right. It is little wonder therefore that when the beancounters look at all of this, they rub their grubby little hands with glee at the prospect of making significant savings.
To those of you left in, my best wishes and I hope that you can salvage something from your already depleted allowances package. To those considering departing the datum, it really is NOT that bad outside, and the biggest and most refreshing thing you will find is that (providing you play fair) your new Boss will look out for you and stand up for you.........
unlike your current one!!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Where the heart belongs
Age: 55
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
dropintheoggin,
Please refer to the Banter thread.
(p.s. get a life whilst you're at it)
I'm glad that at 42 you can find it so amusing to make a mockery of so many people's careers. You must be an absolute legend.
If you are willing to make such a comment, could you please explain what/who you are?
If you are willing to make such a comment, could you please explain what/who you are?
(p.s. get a life whilst you're at it)
Last edited by Sideshow Bob; 7th Dec 2010 at 10:36.
your new Boss will look out for you and stand up for you
) screws them over with changes in working practices, allowance packages etc. Perhaps we need a military union .....
The harsh truth is the MOD has been broken by a decade or more of mismanagement and failure to see the inevitable train coming the other way down the tunnel - if a reduction in the allowances package is unacceptable it's not too many clicks on JPA to PVR. Not sure there will be many standing in the way to stop you go - after all a volunteer is worth dozens of pressed men (or women!). And if you choose not to use the facilities provided (i.e FQ) then that is your choice. The fact that they may be $hite makes no difference (sadly
). Of course, this reduction in the 'fringe benefits' may all be a grand plan to encourage people to walk out of the door of their own accord.....
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Yeovil
Age: 53
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dropintheoggin,
Quote:
I'm glad that at 42 you can find it so amusing to make a mockery of so many people's careers. You must be an absolute legend.
If you are willing to make such a comment, could you please explain what/who you are?
Please refer to the Banter thread.
(p.s. get a life whilst your at it)
Quote:
I'm glad that at 42 you can find it so amusing to make a mockery of so many people's careers. You must be an absolute legend.
If you are willing to make such a comment, could you please explain what/who you are?
Please refer to the Banter thread.
(p.s. get a life whilst your at it)
ps. I'll get a life too eh?
Last edited by Junglydaz; 7th Dec 2010 at 12:41.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrathmonk
I can't speak for Ryan Air, but I can assure you that a great many pilots do share my view, and most join one of the pilot associations simply because we need to have a coherant voice speaking on behalf of us and we clearly can't do that as individuals, pretty much like every other organisation/union.
That is the problem you have in the military at the moment. None of the top men are prepared to go public with what the troops are saying. (they are of course more than willing to complain after they leave and have their pensions secured!)
I agree with your comments about MOD mismanagement, however your comment about FQ is completely wrong. It DOES matter. People have a right to expect reasonable accomodation and for you to suggest that they should accept sh1te is wrong IMO.
Ultimately you may well be correct of course about the 'grand plan' and I wouldn't be surprised if there were a big element of truth in that. Good luck to all of you that are left in. Things are going to get tough (er)
I can't speak for Ryan Air, but I can assure you that a great many pilots do share my view, and most join one of the pilot associations simply because we need to have a coherant voice speaking on behalf of us and we clearly can't do that as individuals, pretty much like every other organisation/union.
That is the problem you have in the military at the moment. None of the top men are prepared to go public with what the troops are saying. (they are of course more than willing to complain after they leave and have their pensions secured!)
I agree with your comments about MOD mismanagement, however your comment about FQ is completely wrong. It DOES matter. People have a right to expect reasonable accomodation and for you to suggest that they should accept sh1te is wrong IMO.
