ANALYSIS: Miltary faces 'perfect storm' of budget vs need

[Lyneham Lad]

A very interesting article on Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-miltary-faces-39perfect-storm39-of-budget-vs-406045/), with the opening paragraphs setting the scene.

European defence forces are facing a “perfect storm”, and those in the UK are at its eye. So says Andrew Dorman, professor of international security in the Defence Studies Department at King’s College London and a lecturer at the UK Joint Services Command and Staff College in Shrivenham.

The forces energising the storm are many, Dorman says, but he sums up the challenge as “ambiguous warfare in an age of austerity”. The “ambiguous” tag refers to the enemy not always being easy to identify; it may be a group rather than a nation and in a state of flux rather than being a recognisable entity. Since 2010, when the UK’s last Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) was carried out, the world has changed dramatically, he points out, and plans for the UK’s defence and for projecting its influence envisaged then look hopelessly inappropriate now. Finally, budget austerity completes the storm’s destructive power.

Further on in the article:-
Meanwhile, Dorman’s judgements about the existing FF 2020 in the present context are scathing, calling its defined force structure “an unaffordable, land-centric, top-heavy military designed to fail”. Personnel cuts at the last review were at the front line, with hardly any reductions at the one-star level and above, he notes. The Royal Navy, he believes, needs more destroyers and frigates but is getting two aircraft carriers which may end up with insufficient numbers of embarked aircraft, and it has amphibious forces when the need for the latter is getting increasingly difficult to justify. It is clear that Dorman would be surprised if the UK gets the promised numbers of Lockheed F-35B combat aircraft after the 2015 SDSR.

Seems to me that the thrust of his speech at a conference of the UK Royal Air Force Air Combat Support Group is very much on the mark (and that he probably will not be getting any Christmas cards from Army types).

[The Old Fat One]

None of this is rocket science. The gap between the capabilities we need to carry out the foreign and security policies of the UK government and the money available to fund those capabilities grows ever wider.

All to often the very next step in the debate is a half-educated rant about other budgets, wastage, yada, yada yada.

Austerity has a very long way to go [read up on the "soggy recovery" - more and more analysts feel we are going to live a very long time in very austere world]

There will be no blank cheques for the military - just a great many hard and unpopular choices.

And as for those ****ing carriers, don't get me started.

[The Old Fat One]

BBC News - Long, long slog to mend public finances (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30320570)

Read this...it's Peston doing his thing, but the meat of it comes from the OBR

This quote is particularly grim

It shows that that if a new Tory government delivered on its pledge to protect spending on schools and hospitals, the cuts for other public services - such as the police, courts, social services, local government and so on - would be so big as perhaps to defy credibility.

Defence would come under "...and so on" in that quote.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

"The second story is that the best performing, big developed economy in the world - that's us by the way, as assessed by speed of GDP growth - is generating far less tax than expected.

And the biggest shortfall, roughly half of it, is in income tax, which reflects the creation of lots of new low wage jobs and the absence of meaningful pay rises for millions."

Um, I fail to see why less income tax was unexpected. The Government was fully aware, as was everybody else, that low wage jobs were the ones being created. This is logical rubbish, nevermind evidently dumb policy.

Should you be short of comedic reading material, the following link is to the 2010 manifestos (see in the Health section for further links to the other parties)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7165000/conservative-manifesto.html

The Conservatives undertook to eliminate the bulk of the Deficit by 2015. The deficit has in fact risen slightly. The projected date for eliminating the bulk of the deficit is now 2018/9. In other words, the five year target is still 5 years way. Jam tomorrow.

[BEagle]

Nevertheless, listening to the utter rubbish spouted by the aptly named Ed Balls yesterday, just imagine how broke we'd be if that little non-entity Miliband was running the country.....:uhoh:

There's no golden bullet, but the country is doing well under the current government. Unfortunately ill-educated oiks and mad fascists are allowed to vote, so whether DC will still be at the helm next year is uncertain. I certainly hope he will.

But just how much more money will be thrown into the black hole of NHS incompetence?

Now that the UK is out of Afghanistan, just how many Chinooks and C-130s does the country really need? I wouldn't be surprised to see a reduction in the SH fleet, with many aircraft mothballed and for the C-130s to be retired early as Atlas comes into operational service.

