PDA

View Full Version : MOD Civil Servants £300M Bonuses Vs Battle of Britain Memorial Flight's £3M.


VIProds
15th Jan 2010, 12:23
MOD Civil Servants £300M p.a. Bonuses to stay while the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight's £3M p.a. to be at risk ! - The Daily Mail


Isn't there someone up there that hasn't got their snout in the trough able to see sense?

Jabba_TG12
15th Jan 2010, 13:07
Dont take this the wrong way, but.... do you really need to ask that question??:E

airborne_artist
15th Jan 2010, 13:10
The MOD bonus system was introduced to save cash - the bonus is not pensionable, for a start, so the £300m is actually less than it would have been under a normal pay award system.

Try looking at MP's £400/month un-receipted food allowance, for which the max payable annually is £3m.....

KarlADrage
15th Jan 2010, 13:13
Battle of Britain Memorial Flight - News (http://www.raf.mod.uk/bbmf/news/index.cfm?storyid=3177BC8D-5056-A318-A877D2E906A0C1C6)

Pontius Navigator
15th Jan 2010, 13:24
The pay pot for MOD civil servants was agreed with effect from last August for 3 years. It was a good deal at abut 3% increase annually, OK?

Now 2% of the pay pot is witheld. Each year that 2% is redistributed in the form of bonuses. 10% of CS get none, 10% get loads, 20% get a bit less and the remainder get a sop, after tax is around £30/month. As A_A says, it is non-pensionable.

It is their pay; it is not like a private sector bonus.

Initially this incentive bonus was awarded on a 50-50 basis but as such it was more a divisive and disincentive. The CS didn't want it, it was another Brown intiative from the Treasury.

A couple of years ago, Miss PN, working in industry, was awarded a 13th month bonus. It was the norm and virtually promised when she joined - 1 1/12th bonus is significantly better than the CS bonus; even a top-wack CS bonus would have been no more than 5.8% of my pay.

Metman
15th Jan 2010, 13:54
Just another excuse to have a pop at overpaid (MoD) civil servants, who of course are wholely responsible for bringing the country to its knees in the recent banking collapse! You'd think the government wanted to cut those vast bonuses for these overpaid and underworked employees and were encouraging this outrage!!!

:ugh:

vecvechookattack
15th Jan 2010, 14:20
I have to ask why the government is giving £3,000,000 to the Battle of Britain Memorial fund ? Do they get that amount each year? What does the money go on?

airborne_artist
15th Jan 2010, 14:25
What does the money go on?

I believe it's converted into noise - and quite a nice noise at that :E

CirrusF
15th Jan 2010, 17:25
Isn't the question really why the taxpayer is having to cough up £3m per year for the BBMF? I am sure the private sector would pay a relatively small amount like that to be associated with the flight.

vecvechookattack
15th Jan 2010, 17:26
Exactly. Maybe we could withdraw the £3,000,000 that the BBMF expect and give it to people in Haiti ?

jim2673
15th Jan 2010, 17:42
RN Historic Flight is charitable and self funded why not the BOB MF?

GeeRam
15th Jan 2010, 19:39
Perhaps the fat cats in the city could be conned into thinking that BBMF stood for Bankers Bonus Maintainance Fund..........3 mil per year could be raised easily :rolleyes:

pontifex
15th Jan 2010, 19:52
If the country cannot continue to afford the BBMF, can it afford to continue to maintain HMS Victory which has a similar function for the Navy?

Jimlad1
15th Jan 2010, 20:13
The bonus system was forced on the MOD by one Mr Gordon Brown several years ago, over very strong complaints by MOD staff. Don't blame MOD for having an abysmal pay system being forced on it by the then Chancellor. Most MOD servants would love to scrap the bonus, but as its one of Gordons ideas, the chances of this occurring are zero.

As for BBMF - PR10 is done, FDR hasn't begun - what options are people costing that could lead to scrapping the BBMF? I think someone has been scaremongering again...

CirrusF
15th Jan 2010, 20:15
Actually £3m is about the cost of the Hawk that the RAF destroyed last year because the (Red Arrow) pilot forgot to lower the undercarriage. Perhaps the RAF should show a bit of Battle of Britain professionalism, and raise the money for the BBMF themselves, instead of bleating to the tax payer?

ZH875
15th Jan 2010, 20:29
If the country cannot continue to afford the BBMF, can it afford to continue to maintain HMS Victory which has a similar function for the Navy?


A Victory roll from the Navy would be very impressive :E

RileyDove
15th Jan 2010, 20:32
Cirrus -if it's the aircraft on delivery there was more to it than the pilot forgetting the undercarriage.

r supwoods
15th Jan 2010, 20:56
How much does the University Air Squadrons and AEF cost?

... and how much to train HRH Wales?

Seaking93
15th Jan 2010, 21:11
RN Historic Flight is charitable and self funded why not the BOB MF?

Because the RNHF is not self funded, if it was it would have been closed down years ago, it still gets funding from the public purse

Could be the last?
15th Jan 2010, 21:19
If you have read the article, it also mentions the potential for private funding. What is the problem with that? The REDs have just about every major gadget, golf club, watch maker etc etc etc falling over themselves to be associated with the team, so why not spread it around??????

soddim
15th Jan 2010, 21:32
There is already a large amount of sponsorship in the BBMF and a great deal of help from industry. Whilst further private funding could be sought it is worth remembering that we have a collective responsibility to remember all those people in this island who made the Battle of Britain our finest hour.