Ultimately you may well be correct of course about the 'grand plan' and I wouldn't be surprised if there were a big element of truth in that. Good luck to all of you that are left in. Things are going to get tough (er)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just as a comparison
Expenses for which MPs may claim include:
Accommodation: Payable only to non-London area MPs to cover expenses incurred for overnight accommodation necessary for the performance of an MP's parliamentary duties. Claims may be made for rental payments and associated expenses such as utility bills, up to an annual limit of £19,900 of which a maximum of £17,400 may be claimed for rental payments. Alternatively MPs may claim for hotel accommodation up to a maximum of £130 per night in the London area and £105 elsewhere.
London Area Living Payment: This payment is limited to £3,760 per financial year payable monthly.
Travel and Subsistence: MPs may claim for certain travel and subsistence expenses, including food and non-alcoholic drinks, incurred in relation to their parliamentary duties. This includes journeys between the constituency and Westminster, travel within the constituency, extended UK travel and journeys to the EU. MPs may also claim for travel and subsistence expenses incurred for family members and members of their staff.
Winding Up Expenses: These expenses are designed to meet the cost of completing the outstanding parliamentary functions of a person who ceases to be a Member of Parliament and are limited to £40,609.
Expenses for which MPs may claim include:
Accommodation: Payable only to non-London area MPs to cover expenses incurred for overnight accommodation necessary for the performance of an MP's parliamentary duties. Claims may be made for rental payments and associated expenses such as utility bills, up to an annual limit of £19,900 of which a maximum of £17,400 may be claimed for rental payments. Alternatively MPs may claim for hotel accommodation up to a maximum of £130 per night in the London area and £105 elsewhere.
London Area Living Payment: This payment is limited to £3,760 per financial year payable monthly.
Travel and Subsistence: MPs may claim for certain travel and subsistence expenses, including food and non-alcoholic drinks, incurred in relation to their parliamentary duties. This includes journeys between the constituency and Westminster, travel within the constituency, extended UK travel and journeys to the EU. MPs may also claim for travel and subsistence expenses incurred for family members and members of their staff.
Winding Up Expenses: These expenses are designed to meet the cost of completing the outstanding parliamentary functions of a person who ceases to be a Member of Parliament and are limited to £40,609.
Last edited by heights good; 7th Dec 2010 at 14:48. Reason: Too messy and required tidying
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In addition MPs can claim the following. Ref: Green Book – MP expenses, Parliamentary Standards Website & BBC
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/c...enbook0907.pdf
http://www.parliamentarystandards.org.uk/
Subsistence (p14)
A flat-rate sum of £25 may be claimed for any night
which a Member spends away from his or her main home
on parliamentary business. No other payment in respect of
subsistence may be claimed
Accommodation (p14)
Either
Rent of one additional home in either London or the
constituency (limited to £1250 per month for any new
rental agreement on a newly-rented property) (in addition
the cost of a deposit may be met, although this must
be repaid when the deposit, or a proportion thereof, is
returned)
Or
Mortgage interest in respect of one additional home in
either London or the constituency (limited to £1250 per
month)
Or
Hotel accommodation in either London or the
constituency (limited to £1250 per month)
Travel expenses (BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | What MPs can claim on expenses)
There is no limit on the amount of travel expenses MPs can claim - but it is subject to certain rules. They can claim business class air fares and first class rail travel for Parliamentary business within the UK and up to three visits a year to European institutions, as well as up to 30 single journeys a year for spouses or children. MPs can also claim for staff travel - up to 24 single journeys a year between Westminster and their constituency. Overall MPs claimed £4.5m in travel expenses in 2006/7.
Petty Cash (p24)
Members may be reimbursed for petty cash, the limit being £50
per month. Any claims for items costing £25 or more will need to
be accompanied by relevant receipts. You must keep a petty cash
book recording what items petty cash is spent on.
Travel expenditure (p35)
Members can claim for reasonable travel and associated costs
provided that journeys are undertaken for the purpose of
performing their parliamentary duties. For the purposes of this
allowance.
In addition, staff, spouses and civil partners, and children up to the
age of 18 are entitled to certain travel allowances.
