Married Quarters for the axe
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ex-Krantanamo Bay Inmate
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Married Quarters for the axe
From today's Times:
Deirdre Hipwell, Deborah Haynes
Last updated February 27 2012 12:01AM
Married soldiers living in Army accommodation will be forced out of their homes under cost-cutting proposals being considered by the Ministry of Defence.
The move, which would lead to thousands of people from the Armed Forces being driven into the commercial property market, is part of a plan to reduce Services accommodation under a “New Employment Model”.
It indicates a potential shift away from the tradition of encouraging soldiers to move with ease around the country and overseas with their spouses and children.
Subsidised military housing for those with families is a career-long entitlement and has been referred to as a “staunch pillar” of the military covenant that the coalition has pledged to uphold. The MoD is discussing ending the right to a home after eight years of service.
One former head of the Army said that he understood the need to reduce the bill for accommodation, but that additional funds must be made available to buy or rent private property with ease.
If not, the MoD risked creating a system of “weekly boarders”. “It is not the right way to be. We have enough forced separation through deployment and training exercises,” General Lord Dannatt said.
Morale in the Armed Forces is already low after thousands of redundancies.
A final deadline has yet to be agreed, but The Times understands that cutting the housing entitlement to around eight to ten years of service is regarded as the preferred option. Afterwards, military families would have to find accommodation themselves.
Major-General Patrick Cordingley, a retired commander, said that the proposal would place an additional strain on the military, particularly when people were sent to fight overseas.
“It would be a bit of a let down,” he said. “Soldiers who get married are expecting to be relieved of the worry of where they are going to live while they are serving. I think [being made to find their own accommodation] is something that soldiers will find difficult.”
Married serving personnel or those in a civil partnership are offered subsidised quarters to make a long-term career in the Army as attractive as possible. The guarantee creates tight-knit military communities as well as producing a flexible workforce.
The new proposal would create what one officer described as a “postcode lottery”, with some postings, such as those around London, particularly undesirable because of the high cost of living, unless the loss of subsidised housing was matched with an increase in wage.
Captain Doug Beatie, a Military Cross recipient winner who retired from the regular Army two years ago but remains a TA member, said: “I don’t think it will go down very well. It is a cost cutting effort and . . . There will be no added incentive for the soldier to stay in the Army if he has to go and pay for private accommodation.”
The mobility of soldiers made it difficult for them to buy or rent a property in one location, Captain Beattie said, noting that he had lived in 14 different married quarters during his career. “If I am a soldier and I get married, one of the great plus points is you get accommodation. If they are saying to me you are not going to get accommodation until I organise it for myself, that will be incredibly difficult on myself, my wife and my family.”
Plans to create so-called super-garrisons across the country would provide stability for regiments, and could encourage personal home ownership, but individuals would still be expected to travel, including to the front line. The Army is the most mobile division of the Armed Forces, with the highest proportion — at least 60 per cent of personnel — living in Service accommodation.
The MoD’s family housing bill, however, has risen annually. It stands at more than £318 million a year, making a change in the system inevitable at a time when the military is under huge pressure to reduce expenditure.
The size of the Army is due to contract from just over 100,000 to 82,000 by the end of the decade, but military planners must still find housing for 20,000 troops stationed in Germany who are scheduled to return to Britain over the same period.
An MoD spokesman said: “The New Employment Model is looking at a range of measures connected with provision of support to our Service personnel from 2020, including accommodation. A report is due for consideration by the Defence Board in the summer of 2012.”
A survey by the Army Families Federation showed that 89 per cent of soldiers who responded thought that Service accommodation should be provided for the entirety of their military career.
Julie McCarthy, head chief executive of the federation, said military housing was the only way families could hope to spend quality time together given the demands of army life. Giving evidence to a parliamentary inquiry into Service accommodation, she said soldiers considered subsidised housing a “staunch pillar” of the military covenant that the coalition Government had promised to uphold.
“They see it as very much a huge part of their terms and conditions of service, and putting aside everything else that is being offered, that for them is the big thing,” she said.
Deirdre Hipwell, Deborah Haynes
Last updated February 27 2012 12:01AM
Married soldiers living in Army accommodation will be forced out of their homes under cost-cutting proposals being considered by the Ministry of Defence.
