Dan Byles: The Government's appalling treatment of our armed forces shows no sign of abating

Dan Byles is the candidate for North Warwickshire and a former Army officer. He served as a staff officer in the MOD during the Iraq invasion, and at the age of 27 was the then youngest serving Major in the Army.

Last week, three British soldiers in Afghanistan were killed in a friendly fire incident. In the same week, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime reported that opium production in Afghanistan has doubled in the last two years and now accounts for 93% of the world’s opiates.

I am a realist when it comes to the horror and confusion of war, and I refuse to join the usual America-bashing over these tragic deaths. Mistakes happen on the battlefield, and British lives are being saved daily by American close air support. I am less forgiving, however, when it comes to sending British servicemen and women to war with equipment that is known to be inadequate.

The lack of an effective ‘battlefield identification system’ was highlighted five years ago by the Public Accounts Committee, and again in May of this year. Like the requirement for off-the-shelf Cougar armoured vehicles, which was identified as an urgent operational requirement in 2001 but took five years to implement, it seems that nothing is done until enough soldiers have lost their lives.

British soldiers are dying in a foreign war with no clear aims or objectives, while Helmand province has become the world’s largest drug producer.

Over the past year, I have watched with sadness and mounting anger as the death toll among British soldiers mounts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since 2001 we have lost 244 soldiers in both war zones, and in recent months the death rate has if anything increased. In Helmand Province in Afghanistan, fighting is so intense it’s estimated soldiers serving on the front line have a one in 36 chance of being killed. This is the Operation that John Reid (former Defence Secretary) claimed British troops would leave “without firing a shot.”

British troops are being overstretched and under resourced by a Government that has no real understanding of the Armed Forces, and is offering no effective leadership whatsoever. Not one of the present Cabinet has served in the military. Like many current and former servicemen and women, I find the appointment of Des Browne as a part time Secretary of State for Defence an insult to our troops. I cannot remember a previous Defence Secretary who shared this vital job with another cabinet position (Des Browne is also the Secretary of State for Scotland). Yet at a time when British Forces are fighting the bloodiest high intensity war since Korea, Gordon Brown doesn’t think we warrant a full time Minister in charge!

Perhaps this is unsurprising given the contempt with which Gordon Brown treated our Armed Forces during his time as Chancellor. While Blair committed British troops to wars around the globe, Brown actually cut the infantry by four regular battalions. Defence spending as a percentage of GDP has fallen, even as the number of soldiers dying in the sand has been rising. Blair loudly proclaimed that British forces in Afghanistan would have whatever equipment they needed, but Brown’s budget squeeze has left us with insufficient battlefield helicopters to do the job properly. Urgent operational requirements take five years to implement. And incredibly, only two months ago, the Government announced a cut in the training budget for the Territorial Army – a key part of our deployable capability – of £5 million. What planet are these ministers on?

The Armed Forces are fighting two vicious wars well in excess of Labour’s bureaucratic ‘planning assumptions’, and yet thanks to Brown’s military spending squeeze:

• The Regular Army is the smallest since The Battle of Waterloo (1815)
• The Territorial Army is the smallest since it was created in 1906
• The Royal Navy is the smallest since the Battle of Trafalgar (1805)
• Defence spending as a percentage of GDP is the lowest since the 1930s
• A fully trained soldier is paid £10,000 less than a fully trained policeman, and almost half what a fully trained fire fighter earns

Traditionally, senior military officers refrain from criticising the Government in public. The current crisis facing our Armed Services has forced General after General to break this tradition:

General Sir Michael Rose:

“In the past six years, the Prime Minister has presided over a near-catastrophic decline in defence spending which has put our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan at considerable and quite unnecessary risk.”

General Dannatt (Chief of General Staff):

“We now have almost no capability to react to the unexpected… reinforcements for emergencies or operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are now almost non-existent.”

Col Clive Fairweather (former deputy commander of the SAS):

“It is the fault of Gordon Brown's Treasury that the Army is under-resourced. We don't have enough aircraft, troops or equipment.”