[orca]

Is the question more one of need being a necessity and most of our equipment programme being top end aspiration?

Perhaps we need DSD that is far more brutally realistic and an equipment and manning solution that is adequate.

[The Old Fat One]

Um, I fail to see why less income tax was unexpected. The Government was fully aware, as was everybody else, that low wage jobs were the ones being created. This is logical rubbish, nevermind evidently dumb policy.

you are totally tight mate, but I think bilge like this is fed to the public, because they (we) buy it. You don't have to look to far to find all manner of economists, businessmen and even journos predicting back in 2008, that in 2015 we would be right where we are.

But just how much more money will be thrown into the black hole of NHS incompetence?

As much as is needed to keep the government of the day in power. No offence Beags, but it's a pointless rhetorical question. Spending on defence is only a priority when there is a proper (hot) war on. We all know that, it was ever thus.

The military folk I know are clever, astute people...they need to adjust to the realities of the world we live in and make their career choices accordingly...based on the needs of themselves and their families.

[Party Animal]

And as for those ****ing carriers, don't get me started.


And as for the ring-fenced bloated overseas aid budget - don't get me started!! :mad:

[Wrathmonk]

There will be no blank cheques for the military - just a great many hard and unpopular choices.

Therein lies one of the problems - the military hierarchy are not prepared to make the hard choice and tell the government of the day that the 'strategic direction' is not achievable with the assets available. They take it as 'risk' (perhaps better known as 'capability holiday'!) and (figuratively) cross their fingers. Too many 'yes' men waiting in the wings who would sell their soul for another star or a knighthood.:(

Also not helped by the petty inter-service willy waving - if one service chief pops his head above the parapet and says 'no' one of the other two will soon pipe up with 'give us the assets (or more realistically the money) and we will make it work' (even though that money will no doubt be diverted to their single service 'pet project' instead resulting in more 'risk'). And this is not a swipe at any particular service - all three are as bad as each other.

Been a long time since a Chief of the Defence Staff has taken a stand whilst in post. Always amuses me how quick they are to speak out once they take the uniform off......:ugh:

[The Old Fat One]

And as for the ring-fenced bloated overseas aid budget - don't get me started!!

Kinda make my point there. What you and I think of the spending priorities is utterly irrelevant. All that matters is what will happen to the defence budget in the next five years. The smart money is on it being hacked away at once more.

That means fewer people. And what do you think your five stars will do when the ever-stretched forces are asked to do yet another unforeseen task...

a. Raise two fingers to the minister and tell him/her we're closed for more business?

b. Bend over the ministers desk, drop trousers (or raise skirt) and ask for it good n hard?

Use your heads people...if you want to be a workaholic, get your arse on the outside...you'll make a ton more money.

PS Wrathmonk...totally

[Not_a_boffin]

Posted this elsewhere yesterday. Shows the scale of the challenge.

We are, as a country, determined to spend beyond our means. We spend north of £700Bn a year of which £460Bn (that's 66%) is split across three departments (Health, Education, Social Security - inc pensions) where there will in general be ever increasing demand, partly because we have an increasing population (both from immigration and an ageing population) and partly because the scope of those services will always tend to increase as well (treatment because we can, lifestyle issues, education scope etc etc). Two of those budgets are ringfenced and the other contains a component (pensions) that will only continue to increase whatever you do to other parts of it. This means that the burden of "trying to live within our means" falls disproportionately on other departments. Just so that's clear, the £84Bn to balance the budget would need to be found from around £270Bn of spending, across departments where the biggest of those remaining is (you've guessed it) the MoD at £38Bn. We going to get much of the £84Bn out of that? Or the Home office at £32bn? Or the next biggest, which is the support to home carers at £31Bn?

Delivery of services in the big three departments is predominantly (but not exclusively) via the public sector and any attempt to improve efficiency in a meaningful way (as opposed to mandating "efficiency savings", which end up being cuts) are resisted tooth and nail, some with good reason, others far less so.

