British soldiers want a federation to represent them, poll finds

[Blackadder1916]

British soldiers want a federation to represent them, poll finds
Almost three quarters of British soldiers support the creation of an independent armed forces federation to represent their interests, according to a poll conducted by the Army.

By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent, The Telegraph  Last Updated: 3:37PM BST 27 Sep 2008

Support for an armed forces federation has been growing for a number of years amid claims that the rank and file have been failed by the "chain of command", although this is the first time that the Army has polled its own members on the issue.

The clear support for an independent body will be a severe blow for Britain's top brass who have long argued that an armed forces federation is unnecessary and could damage military discipline and morale.

The survey was conducted on the Army's own website called "Armynet" which is restricted to use by troops and their families.

Readers were asked: "Should there be an Army Federation to represent the interests of ordinary soldiers?" Of the 3,500 respondents, 51 per cent answered "yes"; 22 per cent thought it was a good idea; 23 per cent were against the proposal and two per cent answered "don't know".

Despite the reluctance of the military to engage with the British Armed Forces Federation - which was formed in 2006 - the very fact that the Army is now polling its members on the subject suggests it may be softening its stance.

The British Armed Forces Federation, which describes itself as "politically non-partisan", has several thousand members but as yet has no formal ties or agreements with the Ministry of Defence.

The organisation has often been described as a military "trade union", leading to fears that members might one day call for strike action, although this is refuted by the federation.

BAFF claims that it would never get involved in operational matters but would lobby for better pay and conditions and would offer its members independent legal advice.

A spokesman for BAFF said: "Theses figures demonstrate real interest in both the Army and the wider military community in an armed forces federation. Virtually every Nato country has an armed forces federation which works with the military rather than against it and they all have "no strike" agreements as part of their constitutions. This would be the same situation with BAFF we want to work with the MoD to improve the lot of soldiers."

In a separate development, it has also emerged that BAFF has launched a campaign for a change in the law to allow a Government-recognised staff association for armed forces personnel. The campaign started last week with a letter to all MPs requesting their support.

Adrian Weale, a member of the BAFF executive council, said: "Many senior officers privately agree that now is the time for change and accept the concept of a representative body, although are reticent publicly. The conduct of the BAFF has been supportive and moderate in our attempts to represent our armed forces thus far and we have tried to be supportive of the chain of command. We did not form our federation to undermine the armed forces but to improve terms and conditions of service for all."

 

[Kirkhill]

I read this after reading the postings about the Dutch activities in Afghanistan - which also got me thinking about their experiences in Srebrenica

The notion of duality of loyalties, to the government and to your mates, need not be seen as contrary to our traditions.  In fact I would argue that our symbology already enshrines that tradition.

Regiments have two sets of Colours.  One, the Queen's Colour, represents the Government while the other, the Regimental Colour, represents the internal or local bond.  When the Queen's Colour is awarded it seals a contract between a local band of warriors and Her Majesty's Government.  The warriors agree to be loyal to HMG.  HMG agrees that the warriors are trustworthy and that their officers have the authority to act on HMG's behalf.

That tribal tradition was largely lost in Britain's Victorian Army - but it was maintained in the Colonial Armies - including the Canadian Army.  The best examples are Lord Strathcona's and the PPCLI.

There is no reason why some sort of independent organisation can't exist within the structure of a functional national force.

 

[Blackadder1916]

For those who may wish more information about the organization referred to in the article, here's a link to the British Armed Forces Federation website.

 

[TheNomad]

I take issue with Kirkhill's assertion that the Queen's Colour represents the government. 

I would suggest that this is not so and that the Queen's Colour represents exactly what it says; The Queen.  The Oath of Allegiance is to HM The Queen and not to the government of the day in any way shape or form.  To do so would be to take the Army down the road of it having a political allegiance to a particular party.

I know of no "warriors" who have agreed to be loyal to HMG.  Soldiers have no obligation to be loyal to any government.  The Oath (in the UK) is as follows:

" I swear by almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her heirs and successors in Person, Crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her heirs and successors and of the Generals and Officers set over me."

The reason that they do not swear anything to the government of the day is just that.  Governments come and go, but the crown is the embodiment of the country which endures.  This is the same reason why the US Army swears to uphold the Constitution and not pledge loyalty to whomever happens to be in the White House that day.

Some might try to argue semantic and claim the government of the day is exercising the will of the Crown, however, the distinction is very important as it underpins the forces loyalty to the nation and not any particular political party.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Soldiers have no obligation to be loyal to any government.

