A somewhat misleading headline from the, Telegraph...

[Rhino power]

Interesting reading, even if the headline is a little misleading...

Warships, jets and tanks worth £2.5 billion scrapped in Whitehall cost-cutting drive - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11319571/Warships-jets-and-tanks-worth-2.5-billion-scrapped-in-Whitehall-cost-cutting-drive.html)

-RP

[Finnpog]

So...

1) There is the value of the Thing which we think it's worth having paid for it. "x"
2) Then there is the value that a 3rd party would be willing to buy the Thing for - if you were prepared to sell it. "y"
3) Then there is the cost to keep the Thing and maintain it if you do want to use it. "m"
4) Then there is the cost to actually use the Thing. "f"
5) Then there is the cost to update the Thing whilst you keep it in service. "u"
6) Then there is the cost to replace the Thing, if you keep it and do a one-for-one replacement. "r1"
7) Then there is the cost to scrap the thing. "s"
8) Then there is the cost to reintroduce the Thing, if you have scrapped it. "r2"
9) Then there is the cost of the political decision either way. "p1" to "p99"

* Now x is not equal to y (as demonstrated by the Harrier sale)
* u is dependent upon m already being committed.
* s might save you u and m - but not neccesarily recover you y and certainly will not get you back x

Argghhhhh :ugh: Not easy is it:ok:

[Evalu8ter]

Good to see the Shadow Defence Secretary is still firmly "on message" with corporate amnesia of the catastrophic mismanagement of the EP under their last administration.....

[Roland Pulfrew]

Yet more evidence that "resource accounting and budgeting" is a failed concept, invented by accountants, to keep accountants in business. Whoever introduced this to government should be hung, drawn and quartered. And then shot! And then incarcerated in the deepest hole in the ground!! For life!!!

[Vendee]

Good to see the Shadow Defence Secretary is still firmly "on message" with corporate amnesia of the catastrophic mismanagement of the EP under their last administration.....You can only blame "the last administration" for so long.

[Evalu8ter]

Vendee,
Indeed, but the sheer scale of the mess they left is still being felt - ergo, we're still paying for the blank cheques they wrote in their despairing last 18mths. Nimrod, Carriers, F35, FRES, T26, Batch 2 Astute, Chinooks etc all ordered or slid right to release near-cash (with compounding impact in later years) all so Labour could present themselves as strong on Defence, and not risk major contractors shutting factories (with extensive job losses) just before an election. God alone knows how they would have spun the post election cuts if they'd won...probably dressed up in an SDSR every bit as cutting as the one we had. This Govts kicker is the Chancellors insistance that Successor is funded from the Defence vote - that will likely be felt for even longer.

[dragartist]

I am with you on RAB Roland.
Now I can't recall who was in Government when this was introduced.
Another term bandied about during the rebalancing in the naughties was "There will be no sacred cows" - Well I saw fields full of them in my area of responsibility.

[skippedonce]

Now I can't recall who was in Government when this was introduced.From memory, April 2001, so that will have been the Mid East Peace Envoy's motley crew, with Buffoon in the SofS chair.

[alfred_the_great]

Whilst the truth should never get in the way of a good dit, Ken Clarke introduced it c1995:

Key events associated with the introduction of RAB in the UK

Year
Key Event
1994
Green (consultation) paper published by HM Treasury.
1995
White (policy) paper published by HM Treasury.
1998/99, 1999/00 and 2000/01
Dry run years for production of resource accounts.
1999
Dry-run exercise undertaken for resource budgets.
2001/02
Resource accounts fully implemented.
2001/02 and 2002/03
Resource budgets transitional years.
2003/04
Resource budgets fully implemented.