We cannot drastically increase the tax take, because if we're honest, the big areas for tax take are mobile and can and will move out of our jurisdiction, with knock-on effects on employment and other taxation. As an illustration, there remains a significant body of people within this country that believe "I've paid me stamp, I'm entitled" - National Insurance collects £110Bn pa or put another way, less than 25% of what is required to support the three departments that form the cornerstone of the welfare state. The money fairy does not exist, so either we find more money from somewhere, or we stop spending as much (and no the DFID budget doesn't even scratch the surface). See graphic from the fount of all wisdom - the Grauniad.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/dat...t-2014-tax-spending-visualised#zoomed-picture

In short, we need to stop and think what we're doing, because demand is always likely to exceed supply. A spending competition is why Ed Balls and Wallace are not to be trusted with anything more complicated than a crayon, let alone a bacon sandwich.

[Selatar]

The Autumn statement certainly sets the landscape for SDSR 15. Sadly, it will almost certainly be as painful as the last IMHO.

Beagle - whilst I don't disagree in principle regarding some hard decisions on exactly how many of the 24 'hard used' C-130Js can be removed from FE&R they remain a very busy force even post afghan. As for rotary the RAF has seen/is seeing a circa 50% cut with the deletion of merlin and seaking and a smaller puma force. Whilst cutting chinook capability may seem tempting they are more important than ever before to Army and 3 squadrons doesn't leave much fat.

In truth, and even with recent centre experience, it's hard to see where large RAF cuts will occur especially given the enduring Iraq commitment.

[Levelling_the_Land]

Beagle, I'll have to pull you up on "the black hole of NHS incompetence".

I agree the health budget is huge, and the analysis by many here of the relative budgets of departments, spending cuts required and where they may fall is spot on.

However

"the NHS is the cheapest system in the world producing the best health outcomes. The New York-based Commonwealth Fund ranks 11 advanced countries' health systems for cost and health outcomes. Britain spends $3,404 (£2,000) per head on health compared with the $8,508 (£5,001) by the open-to-new-entrants US system, with the other nine countries in between."

Taken from

The NHS is loved and efficient, so why the obsession with reform? | Will Hutton | Comment is free | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/21/stop-corporate-vultures-tearing-heart-out-of-nhs)

Now, you can shoot the messenger, Will Hutton does have a particular angle. I personally think the NHS is trying to do too much, and in an undoubted age of austerity should do less. But globally, healthcare costs are an issue. In the NHS, for all its faults, we have the most efficient system in the world.

[sharpend]

All very interesting. All very sad.

Simple arithmetic. We have spent beyond our means and those who we appoint to manage our money have done very badly. But it is not defence which takes up the lions share.

For the period 2013 - 14 welfare took about 25% of Government money. Health & Education came second & third respectively. Defence took a mere 7% or so (behind national debt interest!)

I suspect, now we are out of Afghanistan, defence will take a major cut. So what will happen? Amalgamation of the RAF with the Army & Navy? Top down cuts? Let's see. But let's redefine our foreign policy so that we don't ever again spend billions on an empire that does not exist.

But we really do need to cut where it can make a significant effect. That is Welfare. Welfare, Welfare. That will also have a knock on effect. If we were not a soft-touch nation there would not be a lengthy queue of economic migrants trying to get into the UK.

Finally, we should look at overseas aid. Is it right that we send vast amounts of a money to other countries for them to waste it on rockets ships or corruption?

[pr00ne]

NHS isn't a Black Hole of Incompetence,

How about the black of incompetence that is the Ministry of Defence and the Defence budget?

We have the fifth largest defence spend on the face of the planet, and yet face a constant round of capability reductions, holidays and falling numbers of absolutely everything.

The recent wars are a severe factor in this but have been largely funded from Government contingency reserve spending and not the defence budget.

Just imagine what the Israeli or Japanese forces would look like if they had our level of spending?

Something is rotten in the state of our military spending.

And it isn't the amount of money...

[sitigeltfel]

But we really do need to cut where it can make a significant effect. That is Welfare. Welfare, Welfare. That will also have a knock on effect. If we were not a soft-touch nation there would not be a lengthy queue of economic migrants trying to get into the UK.

