Your just "Public Sector Workers"

[Tony Clatworthy]

I apologise for posting this but I'm so annoyed, who do these civil servants think they are ?

Ursula Brennan, the ministry’s permanent under-secretary, was reprimanded hours after military charities warned the Government it was in danger of breaching the Military Covenant that it had promised to restore.
Mrs Brennan was asked yesterday by James Arbuthnot, the Commons defence committee chairman, what she thought about reports of declining morale in the Services over cuts and job losses.
She replied that Service personnel had to “recognise that they are not exempt from that”.
She added that it was the “tough message one needs to get across to the Armed Forces” as the “top priority” was reducing the budget.
Mrs Brennan was reprimanded by Mr Arbuthnot for describing troops as public sector workers. “I’m not sure that someone who is fighting in a forward operating base in Afghanistan will see themselves necessarily working in the public sector,” he told her.

[minigundiplomat]

James Arbuthnot is Odiham's local MP. He is not afraid to stand up for the military which puts him in a minority these days.

[Jimlad1]

If someone is paid from the public purse, and works in an area doing roles not done by the private sector then surely they are public sector workers?
I've seen plenty of forces personnel view themselves as a (unique) part of the public sector.

Surely we have more important things to be outraged about?

[minigundiplomat]

For once - Annoyed may have a point.

Anyway - very few people have the time, energy or sense of belonging these days to get steamed up about some pen pushing doris and her views on the military.

[Tony Clatworthy]

OK I'm rising above it !

Going IFR

No still annoyed by this TART !

going back to VFR

[Wingedplumber]

Just what we need.... More civvies employed with links to the mob that think they are head and shoulders above the rest of us and that we should just "suck it up"!

It's people like this that kill the morale like in the other thread! (apologies for thread drift!)

[Whenurhappy]

Ursula Brennan is not just some 't%rt'. She is PUS - the top civil servant within the MOD and has considerable fiscal control - over just about all we do short of combat operations. Inter alia, she has called fro the reduction of SP numbers in Cyprus (going down the route of the FI), considerable influence on pay and allowances, reductions in personnel (SP and CS)...I could go on, but frankly, I've already made my decision to leave.

James Arbuthnot (former defence minister under John Major) is a clever cove. He was, in my opinion, right to upbraid UB over the perjorative reference to the Services as public sector workers (which covers the gamut of activities from litter pickers working part-time for your Parish Council to staff of the soon-to-be closed Forensic Science Service). Our TACOS, ethos and history does set us apart from 'other' public sector workers, and we should guard against the erosion of our status, which would, in time, allow sucessive adminsitrations to 'harmonise' pensions and benefits, but without granting us an advocacy body.

[Red Line Entry]

As ever, Whenurhappy has hit the nail on the head. The problem is not whether or not we are called public servants; the problem is that PUS, the top civil servant in the MOD and the person who is CDS's 'oppo', seems to imply that she feels that Service personnel have no special claim to consideration above that over any other government employee.

This flies in the face of the military covenant which specifically recognises that because they may be called upon to kill and die for their country, Service personnel require special (albeit not necessarily preferential) consideration.

For someone who was 2nd PUS for 2 years, and is now PUS, to have not yet grasped this fundamental notion is worrying. If only it were some 'Doris'...

[Biggus]

No doubt we can expect to see some sort of internal message or "briefing note" from her in the next few days stating what a wonderful job she thinks everyone in the military does, how she is totally supportive of what we do, yaddah, yaddah, yaddah.......as she tries to recover the situation and her lost credibility.



Just hope she doesn't expect anyone to actually believe it!

[Pontius Navigator]

Just read in the Torygraph of another cabinet office civil servant that decided that Dannatt was wrong when he said we needed more boots on the ground.

Why don't we put these 'public sector workers' in real jobs? Send them to AFG as the Commander? Let them make the life and death decisions? Let them write to the bereaved?

[cazatou]

PN

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to send each of them as an Infantry Platoon Commander - with an experienced SNCO each "to guide them".

[Biggus]

By the way, how long will it be before somebody points out that it should be you're (as in you are) rather than your........damn! ;)

[teeteringhead]

I am saddened but unsurprised. Having done a bit of time in the MoD myself, even (many) career civil servants "still don't get it". Two quotes I can remember from them:

"Why do we have military officers in MoD? Ministry of Health doesn't have any doctors and nurses, and Transport doesn't have any train drivers."

