National Defence Association Discussion.

[wobbly]

AL1

Our help is needed here. Please download the attachment and read it through. Every bugger moans that they are being hard done by and now its time to have your say.

I want people to use this thread to provide John with as many opinions on his paper as possible. All posts that do not contribute in any shape, way, or form will be deleted.

Please download the file attached and print it out, and get it round crewrooms etc and get opinions and please post them back here.

Remember, this is VERY important to us all.

I look forward to your comments.........

The floor is yours..........

For your information: e-goat user "Frustrated" is John Muxworthy


Please find AL 2 Abridged version of NDA document 18/19 June 2006

[POB]

Wow, what a paper. I have managed to read about half so far, and it seems very well put together, and has my support. The following points strike me though:

1. The NDA must guard against being seen as another employment route for retired senior officers. At least one person on another thread has commented on this point. "Things like this sound good in theory, but in practice it's just another group run by serving or retired officers to suit their own agendas."

Also on this point, are the senior officers that are seen to be loosing the battle with the treasury to be invited to have an input to the NDA?

If we ignore them, do we waste experience?

If we use them do we risk loosing the those same battles as the same people are fighting them?

By asking retired senior members of the armed forces to select the head of the NDA, is the organisation allready leaving itself wide open to the criticism of "cronyism/nepotism?"

2. Recruiting other military publications, and their staff and views may be very problematical its own right. Lets face it, who really believes what the RAF News has to say when they openly state that JPA has been a success, with a few minor teathing problems. (Paraphrased, sorry, I could not find the link.)

3. Money. Even through the good offices of John, and all that he is trying to achieve, can he really get the kind of money togther quickly enough for the NDA to have a real and lasting impact. If it fails, will that be the end of it? Will there ever be another chance to get something similar of the ground again? To have an impact the press officer must have good contacts throughout journalism, the big organizations pay big money for the services of these people. Whatever you may think of Alistair Campbell, he gets the message accross that he wants to...If we cannot employ someone of similar calibre, we risk being seen as a minor, unprofessional association.

4. Membership. The security surrounding a list of names of serving military personel must be perfect, one mistake will have people leaving in their droves.

Allied to this, will there be any penalty by the military exacted against anyone who joins? What happens if the powers that be decide that it is too much like an union, and decide that membership of the organisation is to be prescribed for serving members of the forces - will that ruin any claims that it may have to legitimacy?

Anyway, more when I have fully digested...If any of these immediate points are covered in full in the draft document, please excuse me.

I must say though, it is in my opinion, a very good idea that deserves the serious consideration of all serving members of the Forces.

[Frustrated]

POB: You make some valid points - for which thank you; but I must first emphasise (to avoid any misunderstanding) that BAFF and the NDA are two completely separate unconnected projects. BAFF is not NDA, and the NDA is not BAFF.
Thus there will be no problem with serving (or any other) people joining the NDA when we actively recruit - which will be when the presently DRAFT founding document is finalised and distributed officially countrywide.
We do not, however, envisage any serving person joining the Policy Board or the executive/admin staff - as that could be incompatible with their service commitments.
Cronyism? Well I can see how one might suppose that - but all I can say is that in the interests of achieving a really effective and influencial NDA it will take influential and effective people with a proven record.
This topic column is all about the DRAFT NDA founding document - and seeking the broadest possible (Tri-Service in particular) range of reactions and positive suggestions. So thank you for a good start.

[wobbly]

Come on people, do you not want to have an Association fighting on your behalf?

I get fed up of people sitting there bleating on everyday about not having the tools and equipment to do the job. How often do you see 80% of your manpower on det or on other commitments leaving you struggling to make the flying program/tasks? Our service has been raped of all its manpower and resources and we struggle everyday. The only reason we get anywhere is because of the "Can do" attitude that has become the norm. This is okay, but we are now at breaking point and any more cuts etc will see us grind to a halt.

