Services rebel against MoD for wasting taxpayers' cash - The Times

[massingbird]

Services rebel against MoD for wasting taxpayers' cash
By David Charter, Chief Political Correspondent



THE dire state of morale inside Britain’s Armed Forces is laid bare today by an internal report showing the widespread belief that taxpayers’ money is being wasted while troops lack the basic supplies they need.
Just one in seven of the military believes that the £30 billion defence budget is being spent wisely and fewer than one in five believes the forces are well equipped. The Times has uncovered an extensive poll of both service personnel and MoD staff which asks their views on effectiveness and spending.



Only 3.3 per cent of the 1,600 personnel who responded strongly agreed that they are looked after by the MoD and just 1.7 per cent strongly agreed that the ministry makes the best use of taxpayers’ money.

Almost one in four believes that the Services fail to recruit, train and promote the most talented people regardless of their background.

The findings come despite a pledge from Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, to learn the lessons from Iraq, when tanks were sent into battle without chemical or biological protection filters, and from a damning National Audit Office report which said that 200,000 body armour sets issued since Kosovo in 1999 had “disappeared”.

MAIN POINTS

Just 3.3 per cent of the Armed Forces strongly agree that the MoD looks after its personnel

22 per cent believe that the MoD and Armed Forces do not recruit, train and promote regardless of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation

Only 15 per cent believe that the MoD spends taxpayers’ money wisely

Less than one in five believes that the Armed Forces are well equipped

more

here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1301560,00.html) Services rebel against MoD for wasting taxpayers' cash

[maniac55]

I wonder if they'll do a survey on the Defence cuts? :*

Sorry, that's 'Restructuring for the Future'. :E

[opso]

Mr Soames said: “This survey shows that members of the Armed Forces agree that the way the MoD spends money is positively incontinent. (sic)
Either a wonderfully freudian typo or an inspired quip from Soames with his mentioning the MOD p!55ing all the money away!

Still, could be worse, we could be blowing £30 Billion on new computers...

[Flatus Veteranus]

I think such polling has been going on since at least the '70s. The only difference is that there is now the FOI Act to prize the info out of MOD. The trouble is that different blokes (depending mainly on the colour of their uniform) think different things are wasteful. Many eminent journalists have been sniping at Typhoon (the more eminent, the more ignorant of mil aviation technology IMHO). I imagine the Typhoon programme is also at the top of many brown and dark blue hate-lists. Light blue opinion would consign to the waste-bin most of the 25,000 grunts, complete with heavy armour and artilllery, who contribute negatively to our trade balance by basing themselves in Germany to counter a 1960s threat. And the carriers which will consume billions for a minimal capability. ;)

[Melchett01]

the “thoroughly shifty” way

They keep mentioning the MOD's shifty manner ....... is this another Times typo?

[Fortyodd]

"The findings come despite a pledge from Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, to learn the lessons from Iraq"

That'll be once they've finished learning all the lessons from Northern Ireland, The Falklands, Gulf War 1, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone....................................... That still haven't been taken on board.

[Fiesty]

Dear FLATUS VET, you said: "And the carriers which will consume billions for a minimal capability."

I assume you come from the light blue organisation that suggested that strategic air power could be projected anywhere in the world by land based aircraft?

With the exception of one bomb that (allegedly) hit the runway at Stanley in '82, the only serious British air power over the Falklands came off the carriers (Dark and Light Blue).

Depending on your point of view, the capability from Carriers may be "minimal" but if you can actually get the assets into theatre then surely this is better than the alternative: no capability at all?

Flexibility is the key to air power, etc etc...

Yours, slightly irate FAA chap

PS I see what you mean about the Tanks! :ok:

[Griz]

Near the bottom of the article the Labour chairman of the Defence Select Committee would appear to defend the figures by saying,

"Remember that staff who are pressurised, overworked and running the risk of getting fired are going to feel pretty low in morale."

And who's :mad: fault is that?

[BEagle]

The Chairman may well be a Labour politician, but he doesn't stand for any Bliarite bull$hit or loony-Hoonspeak.

Personally I agree with Flatus Veteranus; although the 2 little carriers the RN will get will provide some useful air power projection, their associated procurement costs are wholly disproportionate to their value.

But we should have kept the SHARs......

[WE Branch Fanatic]

And there was me thinking that the new carriers were going to be a LOT larger than our present ones.......

[NURSE]

the stastic that scared me was proportion of civil servants. More administrators than workers.

[Dockers]

If it's the survey I think it is (from the defence bulletin board) then the majority of responses will have come from civvies! Want to keep on bashing them?