Just seen your reply. Missed it earlier but I have one extra comment:

You said “so soldiers would always come back to the same barracks” but this is not in line with the concept of trickle posting.

Trickle posting is central to the plan post arms plot because where infantry soldiers once experienced different roles as they moved with their unit, they now do so by being moved themselves as their unit stays put.

Therefore, you cannot give soldiers the right to return to the same barracks after an overseas posting because they will be expected to move around to gain that experience the infantry requires.

You may of course argue that soldiers should be allowed to serve where they wish but that is not the system and it would make for a 2-tier infantry where some just stay put whilst others have to move.

This is not conducive to the infantry ethos. They are all in it together and subject to the same rules, demands and risks.

Again, I commend your efforts but whilst defence provides for married quarters, I feel your time would be better spent on fighting for more (new) money for defence specifically to keep accommodation standards high and brow beating garrisons to make the effort and where new builds take place to make them of a good standard in the first place.

reply: You may need to do as I say to recruit and retain enough soliders. There will be consequential changes to ops.

A little more simple if I may be so bold.

STB.

1. Military housing is not poorly maintained because a soldier does not own it but because the occupant does not own it. This fact would not change under your proposal. With trickle posting (the substitute for infantry arms plotting), the occupant of the house will rarely be the owner. Now that the arms plot has stopped (or is in the final stages of being stopped), a soldier will rarely be sent to the same barracks more than once and it is not feasible for a soldier to be housed in Catterick garrison whilst serving in Tidworth garrison.

2. Military housing is also poor in many areas because the house itself is so often made of prefabricated material and is the size of the most basic council house of the worst totalitarian design. You know the ones I mean. They are dotted around London and they remain in the major military garrisons.

3. Military housing is also poor because the owner (Defence) simply does not invest enough in the property. That is down to two things: first, money as it always is which is easily remedied by reallocating the enormous waste in public spending to defence, and the second reason is down to will. Defence often tries to keep property up and running but they simply fail on too many occasions because those responsible do not have the motivation to do it well. Ironically, the ceasing of the arms plot might just have the effect you desire. Now that all units and regiments are tied to a particular barracks and as they gain a personal and professional attachment to their accommodation you can bet they will begin to focus more effort on improving standards. It is no coincidence that much of the poor housing went to infantry units that moved location from every 2 to 7 years.

4. Finally, I agree that soldiers would benefit from investing for the future but why would you propose they invest in property when the value is on the way down and likely to remain stagnant for some time to come? This seems like a scheme to give undue and potentially damaging encouragement to invest in a particular asset type: property. If anything, soldiers need to be encouraged to invest wisely in whatever asset class is best at the time for their future prosperity. And if it is right for them to invest in property, why would you encourage a system where they are encouraged to invest in military property? Surely it does not matter where they invest and perhaps they would like to buy a house where they think they may retire at the end of their career?

I commend your concern for military personnel and your attempt to improve military accommodation but your plan seems a little misplaced to me.

Yes, accommodation needs to be improved but the owner, defence, needs to do the improving with more finance, a better attitude and better houses built in the first place. And yes, soldiers need to be encouraged to invest for their future but in a way that does not distort their market leading them to invest in assets that may not be the best for them.

Reply: You make some good points. My proposal offers soldiers an option, related to married quarters especially where the quality of the underlying house is often better. In most years buying a house is a good way to help save, but I agree that this year is not a good year. it will take time for the government to set the scheme up. I have linked the proposal to a home barracks approach, so soldiers would always come back to the same barracks, and their wives and children or husbands and children could stay there whilst they undertook tours of duty abroad if they wished.

I should add that I am not anything to do with the armed forces, just someone who has been shocked at the attitude of this government and who hopes that the conservatives will do better by them.

Reply|: yes, the meal arrangements also need improving. Please see comment above on housing.