The Muslim hate preacher, Anjem Choudary, who was the inspiration and apologist for the murderers of Fusilier Lee Rigby, receives in excess of £25k per annum from the UK taxpayer. As per his "rights" :ugh:

I don't know what pay Fusilier Rigby would receive but I doubt it was anywhere near £25k, and he would have tax and other charges deducted from it.

[Party Animal]

As a nation we really need to have a national debate rathet than fumbling around on a shifting sands basis. Do we really want a 5* public sector matched to a belief in a significant global presence and capability?

If the answer is yes, then it will have to be paid for. This can either be through increased taxation or increased international borrowing.

Any sensible person should rule out increased borrowing so the real answer is pay more tax or fundamentally re-write how we do health, welfare, education, defence etc..

Sadly our political leadership on any side seem to be burying their heads in the sand with the standard lines of; we will spend more on the NHS, more on education, will lower taxation and borrow less etc..

If the main parties both agree that the UK needs to save or cut another £84Bn from non-ringfenced OGD budgets (as they appear to do), then I look forward to seeing their detailed plans of how they will achieve this prior to the election next May. :uhoh:

[Thelma Viaduct]

The 'government' is all about putting public money in to private hands. The public sector is being dismantled, we are paying for services twice over whilst they receive an 11% payrise and fill their gold plated pension pots

The number of billionaires has doubled during 'austerity', meanwhile the national debt is costing £1billion per week in interest alone.

Start asking "WHY" are there Foodbanks "WHY" are 5M people living on poverty wages "WHY" are 90,000 children homeless this Christmas.

They couldn't run a sweet shop, let alone a defence budget.

[sitigeltfel]

The 'government' is all about putting public money in to private hands.

Just ask yourself, "Where did this money come from in the first place if it is not from private individuals and businesses that had to work hard to earn it?"

The public sector is being dismantledNo, a bloated out of control gargantuan is being told to get its act together.

The number of billionaires has doubled during 'austerity',Where are they from and did they make their money from the UK?

Start asking "WHY" are there Foodbanks "WHY" are 5M people living on poverty wages "WHY" are 90,000 children homeless this Christmas.The foodbanks are a political weapon. Offer something for free and you will never be short of visitors.
To say there are 5m in the UK on "poverty wages" is an insult to the genuine poor throughout the word. Again ask yourself "Why are so many people clamouring to enter the UK?"
If you want to know why so many kids are homeless just look at all the Leftist policies that sneer at, and strive towards dismantling the family unit.

They couldn't run a sweet shopSpoken by someone who has probably never had to run a retail business and trying to make a meagre living while all the agencies of the state are queueing up to relieve you of your takings.

Pious, indeed!

[Wrathmonk]

"WHY" are there Foodbanks

So that benefits can be better spent on the "essentials" in life - fags, booze, 50" plasma televisions, Sky subscription, naff bling etc etc. :rolleyes:

[Thelma Viaduct]

Pure ignorance there fella, well done.

[Mechta]

Quote:
"WHY" are there Foodbanks
So that benefits can be better spent on the "essentials" in life - fags, booze, 50" plasma televisions, Sky subscription, naff bling etc etc. :rolleyes:
The simple answer to that is to provide stamps or credits which can only be used for essentials. How much of the benefits money handed out ends up in the hands of loan sharks and utility companies because the poor are on the highest tariff 'pay as you use' meters because they won't pay bills? Before hard cash is given out, the receipients need educating and to demonstrate they can manage it and use it wisely. If the recipients can't prioritise, then the benefits provider should do this.

What makes it worse is that when someone comes off the dole, the benefits stop immediately, leaving the individual to wait a month or more for their first pay packet, thus making them easy pickings for the likes of Wonga as they struggle to make ends meet. Hardly an incentive to get a job.

A mandatory blood test for evidence of drug use before benefits can be received in cash would prevent a lot of it ending up in the hands of dealers.

[tucumseh]

Like MoD, there are parts of the NHS which run with supreme efficiency, and parts that are riddled with fraud, corruption and incompetence. In both, the good bits are often those free of direct political influence or staffed by those that resist it.



The defence budget isn’t all spent on equipment and I’ve never seen an answer to the question – are comparisons with other countries made on a like for like basis?