The move, which would lead to thousands of people from the Armed Forces being driven into the commercial property market, is part of a plan to reduce Services accommodation under a “New Employment Model”.
It indicates a potential shift away from the tradition of encouraging soldiers to move with ease around the country and overseas with their spouses and children.
Subsidised military housing for those with families is a career-long entitlement and has been referred to as a “staunch pillar” of the military covenant that the coalition has pledged to uphold. The MoD is discussing ending the right to a home after eight years of service.
One former head of the Army said that he understood the need to reduce the bill for accommodation, but that additional funds must be made available to buy or rent private property with ease.
If not, the MoD risked creating a system of “weekly boarders”. “It is not the right way to be. We have enough forced separation through deployment and training exercises,” General Lord Dannatt said.
Morale in the Armed Forces is already low after thousands of redundancies.
A final deadline has yet to be agreed, but The Times understands that cutting the housing entitlement to around eight to ten years of service is regarded as the preferred option. Afterwards, military families would have to find accommodation themselves.
Major-General Patrick Cordingley, a retired commander, said that the proposal would place an additional strain on the military, particularly when people were sent to fight overseas.
“It would be a bit of a let down,” he said. “Soldiers who get married are expecting to be relieved of the worry of where they are going to live while they are serving. I think [being made to find their own accommodation] is something that soldiers will find difficult.”
Married serving personnel or those in a civil partnership are offered subsidised quarters to make a long-term career in the Army as attractive as possible. The guarantee creates tight-knit military communities as well as producing a flexible workforce.
The new proposal would create what one officer described as a “postcode lottery”, with some postings, such as those around London, particularly undesirable because of the high cost of living, unless the loss of subsidised housing was matched with an increase in wage.
Captain Doug Beatie, a Military Cross recipient winner who retired from the regular Army two years ago but remains a TA member, said: “I don’t think it will go down very well. It is a cost cutting effort and . . . There will be no added incentive for the soldier to stay in the Army if he has to go and pay for private accommodation.”
The mobility of soldiers made it difficult for them to buy or rent a property in one location, Captain Beattie said, noting that he had lived in 14 different married quarters during his career. “If I am a soldier and I get married, one of the great plus points is you get accommodation. If they are saying to me you are not going to get accommodation until I organise it for myself, that will be incredibly difficult on myself, my wife and my family.”
Plans to create so-called super-garrisons across the country would provide stability for regiments, and could encourage personal home ownership, but individuals would still be expected to travel, including to the front line. The Army is the most mobile division of the Armed Forces, with the highest proportion — at least 60 per cent of personnel — living in Service accommodation.
The MoD’s family housing bill, however, has risen annually. It stands at more than £318 million a year, making a change in the system inevitable at a time when the military is under huge pressure to reduce expenditure.
The size of the Army is due to contract from just over 100,000 to 82,000 by the end of the decade, but military planners must still find housing for 20,000 troops stationed in Germany who are scheduled to return to Britain over the same period.
An MoD spokesman said: “The New Employment Model is looking at a range of measures connected with provision of support to our Service personnel from 2020, including accommodation. A report is due for consideration by the Defence Board in the summer of 2012.”
A survey by the Army Families Federation showed that 89 per cent of soldiers who responded thought that Service accommodation should be provided for the entirety of their military career.
Julie McCarthy, head chief executive of the federation, said military housing was the only way families could hope to spend quality time together given the demands of army life. Giving evidence to a parliamentary inquiry into Service accommodation, she said soldiers considered subsidised housing a “staunch pillar” of the military covenant that the coalition Government had promised to uphold.
“They see it as very much a huge part of their terms and conditions of service, and putting aside everything else that is being offered, that for them is the big thing,” she said.
WOW! Yet another blow to morale.
Why on earth do the troops have to put up with this?
The cost saving looks very small when looked at in the overall defence expenditure. One has to wonder if there is enough single mens accommodation left to accommodate all the commuters and what will be the cost of home to duty travel?
Scrap Trident and give the boys and girls decent accommodation
Oh and I bet this will not trouble more senior mates living in the most expensive accommodation!!
Why on earth do the troops have to put up with this?
The cost saving looks very small when looked at in the overall defence expenditure. One has to wonder if there is enough single mens accommodation left to accommodate all the commuters and what will be the cost of home to duty travel?