Source - Charted Institute of Public Finance and Accounting

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cipfa.org%2F-%2Fmedia%2Ffiles%2Fregions%2Frepublic%2520of%2520ireland%2Fa ccrual_accounting.doc&ei=GgyoVNP2FMXbaIbhgIgF&usg=AFQjCNEhYuvLrZwTteKQvqQpKX8QCKRbjQ&sig2=_3LCvKwExP4IREzvQq-4mg&bvm=bv.82001339,d.d2s

[Pontius Navigator]

On RAB, Miss PN was once criticised that her stores were inefficient as the building was half empty and shelving was only half filled

She pointed out the half empty bit was between rack and roof.

As for shelving being half empty - as forward supply some stock was awaiting issue forward, some for sending back, and space for stuff from forward going back and back going forward, and stocking being held was zero.

[dragartist]

Thanks for that PN,
Sounds like something from Ponty Mython!

[skippedonce]

Whilst the truth should never get in the way of a good dit, Ken Clarke introduced it c1995:And any time between Labour's coming to power in May 1997 and the actual implementation of RAB 4 years later in April 2001, that administration could have made the decision not to action the 1995 White Paper. All politicians, all guilty; aided and abetted by the civil serpents of HM Treasury.

[GreenKnight121]

More military vehicles from Hill being sold to the public (http://www.standard.net/Military/2015/01/02/More-military-vehicles-from-Hill-Air-Force-Base-being-sold-to-the-general-public.html)

This Bowen-McLaughlin-York 5-ton Cargo Truck is up for auction next week at Hill Air Force base - starting bids $2,000.
http://www.standard.net/image/2015/01/02/630x_a16-9_b0_q80/MIL-AUCTION-JPG.JPG

HILL AIR FORCE BASE — More surplus military vehicles, previously unavailable to civilians, will be up for bid during an online public auction set for Wednesday.

On Jan. 7, a company called GovPlanet — an Internet-based marketplace for buying and selling used government assets — will auction off hundreds of surplus military vehicles including five-ton cargo trucks, tow and recovery trucks, tractors, rough terrain forklifts, scrapers, excavators and trailers.

Several of the auction items are being stored at Hill Air Force Base. A full list can be found at govplanet.com (http://www.govplanet.com/). {edit: link fixed}

Items already listed for sale at Hill include several cargo trailers, cargo trucks, tractor trucks and wreckers. Currently, the most expensive item for bid other than the Humvees is an AM General Wrecker, which starts at $7,000. Winning bidders are responsible for picking up the vehicles.

In mid-December, GovPlanet held an online auction that allowed customers to view and bid on 25 High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles, more commonly known as Humvees. The Humvees, built between 1987 and the mid-1990s, were all stored at Hill. Opening bids on the Humvees started at $10,000, but nobody paid that price. The vehicles, which are only legal for off-road purposes, sold for between $21,500 and $41,000.

Approximately 4,000 of the troop transporting vehicles and thousands of other old military machines will be sold to the public as part of a Defense Logistics Agency plan to turn retired military vehicles into assets, rather than just scrap them, as has been the past procedure.
GovPlanet’s parent company, IronPlanet, was awarded a DLA contract to manage and sell Department of Defense surplus assets in July. The contract has a base term of two years, with four one-year renewal options. The company estimates it will get its hands on $50 million to $70 million worth of military surplus each year. The contract requires the company give 75.29 percent of sales revenue to the DLA.

Hill inventory in the Jan. 7 auction doesn’t include Humvees this time, but IronPlanet Senior Vice President Randy Berry said additional auctions, where customers can bid on Humvees and a host of other military vehicles and equipment, will be held throughout 2015.

[sitigeltfel]

You can only blame "the last administration" for so long.

Very true. Many economists reckon it would take the country two whole generations to sort out the mess Labour created. Electing Miliband this year will only pour petrol onto the flames.

[Hangarshuffle]

Strange then that they kept trouncing the Cons in the consecutive elections '97, 2001 and 2005. And that the Cons didn't actually win the election in 2010.Why was that? British people are thick?
A lot of people got very rich in Labours time on watch mate, including an awful lot of arms manufacturers. Surely that should make you happy?
4 years of whatever this current lot are doing is very far from impressive to date.
Tories are never the pragmatic economists they preach themselves to be, but are always hung up on doctrine and ideology, in my experience. This lot will prove the same and are very likely to be shifted on in the Summer.
And God help us anyway whoever gets in - the cracks in the UK boat have been apparent for a very, very long time...

