Certainly, the gross undermanning seems to have caused little concern, almost as if it is (politically) intentional.:oh:

OAP

Tickets available from the best agencies. Not sure Williamson has the clout, but will be fun to watch. IMHO, if May does get tumbled, so will Brexit.......

I think Mr Williamson may be a real contender for the leadership. There is something about him that reminds me of Cameron. Lets face it, the cabinet smell blood and all want a piece of the action. I would much prefer someone fresh than troiks like Davis, Boris or Hammond.

or,....Gove!

OAP

world wide web.'theguardian com/politics/2018/jun/26/no 10 intervenes in row over armed forces pay rise'. Add hyphens

Hmm, funny how this particular pay issue never makes it on to BBC News. I guess it is because there is no organisation that can
make the case on Services' pay (The AFPRB is in my view the Government's poodle). At least the FPS does its best on pensions

AFPRB is independent from the MoD; it is not independent of government.

The case for service pay used to be laid-out by the service chiefs. The Treasury effectively neutered them years ago by awarding the funding for the coming year many months before the ARPRB produced its findings. If the AFPRB recommendation is ever above the Treasury prediction/cap/limit (aka Comprehensive Spending Review) then the missing balance has to be found from the MoDs existing budget - effectively triggering further unplanned cuts. The net effect is that the service chiefs are rather reluctant to support any pay rise that could be above the amount already stipulated by the Treasury Spending Review.

As such, the scales are tipped away from any effective pay rise. The only variation is the AFPRB excuse-of-the-year to magically arrive at the same figure stipulated by the government before the pay review board even starts. The only possible change is when politicians feel the need to increase military pay. Amazingly the AFPRB will somehow arrive at this exact same politically driven percentage. About the only exception to this was the X-factor increase a few years back that neither the Treasury or MoD were expecting. The bun-fight lasted well into the new financial year and the then Chair of the AFPRB lost his seat.

That is, unless you don't listen to your lords and masters, recommend a decent pay rise and then as the head of the AFPRB get ''resigned".

As happened a few years back.

I suspect your 3 as well. TMay has proved herself to be a fudger's fudger. I also suspect she will do the same with the overall Defence spend. There will be no serious chopping or rationalisation of capabilities to match requirements budget, just 2% GDP spend continued and SoS for Defence told to make it all work with trimming at the edges (despite this being to the detriment of all!). I will be very surprised if the overall results of the pay review and the Defence review are anything more than......a fudge!

OAP

That is exactly what has happened with the police. Last years 2% pay rise turned out to be 1% funded by HMG and a 1% bonus funded from current police force reserves and which was unconsolidated i.e. doesn't contribute to pensions or overtime. In addition all the 'new' money for firearms capability was top sliced from existing budgets so there was no new money despite HMG claiming that they had increased funding. That has happened across the board with numerous government pet projects being funded from existing budgets but with the government claiming to have provided extra investment. The government's highly publicised inflation busting pay rises for NHS staff was also a case of smoke and mirrors. IIRC they claimed that some staff would get up to a 9% rise over three years, but this wasn't all made up of the governments pay rise as a lot of that increase would have happened anyway through staff moving up pay bands and getting existing increments. The point I am making is that the government will probably try to claim some sort of generous pay rise or increased funding for the forces but you will have to look at the detail to see how much they will claw back or what tactics they will use to minimise the actual rise whilst maximising the kudos they will get from their apparent generosity.

Recent FoI says that the report has been with the government since march.

Whatever. If thats where your priorities lie, if thats what floats your boat, then get on with it. Frankly, such divisive and unwarranted SJW-style victim projection bores me beyond measure and often makes me retch. But, if in your little world, it makes sense to you and makes you feel good about yourself, you carry on.

For what its worth, I would have used the term "Service Personnel" because of it has always struck me as an appropriate term to use. But am I going to criticize someone for using servicemen or servicewomen instead? No. My life is not that sad, empty, boring and meaningless that I have to project my SJW inadequacies and political prejudices onto someone elses words when it is plainly obvious what it is referring to in the first place.

Back to the Grauniad for you, mate. I'm sure Owen Jones or Polly T or some other such "commentator" has something that appeals to your perspective within its erstwhile pages...