Scrap Trident and give the boys and girls decent accommodation
Oh and I bet this will not trouble more senior mates living in the most expensive accommodation!!
"Yet the MOD can afford to pay their staff a £40 million bonus"
Two minor points - one, the MOD is the title of the Department which encompasses the three services and the CS. Your thing should read 'the civil service'
Secondly - its not a bonus, its the non consolidated element of the pay award, payment of which is designed to reduce the long term CS pension bill. A subtle, but very important difference. The CS didnt ask for it, dont want it, and would lose it tomorrow if they could. It exists purely as a means to save money.
Two minor points - one, the MOD is the title of the Department which encompasses the three services and the CS. Your thing should read 'the civil service'
Secondly - its not a bonus, its the non consolidated element of the pay award, payment of which is designed to reduce the long term CS pension bill. A subtle, but very important difference. The CS didnt ask for it, dont want it, and would lose it tomorrow if they could. It exists purely as a means to save money.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great, so do we get to pay for our moves on posting now too? I am furious about the whole accommodation thing. What with this, pensions, allowances and rubbish admin support, it's now time to leave.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: In my house
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sniff Test ...
There is a whiff about this. If it comes to pass, as described, it would be a slam-dunk for Annington Homes. I'd be interested to exclude the possibility that any of the decision-makers or key influencers have any association with AH.
At the practical level I can't see how this can work. In a 27 year period I had 18 house moves, only 2 of which were of my choosing.
This all began with Mr Portillo who tried to stump up £1.5Bn for a pre-election tax cut bribe back in '97. Thanks, mate. Cameron needs a Clarkson. Yes, in front of his family. We could mop up the mess with the Covenant.
At the practical level I can't see how this can work. In a 27 year period I had 18 house moves, only 2 of which were of my choosing.
This all began with Mr Portillo who tried to stump up £1.5Bn for a pre-election tax cut bribe back in '97. Thanks, mate. Cameron needs a Clarkson. Yes, in front of his family. We could mop up the mess with the Covenant.
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two minor points - one, the MOD is the title of the Department which encompasses the three services and the CS. Your thing should read 'the civil service'
Secondly - its not a bonus, its the non consolidated element of the pay award, payment of which is designed to reduce the long term CS pension bill. A subtle, but very important difference. The CS didnt ask for it, dont want it, and would lose it tomorrow if they could. It exists purely as a means to save money.
Ah! so the Telegraph is lying then:
"One senior civil servant was awarded an £85,831 bonus on top of their six-figure salary - at the same time as members of the armed forces have been subject to a two-year pay freeze and 20,000 are to be made redundant.
The bonuses have been paid since April last year and have seen more than 55,000 officials awarded extra payments for their performance - out of a payroll of 83,000."
The rest of the article is equally damaging, but you recon it's not true so that's ok then.
If it's awarded for performance it's a bonus.
The seeds for this train crash were sown in 1994-1996 with the disposal of the majority of 'MQ' housing stock in England (c 46,000 units) to Nomura Bank. The majority have been leased back on particularly equitable terms (for the owner, that is) but the contract is up for remenal in 2021. In planning (and fiscal) terms, that's not too far away!
The cost the re-lease this housing stock will be crippling so there has been a lot of work done over the last few years to think the MOD out of this problem. One suggestion was to offer a grant at a fixed point (eg 5 years, let's say) to encourage SP to buy their own places 'outside the wire'. However (and I recall posting this on an earlier thread), some excellent modelling was conducted by DASA that mapped the post 2013 airfield lay-down affordability, The result was that some SP would have enormous commutes and with some more modelling, the number of additional deaths from RTAs could be predicted with deadly accuracy.
Furthermore, when this was PTT's with the Treasury, it was made quite clear that there would be no double dipping; ie, if SP took the money to live outside the wire, that same SP would have to pay the 'commercial rate' to live in Messes and Barracks if they became week-day bachelors. Moreover, this policy didn't account fro the 25% of RAF Personnel employed outside the RAF's TLB - anywhere from Northern Norway to, well, New Zealand.