Our soldiers are dying daily in two wars on the other side of the world. They are not properly paid or resourced, and there are not enough of them. Despite this, they do a sterling job that should make us proud, but as a nation we should also be ashamed of how badly we treat them.

Where is Gordon Brown on this issue? Can he tell us exactly what our soldiers are fighting and dying for? Can he tell us when we will have a full time Secretary of State for Defence, who will devote his time entirely to fighting the corner for our soldiers against the penny pinchers at the Treasury? Can he apologise for his part in running down our military capability, and promise to start committing the necessary resources to our soldiers from now on?

This government has treated our Armed Forces appallingly. They are a precious asset that must be valued, adequately resourced, used with reluctance and treated with respect.

Comments

[Matt Johnson]

A sound comment Dan, I hope to hear more from Cameron/ Fox on defence in the coming months on equiping our troops properly

[Graham Smith]

I happen to be one of those who believes that the first and principal duty of Government is the defence of the realm. Without that, there is no point in securing a strong and stable currency through economic development that will lead to us being a prosperous nation, capable of providing health care for all and social care to the most needy members of our society.

That said, I suggest the author of this piece is being unnecessarily alarmist.

If things were as desperate as he makes out we would be continually seeing the Shadow Secretary of State for Defence on our TV screens - suporting our front-line troops and leading mass protests against a Government that is prepared to cast aside the lives of our brave young warriors in the same dismissive and disdainful manner as the last Chancellor frittered away our country's financial reserves and the Golden inheritance left by the Major Government.

Sir, when we see yet more county regiments being merged with hardly a word of protest being heard from the Conservative leadership, your article appears unnecessarily alarmist.

Or is it?

[Tony Makara]

It really is time that politicians stopped taking our armed forces for granted and awarded them they respect they deserve. This is one of the most important jobs in the country. For Labour to drastically have scaled down the armed forces shows that they have no idea how important our armed forces are. The armed forces should be in a state of strength and readiness to respond to any given situation at any given time. Geopolitical events can change rapidly and can change unexpectedly. Thats why the armed forces must remain strong in number and have the equipment they need to carry out the job. Events in Iraq have shown Labour's contempt for the armed forces. Labour politicians were happy to bask in reflected glory from the victory in Iraq. Now the Labour government has in effect abandoned the armed forces. Its time to give the armed forces the respect they deserve.

[The Huntsman]

Regular infantry battalions are in fact at their lowest number since before the outbreak of the War of the Spanish Succession in 1702.

Defence used to be one of the Party's strong suits. Given that our Armed Forces are in a condition comparably as bad as the early 1930s (and the era of Milne and Montgomery-Massingberd as CIGS), we ought to be having defence and the overall condition of our Armed Forces as a major plank of our assault on Labour. Defence is an open goal begging for attention. Yet there is very little activity on this front. Why?

The situation of a part-time Defence Minister is a particular scandal, yet this has not received any great focus, even considering Browne must be spending a fair amount of his time on the Scottish independence issue. Why not carefully directed Oral and Written questions to elicit how he divides his time up and exploiting the answer to its fullest?

Why just the focus on the 'war on terrorism', given that both China and Russia represent potential major future threats of a more conventional sort?

Our Armed Forces need major expenditure to make their infrastructure (not just the prestige projects like the two RN Carriers) fit for purpose and to bring the manpower up to a level where we can deal with the 'overstretch' issue.

Perhaps it is germane to ask just what our policy is on repairing the Armed Forces and making them capable of meeting conventional as well as terrorist threats. Or perhaps the people who aspire to hold the purse strings are too terrified of the costs implications of any programme to do that which is necessary to ensure the Defence of the Realm and how the money would be found for it.

I think we should be told.

[John Coles]

The Huntsman said:
""Defence used to be one of the Party's strong suits.""
So true. But nowadays Liam Fox is almost mute and Mr. Cameron says little on the subject for fear that it will spoil his socially-caring image.

[David Belchamber]

"British troops are being overstretched and under resourced by a Government that has no real understanding of the Armed Forces, and is offering no effective leadership whatsoever. Not one of the present Cabinet has served in the military. Like many current and former servicemen and women, I find the appointment of Des Browne as a part time Secretary of State for Defence an insult to our troops".