One must look at fixed and variable commitments. Broadly, very different parts of MoD are responsible for each. In simple terms, the former aren’t up for grabs. The potential for savings narrows considerably. These fixed (or very difficult to vary) commitments include the likes of PFI payments. Did I mention fraud, corruption, political influence and lack of bottle?



The tendency to live beyond our means, while hiding the cost in a credit card. This caused much of our country’s recent ills in the first place, at an individual level. I wonder how many went into the red last “Black” Friday? The difference is, the Ministerial policy makers aren’t personally responsible when the bill eventually comes in; they’ve retired on honking great pensions. Similarly, those in MoD who signed their name to false statements that this was a good spend against the defence budget. A responsibility conveniently delegated to them by PUS and Ministers, whose names don’t appear on the contract. In effect, Government policy requires such staff to commit fraud. In fact, the Government and MoD openly admit this.



Then, to “savings”. What does that mean? Savings that do not affect operational effectiveness, or savings for the sake of savings. Usually it means the latter. Our leaders simply don’t want to know about the former, because by definition it exposes prior incompetence and fraud. That is why, for example, the Chief Accounting Officer (PUS) has never implemented the various internal (never mind external) audit reports that spell out in excruciating detail that his senior staffs consciously waste money for short term protectionism.



There is always much chatter about how the defence budget is spent and poor performance. You seldom hear the politicians ask about success stories and how to learn lessons. A year ago I’d have said “Never”, but last year the House of Commons Defence Select Committee Chair (James Arbuthnott at the time) asked this very question and sought a short report on an aircraft programme that was delivered ahead of schedule, under “budget” and to a far better specification than requested. Arbuthnott then stepped down and now the Committee doesn’t want to know. Kudos to Arbuthnott for trying to open the box, but it tells you much that he only did it when he knew he was going. The political pressure from above to perpetuate inefficiency is overwhelming; and it is the same in MoD. (In 1999, half way through that programme, the old Chief of Defence Procurement was up in front of the Public Accounts Committee on the same subject. Instead of telling them the truth, he was deliberately briefed a pack of lies that showed MoD(PE) in a poor light. Why would you do that? The answer is simple. The bar shall not be raised. Always dumb down).



I’d like to see “GOCO” implemented properly. (Oops, shouldn’t put it like that, because Bernard Gray presented it as his own idea. Update and re-issue the 1991 Def Stan). Start with a well-defined domain, like avionics. In parallel, revamp MoD’s commercial operations. There was nothing wrong with the practice of having contractors draft the proposed contract (same Def Stan, and if a GOCO bidder didn’t suggest this I’d exclude him!), leaving a smaller number of better trained MoD staffs to scrutinise them before signing. And forget the nonsense that only Commercial can let contracts – that was and always has been a dangerous fallacy and major constraint. Those simple areas cause so much delay and waste, not to mention diverting highly trained staffs from their primary role when the resultant problems have to be fixed.

[Thelma Viaduct]

It's not a recession, it's a robbery and you're being fooled.

http://youtu.be/7ZCs3eus3YU

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

The simple answer to that is to provide stamps or credits which can only be used for essentials.

Dream on. I was a milkman briefly in the '90s. Convenience store owners in Leicester would cheerfully take childrens milk tokens for ciggies & booze, leaving the milk bill unpaid.

[Mechta]

Quote:
The simple answer to that is to provide stamps or credits which can only be used for essentials.
Dream on. I was a milkman briefly in the '90s. Convenience store owners in Leicester would cheerfully take childrens milk tokens for ciggies & booze, leaving the milk bill unpaid.

Fox3, so you're saying because a few people abused a system, we should live with a worse one, rather than punishing those who abused the better one? If you make the fines sufficiently draconian and do spot checks, then the shopkeepers will toe the line.

