The army provides a priceless service

General Sir Richard Dannatt said something very interesting in his understandable call for more pay for his men:

Servicemen go on operations knowing they are putting their lives on the line. It is very hard to put a price on that.

Quite right. In fact, it is impossible to do so.

However, it is also unnecessary. You cannot determine pay by assessing the moral worth of the activity undertaken. How much money would it take to persuade you to run into a burning building to rescue a stranger. A million pounds? Nothing? Who knows.

Pay is set by the price required to call forth and retain a supply of labour of the right quality.

Ensuring our armed forces are equipped well in order to keep them safe is a moral obligation. Ensuring that their medical provision, family care and welfare facilities are satisfactory is a moral obligation. Pay is a hard headed economic decision.

Sir Richard is correct to press for better pay for his men. What sort of leader would he be if he didn't? But he ought only to be succesful if he can show that he needs greater pay for recruitment purposes.

The arguments he has used so far are more moving than convincing.

Comments

[Alex R]

maybe the point is that servicemen aren't going in with a full appreciation of the facts.

[Nick]

Ensuring our armed forces are equipped well in order to keep them safe is a moral obligation. Ensuring that their medical provision, family care and welfare facilities are satisfactory is a moral obligation. Pay is a hard headed economic decision.

False distinction surely Danny. The MOD cannot write an open cheque for safety procedures, medical provision, family care and welfare facilities. They must make a hard headed economic decision about how much they can afford to spend on these. You can't play the hard headed economist on one issue and not the other.

[Ed]

When are people going to stop going on about recruitment being a major issue? Retention is the biggest problem facing the armed forces at this current moment. A Captain or Sergeant cant be replaced by a 2Lt fresh from Sandhurst or a recruit straight from Phase 2 training. Retention of Captains and Cpl/Sgt's is a far bigger problem than recruitment. This is the only reason why Gen Dannent has mentioned that troops need more pay. Unfortunately the Armed Forces are already broken and its all too little too late.

[Bill Liverpool]

I have served as a Regular Soldier and a reservist and recently served in Iraq in 2006, Troops pay is a joke and if they can pay that rabble in the House of Commons £58000 plus expenses they can pay our lads and girls a decent rate. This Government has ordered 2 new aircraft carriers at two billion each were will the money come from? The plane that replaces the harrier is 60 to 80 million dollars each the F35 plane that is made in the USA.

[JWH]

Maybe General Sir Richard Dannatt wants to increase the quantity and quality of recruits but doesn't feel able to make that explicit to our media and government, feeling that they respond better to the emotional appeal rather than the strategic argument. Making that argument would also make the Army look pretty stupid since it isn't too long since it reduced the size of the Infantry all by itself.

Regards

[David Jones]

Hmmmm - seem to remember Mr F having a different approach to MPs pay and expenses - he was in favour of increasing the current levels of remuneration despite the number of 'applications' for each MP post and the absence of any evidence that the quality of applicants would not be adequate at a lower rate of pay. I wonder if this inconsistency could be connected with the fact that Mr F has many friends who are MPs, but none who are soldiers ?

[James J]

My son actually left the army a few years ago simply because he could not live a reasonable life on the pay. It would not have taken a great increase to keep him in as he loved the life. Just enough to afford to run a modest car and maybe a holiday when he returned from a six months tour, without getting into debt. As to any thought of settling into a long term relationship or marriage ,financially almost impossible.
You are right, no one will join the army just because the salary is increased.The majority of young men could not be paid enough to make them join, but for those that are attracted to army life paying them say the equivalent of a Traffic warden’s salary would allow them to stay in the Armed Forces rather than be forced out by financial pressure.

[S GALL]

it is also sad but true that every think tank which in itself presides over pay reviews also bears in mind that financial stability is in general the last thing though of when joining up, however is a major factor in retention, therefore would it be prudent to make the ascending the ranks (and therefore wish to remain in service) more desirable by widening the wage gaps? I know from experience that I had men of a lower rank serve with me that were in certain situations being paid more for less, I am acutely aware that there are jobs tasks and posts which deserve better money to reflect the training, experience, and of course the more difficult of circumstances, however promotion must be a desireable aspect of the job, which, at the moment for some in truth it is not.

[slade wallis]

I find it shocking that people want to run the armed forces like some business venture.
Our troops are treated in a disgraceful manner. If you want to put a price on worth, perhaps MP's should take a proper pay drop as they do a hell of a lot less since selling the UK out to the EU. Is it not the EU who make all our laws ! How about putting MP's on performance related pay and bring their greedy expectations more in line with the rest of the country.
Greedy MP's would never show such depth of integrity and neither will they pay OUR troops a wage that they can live on !!
As Kipling would have said, 'No fair pay for Tommy as the MP's begin their expenses claim, but its Tommy this and Tommy that when there is an unjust war to fight and an enemy to slay'.

[Dan]

The pay in the military is only decent when you're deployed or in the TA. I wouldn't pay for a lot of the accomidation I've seen and the new Pay As You Dine plan causes soldiers who are feeling a bit skint to skip meals. My partner's dream is to join the regulars but the 10K a year wage loss makes it impossible for us to consider it. Sad but true, he's better off being a part time soldier and getting deployed then actually being in the regs.

[Sean C]

As with most positions in civvy life if you get paid for what you know and the position of responcibility that you may have, the Forces are no different. I left the forces in 2006 after 22 years and i can say that in all that time i thought i was well paid. There are a lot more people out here who are on less than £16000 and living well within their means, and that is the problem with the forces of today. They all want he new cars and plasma tv's, instead of thinking what is really needed. I'm now a civil servant and getting 1/2 of my wage when i left the forces and i can still manage (yes i have a pension and it helps but i am a single parent)

[Garth Strong]

THE ENEMY WITHIN

The British armed forces appear to be under attack...and facing real defeat... AS NEVER BEFORE!...from The Enemy Within.

History has taught us that the safety, security and stability of Britain, Europe, and indeed the of the world, is very dependent on British military strength, even in these post-colonial times. Has the world suddenly become a safe and stable place? Can we now forget and ignore the hard, painful, bitter lessons of History? Are we now in a state of blissful oblivion?
(Do they still teach British History in British schools???)

[SDH]

Nick (5th June) has hit the nail on the head. The issue is RETENTION, not recruitment. You won't just keep good people in the Army with pay alone. People in the Army see the growing disparity between themselves and their civilian counterparts, so whilst serving their country is a noble & rewarding endevour, once or twice is enough. Eventually we want a normal life. Pay is not the only issue and it won't stop the Army losing its top people.

[Zac Smith]

It has nothing to do with "worth" - how can you justify the wages of a corporate barrister or footballer on that basis?

It's simply a matter of supply and demand. We can't recruit or retain enough high-quality soldiers and part of that is about pay.

[Vinod Tuli]

The couple of brave and stunning statements of The British Army Chief are alarming for the soldier fraternity around the world. Indian Armed/Para Military Forces are no better and sailing in the same boat. Times on Line deserves kudos for highlighting woes of the fighting forces not only on their own borders but overseas too.

[m wilson]

It is about time War Disablement Pensions were reviewed, they pathetic at the moment.