Says it all really. I made the same point about how few, if any, Nulab MPs have ever been in uniform, whereas I know that there are several former soldiers like yourself on the tory side and some have served in Iraq.

This is very much down to Gordon Brown (when Chancellor) rather than the pathetic Des Browne.

[George Trefgarne]

How lucky we are in Britain that we still have people like Dan Byles among us.
If you follow the trail which begins at Britain's imminent defeat in Basra, it leads to London, and the dirty footprints go up the steps and into the door of Gordon Brown's Treasury. Conservatives everywhere should say so. Loudly.
History suggests that such a huge strategic error as the Iraq War - and I am really talking about the conduct of the war, not simply the decision to invade - will haunt the Brown Premiership and steadily undermine the Prime Minister's moral authority.
In retrospect, we can see that whatever the rationale in 2003, the decision to invade Iraq was the wrong one. And I, like many, supported the war. Lets admit it guys, we have blundered. It's a cock-up.
Sure, the belated surge of US troops is now apparently working, but it is a reasonable guess that the American public's appetite for the war will not last long beyond the next Presidential election in 2008.
We have discovered, through this experiment, what the realists long suspected: you cannot impose democracy by force. As conservatives, we should have known that all along. It would have been better to leave Saddam in power, contained and humiliated, but blocking the Iranians. We can see too that the lies told by Blair & Co prior to the war suckered us and undermined its justification; that the delay in mobilising our forces meant they were not prepared. We have discovered, at the cost over more than 200 dead British soldiers, not to mention many thousands Americans and Iraqis, that the post-invasion plan conjured up by Rumsfeld was daft. And the all this has come at the cost of liquidating the British military to pay for it. Ancient regiments have been scrapped, 2,000 infantry axed and the Royal Navy reduced to a rusting, embarrassingly useless rump.
Gordon Brown was at the Cabinet table when these decisions were taken. But unlike Blair, he stealthily undermined the mission by failing, stubbornly, maliciously, to adequately fund it. He is culpable. Those dirty footsteps which start in Basra go right up to his desk. They have followed him into Downing Street. And he has compounded his guilt by not only confirming the clown Des Browne as Defence Secretary, but giving him another hat to wear too as Secretary of State for Scotland, another politically unstable province.
It cannot be long before the powerful figures of the Left, such as Polly Toynbee in the Guardian (lets see how she responds to the upcoming Covenant Campaign from the British Legion), cast themselves as modern Florence Nightingales or Mary Seacoles and call for justice for the noble, suffering young men of our army.
As for what Britain and also the Conservatives should do now, well, we are where we are and it would be a weak to pull out of Basra without at least trying to leave it stabilised, by the agreement of the Iraqis and the Americans (still our best allies, despite it all). It would be far better, actually, to withdraw from Afghanistan, which seems a pointless deployment.
But whatever happens, defence expenditure should be increased. Not only do our forces deserve proper equipment and pay, the world is an increasingly dangerous place and now, more than ever, it is a time to speak softly and carry a big stick.
One final point: the Legion is launching its Covenant Campaign - to call for better treatment of soldiers, particularly the wounded - over the course of the next month or so. There is a sniff of it in the Independent on Sunday today. It is not meant to be party political and should not be made so. But I hope all right-thinking people, including the readers of Conservative Home, will support it. Semper fi.

[Tony Makara]

The surprising thing is that we even need to debate such a matter. It should be taken as given that the armed forces be fully funded at all times. It just goes to slow how complacent politicians and the media have become after the end of the cold war. The communists may now be where they belong, in the dustbin of history, but that doesn't mean that other dangers will not surface. Who can predict what will happen in China and Russia over the next twenty years and the rise of religious fundamentalism is just as worrying as political uncertainty. I like Liam Fox as a politician, and I'm certainly not going to criticize him, but I'd like to see him making even more noise on this issue.