And from an HEO/C2 at STC as it then was:

"I'm the equivalent of a sqn ldr - I've worked here for 20 years and don't wear a uniform - whay does anyone else need to (at STC)."

:ugh::ugh:

Perhaps we should modify the age-old suggestion (banter, honest guv!) that we used to use about Flying Pay. At the end of each year (probably FY to keep the bean-counters happy), calculate the number of uniformed military who have lost their lives on duty, select at random a similar proportion of MoD Civil Servants ...... and have them shot! ;)

[izod tester]

I have several times reminded civil servants that no special qualifications, training or experience are required to be a civilian. I was born one! However, everyone in the UK military has been selected, often from a very large pool of applicants.

[Training Risky]

Whatever.........................

Chap - you may be 'really annoyed', but is your mission in life to write deliberately argumentative and counter-consensus posts whenever you get the chance on PPrune...just to get a rise out of people? (Like that nutter who was jailed for constantly winding up the chavs on Jade Goody's 'In Memoriam' page on Face Book?)

Give it a rest!

Oh..and she may be the PUS, but she's still an uppity tart who, like most civil servants, has been promoted far above her abilities or usefulness.

[Kreuger flap]

Training risky, that man was jailed for writing offensive and malicious communications on that internet site. I don't think writing "whatever" is either.
However writing "but she's still an uppity tart" or "has been promoted far above her abilities or usefulness" and "No still annoyed by this TART" could be construed as offensive in the eyes of the law.
So you could be seen as "trolling" as you get a reaction from really annoyed.

[glad rag]

Is she "fit"?











As in "fit for purpose at minimum cost".
You gotta love how "they" will denigrate ANYTHING to keep their snouts in the trough.

[Bladdered]

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/GenerateThumbnail.aspx?imageURL=/NR/rdonlyres/D21A25DC-6DAD-4053-8203-D5E01D5C8E82/0/08283005.jpg&maxSize=210 (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/LargeImageTemplate.aspx?img=/NR/rdonlyres/D21A25DC-6DAD-4053-8203-D5E01D5C8E82/0/08283005.jpg&alt=Ursula Brennan)

!

[alfred_the_great]

There is a case to be made for reducing the Military from the "strategy" part of of the MoD, and utterly reducing the CS part on the "operational" part of the MoD. The problem is that we mix the two, throughout the "Centre".

[Whenurhappy]

OK apart from the Cmd Sec at PJHQ, where are there civil servants in operational decision-making role (notwithstanding DIS)?

The vast majority of staff in ACDS Ops are military; a significant number within Strategy are military (although this may change)...are you suggesting we remove serving officers from strategic planning roles?

[Jimlad1]

Not even sure that I'd say that the CS in DIS have an operational decision making role - they merely provide advice based on evidence, and there are plenty of Mil there too. From my own experience, whatever was staffed at junior levels, the real decisions were taken by the Mil staff and seniors.

[Pontius Navigator]

Jimlad, that was the point.

Mrs Margaret Aldred, late deputy head of the cabinet foreign and defence secretariat, contradicted a defence select committee report on the need for more helicopters.

Dannatt said we needed more boots on the ground. She told US diplomats that more troops and helicopters would make little difference.

