Show the Working

Introduce urgent pay review for armed forces

Reform UK · what the evidence says

An independent, source-checked look at Reform UK’s policy “Introduce urgent pay review for armed forces” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.

Public finances & the next generation — Hurts

minor · low confidence

An unfunded pledge to increase armed forces pay above the already-significant recent awards would add pressure to the defence budget with no stated funding source, though the exact cost above the existing trajectory is unknown. Because the policy commits only to a review rather than a specific pay uplift, the fiscal impact could range from negligible to substantial.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether any pay award from this review would be funded from new money, internal MoD reprioritisation, or borrowing — and how far above the existing AFPRB-recommended trajectory it would go — determines whether the fiscal effect is trivial or significant.

Our reading: The policy proposes a pay review with an explicit upward intent but no committed funding instrument, budget line, or quantified target. Because the AFPRB already conducts annual reviews and has recently recommended — and the government has accepted — cumulative awards of 14.1% since 2024, the marginal fiscal effect depends entirely on whether this policy would deliver pay above that existing trajectory. If it would (its stated premise is that current pay is inadequate versus Amazon workers), the additional cost would be unfunded: the MoD already had to raid its capital budget to cover the 2023 award, and subsequent increases were absorbed only by internal savings. No new funding source is stated. On the fiscal sustainability criteria for O12, an unfunded pay uplift — even for a productive workforce investment — worsens the debt path in the near term unless offset savings are specified. The IFS estimate for broad public-sector pay increases underscores the scale of potential cost. However, because the policy commits only to a 'review' (soft verb), the direction could remain negligible if the review produces no award above current AFPRB trajectory. The worsening verdict is held at 'minor' and confidence is 'low' to reflect this ambiguity: the mechanism for fiscal harm is plausible and consistent with prior evidence, but the magnitude above baseline is genuinely uncertain. Absent the policy, the AFPRB process continues; the additional fiscal risk is the gap between what AFPRB would recommend anyway and any politically-driven uplift this review produces on top.

Good work & fair pay — Helps

moderate · moderate confidence

An urgent pay review for armed forces would address real and documented pay dissatisfaction, likely improving recruitment and retention — but pay alone won't fix all the workforce problems, and a review mechanism already exists.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether a pay review would deliver materially higher pay than the existing AFPRB process, and whether pay rises alone can resolve a workforce crisis rooted in accommodation, family pressures, and broader conditions.

Our reading: The armed forces face a documented workforce crisis rooted in poor recruitment and retention, with the IFS confirming broad-based pay dissatisfaction and voluntary outflow being the primary exit route. The policy's diagnosis — that pay is a key problem — is well-supported by evidence. The commitment to an urgent pay review that would increase basic pay therefore points toward improvement in job quality and security for serving personnel. However, two caveats limit confidence. First, an AFPRB already exists, conducts annual reviews, and has already delivered 14.1% cumulative pay rises since mid-2024 explicitly to address the recruitment and retention crisis — and recent data shows recruitment rising 13% and departures falling 8%. The additionality of a further urgent review over and above this existing mechanism is unclear; the policy may largely duplicate existing machinery rather than deliver a step-change. Second, the evidence consistently shows that pay is necessary but not sufficient: accommodation, family support, and broader conditions are also major drivers of retention. A pay-only intervention will improve things at the margin but is unlikely to fully resolve the workforce crisis. On balance, the policy points in the right direction for O4 — higher pay improves the quality and security of the employment offer for armed forces workers — and the comparison to Amazon warehouse wages (roughly £13–16/hour against a recruit's implied ~£13/hour) has some evidential basis. The effect is real but moderate, given the existing trajectory of improvement and the multi-causal nature of the retention problem.

Crime, justice & national security — Helps

minor · low confidence

Boosting armed forces pay could help fix a real recruitment and retention crisis that weakens defence, but the policy is a pay review rather than a guaranteed uplift, and an independent body already does this job annually. Whether it adds anything beyond the existing process is uncertain.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether an 'urgent pay review' produces materially higher pay than the existing Armed Forces' Pay Review Body would already deliver, given recent cumulative awards of 14.1%.

Our reading: A genuine workforce crisis — shortfalls across all services, high voluntary outflow, and a documented collapse in morale — plausibly degrades the UK's defence posture and thus O5. Pay is a cited driver of dissatisfaction, so a credible pay uplift could improve recruitment and retention, marginally strengthening force numbers and capability over this parliament. However, two factors limit the verdict. First, the AFPRB already performs annual pay reviews with explicit terms covering recruitment and retention; the government has already accepted cumulative awards of 14.1% since July 2024. The policy's 'urgent pay review' is institutionally close to what already exists, so the additionality is unclear. Second, the policy commits to a review, not a specific pay level — the soft-verb concern is partially mitigated by the stated direction ('to increase basic pay'), but the size and mechanism remain unspecified. Third, the most recent data show recruitment rising 13% and departures falling 8%, suggesting the existing process is already moving the dial. Non-pay factors (accommodation, recruitment process complexity, family support) are also cited drivers that a pay review cannot address. On balance, the policy points in the right direction for O5 — a better-staffed armed force is more capable — but the marginal gain over the existing AFPRB trajectory is modest and uncertain, warranting only a minor improvement at low confidence.

Compare all parties on public finances & the next generation →Compare all parties on good work & fair pay →Compare all parties on crime, justice & national security →Open this in the interactive comparison →← Show the Working home