I stand to be corrected, but I don't think this is the case.  What are the chances of the Queen wanting one thing, the elected government wanting something else, and the troops having to choose?  Troop organizations I'm (even vaguely) familiar with aren't in a position to mount pro-Royal-anti-government coups because they don't think the government is doing what the Queen/Crown/Governor General wants.

On the "union question", I guess theoretically, it's not impossible, given the Dutch and other European models, but their history is a bit different than the UK's military, so I leave it to those with more knowledge of the Brit system to comment further.

 

[daftandbarmy]

So who would be the Shop Steward for a National Military Federation I wonder? I guess a neo-Neil Kinnock would be too much to hope for.... ;D

 

[Kirkhill]

Nomad,

You are correct about loyalty to the Government of the Day but I was referring, imprecisely, to  the concept of the Government writ broadly.

Her Majesty is Head of State and appoints (from an elected list of one) a Head of Government.  Both of them have role in the Government.  Although we split the difference between Head of State and Head of Government it is actually a difference of limited distinction.

A State is a Governed entity.  The Queen embodies the State and thus the Government.

While the Governing Party may change the Government, the Bureaucracy and the Civil Service, does not.  It continues eternal.

 

[TheNomad]

Kirkhill,

HM The Queen does not "embody" the government.  It is they who act on her behalf not the other way round.

There is a danger that this discussion will bog down in semantics.  However, the main point is that no soldier swears any sort of allegiance to the government.  At the current time, the government exercises its power in the name of and on behalf of the Crown, but that is as far as it goes.  No regiment as far as I know carries any sort of government flag, let alone a colour. 

Of course the chances of something happening that causes a major disruption to the constitutional settlement (v v unlikely) this is not an issue, but what if an extremist government got into power and decided to change things?  It would be then that the precise meanings of the Oath would become important.  Revolutions do happen in the world from time to time and Britain had a civil war over the balance of power between Crown and Parliament. However, as I am not a constitutional lawyer I will not go down that road.

 

[Kirkhill]

.....but what if an extremist government Monarch got into power and decided to change things?  It would be then that the precise meanings of the Oath would become important. 

As you say:

Revolutions do happen in the world from time to time and Britain had a civil war over the balance of power between Crown and Parliament

And it is that balance, that finely decided accomodation, that defines our entire mode of governance.  You don't offer your allegntiance to Her Majesty's Government but you do offer to "...observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her heirs and successors and of the Generals and Officers set over me."  Her Majesty appoints the Government to act as her agent/agents and they are her Officers and Generals  (Governors, Auditors and Solicitors) just as much as any uniformed General (Captain, Adjutant or Provost).

Our entire system depends on Her Majesty and HMG being joined at the hip.  That is why the Prime Minister gets to decide if you go to Afghanistan, the legal fiction is that Her Majesty trusts his judgement and advice, while the CDS makes it happen, following Her Majesty's orders to do what the PM requires.

 

[TheNomad]

I am not sure that I agree with you that auditors, solicitors etc count as officers at all.  They do not hold a Queen's Commission and thus are not entitled to give any order to HM Forces. They may represent the crown in their specialist fields though.  The best example being High Court judges, who are personally appointed by the Queen and cannot be removed without her personal consent.  Of course the role of the Army is to carryout the instructions of HMG, but any politician who tried to give me a direct order would have been told to piss off and get a commission.  It only happend once, but the scum never came back. He did write a whinging letter to my CO, who told him that I was carrying out my duty and next time he attempted to interfere he would be the subject of a formal complaint to the relevent parliamentary body.

The same principle applies to the police - the Chief Constable is appointed by the Crown, and a politician who attempted to interfere with an investigation could find himself arrested.  Of course we all know that such things are attempted from time to time.  However, we did see Blair become the only serving PM in history to be interviewed under caution by the police.  ;D

However, the government of the day acts in the name of the crown.  The party is selected by the people by means of elections, but the party leader is invited by HM to form a government to act in the name of the crown.  If that consent were withdrawn, such as following a successful vote of no confidence then that consent can be withdrawn.  Although unlikely it would be interesting to see what would happen if the PM of the day then decided to kick up a fuss claiming that she had no right to demand his resignation etc.

 

[Kirkhill]

I am a strong believer in the chain of command and no MP has a right to issue you an order directly.  The PM however does have the right to issue an order to the CDS to have you show up at a designated time and place with or without weapons.

Likewise the Solicitor, Auditor and Governor Generals, all Officers of the Crown, are quite within their rights to have you show up at their tea-parties "without hats".

To my mind that puts them in your chain of command.  (And mine for that matter).