Motor mileage rate
To cover business travel by private motor car 40p per mile for the first 10,000 miles
25 per per mile thereafter
Motor Cycle mileage To cover business travel by private motor cycle 24p per mile
Bicycle mileage To cover business travel by private cycle 20p per mile
House of Commons Travel Card (p36)
A Travel Card is available to all Members to pay for all allowable
train, air, coach, ferry and parking costs for yourself, your family
and your staff.
Family Travel (p37)
Spouses and civil partners are entitled to up to 30 single journeys
each year between London and the constituency or the Member’s
main home.
Dependent children (including stepchildren, foster children etc)
who are under 18 – or over 18 and still in full time secondary
education until the end of the academic year in which their 18th
birthday falls – are each entitled to up to 30 single journeys each year
Value for money (p40)
There is no restriction on the class of travel for Members.
However, you are encouraged to purchase tickets through the
Parliamentary Travel Office so that the House can benefit from
route deals. You are also encouraged to purchase the best value
tickets, for example by advance purchase. Members are able to
claim the cost of an advance purchase ticket which they buy but
cannot in the event use.
Security budget (p56)
Where the local police advise, the House will contribute to the
costs of security measures taken to safeguard Members, their staff
and their equipment at their constituency office or surgery. AOE
must be used for the first £1000 of expenditure. The House will
meet half of the rest of the cost up to a maximum contribution
of £2000.
Help for Members with disabilities (p56)
The Department provides assistance to Members with disabilities,
subject to a report from a consultant occupational health medical
practitioner retained by the House. Assistance can take the
form of additional staff, necessary equipment or help with travel
for example.
By allowance year (p59)
Members may also apply to transfer funds between allowance
years. Subject to there being sufficient funds available, up to
10 per cent of each of the following allowances can be carried
forward into the following allowance year: AOE; Staffing
Expenditure; and Communications Expenditure. In certain cases,
an advance can be made into the existing year from the following
year’s budget.
Administrative and Office Expenditure (AOE) (p19)
The AOE is an allowance designed to provide for facilities,
equipment, supplies and services for Members and their staff.
It may only be used to meet the following costs:
Accommodation for office or surgery use or for occasional
meetings
Equipment and supplies for the office or surgery
Work commissioned and other services
Certain travel costs not met out of travel expenditure
Loans for deposits on rental properties (IPSA)
5.19 A Member who is eligible to claim for rental costs may apply to IPSA for a loan to cover any deposit payable at the commencement of a tenancy.
Additional budgets for MPs with responsibility for caring for others (IPSA)
5.17 A Member who is eligible to claim Accommodation Expenses for rental costs may claim an additional amount of up to £2,425 in any financial year for any additional expenditure that may be required, for each person for whom that Member has caring responsibilities.
5.18 For this purpose an MP will be deemed to have caring responsibilities in the circumstances set out below:
A dependent child of up to the age of five years
A dependent child in full-time education, of up to the age of 21 years
Members who are the sole carer only
Any family member for whom the MP is the primary carer, who is in receipt of one of the following benefits:
• Attendance Allowance
• Disability Living Allowance at the middle or highest rate for personal care
• Constant Attendance Allowance at or above the normal maximum rate with an Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit, or basic (full day) rate with a War Disablement Pension All Members
Incidental Expenses Allowance
Worth up to £22,193, this allowance is aimed at costs incurred in the course of an MP's duty - such as accommodation costs, office equipment and supplies.
Resettlement Allowance
Paid to MPs who lose their seat or stand down at a general election - it is based on their age and length of service and amounts to between 50% and 100% of their annual salary.
Insurance
12.11 In addition to any insurance which is payable under Parts 5 and 9 of this Scheme, MPs may claim in respect of premium payments for the following types of insurance:
(a) Employer’s Liability Insurance, up to a limit of £10,000,000;
(b) Public Liability Insurance, up to a limit of £5,000,000;
(c) Travel Insurance, to cover travel under paragraph 7.2.
