Maggie Thatcher & The Government

Having served at Deepcut for 3 years I would put my knowledge of it against yours any day. I know what happened there from firsthand experience, not from the tripe that was published in the press. Here are the facts: 600 recruits a year go through Deepcut, which means over the period of the bullying there were 5 incidents in 1800 recruits. These were all perpetrated by a small bunch of bullies that were, rightly, exposed and dealt with thoroughly. I have no truck with bullying in the army anywhere; least of all recruit training, which is tough enough, without it.

As for the Ghurkas, that was different. It was case of ‘Forget my original contract; I want it changed.’ Ghurkas are recruited according to the Tri-Nation Agreement between UK, India and Nepal. The British Army gets first pick of potential recruits and 4 times a year runs a recruiting camp in Nepal. It consists of top level military trainers and medical staff, who assess all applicants, all of whom go through a rigorous selection process. At the end, we pick the cream of the crop. Those that fail our sel proc go straight across to India and enlist in its army.

The contract that Ghurkas get with the British Army is completely different to that of a UK citizen. They do not have to serve for a minimum of 22 years (as Brits do) to get a pension and as part of the Tri-Nation Agreement, their wages are set at a level that compares with service in the Indian army. That’s mainly so that they don’t all try to join the British army instead of the Indian but in reality they do, as there is true kudos in Ghurka society for service in the British Army, simply because it is so difficult to get in. Ghurkas that return to Nepal after their British Army service are feted in their home villages as heroes.

For the first five years they are not allowed to be accompanied by their families, if they are married. At the end of their service they get a pension that is enough to make them well off by Nepalese living standards. Obviously it is not enough by UK standards but then UK ex-servicemen do not get a pension that allows them to retire at the end of their service either, so don’t go thinking we are treated brilliantly by comparison. However, unlike the Ghurkas, British ex-servicemen accept what they are awarded and then get on with life outside the forces. And, unlike British ex-servicemen, who cannot draw a pension before they are 40, Ghurkas can draw theirs from as early as age 33.

At this stage I will say that I have nothing but admiration for Ghurkas, having served alongside them in Hong Kong and Brunei. Fantastic soldiers; but on the personal side they are also fanatical gamblers to a man, which brings plenty of financial problems, and many are not averse to a bit of womanizing, which brings other problems. Managing Ghurka soldiers is a challenge, that’s for sure.

The current problem started in 1997 when Hong Kong reverted back to China. Up till then Ghurkha battalions had rotated only between HK and Brunei. Once HK went, the MoD was forced to bring the Ghurkas back to UK. Once posted here, they then saw that in comparison to UK, Nepal is a shithole, which it is, as it is also place in which I have served. Also prior to 1997, Ghurkas had no right to live in UK at the end of their service and were returned to Nepal. In 1997 the rules changed and they were then permitted to apply to live in UK at the end of their service, and their pensions were updated to reflect those of UK soldiers. However, this provision did not apply to those that left before 1997 but now wanted to apply to live in UK, so they started campaigning and Joanna Lumley took up their cause, which they won.

Having won that right, the same Ghurkas are now campaigning to get their pensions raised on par with their successors, as many had not saved any money, because savings were not required by those that returned to Nepal. Because they are disadvantaged by their financial position, which for most was of their own making, and do not lose sight of that, they are now trying to change the terms of the contract that they had willingly agreed to when they originally signed up. The MoD is opposing the increase on the basis of the original contract, and why not? The increase to Ghurkas pensions in 1997 came out of your pocket as a UK tax payer; or maybe not in your case but in general it does. And the same will apply if the pension case for Ghurkas that had left before 1997 is won.

Unfortunately for Ghurkas this could spell the end of their service, as originally Ghurkas were cheap, much cheaper than the British equivalent, and secondly they were plentiful. Nowadays they are no longer cheap and British based recruiting has never been higher. We shall see. For sure the current Defence Review is going to cut the forces, no doubt about it, and in the current fiscal climate the smallest most expensive bits will probably be the first to go.

I am not blind to the facts but I am blind to the utter shit that gets written in the tabloid press. Unfortunately, all your ‘knowledge’ is secondhand, and it shows, as on this topic you are completely out of your depth. There’s very little I didn’t do or learn about service life in 26 years as soldier and 5 years as a MoD civil servant after that.

Hopefully Aussie will read your well argued post and come back with an equally well reasoned and informed counter-argument...

Am I the only one who currently feels really sorry for David Miliband. He won the popular election and MP's election and actually won amongst the majority of the unions. The only electorate Ed Miliband won was the third major unions (Unite, UNISON et al) and yet somehow Ed has come out as leader. The utter hypocrisy of Harriet Harman clapped at Ed stating the Iraq War was just nauseating aswell, so I loved seeing him call her out on that.

He's the kind of person I could have seen myself voting for if Cameron stuffs up the next five years. Ed Miliband on the other hand is an old Labour hack in thrall to the Unions. The Labour Party basically just ensured 2015-2020 will be Conservative government, probably with Nick Clegg and a few of the more right wing Lib Dems having jumped over to the Tory party permanently.

.... but Milliband has a strong hand and if he plays it as well as he did in his leadership campaign he has every chance of success.

He may or may not be a hack, but he's not old or in thrall to the Unions.
Ed Milliband ran a very clever leadership campaign, who unlike his brother and his apologists in the right-wing press appears to have actually understood the Labour electoral college at the beginning of the process.