[Evalu8ter]

HS,
Blair won 3 elections based on his business friendly charisma, dragging a reluctant (but power hungry) Labour party to the Centre and by exploiting a 'time for change' mantra against a tired Tory party out of ideas - helped by a sucession of poor leaders. The Electoral system still favours them, and only the support of Scottish voters prevented a bigger meltdown in 2010. Fast forward to now, Milli-Bland makes Major look charismatic, they've lurched to the Left, are fighting UKIP and the SNP for their core vote and are still seen as incompetant on economic issues and on the wrong side of the debate on Welfare and Immigration - hence why their only tactic seems to be scaremongering about the NHS. Blair gave a veiled warning recently, but they're not listening. There's little money in Defence for whoever wins....few will get rich.

[Vendee]

hence why their only tactic seems to be scaremongering about the NHSScaremongering? Don't know what its like in Zummerset but where I am, you have more chance of landing 6 numbers on the Saturday night lotto than getting an appointment to see your GP.

[Lonewolf_50]

More military vehicles from Hill being sold to the public (http://www.standard.net/Military/2015/01/02/More-military-vehicles-from-Hill-Air-Force-Base-being-sold-to-the-general-public.html) This Bowen-McLaughlin-York 5-ton Cargo Truck is up for auction next week at Hill Air Force base - starting bids $2,000.
http://www.standard.net/image/2015/01/02/630x_a16-9_b0_q80/MIL-AUCTION-JPG.JPG
I want one.

[GreenKnight121]

Put in your bid on the website GovPlanet - Surplus Military and Government Vehicles, Trailers and Equipment (http://www.govplanet.com/).

[dervish]

RAB was on the go wen I did my tour in shabbeywood, late 90s. IIRC it may even be the same as PFI, which was late in the John Major administration. Lots of folks think PFI was Blair but he inherited it.

edited; saw alfred's post That's what I remember.

[Not_a_boffin]

Scaremongering? Don't know what its like in Zummerset but where I am, you have more chance of landing 6 numbers on the Saturday night lotto than getting an appointment to see your GP.

There is a difference between scaremongering and failing to face the truth. You have an ageing and increasing population, more medical "conditions" and much higher expectations that these conditions can be "fixed". At some point people will have to realise that the current model is not sustainable.

[bcgallacher]

Of course the present model is sustainable - it needs to be financed better. The reality is that we have,in spite of all the denigration,the most efficient health care system in the world. Health care has to be financed one way or the other - the alternative is to leave people without affordable health care - as in the USA for example. The NHS is the cheapest way of doing this. The big problem with the NHS is that it does not permit large insurance companies and other health care organisations to make large profits which pisses off the supporters of the Conservative party They want a large slice of it - for years as an overseas resident with private health insurance I lived with the threat of a major illness.If you think that private health insurance will cover you read the small print - limit of 12 months treatment for any illness,no cover if I had a motorcycle,skiing or parachuting accident etc. I have just completed 20 radiotherapy treatments at the Western General hospital in Edinburgh - state of the art equipment, highly professional but informal staff,excellent facility. I am grateful for what we have and like most Scots will defend the NHS to the death. The English seem to be having big problems that we do not have here but they are fixable.

[Roland Pulfrew]

The NHS is the cheapest way of doing this.

I don't call £120 billion cheap. Nor do I believe that an organisation that employs 1 in 60 of the entire (yes entire, not just working age) population of the country is affordable, efficient or sustainable. The population have to be weaned off "the national treasure" (or sacred cow); it's simply not affordable in its current format.