The Army did some interesting work with Mixed Housing in Colchester, proposing 3 storied town houses that could be occupied by singlies and small families, however it was felt after a bit of testing (ie proposing the idea to the troops, rather than in the middle-class minds of the officers devising this scheme) it wouldn't work. SLAM - which has delivered high-quality accn to single personnel (and I mean proper SLAM, not some of this outrageously expensive and craven PFIs) was bitterly opposed by the Army, but eventually accepted through gritted teeth, largely driven by legislation, critical reports from the Adult Learning Inspectorate and the fall out from Deepcut.
Similarly (and my figues are 2-3 years old) the Army was opposed to any recognition of de facto partners, simply because of the impact on housing provision. It was assessed that the Army would need an additional 18,000 SFQs to meet this requirment, quite apart from the 15,000 bratwurst eaters due home during this decade (plus their snivelling primark-clad children). Quite a bit of work was done to have SP recognised as Key Workers, so that they could benefit in various sweat-equity and rent-to-buy schemes. Sadly most of this is in the South east and there are many more applicants than properties.
Bottom line (and we made the move 15 years ago) - get your own house/flat/caravan.
The cost the re-lease this housing stock will be crippling so there has been a lot of work done over the last few years to think the MOD out of this problem. One suggestion was to offer a grant at a fixed point (eg 5 years, let's say) to encourage SP to buy their own places 'outside the wire'. However (and I recall posting this on an earlier thread), some excellent modelling was conducted by DASA that mapped the post 2013 airfield lay-down affordability, The result was that some SP would have enormous commutes and with some more modelling, the number of additional deaths from RTAs could be predicted with deadly accuracy.
Furthermore, when this was PTT's with the Treasury, it was made quite clear that there would be no double dipping; ie, if SP took the money to live outside the wire, that same SP would have to pay the 'commercial rate' to live in Messes and Barracks if they became week-day bachelors. Moreover, this policy didn't account fro the 25% of RAF Personnel employed outside the RAF's TLB - anywhere from Northern Norway to, well, New Zealand.
The Army did some interesting work with Mixed Housing in Colchester, proposing 3 storied town houses that could be occupied by singlies and small families, however it was felt after a bit of testing (ie proposing the idea to the troops, rather than in the middle-class minds of the officers devising this scheme) it wouldn't work. SLAM - which has delivered high-quality accn to single personnel (and I mean proper SLAM, not some of this outrageously expensive and craven PFIs) was bitterly opposed by the Army, but eventually accepted through gritted teeth, largely driven by legislation, critical reports from the Adult Learning Inspectorate and the fall out from Deepcut.
Similarly (and my figues are 2-3 years old) the Army was opposed to any recognition of de facto partners, simply because of the impact on housing provision. It was assessed that the Army would need an additional 18,000 SFQs to meet this requirment, quite apart from the 15,000 bratwurst eaters due home during this decade (plus their snivelling primark-clad children). Quite a bit of work was done to have SP recognised as Key Workers, so that they could benefit in various sweat-equity and rent-to-buy schemes. Sadly most of this is in the South east and there are many more applicants than properties.
Bottom line (and we made the move 15 years ago) - get your own house/flat/caravan.
GG - At the risk of going off target here, let me explain the so called bonus. The MOD does its pay deals for civilians in three year tranches, and the last one was signed up to in 2008, to cover 08-11.
About 12 years ago, to reduce the overrall pensions bill, the MOD was forced by HMT to siphon off a wodge of cash that would normally have been included in the pay award and instead of paying it as payrises, pay it instead as a non consolidated 'performance award'.
This meant that at my level, instead of getting a £500 pay rise, which then added to my annual salary each year, and in time would contribute to my final pension, I instead received a taxable grant each year of roughly £500 (in reality far lower as I was more junior back then), which did not add to my salary, and did not count towards my pension. The result is that my annual salary is £5-£6000 below where it would have been, and my pension is also impacted.
So, its not a bonus - it never has been a bonus, its not coming out of additional funding, its coming out of same wage pot of money that pays all the CS salaries. Its a very devious means of saving money, and has also managed to cause immense PR damage as people associate 'bonus' with fat boy bankers rewards.
The specific DT example is of an SCS, who is on completely different T&C of employment, and also the DT has a long standing and well known agenda of reporting a very interesting interpretation of anything to do with the MOD CS, and in particular trying to make out that anything CS get or do should be shown in the worst possible light.
If it makes you feel better, there is no current pay deal in place, and there is to my knowledge no performance award being offered this year.