An Association could be a step in the right direction, ran by ex servicemen and women to fight for the services rights. I'm absolutely gobsmack that people in this community have just blanked it. This could be something which could help our service get extra funding and make our life a biit easier rather than a long slog to exit date.

[garvey]

Come on people, do you not want to have an Association fighting on your behalf?

I get fed up of people sitting there bleating on everyday about not having the tools and equipment to do the job. How often do you see 80% of your manpower on det or on other commitments leaving you struggling to make the flying program/tasks? Our service has been raped of all its manpower and resources and we struggle everyday. The only reason we get anywhere is because of the "Can do" attitude that has become the norm. This is okay, but we are now at breaking point and any more cuts etc will see us grind to a halt.

An Association could be a step in the right direction, ran by ex servicemen and women to fight for the services rights. I'm absolutely gobsmack that people in this community have just blanked it. This could be something which could help our service get extra funding and make our life a biit easier rather than a long slog to exit date.

Just a thought, but I wonder if the reason the response here hasn’t been overwhelming might be down to some or all of the following:

1. it looks very “top down” – basically a lobbying group pushing government for cash to keep superfluous admirals and MOD desk-jockeys in a job, or to keep Navy / Army / Air Force at an enormous maximum strength, indefinitely, on a “just in case” basis, regardless of actual military necessity. I just don’t see Whitehall or the public buying that argument – unless NDA is also going to lobby for more war, to give a massive and expensive defence capability something to actually do (obviously I mean after our current adventure is over, which now "Iraq's most wanted" is dead will be sometime next week, won't it?).

2. they shoot themselves in the foot with their first statement – “The Armed Forces have, for many years, been steadily reducing in size, although in many instances there has been a significant increase in individual unit capability” – It may be a predictable, politician’s response, but surely it IS the increased capability that matters, not the overall numbers (although there are issues of stretched resources, the arguments in favour of increased spending that NDA put forward are all variants on the “one ship can’t be in two oceans at once” one - is there a situation looming where we're actually going to need to be in two oceans at once?)

3. BAFF, from what has been bandied about so far, seems more likely to directly address the issues of welfare, rights and all-round job satisfaction that get raised here and elsewhere. NDA’s aims may contribute to solving some of those problems in a roundabout, trickle-down fashion, but the way they’ve presented their case in this document makes it clear that directly engaging with anything other than “more money from government for more defence” is very much a second priority.

Controversial enough for you? Of course I'm cynical, but the rest of you can't be, surely?

[The Gimp]

I have printed a few copies of the draft doc and put them about the tri services out here in the sandbox, I am sure it will start much discussion. I will report back with my findings.

I agree that we are much in need external representation, as the the police has.

I commend this to the house.

[Frustrated]

I am very grateful to 'Wobbly' for providing this debate facility. It is important to obtain a truly TRI-SERVICE viewpoint and discussion on the NDA proposals, with active participation from RAF personnel with their own views, not dominated by the Army and/or Navy.
The NDA draft paper has just been amended and updated to take account of the consensus that has emerged thus far... after all it IS a DRAFT paper, and that is why it has been posted on a number of websites. The amended version will be forwarded to 'wobbly' within the hour, and I trust it can then be substituted for the now 'old' version which is still available as I type this.
Watch this space!

[wobbly]

As John says, here is his abridged version.

[Plumber]

OK I finally managed to drag my ass around to reading this draft.

I see all these commitee posts are to be filled by retired senior officers.

A lot of what they are setting out to do is simply duplicating what BAFF is setting out to do.

The way I see it is BAFF have given themselves a much broader range of interests, which is to include welfare of the troops etc, and it is to be made up of a wide cross section of the forces community to represent all interests not just to provide jobs for the ex senior officers with an expense account.

Maybe instead of going into competition with BAFF (thinking big and not taking a tribal approach) maybe you should be teaming up and working together to create such an organisation.

I may be wrong but that seems like the sensible approach to me.