She said that the brune one decided how many British troops would deploy only after close consultation with the MOD. She didn't say if he had accepted the MOD position or merely consulted and then done his own thing.

~~~

A military officer expressed surprise and said they were strange opinions for an official and events show that she was quite wrong.

"Frankly, a [mere] civil servant whose life has been in Westminster is not well positioned to make those judgements."

Pretty damming stuff and adequate evidence that mere civil servants acted above the military high command to thwart their best advice. Had Dannatt known, resignation would have been the only option.

Torygraph, 11 Feb, page 10

[cazatou]

If the Military are " mere Public Sector Workers " then surely the Maximum Working Week Regulations would apply irrespective of their location?

[langleybaston]

I can see that serving and ex-serving people might get irate,

BUT

the Met Office [for example] has a goodly number of forecasters and observers who combine two roles: as RAFVR officers in uniform at various sharp ends, and then as normal Met folk "at home".

So what do we call them in these public services debate, pray?

[Lottery Winner]

TC - Really small point to most but don't you mean You're "Just Public Sector Workers"?:ok:

[Radar Command T/O]

RA, I think that was Cazatou's point. If the military are "just Public Sector workers" and therefore to be treated the same as everybody else in the Public Sector, surely that must then apply to working conditions as well.

I look forward to the day when I can:

a. form a Union without being accused of Mutiny,
b. refuse to do anything that risks my health/life, or is not in my terms of reference,
c. receive overtime pay for working longer than 37.5 hours per week,
d. go on strike if I don't like the way my working conditions/pay/ are being altered by my employers.

What do you think would happen if the Fire Brigade had had their allowances reduced to the extent ours were 2 weeks ago? "Everybody out guys, let the military put out the fires!"

Or the tube drivers? Or the airport workers?

The Armed Forces have no comeback to any of this, other than leaving, and that takes a year. That is why they need to be treated differently and be given a little protection, since they fight for the country, but are not permitted to fight for themselves.

[alfred_the_great]

1. We remain under civilian control, they make the decisions at the end of the day. If they want to ignore our advice, that's the way it goes. Don't like it, go find a tinpot country to take over in a military coup.

2. The wider point about the MoD is that it is the only Gov't department that has a mixture of long term strategic thinking and a day to day operational headquarters in the same place. We wouldn't allow the Dept of Health to run a Hospital out of it's headquarters, why does it make sense for the MoD to do so?

Hell, it might even satisfy the bloodlust for removing Admirals, Generals and Air Chief Marshals.....

[Radar Command T/O]

It's not a question of "drying one's eyes", as you so eloquently put it. Or running away to the private sector.

However, unless someone in MOD stands up for the Armed Forces, the little things that make up for the lack of the above rights (and the list was supposed to be a little facietious!) enjoyed by all other workers will continue to be eroded to the point that people really will leave, and those that remain (mortgage trap, pension trap, etc), will have no loyalty to the Services beyond the pay statement at the end of the month.

Oh, and by the way, although we may not pay directly for our pensions, our salaries are reduced accordingly to fund them.

[whowhenwhy]

I can't remember the last time I was at a unit where we had the capacity to do sport, AT or I had the time to do evening classes.

Ref earlier question, PUS definately does not conjure up images of Miss Galore:E

[cazatou]

Radar Command

We do NOT have to guess what the Fire Brigade would do in such circumstances - I lost count of the number of times that the Armed Forces had to "stand in" for Civilian Firefighters during my 30+ years of Service. I even remember an occasion when a RAF Fire Crew was returning from an incident when they were ambushed by striking Civilian Firefighters. When the casualties arrived at the local hospital the RAF crew were treated first because "they had to go back on duty".

[muttywhitedog]

Is she "fit"?

Clearly not.

Now the burning question is "Can she bake a cake"?

[Spurlash2]

The Spectator has an interview with the CS that rules our life, here (http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6655353/coffee-house-interview-ursula-brennan.thtml).

Oh dear.

Bull*hit Bingo, anyone?

[Pontius Navigator]

1. We remain under civilian control, they make the decisions at the end of the day. If they want to ignore our advice, that's the way it goes. Don't like it, go find a tinpot country to take over in a military coup......

True. The Government has primacy. The Military give advice but if that advice is ignored do they then have to execute a faulty plan?

The short answer is No. Montgomery was put under immense pressure to launch an attack before he was ready; he refused and only attacked when ready. Under Montgomery people had no option but to obey but not at the higher command level. The choice was either heed him or sack him.

The point about a civil servant in the Cabinet Office is that she was not Government. Was it her job to brief the US Embassy on British Military policy which appeared to be the reverse of what CGS was saying in public?

[Jimlad1]

Interesting - the services think the CS rules, while according to the question below from that interview, the CS think the Mil rule -

