British soldiers reduced to beggary

[Banquo's Ghost]

The Independent? Isn't that where you got the "Israel is teh eval" story from before?

The Independent, whilst having a editorial stance which is slightly left of centre, takes great pains to ensure commentators are chosen from all colours of the political spectrum. News reports (like this article) are rarely slanted to a political viewpoint, though often critical of governments. The Israel thread was based on an opinion piece - this thread is based on a news piece. There must be a US paper that takes a similar cross-bench approach?

There are more old people who vote more than soldiers; Democracy in action. In the ~70 years since social security was first enabled here the age requirement has only increased once, by two years.

I think I can see your point, but most older people are very supportive of the military covenant. I doubt if many of them would, given the choice, vote to have soldiers treated in this manner.

You're also assuming too much and information in the article is poor. Soldiers have always made lousy money but here at least they get free lodging and often free meals. Transportation to work is almost never a problem because someone WILL be found to give you a ride. This "living in poverty" pap doesn't tell you what that means. It most likely means that their annual pay falls below a certain amount on a chart. It also doesn't account for the spending habits of these "many" soldiers (how many?).

Since the report has been written for Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of the General Staff, who described it as: "a comprehensive and accurate portrayal of the views and concerns of the Army at large" - and meshes with concerns I have heard first hand from colleagues still in the Army, that gives it some weight for me. Add in some well respected former commanders, and the conclusions are pretty robust.

As I noted, in my day soldiers were not well-paid, but as you point out, got free lodging and meals. The "living in poverty pap" clearly states that soldiers no longer get those benefits, and this is causing severe problems. Here, let me help:

Commanders are attempting to tackle the problem through "Hungry Soldier" schemes, under which destitute soldiers are given loans to enable them to eat.

The scheme symbolises a change from the tradition of soldiers getting three square meals a day for free. Now hard-up soldiers have to fill out a form which entitles them to a voucher. The cost is deducted from their future wages, adding to the problems of soldiers on low pay.

The controversial Pay as You Dine (PAYD) regime, which requires soldiers not on active duty to pay for their meals, has seen commanding officers inundated with complaints from soldiers unhappy at the quality of food that they get and the amount of paperwork involved.

You certainly are right to be interested in how influential spending patterns are. Soldiers are still part of wider society, and that society is heavily indebted.

It is a shame to see the British armed forces in their current state of neglect but it's a choice the voters have made. Service is still voluntary.

I suppose that you have a point there, assuming that the betrayal of the military covenant was explicit in either manifesto. Service is indeed voluntary, and the point being made is that fewer and fewer people are choosing the service. If HM Government doesn't want to pay properly, then they should be consistent and downsize the Armed Services to the three men and a dog (plus rowboat) we have in Ireland and stop invading/occupying countries at the behest of others.