[Frustrated]

Plumber - thank you for that. I must first repeat the one thing that is agreed by both organisations. BAFF is not the NDA and the NDA is not the BAFF.
I really can understand your instinctive thought that there ought to be commonality between the two organisations but, if you study the stated aims carefully you can see that they have a very different level of focus on the problems.
I can only speak for the NDA view which, in the very simplest summary I can give, is this:

The Armed Forces are low in the Nation's list of priorities. In our view - far too low.
This means that the Armed Forces are under resourced (under funded) for the tasks they are set.
This results in inter-Service wrangles as to who gets what of an inadequate budget.
This leads to over-stretch of the Forces and, from time to time equipment shortages and or failures.
This leads to increasing pressures on the most important element of our Armed Forces - the serving men and women who do the work - and their families.
These pressures (on "our people" and their families) range right across the board - from financial pressures and family pressures to disciplinary pressures - and more besides.
BUT - and this is where the NDA is concentrating....
ALL OF THESE PROBLEMS GO RIGHT BACK TO THE FIRST TWO STATEMENTS WRITTEN ABOVE.

1. DEFENCE IS TOO LOW IN THE NATION's LIST OF PRIORITIES.
2. DEFENCE (the Armed Forces) IS THEREFORE UNDERFUNDED.

Sort out those two fundamental problems - and improvements will cascade on downwards. THAT is what the NDA intends to address - the whole issue.

[monobrow]

ok, I have scan read the document. And i guess by plumbers post, the NDA will be in direct competition with the BAFF for official recognition. They won't allow two seperate voices for the armed forces, and even then, they would pick the one run by "the old boys" won't they.

as soon as you get to that kind of level it's all back handed deals and shafting people for power. ohh and the odd "shut the f*ck up, thats how it is and like it, now go sell it to the troops"

sorry for such a pesemistic(sp?) veiw. I aggree with the ideas, but I don't really see how this will change anything. The only way we'd get cash is to send gordon brown to basra on a 4 monther with kit that doesn't fit "But thats all we have" and substandard kit that falls apart.

probably worth ignoring this post as theres nothing really constructive. sorry.

[auchtermuchty]

OK I tried to read the draft.

Am afraid that I still dont understand how you hope to accomplish what you are setting out to do - the exact mechanics of it i mean. As such i cant help on the draft, sorry.

I fully support the associations aims, but cant help but think that the biggest problem you will have is overcoming public apathy.

GOOD LUCK:PDT_Xtremez_30:

[Bluntend]

Can anybody remember an election campaign in the last 10 years where a candidate stood up and offered to better represent the troops? Public opinion is no longer behind the troops and we need to understand why this is in order for the NDA, BAFF or a NDA/BAFF hybrid to work effectively. In order to change politics and influence public spending you need to first influence the public because without their support we don’t stand a hope in hell’s chance of getting the kind of deal/resources/support we deserve.

If an NDA provides the framework for greater representation of our serving men and women (at all levels) then it gets my vote. I would stress though that POB’s points (para’s 3 & 4) are crucial to the NDA’s success. One of the biggest failings of our military is its continued failure to bring a project, policy or equipment type in on time, on budget and that is good to go from day one. The NDA would lose all credibility if it were to go off half cocked.

I totally agree with PompeySailor (from Rum Rations) who writes the following (sorry for the mammoth quote it was simply easier to cut and paste…):

I don't believe that we would ever take industrial action, or even that legally we are allowed to. I would like to see a combination of the BAFF (to essentially provide a Divisional System which covers three services) and the NDA to provide a coherent voice at a political level. My main concern is the fifth column which tend to get involved with these things to either promote their own interests (happened with the Families Feds), or to see them become stagnant jobs for the boys organisations. Something along the lines of the Legion (with a younger outlook!) would be useful, but at the end of the day we will end up with very little clout. All the time we can be placed at the end of a legal order (even one based on tenuous legal statements!), we have no option other than doing the job we are paid for.