"Some senior MoD officials have voiced concern in private that the Ministry – and the defence decision-making process – is becoming dominated the Service Chiefs and the military, while the MoD’s civilian staff are being marginalised."

Means the system must be working as intended if both sides think the other has it better than them :E

[alfred_the_great]

PN - either she was instructed to write that on behalf of her PS, her Minister or she had delegated authority. Any which way you skin that cat, the Cabinet Office has at least as much say in military affairs (as they pertain to wider foreign affairs) as the MoD, especially when it comes to policy questions like troop numbers.

I would suggest I, or any other serving Officer, would be on the thinnest of planks if we refused to carry out a direct order from a properly appointed, and authorised, member of HM Govt. If we got it exactly right, we might get away with it, but it'd be Court Martial time if we got it even a little bit wrong....

[Toddington Ted]

"Ursula Brennan, the ministry’s permanent under-secretary, was reprimanded hours after military charities warned the Government it was in danger of breaching the Military Covenant that it had promised to restore.
Mrs Brennan was reprimanded by Mr Arbuthnot for describing troops as public sector workers. “I’m not sure that someone who is fighting in a forward operating base in Afghanistan will see themselves necessarily working in the public sector,” he told her."

As an ex-military who is now a civil servant I suppose I should tread carefully so as to upset no-one (that'll be a first!) but I understand that the current PUS was not "top of the preferred list" so to speak but that the job was always going to be such a goat that very few CS of the calibre required wanted it (they never asked me and the answer's no!). There is also, so I'm told, a certain reticence by this PUS to sign off the order for the new chinooks but I believe that's already covered in another thread. All this is pure rumour of course.:ok:

[EGGP]

Bull*hit Bingo, anyone?

Spurlash - You hit the nail on the head; does that sound like anyone who is on the same planet as most of the service personnel and civil servants who are doing the day to day jobs which get things done.

At PUS level things are just numbers,statistics and production units; real people don't count; hence the buggering about in reorganisations such as the DES move to sunny Abbeywood from all over or moving the Met office to Exeter.

I bet it would be interesting to find out if she ever stayed in one place long enough to be accountable for the actual outcomes of any grand schemes she dreamed up.

It is interesting that she came from what is now the Dept for Work and Pensions; I used to work there and they have the worst terms and conditions in the civil service- guess where the MOD's are headed for both Service personnel and CS?

The article hints that other people avoided the job so it doesn't seem like she was first choice.:ugh:

[Scuttled]

Really Annoyed.

I really wish you were as angry as you pretend to be. If you were, you would've dropped dead of a heart attack by now and made this world a happier place. I hope to God you aren't in a leadership position in the RAF and I would be amazed if you were. You post like an absolute arse of the first order.

Taking a contrary extreme view to every opinion offered is 6th form debating club stuff. It isn't clever and it negates the occasional sensible post you put out.

Please feel free to put up a silly smiley face and call this a bite in a responding post. Nobody cares - honestly, grow up and let others express an opinion or post a rumour.

Wow, that felt good.

[Sloppy Link]

Pub quiz time, facetious is the only word with all the vowels in the correct order.....uncontinental is the opposite.

I'll get my coat...

SL (just a public sector worker)

[Spurlash2]

abstemious and arsenious.

[cazatou]

Spurlash2

"Abstemious" doesn't count - it was a Pub Quiz.

[Radar Command T/O]

Really Annoyed.

I really wish you were as angry as you pretend to be. If you were, you would've dropped dead of a heart attack by now and made this world a happier place. I hope to God you aren't in a leadership position in the RAF and I would be amazed if you were. You post like an absolute arse of the first order.

Taking a contrary extreme view to every opinion offered is 6th form debating club stuff. It isn't clever and it negates the occasional sensible post you put out.

Please feel free to put up a silly smiley face and call this a bite in a responding post. Nobody cares - honestly, grow up and let others express an opinion or post a rumour.

Wow, that felt good.

Beat me to the punch!

Really Annoying,

Actually, the word is spelt "pedantic".

But, while we're correcting my little typo on the word "facetious", I'll not mention that before you amended your first response to my post, you actually spelt the word "princess" wrong and corrected it later.

Our little secret, right? :ok:

[SilsoeSid]

On a pedantic note, as someone else brought it up, can we alter the thread title please?

Your just "Public Sector Workers"

It just seems to give out the wrong impression ;)

[Uncle Ginsters]

Read between the lines of the original statement and it speaks volumes on how the Forces are seen by some sections of government; yes, we are Public Sector Workers.

BUT, we are Public Sector Workers give their lives to serve this country,
who spend half their lives away from their families to serve this country,
who drag their families around the country then abandon them on OOA to serve this country,
who often serve under conditions that would have the most hardened prison criminals on hunger strike,