[Heathrow Harry]

non ring fenced departments are looking at another 15-30% cut

In defence I guess that means Army of around 50,000, no F-35, no more Typhoons, carriers mothballed when built and T26 somewhere in the 22nd century

[Thelma Viaduct]

This next vid sums up what's wrong with the broken 'system', but I'm sure those on here that thought GW2 was a good idea i.e. the blinkered idiots, will disagree.

http://youtu.be/Hg8c_t0Ba6k

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

First, it wasn't just a few people. The inability of milkmen to get paid is fundamentally what killed doorstep delivery, in Leicester at least.
Secondly, draconian fines and efficient spot checks don't seem to be either happening or working anywhere else. Not illegal working, not illegal alcohol and cigarette sales, nowhere.
I agree the current system sucks, but I dispute your contention that stamps is a better one. It's a simpler one, agreed, but in my experience it doesn't work.

update: This just in http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/money-mart-will-buy-your-gift-cards-for-half-the-price-1.2860704

The problem is threefold. Firstly, there are no household economic management lessons in schools, which is ridiculous. Trying to educate people after they are in trouble is bolting the stable door. Secondly, the level of commercial exploitation of benefit recipients is way out of control. The Government needs to get a grip on payday loans, gambling, etc; preferably in my view by banning the lot of them. Irresponsible lending caused 2008, and this is no different. Lastly, if someone needs a washing machine, give them a washing machine. They can't drink, smoke or gamble that.

Back to Defence. The Government is not prepared to cut its commitments to match its capabilities, and has no money to increase capabilities within the current procurement system. There is also a generation of VSOs who aren't prepared to tell them so. This has only one inevitable outcome - defeat.

[melmothtw]

Now that the UK is out of Afghanistan, just how many Chinooks and C-130s does the country really need? I wouldn't be surprised to see a reduction in the SH fleet, with many aircraft mothballed and for the C-130s to be retired early as Atlas comes into operational service.

Don't be too keen to call ENDEX on Afghanistan BEagle, especially as far as the Chinook force is concerned - UK retains Chinooks in Afghanistan - IHS Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/46449/uk-retains-chinooks-in-afghanistan)

It's interesting to note that the Chinooks have been on deployment every year since they entered service in 1981. I'm sure there will be plenty of tasks for them once Afghanistan does finally wind to an end.

As for the C-130s, again I wouldn't be too premature in calling time on them either - UK may retain C-130J Hercules for special forces duties - IHS Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/43128/uk-may-retain-c-130j-hercules-for-special-forces-duties)

I read in AvWeek also that the MoD has begun a study on replacing the centre-wing boxes on a number of the C-130Js, probably related to the SOF option.

[alfred_the_great]

As the ISF notes, the majority of "Welfare" is targeted towards Pensioners


So of the £205 billion or so spent on tax credits and social security benefits about £111 billion is spent on those over pension age and £94 billion on those of working age.

Figure 1 and Table 1 show this breakdown of the 25% of total spending described as "welfare" by the government, alongside the 12% spent on state pensions. 4% goes on "personal social services", 3% on public service pensions, 4% on other benefits for pensioners, and the remaining 14% on benefits for those of working age.


What is welfare spending? - Institute For Fiscal Studies - IFS (http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7424)

[melmothtw]

...and I was almost in danger of getting this thread back on topic **sigh**.

[Archimedes]

Come, come, Melmothtw, you've been around long enough to know that as soon as someone mentions welfare, you get at least one person who disputes the view portrayed, whereupon the thread turns into Question Time lite...

But thanks for the links - had managed to miss one of them when perusing Janes :ok:

[Al R]

IPPR (https://mobile.twitter.com/ippr/status/540420928640135168) predicts the next Parliament will need to cut costs in defence budget to tune of £9bn.

[The Old Fat One]

If you want to keep a topic on thread (in any internet forum) simply ignore trolls/trolling, or just be polite/apologetic about digression.

On topic...circa 2010 Stephanie Flaunders, then BBC economics lead journo, wrote a piece re "socially impossible budget cuts" (sorry the link has gone).

Her point being, back in 2010, the level of cuts required to balance the books were simply to big for society to except - ergo they were not achievable and would not happen. She was 100% correct. She said we would get austerity lite plus smoke and mirrors.

I suggest, we are still in the same place, and specifically cutting defence by such a large amount will prove politically challenging. That said, defence is in for a rough time whatever happens.

Off topic...the UK general election is due in a little over 5 months and every political party is committed to balancing the books and austerity in some form or other, so lets be realistic hey.

[Willard Whyte]

I'd imagine there will be the odd nibble around the edges of the defence budget maybe the odd £Billion, but nothing like cuts of 15-30%. You can probably kiss goodbye to annual pay rises in excess of 1% for a few more years though.