There's a big difference between 'doing the job you're paid for' and being sold down the line by a bunch of lightweights. Year on year the AF have seen small nibbles taken from their budgets, this in a world we are reliably informed is just as dangerous as the one of the sixties and seventies. When I joined, the Royal Navy amassed some 89,000 people, now we have just over a third of that. I am not rescinding on earlier posts, advocating some structural change to meet the varying threat... we still need to move with the times. But for me, the past twenty-odd years has seem gross incompetence and mismanagement by senior staff, some wholesale ignorance of the Armed Forces functionality by Cabinet Ministers, and a failure to realise - at the highest level - that we provide the absolute backbone to the fabric and order of society. For that we are rewarded with Defence Ministers who are nothing more than cod-lawyers, like Hoon and ones who have only future interests at heart, like BAE Systems board-member Michael Portillo (ahem! LPD(R) and Astute ahem!)

Because this great nation is politically crumbling, and because people would rather watch 12 people in an East London studio-house eat each other's livers than watch Question Time, because it matters more to get richer, quicker and with less effort and that low taxes mean more cash, NOW! and shoddier public services and defence...our lot is casually pushed into the shadow. That is, until the fcuking firemen go on strike, someone is needed to incinerate livestock or there's a nasty case of Act of God to clean up, we get calmly forgotten about, whilst the graceless shower of **** this country forgot to vote out of office carries on paying stupid money for stupid contracts (dealt by stupid Ministers on their way into Stupid Boardrooms in the future). Everything invariable runs catastrophically late and over budget, and to save grace and face, those geniuses carry on pitch-forking cash into the toilet. No one is held to account. No one who shook hands gets jailed. Why should they when everyone is talking about Strictly Come Dancing and the World Cup?

Accountability is what this is all about, and it is a strand that I personally have wanted followed for donkey's years now. If I **** up...I can kiss goodbye to my pension, gratuity and good name. I'd like some parity here with those *******s who play poker with our world. I'd like Blair to come clean and admit the Iraq venture has failed. I'd like more people to browse the Ogrish website and see what our troops have to face out there, and for Des Browne to explain on live television what the **** he is doing to rehabilitate people who have to deal with that. I'd like the defence industry wholly Select Committed, piece by piece and investigated of it's worthiness. I'd like a freeze on cuts for five years, and for every single organisation within the three services to announce a ban on organisational restructuring and for them all...everyone...to keep the names and acronyms they possess for one ****ing year, at least. Change is the new steady state as I have said, but it does not have to be so strident that it is implemented without accountability. I have admitted in earlier postings that some changes have been made which are damaging to the service and it's structure...the Operator/Mechanic to name but one. But for all the people we lost because of a bad call, for all the hard gaps borne at sea and the wholesale decimation of one vital branch of the Royal Navy, did we see anyone sacked?

Maybe the NDA or BAFF could act to pursue accountability...

[Frustrated]

Bluntend (and, by association/quotation, Pompey Sailor). I wouldn't argue with some of the points you make - some being ones that no-one but individuals can affect, for example by writing to their MPs.
Now please accept (PS) that I am not now trying to be sanctimonious, but I just offer the thought that some of the points you make, and which have validity, might be weakend by the numerous ******. I agree with you that accountability has got to really mean something - and that there are far too many badly implemented and/or unduly expensively projects that should never have been allowed to progress as they did. Lewis Page's book 'Lions, Donkeys & Dinosaurs' is full of good (or are they bad) examples.
As to how the NDA will actually implement its plans and go off with a bang as opposed to a whimper... well, that is by making sure that we get it right first. To get our statement of aim or purpose right - to know what we are trying to achieve, and why, and to state it clearly and precisely. That's why we're taking such care to get a comprehensive set of Tri-Service viewpoints, and to start off with a precise and accurate Founding Document. That too is why we have paid attention to the 'beaurocratic detail' the draft paper has sometimes been criticised for. "All those poncey management diagrams' I think was one observation. Well, the answer there is that unless one is properly organised and clear precisely who is going to do what - then confusion, disorganisation and a whimper is going to be the answer.
That's enough for one explanation for now, I hope. Next?