About 12 years ago, to reduce the overrall pensions bill, the MOD was forced by HMT to siphon off a wodge of cash that would normally have been included in the pay award and instead of paying it as payrises, pay it instead as a non consolidated 'performance award'.
This meant that at my level, instead of getting a £500 pay rise, which then added to my annual salary each year, and in time would contribute to my final pension, I instead received a taxable grant each year of roughly £500 (in reality far lower as I was more junior back then), which did not add to my salary, and did not count towards my pension. The result is that my annual salary is £5-£6000 below where it would have been, and my pension is also impacted.
So, its not a bonus - it never has been a bonus, its not coming out of additional funding, its coming out of same wage pot of money that pays all the CS salaries. Its a very devious means of saving money, and has also managed to cause immense PR damage as people associate 'bonus' with fat boy bankers rewards.
The specific DT example is of an SCS, who is on completely different T&C of employment, and also the DT has a long standing and well known agenda of reporting a very interesting interpretation of anything to do with the MOD CS, and in particular trying to make out that anything CS get or do should be shown in the worst possible light.
If it makes you feel better, there is no current pay deal in place, and there is to my knowledge no performance award being offered this year.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
And yet some families are able to claim enough housing benefit to fund an equivalent 7 figure mortgage to live in the Boroughs of Chelsea & Kensington...
Benefits families could pay off £1m mortgage - Telegraph
It does seem to be in comparison rather shabby treatment for servicemen who will have to find private accommodation on postings not necessarily of their choosing.
Benefits families could pay off £1m mortgage - Telegraph
Almost 100 families are raking in enough housing benefit to fund a £10 million mortgage, raising fresh doubts over the Government’s cap, figures released yesterday show.
Some 30 families are receiving £1,500 a week — three times what they would be earning on a national average wage — to pay their rent while another 60 are receiving up to £5,000 a month, according to the Department for Work and Pensions.
All the claimants, who would be able to fund a seven-figure mortgage at those rates, live in the London boroughs of Kensington and Chelsea or Westminster.
In total 130 families are given more than £1,000 a week,including 80 who receive at least £1,100 a week, according to figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
Last year, another family who fled war-ravaged Somalia exchanged a modest home in Coventry for a £2million house in West Hampstead, north-west London. Saeed Khaliif, 49, who was unemployed, was able to sign what was believed to be a £2,000 a week lease for the six – bedroom property despite having no connection with their new area.
Some 30 families are receiving £1,500 a week — three times what they would be earning on a national average wage — to pay their rent while another 60 are receiving up to £5,000 a month, according to the Department for Work and Pensions.
All the claimants, who would be able to fund a seven-figure mortgage at those rates, live in the London boroughs of Kensington and Chelsea or Westminster.
In total 130 families are given more than £1,000 a week,including 80 who receive at least £1,100 a week, according to figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
Last year, another family who fled war-ravaged Somalia exchanged a modest home in Coventry for a £2million house in West Hampstead, north-west London. Saeed Khaliif, 49, who was unemployed, was able to sign what was believed to be a £2,000 a week lease for the six – bedroom property despite having no connection with their new area.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Away back in the seventies, when we still had Married Quarters as a matter of course at all stations, there was always a shortage of MQs and a long wait for an allocation when posted to a new station. That meant "weekly boarding" on camp and a long drive home when off duty. We spent months in this situation, the last time being seven months wait at Northolt while the family remained at Brize Norton under "60 Days Notice". This was the main driver for my own departure from the Royal Air Force: the disruption to family life was simply no longer acceptable. The Royal Navy never had a proper Married Quarters provision and my mother and I lived with my grandmother for several years, while Dad only came home when he had leave. Inevitably, he left when his 12 year engagement was done, even though he loved the actual job. It seems to me that nothing has changed and the MOD simply doesn't give a toss about loyalty. There's plenty more innocent/gullible (and perhaps more importantly, still single) young folks out there to replace those who leave. . .
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be nice to hear a coherent argument about this. Something along the lines of:
'The AFPRB is no longer able to trot out lines such as MQs and Pensions were taken into account - so have been forced to recommend a rather large pay increase.'
But you can't do that and cut costs.
'The AFPRB is no longer able to trot out lines such as MQs and Pensions were taken into account - so have been forced to recommend a rather large pay increase.'