Contingency payments
12.13 Where a MP necessarily incurs expenditure or liability for expenditure related to the performance of the MP's parliamentary functions which is not covered by any of the allowances set out in this Scheme or, if it is covered by one or more of those allowances, it exceeds any financial limit that may apply, the MP may apply to IPSA to be reimbursed on an exceptional basis in respect of that expenditure.
MPs claiming for mortgage interest
5.12 For MPs claiming for mortgage interest, the annual Accommodation Expenses budget (including all associated expenditure as set out at paragraph 5.3) is £17,500.
It seems that the military do NOT have it that great after all!
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/c...enbook0907.pdf
http://www.parliamentarystandards.org.uk/
Subsistence (p14)
A flat-rate sum of £25 may be claimed for any night
which a Member spends away from his or her main home
on parliamentary business. No other payment in respect of
subsistence may be claimed
Accommodation (p14)
Either
Rent of one additional home in either London or the
constituency (limited to £1250 per month for any new
rental agreement on a newly-rented property) (in addition
the cost of a deposit may be met, although this must
be repaid when the deposit, or a proportion thereof, is
returned)
Or
Mortgage interest in respect of one additional home in
either London or the constituency (limited to £1250 per
month)
Or
Hotel accommodation in either London or the
constituency (limited to £1250 per month)
Travel expenses (BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | What MPs can claim on expenses)
There is no limit on the amount of travel expenses MPs can claim - but it is subject to certain rules. They can claim business class air fares and first class rail travel for Parliamentary business within the UK and up to three visits a year to European institutions, as well as up to 30 single journeys a year for spouses or children. MPs can also claim for staff travel - up to 24 single journeys a year between Westminster and their constituency. Overall MPs claimed £4.5m in travel expenses in 2006/7.
Petty Cash (p24)
Members may be reimbursed for petty cash, the limit being £50
per month. Any claims for items costing £25 or more will need to
be accompanied by relevant receipts. You must keep a petty cash
book recording what items petty cash is spent on.
Travel expenditure (p35)
Members can claim for reasonable travel and associated costs
provided that journeys are undertaken for the purpose of
performing their parliamentary duties. For the purposes of this
allowance.
In addition, staff, spouses and civil partners, and children up to the
age of 18 are entitled to certain travel allowances.
Motor mileage rate
To cover business travel by private motor car 40p per mile for the first 10,000 miles
25 per per mile thereafter
Motor Cycle mileage To cover business travel by private motor cycle 24p per mile
Bicycle mileage To cover business travel by private cycle 20p per mile
House of Commons Travel Card (p36)
A Travel Card is available to all Members to pay for all allowable
train, air, coach, ferry and parking costs for yourself, your family
and your staff.
Family Travel (p37)
Spouses and civil partners are entitled to up to 30 single journeys
each year between London and the constituency or the Member’s
main home.
Dependent children (including stepchildren, foster children etc)
who are under 18 – or over 18 and still in full time secondary
education until the end of the academic year in which their 18th
birthday falls – are each entitled to up to 30 single journeys each year
Value for money (p40)
There is no restriction on the class of travel for Members.
However, you are encouraged to purchase tickets through the
Parliamentary Travel Office so that the House can benefit from
route deals. You are also encouraged to purchase the best value
tickets, for example by advance purchase. Members are able to
claim the cost of an advance purchase ticket which they buy but
cannot in the event use.
Security budget (p56)
Where the local police advise, the House will contribute to the
costs of security measures taken to safeguard Members, their staff
and their equipment at their constituency office or surgery. AOE
must be used for the first £1000 of expenditure. The House will
meet half of the rest of the cost up to a maximum contribution
of £2000.
Help for Members with disabilities (p56)
The Department provides assistance to Members with disabilities,
subject to a report from a consultant occupational health medical
practitioner retained by the House. Assistance can take the
form of additional staff, necessary equipment or help with travel
for example.