[Bluntend]

Frustrated, just out of curiosity, what’s your background?

[Frustrated]

For my 'background' - in some detail in fact - please see the penultimate full page (page 12) in the draft NDA paper under the heading "Supplementary Information".

[Notsoblunt]

Auchtermuchty states... "I fully support the associations aims, but cant help but think that the biggest problem you will have is overcoming public apathy."

I too have read the draft, and agree entirely with the principles and aims of the paper, but must say that my viewpoint very much reflects Auchtermuchty's.

At present I am working in a post on the other side of the pond, and therefore see at first hand the pride and dedication the citizens of the USA have towards their armed forces. This commitment to their 'boys & girls in the military' is evident in the levels of support provided - both to serving and ex-serving military personnel. I don't concur with many things that our yankee cousins come up with, but on this issue I am fully behind them.

In order to win over public opinion (and therefore ultimately gain the interest of politicians) it would be my hope that any military association within the UK would attempt to emulate the esteemed position US military forces enjoy in the eyes of their own people. If the NDA, BAFF or whoever can get even halfway towards that, then they will have achieved something worthwhile for HM Forces personnel.

I wish the cause every success, and will provide support in any way I can from over here.

[Frustrated]

Notsoblunt - I agree with you; public opinion is the key. But we need to keep the message simple, say it often, say it loud, and say it all together - which is what this association is all about - and what we are trying to achieve. For our all round, straightforward and simple statement of what the NDA is all about - please look back to the last entry on page 1.
And, speaking purely personally, I envy you your time in the States, and agree with every word you say about their attititude to "their troops" over there. We could do with a lot more of that attitude over here.

[Bluntend]

...We could do with a lot more of that attitude over here.

What do you feel has caused our (uk public) attitude and the apathy towards supporting troops in the UK?

[Frustrated]

What a straightforward question - and such a difficult one to answer succinctly.
I don't think it's disinterest, as such, because I believe that - when they think about the subject - the great majority of the UK public are proud of our Armed Forces and what, in extremely difficult circumstances, they are achieving.
Any 'apathy' is the result of many factors, including: lack of knowledge of the Armed Forces. Lack of experience of the Armed Forces (no longer any conscription whereby almost everyone served, albeit for a relatively short period) and far fewer people now serving in the Forces, and thus only a relatively small minority having relations so serving. Only interimittent Press Interest - and even more intermittent Political interest.
What is needed is more and better information about the Armed Forces, pro-actively presented throughout the media more often. What is needed is a concerted effort by all of those people, businesses, organisations that have the interests of the Armed Forces - and, the bottom line, the effective defence of this country and its vital interests - at heart. What is needed is an Association of all those interested in and concerned about the Defence of this Country and the Armed Forces, who do and will continue to do their best to ensure it. Everyone singing from the same song sheet - long and loud until the message gets across.

[Bluntend]

A colleague of mine was attending a seminar along with arround 30 other officers and civil servants (mostly senior). The question of public spending was raised and a show of hands requested to see who would support an increase in spending on either Health, Education or Defence. The majority supported a budget increase for health, a few less backed education but only one out of all those present (my colleague) supported more spending on defence. This raises the question: Do our senior officers feel our current budget is adequate to support our task? Are they failing to recognise the symptoms of overstretch and plummeting morale? Do they feel that the standard of accommodation (across the board) is adequate? That pay is adequate? That the rate of OOAs is right? That the provision of equipment (body armour and DAS for example) is sufficient?

If our own lords and masters don't feel we need an increased budget, what hope have we that the public who know even less about conditions in the Services will feel any different?

[Notsoblunt]

Frustrated, your post at #20 hits the nail on the head exactly, in my opinion.

[Bitburger]

.................If our own lords and masters don't feel we need an increased budget, what hope have we that the public who know even less about conditions in the Services will feel any different?