whose 'contract' is to do anything asked of them...anything!

Name me one other branch of the Public Sector that does that?

Thank you the Right Honourable Lady, you have further enhanced the RBL's point!

Covenant, felling axe, SCHWACK.

[ian16th]

She ain't a 'Right Honourable Lady'! She would have to be an MP to be called that.

She's only a civil servant.

[cazatou]

My dictionary defines "Covenant" as "A Mutual Agreement".

If HMG imposes changes to Terms of Service etc then the "Agreement" is no longer "Mutual" and the Covenant ceases to exist.

[Jimlad1]

At the risk of trying to apply a sense of balance, if you watch what the PUS said, she was talking about a public sector pay freeze across the whole of Government, to which Julian Arbuthnot picked her up and made his point about public sector and the armed forces.

I may be wrong here, but my understanding was that the armed forces were affected by the public sector pay freeze, so the PUS was being completely correct in her original statement?

The discussion was twisted in reporting to suit the telegraphs political agenda - having taken the time to dig out what was originally said, I am struggling to spot anything she said that was intended to give offence, nor out of line with plenty of previous statements by various seniors, which have never caused ' Im outraged threads' to be posted here.I fear some people seek to be offended too easily sadly.

Player (http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=7650) - link to the evidence, statements were made at 1hr 2mins and 1hr 5mins approximately.

[Biggus]

Jimlad1,

How does the saying go...?

"Never let the facts get in the way of a good story" :=


Being misquoted, or selectively reported on, is unfortunatley a sign of the modern times, and something no doubt politicians and prominent figures in all walks of life, business, sport, and even the civil service, just have to get used to...

[minigundiplomat]

to which Julian Arbuthnot picked her up and made his point about public sector and the armed forces.


Devils in the detail Jimlad. No wonder procurements screwed if we can't even get MP's names right.

[Jimlad1]

You're quite right MGD - forgive me for I have sinned :E

[hval]

Oh for heavens sake Really annoyed,

Please will you be so kind as to refrain from attacking people so discourteously and with such apparent venom. You take up irrelevancies and appear to make every attempt to annoy people and to derail a thread. People are entitled to opinions. You are entitled to yours even. But to be so obnoxious and irrelevant is irritating.

If you have no desire to be constructive please refrain from participating; pretty please even.


Hval

Edited for missing words

[minigundiplomat]

Really Annoyed is actually a MOD plant within PPrune.

Whenever someone deviates from the party line, he pops up to argue the diametric opposite position in favour of the MOD, or failing that, sabotages the thread through repeated pedantry.

He will be CAS one day - though the RAF will consist of the one person left.....him.

[Tocsin]

May I respectfully remind the esteemed members of PPRuNe that a facility to "Ignore" particularly obnoxious posters has been provided?

I have used it on two tw*ts so far, and feel a third coming on! (Of course, it works better if the tw*t's drivel is not quoted in a follow-up). :=

[Mad_Mark]

I don't know about him being a plant but I do know that he is a TOTAL TW@ !!

He must be such a fun person to be with in real life with an attitude like that - just ignore the wan#er :ok:

MadMark!!! :mad:

[cazatou]

Really annoyed

You "Really" should check your facts before posting.

HMG reserves the right to tax "Government Pensions" in the United Kingdom irrespective of where the recipient resides in the World. You could retire to a country that does not level tax on income - but your Service Pension (and Old Age Pension) will still be taxed in UK. My Service Pension (I still have a few months to go before I am eligible for the State Old Age Pension) and my Wife's Teachers and Old Age Pensions are therefore taxed by HMG.

I await your apology.

[glad rag]

Quote:
However, unless someone in MOD stands up for the Armed Forces, the little things that make up for the lack of the above rights (and the list was supposed to be a little facietious!) enjoyed by all other workers will continue to be eroded to the point that people really will leave, and those that remain (mortgage trap, pension trap, etc), will have no loyalty to the Services beyond the pay statement at the end of the month.
Rights? You joined an Armed Force not the girl guides. If you don't like the rules you have to play to, leave, there are plenty of people willing to take your place.


p.s. it's "facetious", not "facietious".:ugh:
Aye and a gentlemans member is a gentlemans member no matter how you spell it!:uhoh::ouch::suspect::cool:

HEHE this forum is SO much fun.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Really Annoyed

You are Liam Fox. You are a complete tw@t. And I claim my £10.

Now for God's sake :mad: off. Your views are simplistic and surprisingly naive, you must work for DGMC and the rest of the MOD spin doctors. Your comments would be slightly amusing if it wasn't for the fact HM Forces are up a certain creek and the paddle has been taken as a "savings measure".

[Pontius Navigator]

Tocsin you are so right and it stops me being really annoyed.

Lottery Your "Just Public Sector Workers"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TC - Really small point to most but don't you mean You're "Just Public Sector Workers"?

Could it mean "your just Public Sector Workers" as opposed to "Unjust Public . . . "? :}

[cazatou]

PN

Re "Unjust Public Sector Workers".