[Yet Another Anon]

A fully trained soldier is paid £10,000 less than a fully trained policeman, and almost half what a fully trained fire fighter earns
They should get the same amounts really according to rank with additions for those doing specialist work within those organisations, they all do a very important and dangerous job.

Spending on Defence, the courts, Police and Security Services should all be doubled, maybe even more than doubled for Defence (5% of GDP would be about right for Defence).

The UK needs to have more aircraft carriers, destroyers, tanks, submarines, jet fighters, more nuclear warheads including at low yields. Better equipment for personnel in adequate supply. More money on Military R&D, there are civilian spin offs from much military research.

Savings in social spending need to be found with a restructuring and reprioritisation of public services and requirements for public sector organisations to raise themselves far more of the money they spend.

[malcolm]

I agree with pretty much everything you say George although the current 'surge' has only really operated against al-queda and not the equally dangerous Shia militias.Until it does we do not know whether a stable Iraq is possible or (as I believe)a pipedream.
The Conservatives response to what has happened to our military in recent years has been extremely lame. I don't know why.

[David Belchamber]

"This government has treated our Armed Forces appallingly. They are a precious asset that must be valued, adequately resourced, used with reluctance and treated with respect".

That the Armed Forces are not treated as Dan Byles would wish is almost entirely down to Gordon Brown, rather than Blair.

Could Dan let us know how many people are employed by the MoD, compared with the current strength of the Armed Forces? Maybe everyone in the MoD should do a 3 month tour of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan to see what life in theatre is actually like and discover at first hand why our troops should be given first class equipment.

[John F]

I,m in total agreement with Dan Byles comments on the state of our armed forces.
That this is happening under a Labour government is no surprise because of the left (and soft lefts) hatred of everything British.
I agree also that G Brown is responsible for this mess highlighted by starving the forces of funds and his contemptious descision to appoint that wimp Des Browne as a part time defence secretary.
Unfortutnately the decline in our armed services started under the Tory governement of that other wimp John Major. Tom Kings tenure as defence secretary was a disaster for most tory supporters.
I remember the 1992 election having to persuade voters in North East Scotland to vote conservative after our (and yes my grandfathers) regiment the Gordon Highlanders was disbanded and united with other regments. Frankly my heart wasn,t in it and I didn,t blame voters for turning their backs on the tories in my part of the country. In fact this policy resulted in huge gains for the SNP.
If I remember correctly Tom King etal started sending out complusory redundancy notices to experienced NCO,s and armed forces people who had been in service for over 10 years. Imagine you are an experienced soldier, lying in a foxhole in Armagh or serving in other dangerous places, putting your life on the line, only to have some Whitehall penpusher delivering a compulsory redundancy notice.
I,m also contemptious of previous high ranking officers, Mike Jackson, Mike Rose etc who happily accepted their salaries yet didn,t have the guts to speak out at the time.
Mike Jackson, you were head of the armed forces when our army, air force, etc was sent to Iraq, why did you not speak out before they went. If you were so concerned, as you write that you were, why didn,t you bring it to the attention of the public around the time of the parliamentary debates about going into Iraq (dodgy dossiers, and dodgy legal advice).
Even at the cost of curtailing your career by resigning you would have been seen by the public as a brave, honourable man, rather than as a mercenary willing to hold your tongue until you retire so you can make a nice little earner with you book.
To George Trefgarne, please let us know through this site or others how we can support your Covenant Campaign,, better still can you not find some high ranking officers , people like the late Col Stirling etal who supposedly planned a coup in 1969 because it appears to me that our countries and our forces biggest enemies are at home not in Iraq or Afganistan and consist of the MOD, Brown and his socialist government and the rest of the left wing chattering classes.
In the words of Mrs Thatcher they are "the enemy within".

[Dan Byles]

I'm pleased at the positive response to my piece - this is an issue I feel very strongly about, and is one of the reasons I left the Army to enter politics in the first place.