It is not that we need an increased budget, we just need to spend it wisely. Just why do we need 200+ Typhoons when they are likely never to be used in anger, the billions spent would have been better used in buying a few off the shelf USA fighters, more AT and rotary assets to make the RAF able to be a deployable airforce. But then again Typhoon looks better at air shows and building Typhoons has saved jobs in a northern Labour constituency. While the RAF is headed up by pilots the fast pointy stuff will always come first. One question, how many bus companies are run by bus drivers?

[Frustrated]

This raises the question: Do our senior officers feel our current budget is adequate to support our task? Are they failing to recognise the symptoms of overstretch and plummeting morale? Do they feel that the standard of accommodation (across the board) is adequate? That pay is adequate? That the rate of OOAs is right? That the provision of equipment (body armour and DAS for example) is sufficient?

If our own lords and masters don't feel we need an increased budget, what hope have we that the public who know even less about conditions in the Services will feel any different?

Bluntend - The answers to your questions must, I most sincerely hope, be:
I believe that our senior officers cannot feel that our current budget is adequate for the tasks facing the Armed Forces. They must surely recognise overstretch and strained morale. They must also realise that not all accommodation is of an acceptable standard but, within budgetary restraints (!!!), are doing their best to improve it where needed. I think (!) that they will think that pay is generally "adequate" (my assessment, so that's a guess on my part) and also OOAs, but that the well publicised problems with inadequate and/or insufficient equipment shows that there are problems there. In short - they realise that funding is inadequate, and - again I most sincerely trust - they fight their case (with the Treasury) very vigorously indeed. BUT - and it's a huge 'but' - the nub of the problem.... they are not allowed to make their case in public - so there is, generally, no public demand and thus no real political interest. And that, Sir, is where the NDA comes in - to pro-actively lobby for adequate, appropriate armed forces with sufficient funding.

Oh, Yes - and Notsoblunt - thank you for your message (No. 22 and previously) - and please do get in touch with me direct ( ndahq@btinternet.com ) if you meant what you wrote about agreeing with our aims and being willing to help.

[Bluntend]

It is not that we need an increased budget, we just need to spend it wisely. Just why do we need 200+ Typhoons when they are likely never to be used in anger, the billions spent would have been better used in buying a few off the shelf USA fighters, more AT and rotary assets to make the RAF able to be a deployable airforce. But then again Typhoon looks better at air shows and building Typhoons has saved jobs in a northern Labour constituency. While the RAF is headed up by pilots the fast pointy stuff will always come first. One question, how many bus companies are run by bus drivers?

Bitburger, I don't disagree at all. What gr!ps my sh!t is this evolving idea that we (HM Forces) should support Industry. Politics has seeped so deeply into areas like Defence Procurement and Defence Logistics that what makes common sense, and what is often the best deal for the taxpayer (and serviceman) is disregarded and a nonsensical (sp?) politically driven 'solution' is ushered in all in the name of 'supporting Bristish Industry'. Well, given the chance I would like to put it to the Minister for Defence Procurement that if British Industry is being kept afloat by an organisation the size of HM Forces then it must be in a pretty sorry state.

IMHO unnecessary bureacracy, red tape, nepatism, apathy and ineffective leadership are what cost the forces billions every year. I think it has been suggested somewhere here on e-goat that what we need is an outside assessment of the whole organisation, top to bottom. It will no doubt cost millions and takes years but we need a proper re-assessment of our situation. This peicemeal way that that we assess 'value' and reduce 'waste' is simply hiding the real problems. Base closures, equipment cuts and manpower cuts are simply treating the symptoms and not the cause. To really make us an effective and credible fighting force capable of fullfilling our role as a true 'Force for Good' we need to rip out the dead wood. Starting at the top.

So, more money on defence? Yep, it would still get my vote. But you are right, it is not the 'solution'. What we need to do is cut out what is unnecessary and retain what is worthwhile. The question is, can the NDA or BAFF for that matter make this happen?

[Bluntend]

...And that, Sir, is where the NDA comes in - to pro-actively lobby for adequate, appropriate armed forces with sufficient funding.