By allowance year (p59)
Members may also apply to transfer funds between allowance
years. Subject to there being sufficient funds available, up to
10 per cent of each of the following allowances can be carried
forward into the following allowance year: AOE; Staffing
Expenditure; and Communications Expenditure. In certain cases,
an advance can be made into the existing year from the following
year’s budget.
Administrative and Office Expenditure (AOE) (p19)
The AOE is an allowance designed to provide for facilities,
equipment, supplies and services for Members and their staff.
It may only be used to meet the following costs:
Accommodation for office or surgery use or for occasional
meetings
Equipment and supplies for the office or surgery
Work commissioned and other services
Certain travel costs not met out of travel expenditure
Loans for deposits on rental properties (IPSA)
5.19 A Member who is eligible to claim for rental costs may apply to IPSA for a loan to cover any deposit payable at the commencement of a tenancy.
Additional budgets for MPs with responsibility for caring for others (IPSA)
5.17 A Member who is eligible to claim Accommodation Expenses for rental costs may claim an additional amount of up to £2,425 in any financial year for any additional expenditure that may be required, for each person for whom that Member has caring responsibilities.
5.18 For this purpose an MP will be deemed to have caring responsibilities in the circumstances set out below:
A dependent child of up to the age of five years
A dependent child in full-time education, of up to the age of 21 years
Members who are the sole carer only
Any family member for whom the MP is the primary carer, who is in receipt of one of the following benefits:
• Attendance Allowance
• Disability Living Allowance at the middle or highest rate for personal care
• Constant Attendance Allowance at or above the normal maximum rate with an Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit, or basic (full day) rate with a War Disablement Pension All Members
Incidental Expenses Allowance
Worth up to £22,193, this allowance is aimed at costs incurred in the course of an MP's duty - such as accommodation costs, office equipment and supplies.
Resettlement Allowance
Paid to MPs who lose their seat or stand down at a general election - it is based on their age and length of service and amounts to between 50% and 100% of their annual salary.
Insurance
12.11 In addition to any insurance which is payable under Parts 5 and 9 of this Scheme, MPs may claim in respect of premium payments for the following types of insurance:
(a) Employer’s Liability Insurance, up to a limit of £10,000,000;
(b) Public Liability Insurance, up to a limit of £5,000,000;
(c) Travel Insurance, to cover travel under paragraph 7.2.
Contingency payments
12.13 Where a MP necessarily incurs expenditure or liability for expenditure related to the performance of the MP's parliamentary functions which is not covered by any of the allowances set out in this Scheme or, if it is covered by one or more of those allowances, it exceeds any financial limit that may apply, the MP may apply to IPSA to be reimbursed on an exceptional basis in respect of that expenditure.
MPs claiming for mortgage interest
5.12 For MPs claiming for mortgage interest, the annual Accommodation Expenses budget (including all associated expenditure as set out at paragraph 5.3) is £17,500.
It seems that the military do NOT have it that great after all!
Yeo, I agreee pretty generous allowances for MPs...but so what? We are not MPs and I suspect that few of us want to be. If we are to make comparisons it should be, where possible, be
like for like. In an earlier posting I compared my package with a senior consultant with the Big Four (where I fully experct to be employed) and not with an astronaut, let's say, or a dustman!
like for like. In an earlier posting I compared my package with a senior consultant with the Big Four (where I fully experct to be employed) and not with an astronaut, let's say, or a dustman!
Standard of Airships
Winco, You stated
-
I am often haranged on PPRuNe for complaining about the quality of the airships we have and have had in recent times in the RAF, but the fact remains that none of them has been, or would be prepared to stand up publicly and say 'enough is enough' Without that type of support, all of your arguments are doomed to failure, simply because those at the top of government will never get to know the true amount of ill-feelng being generated here.
The present crop were once, your Flt/Sqn/Wing Cdrs etc and there are many on here who know them personally. They will argue that they are great guys and the right type to be promoted. And probably in the past the same has been said about previous leaders. There has been many an arguement on here about, whether in that case, it is right for the winged race to run the RAF. With hindsight does this arguement still stand?