But you can't do that and cut costs.
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it makes you feel better, there is no current pay deal in place, and there is to my knowledge no performance award being offered this year.
Under a three year agreement made by the last Government performance awards were part of the total wage bill paid out naturally, it is just that a proportion of pay was spent on a performance basis.
Somebody somewhere is spinning methinks, who though I'm not sure.
Green Granite,
Don't swallow the rubbish that the DT comes out with. The kernel of truth that should give you an indication of what's really important is the size of "the average award, which is taxable, was £677".
So keep the CS pay low, carve off a bit of it and call it a 'bonus' to reduce the pension and you can paint them as money-grubbing chislers till the cows come home.
I'm military but I've got a huge amount of respect for the CS as a whole. Yes, there are some wasters but that's true of some Service personnel too. Most of them do a bl00dy good job for not a lot of dosh.
Don't swallow the rubbish that the DT comes out with. The kernel of truth that should give you an indication of what's really important is the size of "the average award, which is taxable, was £677".
So keep the CS pay low, carve off a bit of it and call it a 'bonus' to reduce the pension and you can paint them as money-grubbing chislers till the cows come home.
I'm military but I've got a huge amount of respect for the CS as a whole. Yes, there are some wasters but that's true of some Service personnel too. Most of them do a bl00dy good job for not a lot of dosh.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plus I might add, the bonuses are not paid to all CS staff. People are written up and put into a "pool" of similar grade staff but not comparable employment. Last time I went through this ritual humiliation I was in a pool of 8 which included 3 of my work colleagues, a met man, an H&E adminstrator, 2 people from Abbey Wood Procurement and a lecturer from a Staff College. Eight years ago BTW.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys can you take your squabble about CS bonuses to a new thread please and stop diluting the impact that this enormous change to all of terms and conditions would otherwise have?
This is precisely the sort of change that saves pennies and changes the face of the Forces forever. Never mind trying to keep experienced people in, why on earth would anyone join these days is starting to beggar belief. PAYD, DII are just 2 of the ducks nibbling us to death today and now you want to evict us, stump up circa £1500 a month to find equivalent Accn and with no accompanying increase in pay, do Fu@£ off! We need some active representation in parliament pronto or this will kill HM Forces in the long term...
This is precisely the sort of change that saves pennies and changes the face of the Forces forever. Never mind trying to keep experienced people in, why on earth would anyone join these days is starting to beggar belief. PAYD, DII are just 2 of the ducks nibbling us to death today and now you want to evict us, stump up circa £1500 a month to find equivalent Accn and with no accompanying increase in pay, do Fu@£ off! We need some active representation in parliament pronto or this will kill HM Forces in the long term...
But does housing REALLY matter? Time for me to play devils advocate here - please bear that in mind when replying, I'm just trying to explore this in a bit more depth.
The assumption seems to be that this will kick off in about 8 years time, so in line with the FR2020 assumptions, and also post at least one SDSR which will doubtless see manpower shrink further, and also about the time the 2020 SDSR is kicking off, which will see even further cuts.
For years provision of housing has been a reasonable provision of service -as MOD notes in its news blog, the current employment model dates back 40 years, and the deal has been that people had limited mobility back then, and could expect regular postings across the world, and it wasn't always easy to find the means to subsidise a second career for the wifes / husbands. Additionally, people married a lot younger, and had kids far earlier. So, historically provision of cheap housing made sense as a means of encouraging people to stay in when they had a family to look after, and they were travelling across the globe.
In todays society, and particularly in 8-10 years time the forces are going to be far more sedentary - an RAF of 6-10 main bases, plus support stations seems a not unreasonable assumption. We will be looking for supporting a smaller force of people, who will by and large be in their early twenties and thirties, with a smaller pool in late thirties onwards. This manpower pool will probably be mainly single / relationship based, and not necessarily as heavily marriage based. Peoples expectations change, and less people will probably marry at 21-22 and then expect a service quarter for life. Additionally, the massively increased social mobility through cars and easy transport, plus the realisation that many partners need a career too, means that I can see there being less demand for service family housing, as people have kids later on, and don't settle down.