I think the point made by Bitburger and that which I also agree with is that funding alone isn't the answer. The whole structure needs a shake up. I will always back anybody who fights our corner and the NDA have my total support with any campaign to raise the profile of the Military in the public eye and in the process win support for an increase in Defence expenditure. But this alone is not enough. What is the point in getting more taxpayers money spent on Defence if our Lords and Masters simply poor it down the drains? The use of consultants, for example: Across the public sector billions wasted on 'advice' we already knew but nobody listened to us because we're not important/senior/charging enough. If the NDA really want to make a difference, you need to change the system for the better at every level. Over to you...

[Frustrated]

Bluntend - re your message 24: I really don't disagree with you - and if you haven't read Lewis Page's book "Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs" - then may I recommend it to you, because it says, almost word for word, the sentiments you have already expressed. No one can sensibly ignore procurement inefficiencies - but one has equally got to beware of the dangers of hindsight. The NDA will, in addition to lobbying for appropriate and adequate (!) funding, highlight any instances of inefficiency that comes to its notice. The NDA will also, and more positively, support and publicise MOD successes because - and let's be fair about this - there are many dedicated people working hard in the MOD, doing their very best in the interests of the Armed Forces they are there to serve. More often than not it's the archaic SYSTEMS that are at fault and need to be changed, but, be assured, stupidity, lethargy, inefficiency, indolence or just sheer apathy would be highlighted and condemned if and whenever it revealed itself.
There are lot's of cute phrases that can be brought into play - like "physician heal thyself" - but the NDA intends to be there to help and promote the Armed Forces and their senior management - not just attack them willy nilly. The fundamental need is to promote the military case constantly. loudly, pro-actively and openly in the public domain and, whenever possible, to be positive about it. We'll be there to help, not just condemn.

[Notsoblunt]

Frustrated - PM submitted via HQ email address

[Frustrated]

Readers/contributors might like to see the NDA one page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY compiled especially for the busy reader; it reads as follows:

THE NEED FOR A NATIONAL DEFENCE ASSOCIATION
AN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

THE PROBLEM AND THE CHALLENGE

The Armed Forces are low in the Nation's list of priorities; in the view of the NDA - far too low.
This means that the Armed Forces are under resourced (under funded) for the tasks they are set.
This results in inter-Service wrangles as to who gets what of an inadequate budget.
This leads to over-stretch of the Forces and, from time to time equipment shortages and or failures.
This leads to increasing pressures on the most important element of our Armed Forces - the serving men and women who do the work - and their families.
These pressures (on "our people" and their families) range right across the board - from financial pressures and family pressures to disciplinary pressures - and more besides.

BUT -

ALL OF THESE PROBLEMS STEM FROM TO THE FIRST TWO STATEMENTS WRITTEN ABOVE.

1. DEFENCE IS TOO LOW IN THE NATION's LIST OF PRIORITIES.
2. DEFENCE (the Armed Forces) IS THEREFORE UNDERFUNDED.

Sort out those two fundamental problems - and improvements will cascade on downwards. THIS is what the NDA intends to address and publicise - the whole issue from the top down.

THE PROBLEM

The Chief of the Defence Staff and his three Service Chiefs cannot air their problems in public; their financial battles with the Treasury and the Government are played out behind closed doors. No organisation exists to pro-actively publicise the case for adequate, appropriate and properly resourced Armed Forces; there needs to be.

THE SOLUTION – AN NDA

We are establishing a National Defence Association (an NDA) whose purpose is to:

Present to the public, press and politicians of the United Kingdom the case for sufficient, appropriate and fully funded Armed Forces and other Defence Services, so that the Country, its people and their vital interests at home and throughout the world are defended effectively.

We seek YOUR support

The case for an NDA, and the details of its composition and operation follow in the attached Founding Document. (a copy of which can be e-mailed to you by contacting the NDA General and Membership Secretary: ndamemsec@yahoo.co.uk )

[wobbly]

AL 2 of the NDA Docs can be found in the initial post.

Many thanks for your time!!