I see absolutely NO reason to bring HM Revenue and Customs into this debate!!

[Pontius Navigator]

Ignorance is bliss and stops you being really annoyed.

[Canadian Break]

It's only a matter of time before "Really Really Annoyed" comes along to really annoy Really Annoyed. Mark my words.:uhoh:

[ORAC]

kQFKtI6gn9Y

[Alpha Whiskey]

At the risk of taking this in a completely different direction having come to it late, when did Susan Boyle get herself apppointed as PUS?????

[Sgt.Slabber]

Whitehall bonuses rise during recession year - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8320647/Whitehall-bonuses-rise-during-recession-year.html)


Despite pay restraint and job losses in both the public and private sectors, Whitehall officials were paid a total of more than £136 million in bonuses. Some senior civil servants received as much as £50,000 extra..., etc!


Not applicable to members of HM Forces :sad:

[Jimlad1]

Groans as head bangs on large wall again - how many times does this subject crop up? Its not a bonus its the non consolidated element of the pay rise that HM Treasury didnt want to give us so that their pension bill doesnt increase.

Its a nasty devious scheme, designed to keep pay levels artificially low, and the pension bill lower, and also help makes CS look like greedy bankers, even when the average 'bonus' is about £300 per year.

I have yet to meet a single CS who likes or supports the scheme, but we're stuck with it thanks to Mr Gordon Brown and his dreadful years in office.

[ian16th]

If we were/are 'Just another Public Sector worker' can someone please inform me what equivalent of these words, the CIVIL servants use?

OATH TO BE TAKEN BY RECRUIT ON ATTESTATION
I, Ian16th swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the Air Officers and Officers set over me. So help me God.

[general all rounder]

Its a nasty devious scheme, designed to keep pay levels artificially low, and the pension bill lower, and also help makes CS look like greedy bankers, even when the average 'bonus' is about £300 per year.

As an RAF officer with cluster responsibilities (ie awarding bonuses) I can only agree. The vast majority of bonuses are paid to those who have simply done an adequate job. You only don't get a bonus (at least this was true last year) if you are on the point of dismissal for incompetence.

The issue of the quote is not so much the substance (we are of course paid by the taxpayer and therefore public servants) as the implication that we don't have special status. There has for too long been a consensus about Service personnel which I think we should challenge.

Assumption 1) We are more expensive than civilians.

If this were the case why has Defence Inflation risen to 7% despite 20 years of consistent civilianisation and contractorisation?

This focusses on input cost not output value.

Assumption 2) We receive unsustainable pensions and allowances.

We receive the package we do to attract the quality necessary to make us agile, flexible, adaptable and expendable (ie prepared to accept the ultimate sacrifice). If the offer ain't good enough nor will the people be.

Assumption 3) Civilians are more professional.

Not true in my experience. Most principles of modern management were practised in the military before they were practised elsewhere. Particular theories such as Lean Six Sigma work for manufaturing, say, but are totally unsuited to a Service which much adapt to new realities in the blink of an eye. If you pretend to be a modern cost-lean commercial company you may strip out cost but you will also strip out flexibility, adaptability, scaleability and resilience. In other words come the next Strategic Shock you will lose.

Surely it is not beyond the wit of even our idiot ministers to see the consequences today of the assumptions made in the 90s and 00s and to reverse the trend. I say surely and yet the evidence is that they are indeed idiots.

[EGGP]

All Rounder

OK I'll bite

1.) Defence inflation is down to procurement rather than civilianisation; just think what the extra cost would be if they hadn't civilianised. They haven't done it for any reason other than cost.

2.) Both military and CS pensions are under threat. Let's face it Maggie wanted to screw our pensions in 1980 until she realised we actually paid for them. She was convinced by the facts.

The problem is that instead of working from 16-65 and living 5 to 10 years in receipt of a pension afterwards; society is now mostly going to university and not starting work till early 20's and wanting to retire in mid 50's and collect a pension until they die thirty plus years later on average.

The fall in the birth rate led to lots of school closures in recent years because the number of children is less. There will be fewer people of working age paying for all the baby boomers in years to come. Final salary Pensions for CS and military come from current government receipts as well as state retirement pension. Hence why Mr Hutton will be reducing benefits and increasing contributions from employees in a few months because the taxpayer is revolting. However if you listen to the More or Less programme on radio 4 this is just a load of b*****ks because the percentage of GDP will remain essentially the same to pay pensions.

BBC - BBC Radio 4 Programmes - More or Less, 17/09/2010 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tq1vk) :ooh:I've just listened to the programme and it isn't the one I had thought; I'll find the other programme and link this as well

I can't find the more or less link but this is what it was about

The cost of public service pensions (http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0910/public_service_pensions.aspx)

3.) it's got nothing to do with it , see 1.) above.

EGGP