George Trefgarne has mentioned the British Legion's Broken Covenant campaign which will be launched soon. Can I join him in urging people to support it. The Legion will be holding a fringe event at the Party Conference; and for those of you on facebook, I started an unofficial 'Broken Covenant' group to raise awareness which has already attracted almost 400 members in a couple of weeks. It's called simply 'Broken Covenant':

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5152333273

[Dan Byles]

And the direct link for the official Broken Covenant campaign website is:

http://www.britishlegion.org.uk/index.cfm?asset_id=516704

[Yet Another Anon]

That this is happening under a Labour government is no surprise because of the left (and soft lefts) hatred of everything British.
Except that the cuts in Defence started under the Conservatives, having initially increased spending under Margaret Thatcher, Defence spending was slashed from the late 1980's on and while Michael Portillo may have posed as being some kind of champion of the MoD with his SAS speech, Defence cuts peaked duri9ng his time as Defence Secretary and huge amounts of MoD accomadion in the UK were sold throughout a time when troops were remaining stationed in Germany not because they were doing anything particularily that required them to be there, but rather that there was no provision for them in the UK.

[Yet Another Anon]

accomadion
accommodation

[Patsy Sergeant]

As quite a few people have commented on in posts on other threads, this prime minister appears to have distinctly stalinist tendencies in his desire for almost total control of the CIVILIAN population, but unlike every other totalitarian state which is proud of its defence forces and takes pride in keeping them adequately supplied, this prime minister - erstwhile Scrooge-style chancellor - seems to wish that the present armed forces would just 'disappear'. Sure, he has made an appearance in Irag - he could hardly do any less!, but as for taking proper responsibility for the upkeep of the defence forces - right from his first day as Chancellor ten years ago - forget it!

[Dan Byles]

David Belchamber @ 1147 asked about civil service numbers compared with Armed Forces numbers:

Strength of Armed Forces as at April 2007 (figures from DASA website):

Total: 190,400
Army: 106,170
RAF: 44,520
RN: 38,700

Civil Service numbers as at Sep 2006 (figures from ONS website):

Total: 554,190
Working in MOD: 88,070

It's worth noting that total civil service numbers are up some 60,000 since 1997 (more than the strength of the RN or the RAF), and that takes no account of the huge numbers of extra staff employed by quangos, agencies and local authorities.

Edmund Conway, Economics Editor of the Daily Telegraph, estimated in December 2006 that: "The size of the public sector payroll has increased by almost 1 million since 1997"

Which begs the question - what the hell are they are all doing?

[David Belchamber]

Dan, thank you very much for giving us the figures (Armed Forces v Civil Service). It is always useful to be able to confuse the issue with facts! We now need correct crime figures over a 20 year period to really nail Nulab.
Could luck in the election

[Dan Byles]

> David - Many thanks.

[Victor, NW Kent]

I was totally opposed to the Iraq invasion purely because I felt it would be practically impossible to secure any peaceful settlement after the direct conflict. I still do not think that was a problem too hard to forsee.

On the other hand I am an ex-Regular and my thoughts are always with our Armed Forces. At every stage of the cuts in force size and in budget cuts I have protested. There are a few hundred quangos that could be cut without any loss of public benefit. Such savings could equip and pay our troops properly.

Equally scandalous is the closure of all specialist MOD hospitals and the niggardly treatment [in every way] of the maimed, the wounded, the blinded.

All MPs who did not oppose the current 30 Years War should be made to serve 3 months in Iraq or Afghanistan. Their appetite for wars would diminish very quickly.

[TomTom]

Army Pay

In line with the rest of the public sector, the implementation of awards over 1.5% will be staged, with 1.5% paid from 1 April and the remainder being paid from 1 November.