[Stax]

We had a visit the other day from the small chap that hangs around with the CASWO. He briefed a bunch of us in a hangar, and, basically, started by pointing out that under any future Government, Socialist or Tory, there would be no extra money for the Armed Forces. So what he meant was, make do with what you've got! OK, I hear you say, we have done that for years, what's new? Well, he then went on tos ay Typhoon was the dogs balaerics and the Army and Navy can't do without us, we are great! We, of course, have always known this, but isn't it nice that the force that is having the most cuts in manpower, increased OOA's, lack of spares (even for new aircraft) are IHHO, really, really great. It felt like young Mr Grace addressing the staff on the 4th floor at Christmas! In fact it was so gripping one young lad fainted with the excitement!

[Frustrated]

STAX - That's depressing news - and the sort of thing that the NDA will endeavour to highlight and overcome. Pardon my ignorance, but who or what is "CASWO" and from what official (or unofficial) source did this briefing information come?

[wobbly]

Stax can you elaborate? CAS WO? CASWO?

[WindYerNeckIn]

wobbly,

has John got the MOD backing?

if so advertising on Intranet will speed up process, as not THAT many use e-goat/ARRSE etc.


If NOT, what are they afraid of?

just a thought... I read the draft and totally agree. Id def be up for membership if he gets to the set-up stage.

I filled in form and returned too.

[Crabman]

Stax can you elaborate? CAS WO? CASWO?

Pardon my ignorance, but who or what is "CASWO" and from what official (or unofficial) source did this briefing information come?



CASWO = CAS's Warrant Officer. Think he's classed as the most senior SNCO or better still think of him as the MOD's SWO.

[Tashy_Man]

CASWO = CAS's Warrant Officer. Think he's classed as the most senior SNCO or better still think of him as the MOD's SWO.

Or otherwise known as "Chief bum boy"

[Crabman]

Or otherwise known as "Chief bum boy"

But not to his face :PDT_Xtremez_42:

[Tashy_Man]

But not to his face :PDT_Xtremez_42:

Why not ? You think he's got no sense of humour or just can't stand hearing the truth ?:PDT_Xtremez_09:

[Crabman]

Why not ? You think he's got no sense of humour or just can't stand hearing the truth ?:PDT_Xtremez_09:

No idea mate. Tell you what drop him an E-mail and let us know how you get on :PDT_Xtremez_30:

[Yandards]

I think you missing a big point here Frustrated.

By appointed retired officers into the organisation you will never really get any respect from the ground up.

As long as the military continues its frankly useless and highly wasteful tradition of posting the middle and upper management ever two years, we are going no-where. With a ratio approaching 2:1 we are wasting huge sums of money. The other issue with this is that whilst some of the officer corps are now beginning to realise that there might actually be 'something wrong' it is still having little impact on their careers.

Any organisation that employs nearly a third of its staff as part of the management company (MOD) is not doing an effective job of resource management. If anyone can tell me why the admin posts on section that are staffed by MOD civvies have not been taken over as part of the station multi activity contract I would love to know. It is not like these jobs need to be done within the MOD, JPA is staffed entirely by civvies and they can do a lot more damage (If they were not getting you to refer to your unit HR admin staff)

We even shafted by our own management company, the MOD, why do they get a higher rate of motor mileage allowance?

As for getting the message accross to the public, just show them the size of a prisoneers/assylum seekers accomodation and compare it the vast majority of service accomodation!

[Harry_R_Jumpjet]

Wobbly, Frustrated - Two quick questions:

Are you still seeking views on this (or later) draft NDA document?
Are you interested in my views as 12 years crabfat followed by 17 years in the naval defence industry?


Yes to both and I'll review the docs. No to either: fair enough.

[wobbly]

Im sure Frustrated would still like input.

[wobbly]

John, aka "Frustrated" has just e-mailed me to say that the National Defence Association has now launched its very own website.

Please take a trip over to http://www.uknda.org (http://www.uknda.org) as its all about looking after UK Armed Forces interests.