If multi-billion cuts are made then yes certainly, one (or more) major programs will have to be shelved.

[HTB]

TOFO


Is this the Stephanie Flanders link to which you refer:


BBC - Stephanomics: Fairness and the recovery: Two verdicts for Mr Osborne (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2010/10/fairness_and_the_recovery_two.html)


note the spelling of surname - she is daughter of the late Michael Flanders, who achieved some fame as half the Flanders and (Donald) Swann duo, performers of inter alia comical songs.


Mister B

[Alpha Whiskey]

Pr00ne raises a very good point. We have the 5th largest defence budget in the world but that doesn't reflect in the size and capability of our armed forces in the global context. Obviously there is a lot of nuance in that - some bigger militaries do lots of off the shelf acquisition, use old/second hand kit or simply offset capability with numbers etc


To my mind, there are 2 reasons for the mis-match- an overwhelming and inefficient desire to achieve absolute value for money on every defence pound and strategic industrial requirements.


On the first point, whilst we absolutely do need to deliver value for money on the budget we have, there is a point in pursuit of that where that desire itself costs money. I think of the MoD scrutiny process, contracting arrangements, approvals staffing etc etc. Whenever we think we have hacked that area, another group of people, with a vote, seem to pop up and so the wheel turns.


As for industrial requirements, it is now pretty clear that the MoD is unable to run effective, competitive tenders due to national strategic requirements to maintain certain industrial capabilities. that, therefore, comes at a cost and one the MoD seems to bear unilaterally. When I last served in the MOD, there was some talk on gaining cross-Whitehall consensus on other depts. contributing to this fixed overhead, but it seems that plan went nowhere as far as I know.


At the end of the day though, we are a democracy and no matter how much we decry the spend on perceived inefficiencies elsewhere or a welfare system that seems to discourage employment and contribution etc, the (lack of) defence awareness within our nation, coupled with the Iraq/Afgh effect, simply doesn't permit the case to be made on behalf of the MOD budget.

[kintyred]

We need to upgrade our nuclear capability.....so I'm told.
We can afford it.....so I'm told
It's not negotiable so all those things that are under review must be less important, like education, transposrt, NHS (which, by the way, spends £7bn per annum on compensating patients for botched operations and the same on fraud....still think it's a good organisation?)

[tucumseh]

On the first point, whilst we absolutely do need to deliver value for money on the budget we have, there is a point in pursuit of that where that desire itself costs money. I think of the MoD scrutiny process, contracting arrangements, approvals staffing etc etc. Whenever we think we have hacked that area, another group of people, with a vote, seem to pop up and so the wheel turns. Requirement Scrutiny is the mandated process by which MoD ensures a proposed spend is “good”. The process itself is not inefficient nor does it cost much – if done properly. It is NOT done properly, and hasn’t been for over 20 years. Successive PUSs, who mandate the process, have been told this on numerous occasions by MoD’s own auditors. I suspect your (justified) view is based on the result of this failure, not the process itself.


As for industrial requirements, it is now pretty clear that the MoD is unable to run effective, competitive tenders Again, you are correct. While the official policy is “competition”, as a matter of policy MoD has not employed the necessary expertise to run and assess competitions for the same 20+ years. There are other factors. Political interference. Many competitions have run for excruciatingly long periods (years) only for the clear winner to be rejected on an overrule because he is not in a constituency of the Government in power.

More obscurely, in 2000 the Chief of Defence Procurement issued a formal ruling that if Thales (no one else, just Thales) expressed an interest in an ongoing project, the project manager was expected to cancel the contracts and start all over again with Thales. Regardless of cost or delay. (Inability to do the job was taken for granted). In December 2000 he went so far as to uphold disciplinary action against staff for refusing to do this (such an act would never pass the above scrutiny), instead insisting on delivering to time, cost and performance. This was utterly deranged, but was not a one-off act of lunacy. To my personal knowledge this ruling has been upheld at least 5 times in the past year alone, most recently this week!