The main recommendations are:
· 2.5% for nurses and other healthcare professionals
· a flat rate of £1,000p.a. for hospital doctors and £650p.a. for hospital doctors & dentists in training - giving an average of 2% across all groups
· 2% for general dental practitioners and
· 0% for general medical practitioners

The government claims that, for the following examples:

· the minimum starting pay for a basic grade, newly-qualified nurse will be over £19,600 from 1 November - an increase of £479 on current rates

· typical pay for doctors in their first post will be £31,578 from 1 April and £32,087 from 1 November - an increase of 3.1 per cent on current rates
· a consultant on the minimum pay scale will get £71,822 from 1 April 2007

US Army Pay

AU SU GI E-1 starts on £7,568 pa and British Army Private on £15,677 pa

[TomTom]

A US GI Grade E-1 starts on £7,568 pa and British Army Private on £15,677 pa

[TomTom]

http://www.policeuk.com/policinguk/pay.html

http://pr.janes.com/public/jprjob/pay_condition.shtml

Police Constable leaves basic training on £21,354 pa rising to £32,985 pa

Police pay NYC

Still, it is jarring to think that New York City’s newest police hires are being forced to work for the pauper’s sum of $25,100......This unreasonable pay scale arose from battles over the police union’s contract. When contract negotiations broke down in 2005, a state-appointed labor arbitration panel gave rank-and-file officers a 10 percent raise over two years. That would have been reasonable, if it had paid for the increase with productivity savings, as the city wanted. But it took the money from future recruits instead, lowering their paychecks by 27 percent

So if they should be on $31,877 that is £15,780 or 26% less than a British police officer but if we compare New York with London we find the NY cop is a further £3000 down so he earns in total 35% less than a London Met officer

It seems that security costs are much higher in Britain in terms of personnel budgets than in the USA

[Dan Byles]

Daily Mail 2 Oct 2006 (clearly using 2006 pay scales):

"A Mail investigation into the pay and conditions of serving soldiers reveals they are among the lowest paid employees in Britain - in combat zones, they frequently earn less than the minimum wage...

...The newly appointed Chief of General Staff, General Sir Richard Dannatt, has asked whether the men risking their lives are getting a fair wage...

...The most recent Armed Forces Pay Review points out that the: 'Army said the proportion working excessive hours particularly among junior ranks was a concern.

"It is possible that junior ranks could earn below the national minimum wage if they consistently worked 55 hours and above (aged 22 and over) or 65 hours and above (aged between 18 and 21)."

There are few if any working weeks as short as 55 or 65 hours on the front line.

In besieged Helmand in Afghanistan, soldiers are often on duty for 16 hours or more a day, every day of the week.

A junior private with a year's post-training service earns £39.24 a day. There is an extra £6.02 separation allowance a day for being on overseas operations, giving a total of £45.26.

Based on a 16-hour working day, that's just £2.83 per hour. The minimum wage for anyone aged 22 or over is £5.35; £4.45 for those aged 18 to 21.

Another way of looking at it is that a junior soldier under heavy fire over a 24-hour period in Helmand is being paid an extra 25p an hour above his standard wage for his trouble.

Certainly these highly-skilled professionals would be better off - and a good deal safer - waiting on tables in a pizza parlour back home...

...The basic pay before tax of a private with two years' service is...considerably more than his equivalent in the U.S. Army...

But when the squaddie goes to war and allowances, tax relief, rent, food bills and combat payments are taken into account, the picture changes dramatically.

Neither the Americans nor the Canadians - Britain's main front line allies in Afghanistan - pay income tax while serving in a combat zone.

In contrast - and this causes huge resentment - the British soldier pays the same level of income tax whether he is square-bashing in Aldershot or under fire in Helmand.

As well as receiving the best basic pay, the Canadian soldier gets £990 a month combat pay, more than five times the British private's allowance of £180.

The Polish soldier in the front line receives nearly twice as much in combat and separation allowances than his British comrade. And Italians on active service receive an extra £134 a day.

The British serviceman's pay is also chipped away by 'stealth' deductions.

From their salaries, many soldiers (though not those in combat) have £25.62 a week deducted for mess food, whether they eat there or not - though the Forces are moving towards the American 'pay-as-you-dine' approach.

Soldiers in married quarters also have to pay council tax, whether or not they are based in Britain.

After tax and other deductions, and including operational allowances, a married British private with two years' service, serving in a combat zone, takes home less than £1,000 a month.

This is around £110 less than his U.S. equivalent, but a lot lower than his other allies.

The Italians take home £3,379, the Dutch £2,361, the Canadians £2,322 and the Germans £1,465. Only the Polish, on £884, and the French, on £792, earn less.