Nice one NAB (below) I have at least one suggestion that goes towards fixing some of it. Start charging a refunadable deposit for all appointments with GPs, dentists, consultants etc; forfeit if you fail to attend; and, start charging people who attend A&E with non-A&E ailments.

[Not_a_boffin]

Sorry to hear you've been unwell, glad to hear you're getting treatment.

However - chucking brickbats about Tory links to insurance companies is a slogan not a solution. UK Government spending is currently of the order of £720Bn or so, or which around £140Bn is spent on the NHS (plus £31Bn on "social care"), according to the Grauniad, albeit with 2013 budget figures.

Budget 2013: the government's spending and income visualised | News | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/mar/20/budget-2013-tax-spending-visualised#zoomed-picture)

There's nearly £100Bn on education and well over £200Bn on welfare, which includes pensions, another demand-led expense. That's a total of about £450Bn (63% of all spending) on those three departments. All parties are guaranteeing to ring-fence at least two of those.

The "income" from tax etc is £612Bn. That's a gap between spend and income of over £100Bn - the deficit - which incurs an interest payment of £51Bn pa to service.

Now - what is incontrovertible is that people are living longer and that there are more people in the country both as a consequence of this and of immigration. That means the demand on the NHS is going to inexorably rise.

The ageing element of that population is also going to require proportionately more health services, not least because the expectation is that people can be cured or "fixed". Trouble is that some of those treatments are ever more expensive, which adds yet more cost. Whether they should be as expensive is a legitimate subject for debate - we've all had the conversation with the chemist that goes you could have these for X, but as it's on scrip, you'll have to pay Y. Blame "Big Pharma" if you're that way inclined, but don't then complain when they stop investing in new drugs if their shareholder returns are reduced. Then you've got dementia, where otherwise healthy folk need near constant care.

All of the above points to a significant increase in health care cost (and knock-on in pensions etc). It's inexorable. However, we already spend much more (>10%) than we bring in taxes etc. So where is that money coming from?

"Soak the rich" is the usual cry, but "the rich" are mobile (as evidenced by the French influx to the UK atm). "Soak the evil US corporations" is the next one, but they too are mobile and if they relocate, they take their jobs and the associated income tax with them. "Alright cut everything else then", is the last resort. Unfortunately "everything else" that is not ring-fenced is pretty much bottomed out in any case - DfID budget of £11Bn would stave off issues for a year or so - which means you've got two options.

1. Find alternative sources of funding
2. Limit treatment

Both the above could take numerous forms - don't have to be insurance -based, could actually penalise the likes of those who call ambulances for a bad headache. It doesn't matter. What matters is that the debate is had and had properly. The current level of debate could be encapsulated as :


"Evil Tory cuts"
"Tax and spend labour"
"It could all be fixed if they just brought back Matrons".


None of which are helpful or will fix the problem.

[bcgallacher]

Roland Pulfrew The NHS is the cheapest in the developed world - recently an American institute declared it the most efficient. The USA for example spends more than 2 1/2 times per head the amount the UK spends for worse outcomes - higher infant mortality,higher child mortality,higher maternal mortality ,lower lifespan. This from a so- called efficient private health care system. Have a look at WHO figures - the NHS may not be the best in Europe but it is the least expensive. There really is no alternative to an NHS - good health care for all rather than the best for the wealthy few. If it requires an increase in tax to fund it that is what should be done

[Roland Pulfrew]

If it requires an increase in tax to fund it that is what should be done

Err, NO! What should be done is a massive economy drive; cuts to waste and staff levels - there are simply too many people "employed" by the NHS (which means an ever increasing pension problem for future generations) - more charges for unnecessary operations, in fact there should be no unnecessary operations carried out by the NHS unless the individual pays (full cost) for them and greater use of charges for those who haven't paid in.

The NHS in its current form is simply unaffordable and all those politicians who keeping vying with each other to guarantee ring-fenced budgets and ever increasing expenditure are part of the problem. As I said the British public have to be weaned off the belief that the NHS is there to provide everything, free of charge. It cannot go on.