So, you have a more socially mobile population, and a workforce who are less likely to be married in future. Therefore, the need for MQs diminishes. Add to this the realistion that with static bases, the number of Hong Kong - Germany - Cyprus - UK moves are going to massively reduce in number, and suddenly you have the ability to have a fairly static movement plot, in which settling down and weekly commuting becomes more feasible.
I can see a new model emerging whereby MOD says that it will provide top quality singly accommodation, encouraging people to move back into messes (and in the process reinvigorating mess life, which currently suffers through far too many people choosing to live out). Then service members can chose to maintain a home at their own location of choice, and commute weekly to said location. It reinvigorates the unit as a hub, and means families can settle down. Retain a limited pool for housing for people who go to special places, or overseas, or remote locations, but make clear that for 95% of HM Forces, their private lives are their business. What MOD will provide is the ability for you to stay cheaply on site if you wish to do so, or let you live off at your own cost.
I think the future mainly single / loosely attached workforce is less concerned about married quarters than our predecessors. Even now, many of my peers chose not to live in quarters, but weekly commute and either live in a mess or flat.
As for why would anyone join? For the reason people have joined since time immemorial - adventure, excitement, good comrades and lots of fun. People dont at 21 worry about cheap housing or PAYD or DII - thats the sort of thing you get cynical about over time, but everyone is cynical about some aspect of their workplace experience. I'd argue this won't hit recruitment, although it may hit retention if brought in too soon.
Personally this could be an interesting move which could have unforseen and hugely positive consequences for Mess life (and bars)...
The assumption seems to be that this will kick off in about 8 years time, so in line with the FR2020 assumptions, and also post at least one SDSR which will doubtless see manpower shrink further, and also about the time the 2020 SDSR is kicking off, which will see even further cuts.
For years provision of housing has been a reasonable provision of service -as MOD notes in its news blog, the current employment model dates back 40 years, and the deal has been that people had limited mobility back then, and could expect regular postings across the world, and it wasn't always easy to find the means to subsidise a second career for the wifes / husbands. Additionally, people married a lot younger, and had kids far earlier. So, historically provision of cheap housing made sense as a means of encouraging people to stay in when they had a family to look after, and they were travelling across the globe.
In todays society, and particularly in 8-10 years time the forces are going to be far more sedentary - an RAF of 6-10 main bases, plus support stations seems a not unreasonable assumption. We will be looking for supporting a smaller force of people, who will by and large be in their early twenties and thirties, with a smaller pool in late thirties onwards. This manpower pool will probably be mainly single / relationship based, and not necessarily as heavily marriage based. Peoples expectations change, and less people will probably marry at 21-22 and then expect a service quarter for life. Additionally, the massively increased social mobility through cars and easy transport, plus the realisation that many partners need a career too, means that I can see there being less demand for service family housing, as people have kids later on, and don't settle down.
So, you have a more socially mobile population, and a workforce who are less likely to be married in future. Therefore, the need for MQs diminishes. Add to this the realistion that with static bases, the number of Hong Kong - Germany - Cyprus - UK moves are going to massively reduce in number, and suddenly you have the ability to have a fairly static movement plot, in which settling down and weekly commuting becomes more feasible.
I can see a new model emerging whereby MOD says that it will provide top quality singly accommodation, encouraging people to move back into messes (and in the process reinvigorating mess life, which currently suffers through far too many people choosing to live out). Then service members can chose to maintain a home at their own location of choice, and commute weekly to said location. It reinvigorates the unit as a hub, and means families can settle down. Retain a limited pool for housing for people who go to special places, or overseas, or remote locations, but make clear that for 95% of HM Forces, their private lives are their business. What MOD will provide is the ability for you to stay cheaply on site if you wish to do so, or let you live off at your own cost.
I think the future mainly single / loosely attached workforce is less concerned about married quarters than our predecessors. Even now, many of my peers chose not to live in quarters, but weekly commute and either live in a mess or flat.
As for why would anyone join? For the reason people have joined since time immemorial - adventure, excitement, good comrades and lots of fun. People dont at 21 worry about cheap housing or PAYD or DII - thats the sort of thing you get cynical about over time, but everyone is cynical about some aspect of their workplace experience. I'd argue this won't hit recruitment, although it may hit retention if brought in too soon.
Personally this could be an interesting move which could have unforseen and hugely positive consequences for Mess life (and bars)...