Some British military families even qualify for benefits.

"It is disgraceful that we have Army families who need tax credits because of the low levels of their basic pay," says Sammie Crane, chairman of the service welfare charity Army Families Federation - the president, Lady Dannatt, is the wife of the Chief of General Staff.

[TomTom]

Dan, your points are fair....I favour tax-exemption for soldiers in combat and allowances with full Council Tax relief and free telephone calls and a postage allowance.....I do not favour a general uplift in military pay because I do not want people like Faye Turney.

Germany of course has a conscript army with small professional component, although talk is back on about a volunteer army since only 16% young males are drafted and it is getting a bt arbitrary

So I agree with your main point, and I agree there should be tax-exemption when in combat....but not in simplyu boosting pay scales so we get the situation as with the police

[Dan Byles]

TomTom

You are certainly right that there are several options for improving the lot for our soldiers. Personally I think they are underpaid in comparison with the police and fire service, when you take into account relative hours, conditions, training requirements and actual job done. (Bear in mind when you look at the current annual pay of a private soldier - that is supposed to include an extra 13% 'X Factor' to take into account the arduous and anti-social nature of the job. So a soldier's basic salary is actually 13% less than the published figure - which makes it even worse).

I certainly don't think you can decide an entire industry's salary level based on looking at one individual (your reference to Faye Turney). Look at any group, and you'll find individuals that don't appear to cut the grade, although personally I don't know enough about her to make a judgement.

But with regard to paying tax while on ops, combat pay etc, you're right that we are woefully behind most of out NATO allies. Improvements here are long overdue. To quote briefly from the Mail article above, looking at take home pay for soldiers on operations in 2006:

"After tax and other deductions, and including operational allowances, a married British private with two years' service, serving in a combat zone, takes home less than £1,000 a month.

This is around £110 less than his U.S. equivalent, but a lot lower than his other allies.

The Italians take home £3,379, the Dutch £2,361, the Canadians £2,322 and the Germans £1,465..."

[nigel syson]

well done Dan Byles & John F. The treatment of the army by this Government & Brown is a disgrace. The Balck Watch serve at Dogwood and are rewarded with amalgamation and the Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters, currently in Afganistan, met the same fate this weekend. What is our leadership doing ? At the very least their should be a commitment to restore these regiments. The TA are seving abroad whist Brown financially cuts them to pieces at home. Money can be found for the EU and MPs & ministers' pensions but not for those brave men on which our freedom rests. We need to make a financial commitment to the armed forces now. Our leaders must show their support.

[Lindsay Jenkins]

Dan many thanks for the numbers of armed forces versus civil servants.

When speaking to an army audience a year or two ago I suggested as a complete shot in the dark that the civil servants should be sent to Iraq to do the fighting, as there seemed to be rather more of them. This flip comment was very well received to my surprise. You have told us why!

It would also be helpful if the chief of the defence staff again ran the armed forces budget, as I understand that too is now controlled by civil servants. What a ridiculous and parlous state of affairs.

There is something very cynical about the government’s defence policy. There is plenty of money for defence at home against terrorism – rightly of course – but there is not enough money for defence overseas.

Most of us who post here are cynics and no doubt most of us would say that is because getting voters blown up in the street at home is a very bad idea and could lose elections.

But if some of our countrymen are sufficiently patriotic to get shot in Helmand Province and Iraq where passing civilian Brits going to work or shopping are pretty thin on the ground, then the impact on elections will be correspondingly low.

I believe to the contrary: that there is a rich patriotic vein in this country and an understanding that defence is the first duty of any government. Cameron has a great opportunity to support our armed forces to the hilt whether at home or abroad. He should seize it now.

[David Belchamber]

Dan - you have received a very high degree of support on ConHome; would you care to formulate some specific proposals for the Tory Party manifesto?

