Originally Posted by
Ken Scott
This can most likely be attributed to the current policy of not 'wasting' money on maintenance but rather waiting to a building is truly broken then (maybe) paying to repair it. Or closing the station, which ever is cheaper (e.g.: Lyneham). Though this is more expensive in the long term it pushes the problem to the right where it becomes someone's else's concern. The buildings you saw clearly hadn't achieved a sufficiently decrepit state to be worth repairing yet.....
As for the golf course & cricket pitch, these would be considered no longer a core requirement for any maintenance. Cheaper to play any cricket matches 'away'.
There simply is no money for the basics given the size of the equipment budget 'black hole'. Once we've procured it it's also left to deteriorate, but at least the defence industry is kept ticking over. There are more votes in industry than defence.
Correct - I don’t know if it has a formal term, but we refer to it as managed decline, and it makes no sense other than being a metaphor for the state of the Forces as a whole. We would rather save £1 on maintenance and then spend £10 on repairs that could have been avoided. And the relentless focus on cutting peripheries and non-essential items means we will effectively end up with a core military deemed operational and what isn’t cut outright will be left to wither over time.