-
I am often haranged on PPRuNe for complaining about the quality of the airships we have and have had in recent times in the RAF, but the fact remains that none of them has been, or would be prepared to stand up publicly and say 'enough is enough' Without that type of support, all of your arguments are doomed to failure, simply because those at the top of government will never get to know the true amount of ill-feelng being generated here.
The present crop were once, your Flt/Sqn/Wing Cdrs etc and there are many on here who know them personally. They will argue that they are great guys and the right type to be promoted. And probably in the past the same has been said about previous leaders. There has been many an arguement on here about, whether in that case, it is right for the winged race to run the RAF. With hindsight does this arguement still stand?
Winco
Have you been a bit sneaky and gone back to edit your original post by adding the caveat
Or do I need to go to SpecSavers....
Edited to add - The Nip : Not sure exactly but I'm sure Winco has previously spoken of being on the front line in the 70's and, now being a 747 Capt, must have left by his 38 point - I suspect many of the current Airships hadn't even joined up (or were still at BFTS etc) when he left. Apologies Winco if I am incorrect and being agesist!!!
Have you been a bit sneaky and gone back to edit your original post by adding the caveat
(providing you play fair)
Edited to add - The Nip : Not sure exactly but I'm sure Winco has previously spoken of being on the front line in the 70's and, now being a 747 Capt, must have left by his 38 point - I suspect many of the current Airships hadn't even joined up (or were still at BFTS etc) when he left. Apologies Winco if I am incorrect and being agesist!!!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: under a cloud
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unified message...
As you can see I'm more of a 'dogger' than active participant but the in-fighting on this thread is a real shame.
As a military team I think we all agree that whilst the allowance package should not provide anybody with profit, no serviceman should be financially penalised for carrying out a duty.
I give you my recent expericience of a move overseas (where the local weather is not, at present, sunny). The cost of living in my new HN is way above the UK, a few examples...Car insurance rates 5-7 times more than UK, car purchase tax (for 2nd hand vehicles) that totalled more than #1500 for 2 modest cars, weekly grocery shopping bills between #60-100 per week more expensive, residential phone line twice as much, I could go on, but I guess the scene has been set.
Yes this is, undeniably, a fantastic opportunity (professionally and socially) for my family and I, and I count myself exceptionally fortunate to be given that opportunity - do I think I should be #8-10,000 per year out of pocket for doing an essential duty for the UK MoD - absolutely not.
I'm sure under all allowances similar stories can be told but that just highlights the need to stay united on this and all push the same message to anyone that will listen. I repeat:
As a military team I think we all agree that whilst the allowance package should not provide anybody with profit, no serviceman should be financially penalised for carrying out a duty.
Cheers,
As a military team I think we all agree that whilst the allowance package should not provide anybody with profit, no serviceman should be financially penalised for carrying out a duty.
I give you my recent expericience of a move overseas (where the local weather is not, at present, sunny). The cost of living in my new HN is way above the UK, a few examples...Car insurance rates 5-7 times more than UK, car purchase tax (for 2nd hand vehicles) that totalled more than #1500 for 2 modest cars, weekly grocery shopping bills between #60-100 per week more expensive, residential phone line twice as much, I could go on, but I guess the scene has been set.
Yes this is, undeniably, a fantastic opportunity (professionally and socially) for my family and I, and I count myself exceptionally fortunate to be given that opportunity - do I think I should be #8-10,000 per year out of pocket for doing an essential duty for the UK MoD - absolutely not.
I'm sure under all allowances similar stories can be told but that just highlights the need to stay united on this and all push the same message to anyone that will listen. I repeat:
As a military team I think we all agree that whilst the allowance package should not provide anybody with profit, no serviceman should be financially penalised for carrying out a duty.
Cheers,
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Yeovil
Age: 53
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@baby-spice
Well said.
As a military team I think we all agree that whilst the allowance package should not provide anybody with profit, no serviceman should be financially penalised for carrying out a duty.