To forget the BBMF motto 'Lest we Forget' is to not only fail to respect all those people but also to forget the lessons of that period. Whilst it was our finest hour it was also a period in history when political failings took us very close to loss of our national identity and cultural heritage. Could we repeat such failures if we forget those lessons - you bet we could and we're not that far from doing so today.

Three million is a very small price to keep those lessons fresh.

nice castle
16th Jan 2010, 12:15
Agreed....

Widger
16th Jan 2010, 18:58
Whilst it is easy to have a pop at the Civil Servants, without them we would be stuffed and by the way, have a look here (http://www.civilservant.org.uk/pay.shtml) at actually how low most of them are paid.

The comments above re- imposition of the pay bonuses are correct and on top of that, many of them have jobs that may well be taken under PACE.

Bernard Gray's recent report emphasised quite clearly that the MOD needs high quality, properly trained individuals in the civil service, particularly in DE&S, unfortunately, over the last few decades we have been paying peanuts....

tucumseh
16th Jan 2010, 23:28
Bernard Gray's recent report emphasised quite clearly that the MOD needs high quality, properly trained individuals in the civil service, particularly in DE&S, unfortunately, over the last few decades we have been paying peanuts....

One of the main problems is that an organisation whose primary role is to deliver kit to time, cost and performance does not test their project managers in this competence before promotion.

Quite the opposite in fact. Show me a project manager in DE&S who has, say, 100 successful projects under his belt. A rare species indeed, yet 20 years ago such a man would be described as inexperienced if those projects did not include technologies across a raft of disciplines and in every phase of the procurement cycle (Concept to Disposal).

By contrast, many project managers have grossly inexperienced bosses who are little more than professional minutes secretaries, as they are completely devoid of original thought and relevant experience.

In short, the hierarchy is often upsidedown. Not everyone is paid peanuts - £40k is pretty good for writing minutes; but £30k is abysmal for someone holding airworthiness delegation, who does not see a promotion to minutes secretary as very inviting. They must start by placing value on the right skills and competence.

Gray was right, but Haddon-Cave may be the catalyst.

Roadster280
17th Jan 2010, 00:53
Flame me, I care not, but here is the deal in my view:

1. The Battle of Britain Memorial Flight exists as a memorial to WW2 air warfare. Without which, we would be speaking German.

2. The costs of the BBMF should be borne from the public purse. The country required the services of those that are commemorated. Ergo, it should pay for their memorial.

3. If the country imposed a mere GBP 1000 charge on those immigrating to the country, such costs as the BBMF etc could be readily offset. Those that thought the charge unreasonable would be welcome to change their minds on their immigration plans.

MOD Civil Service bonuses are not part of the equation. They are our blokes too.

Chris Kebab
17th Jan 2010, 09:09
A debate on the continued, and indeed the source of, £3M required for the BBMF is well worth having.

Pitting that cost against civilian MOD colleagues salaries and pay awards was nothing more than cheap trolling by VIProds who has been remarkably silent since posting his first inflamatory and confontational post. Pathetic really.

VIProds
17th Jan 2010, 10:19
I am sorry you feel that way CK. I was just quoting what the "Mail" published, the figure of £3M for the BBMF looked insignificant against the MOD's £300M Bonuses. My thanks to AA & PN for pointing out the Bonuses are withheld from the pay pot, which I was not aware of, as I am sure were many others.

The only reason that I have been silent is that last week I have been ferrying my wife around Cancer Care Units & Hospitals. I even had to cancel a talk that I was to give at the North Lincs ACA, sorry Guys.

Mr C Hinecap
17th Jan 2010, 16:36
Show me a project manager in DE&S who has, say, 100 successful projects under his belt. A rare species indeed,yet 20 years ago such a man would be described as inexperienced if those projects did not include technologies across a raft of disciplines and in every phase of the procurement cycle

Did we have 100 year old Civil Servants then? I think you are over-egging that pudding just a little bit - 100 successful projects within the DE&S arena?

Chris Kebab
17th Jan 2010, 17:55
Fair enough VIP – the danger of sourcing information from the “Mail” I guess!
Sorry for being a tad brutal, I currently work with some MOD civvies who quietly beaver away doing a first class job on a very modest salary and who feel they have been totally pilloried by the press and certain politicians.

Problem is they are a nice soft all too easy target for the ill informed or those out to create mischief. I certainly feel that those of us in uniform (I presume you are/were - AL1, just spotted your age!) ought really to give them a break and not believe everything we read in the papers.

Wyler
18th Jan 2010, 13:15
Let's not forget that not all civvies work in offices. I left the RAF after 23 years as a regular and then completed 3 years as FTRS.
I am now a civilian instructor working both in a simulator and the classroom. Moreover, I am heavily involved in Course Design, standardisation and can be employed in everything from basic to advanced instruction.
For all that the RAF get my expertise, experience and continuity for about 40% of the cost of the same individual in uniform. I therefore represent a significant saving (IMHO!).
I am not saying that we cannot be replaced/axed but to do so would deprive the military of a rich source of experience and expertise.

mikip
18th Jan 2010, 15:18
Don't forget that this report came from the mail so it probably bears the same sort of similarity to the truth as a Vimy does to a Vulcan

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU
18th Jan 2010, 15:36
The bonus system was forced on the MOD by one Mr Gordon Brown several years ago, over very strong complaints by MOD staff.

Indeed; and what is easily forgotten or overlooked is that the infernal system was foisted on the entire Civil Service. I’m not saying that they should be criticised, far from it, but it is interesting that the accusation of milking the Taxpayer is rarely levelled at CSs in the Health Service or Revenue and Customs.