[Graham]

The problems beset by the armed services are not just in manpower but in equipment as well. Most of the Kit we have or being designed now is based on the cold war mantality in which the MOD seems to be stuck. Most members of the armed forces know what kit is required but cannot get it. The Navy need proper patrol boats not frigates designed for Alantic convoys. The RAF require a Ground attack aircraft to support the army not more fighter bombers, the lis goes on.

[Dan Byles]

> David Belchamber
Thanks David. I have already been in touch with the shadow defence team and offered my help with writing the military manifesto.

Cheers
Dan

[edward]

Dan, great opening gambit and subsequent comments. However, and I can see the reason so this isn't a criticism, they are a bit land centric and don't attack the main issues.

Pay is a good starter for 10. But paying the man more money won't make him fight harder. You have to ask the question why do they leave?

The answer in simple terms is that we thought that we could cash in on the peace-divident post cold war to reduce committments. In reality, committments have doubled whilst manpower has reduced significantly. The net result is that operational tours come around quicker, giving people less harmony time with families and adding to the burden of the man on the front line.

This isn't just the preserve of the British Army, although they are undoutedly the most over committed. This is applicable across the three services. To give you an example, from October 2006 until March 2007 approximately 55% of all personnel deployed in Afghanistan were from the Royal Navy.

The issues run much deaper than pay and allowances. Many of the rationalisations that have happened in recent years, eg Future Army Structure, were championed by people such as Gen M Jackson. To restore Men and Material to the levels of say 1982, would take upwards of 20 years in terms of procurement, recruitment and training.

Strategically, i'd be very surprised if the UK could re-equip for a major conflict because the defence industry has been left to fester as a result of political indecision, lack of political support and a dwindling defence budget.

A classic example of this is the Carrier Project. After 10 years of studies we still don't have a new carrier. Meanwhile France, Spain and Italy have all fielded new units in relatively short order. To preserve a defence industrial base, you have to place regular orders otherwise a drain of experience is the result.

Dan i'm on your side, and you rightly identify a significant issue (pay). It is possible that we are heading for situation that occured in the 1970s when junior servicemen were having to claim income support in order to support their families.

The mass sell off of married quarters is further compounding the welfare issues. Why is that a nurse is eligible for accomodation assistance as a key employee, yet a Junior serviceman must take out a loan against his salary in order to buy a house?

Dan, i'm on your side but with the state of the general public at the moment, i think they would rather see another wembley than see thier tax spent on the Armed Forces.

[edward]

TomTom - a parting shot for you and your rediculous comparison between the British Soldier and NYPD policemen.

In the US, the armed forces have access to a system of support the likes of which you've never seen. They don't have to shop at Tesco or Asda because every American base has a Hypermarket which offers goods at a far cheaper rate than the public have access to. This includes cheaper petrol.

Therefore by a simple deduction that even you with you cynical attitude can make, you can see that the US serviceman's cost of living compared to his salary is better than the average American civilian.

Americans view their Armed Forces with pride, i'm not convinced that the same is true here.

So, in short if you are going to make deliberately provocative posts do your homework. The UK is an expensive place to live, and is getting more expensive because of the likes of Gordon Brown.

[David Belchamber]

Dan @ 20.26: I wish you luck and hope that the tories take up your offer. In my experience, it is always offputting for the oppo if you confuse the issue with a few facts!

[Ken Stevens]

We must undertake a massive improvement in the pay, conditions, equipment and aftercare of our armed forces, cutting out a quango or two to pay for it as necessary. We must make it clear that it is a highly regarded and honourable career, and emphasise the distinction between conflicts that might well be unpopular and the respect & admiration that has to be maintained for those sent to do politicians, bidding.

We have grown very soft in this nanny State and should express our gratitude in an ongoing and tangible way to those who still have the courage and tenacity to endure voluntarily the dangers and privations of active service.

[Cdr J L Muxworthy, RN]

I am the Chairman & CE of the United Kingdom Defence Association (for details of which please see: www.uknda.org )and wish to contact Major Dan Byles. I'd be grateful if you could provide me with his e-mail address, or draw his attention to my address and ask him to be so kind as to contact me.
Thank you in anticipation -

John Muxworthy

Cdr, RN Chairman & CE UKNDA