And now back to military equipment sales.

[bcgallacher]

Ronald Pulfrew - our overstaffed and inefficient NHS costs us less per head than any other health care provider in Europe or the USA - how can they afford it and the UK cannot?Health care is not cheap but is essential after all it is taxpayers who avail themselves of the service they pay for - it is only 'free' at the point of delivery. Of course waste and bad practice should be eliminated but do not throw the baby out with the bath water. If we get rid of the NHS taxpayers will be paying considerably more than they do now so I am a little puzzled at that philosophy. Margaret Thatcher privatised the railways and that was a huge success was it not? Highest rail fares in Europe even with subsidies much higher than when they were nationalised.

[Vendee]

Nor do I believe that an organisation that employs 1 in 60 of the entire (yes entire, not just working age) population of the country is affordable, efficient or sustainable1 in 60 of the population looking after the health of the entire nation? I really don't think that's unreasonable for something so important and I don't have any problems with it.

I'd rather cut back on Defense or overseas aid than cut staffing in the NHS. The amount the MOD wastes every day is obscene.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Vendee/bcg

Well you too are part of the problem then. If 1:60 seems reasonable you are living in cloud cuckoo land. It is not affordable and it is unsustainable. I am afraid the "free at point of use" thing is part of the problem; give people something for free and it will get abused. Its a simple fact of life. The NHS gets abused because it is "free" (£120 billion free mind) we have to change the way it operates as the current model is broken - and throwing more money at it is not the solution!

As to MoD waste, care to substantiate that?

[Vendee]

Well you too are part of the problem thenThen I think we will have to differ.

As to MoD waste, care to substantiate that?Oh where to start....... how about myself and colleagues spending the past 3 months carrying out an expensive and labour intensive modification program to a military aircraft which is going straight into storage and will never fly again?

[Biggus]

I can offer a way to cut tens of billions of pounds off the cost of the NHS. Interested?

Simple, get people to take responsibility for their own health. Educate and persuade them to eat healthily, and exercise moderately, and the benefits will be enormous. Obesity is a relatively modern phenomena, caused largely by a high sugar diet, and costs the NHS, and country generally, billions every year. Type 2 diabetes is diet induced, and there is even one train of thought gaining ground that says that Alzheimers is type 3 diabetes, and therefore can also be greatly reduced/eliminated by a proper diet.

Imagine the cost savings to the country if the population is fitter and healthier, reducing drastically costs associated with obesity, type 2 diabetes and alzheimers as just a couple of examples.

In my local area every school day at lunchtime you can watch the supermarkets filling up with kids buying sugary crap for their lunch. What hope have they in later life with that start and mindset on nutrition? A friend of mines daughter in law was drinking two large bottles of coke a day. Not surprisingly she was overweight with poor health and is a revolving door patient at her local GP and A&E. She alone must cost the NHS thousands of pounds every year.

I saw a frightening statistic recently on the number of households that only have a microwave in them as a method of cooking food - indicative that fast/junk food is pretty much all that is eaten.

Spending taxpayers money to preserve the health of a society whose citizens do their part in contributing to maintaining their own health is one thing, spending money to deal with health issues which are largely self inflicted (knowingly or unknowingly) by citizens who abdicate responsibility for their health to the state is a different issue - and quite frankly is madness!


The general state of health of the nation is declining rapidly, not through disease, but through lifestyle choices, and it is costing the country billions of pounds of taxpayers money. Just one illustration:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-30712231

Medication and surgery is not the answer for this particular problem. Remember:

PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN CURE!!!

[Martin the Martian]

Generally agree with you, Biggus, but as somebody who has a history of Type 2 diabetes in the family and while moderately overweight has seen his medication increase to keep his own Type 2 under control, I do not agree that it is entirely diet-induced. Not always.

Persuade the food producers to stop loading everything with sugar would also be a good idea, but I'll try to stay off that particular soap box.

[Biggus]

Martin,

Check you PMs! :)