I’m afraid under such “leadership” those in DE&S who try to do the right thing are stuck between a rock and hard place. 15 years ago, or even 10, it could have been fixed. But today, because there are so very few left who have been taught properly, I see a GOCO type structure as the only way out for MoD. But even then, as I said before, it is highly unlikely they will follow the extant rules, because Bernard Gray won’t want to admit “his” solution is simply to regress to an old policy that actually worked. So, what we’ve got, is a bastardised version which didn’t even draw a bid from a reputable defence contractor.

[Party Animal]

Requirement Scrutiny is the mandated process by which MoD ensures a proposed spend is “good”. The process itself is not inefficient nor does it cost much – if done properly.


However Tuc - and this is possibly an example of what AW is referring to; anytime, I'm away from base on 'company' business requires me to go through a tortuous process of approval, bookings, accountancy and claiming back expenditure. By the time these steps have been ticked, travel costs will have probably risen dramatically, hotel costs are at the mercy of the Central Booking system which typically would put me in a sh1t boxroom in a 4* rather than a much nicer and cheaper (and convenient) Travelodge AND we employ an army of civil servants who are supposed to check every one of the pile of receipts I have to keep for 3 years.

How about a system where JPA justs puts £x in my pay chit for everyday away from home and thats it. Seems to work for a vast number of private organisations around the world and removes the need to spend £100k per station to save £15.60 per year on someone who had 2 glasses of wine with dinner rather than 1!

[The Old Fat One]

HTB,

No that's not it...it was far more "austerity-specific" than that blog. In fact, it was identical to any number of articles appearing in newspapers today. This led me to conjecture why SF's blog/point in 2010 did not get more attention along the lines of the furore which has kicked up today...and I suspect I know why.

Back in 2010 the crash/credit crunch/call-it-what-you-will was pretty fresh in our minds and we, Joe Public, expected a lot of unpleasant fallout and bitter medicine. Close to five years later, I think a lot of people are thinking that the economy is a) fixed b) almost fixed c) partly fixed.

It has come as an unpleasant shock to more than a few, to find that we ain't even close and in all probability, what you see is what you get for a very long time still. And BTW, I'm an optimist.

[Mechta]

How about a system where JPA justs puts £x in my pay chit for everyday away from home and thats it. Seems to work for a vast number of private organisations around the world and removes the need to spend £100k per station to save £15.60 per year on someone who had 2 glasses of wine with dinner rather than 1!It used to be a bit like that in the 1980s for MOD(PE). Depending on your grade, you were given a set amount for accommodation. Some youth hostels and cheaper B&Bs were kept very busy.

[tucumseh]

However Tuc - and this is possibly an example of what AW is referring to.............

Indeed. I was talking mainly about capital expenditure. I recall when the Hotel Booking Service was introduced. A young lady of 16 was sent to Glasgow on a course. Her first time away from home. The HBS booked her into a cheapo place, but when she arrived on the late train she discovered the cost was "per hour".

Mechta has it right. You'd be given, say, £35 and what you did with it was up to you. When HBS came in, the £35 became £60 minimum; then they discovered MoD would actually go to nearer £100. The system demanded 3 Stars or more, with certain facilities like writing paper, desk etc. You'd find yourself booked into a place 30 miles from the factory instead of the guest house next door. MoD(PE)'s "solution" in our case was to insist 140 miles each way from AbbeyWood to Crawley was commutable so no overnighters. Be there for 0830 start, leave at 1800. Same for guys on Detached Duty from Fleetlands to London. 3 hours+ each way for years on end. It took its toll. My mate Brian died on the steps of St Giles Court. Investors in People? Don't make me laugh.

[Finningley Boy]

NHS isn't a Black Hole of Incompetence,

How about the black of incompetence that is the Ministry of Defence and the Defence budget?

We have the fifth largest defence spend on the face of the planet, and yet face a constant round of capability reductions, holidays and falling numbers of absolutely everything.



pr00ne,

You are, I imagine quite right about the Defence Budget, it still amazes me, overseas campaigns or no, that we have so few actual assets. It had been suggested, but I'm not sure, that the Strategic Nuclear Deterrent is now paid for out of the peace time defence budget, rather than capitol expenditure, that would explain a bit. However, your black and white view contrasting the NHS budget with the defence budget doesn't seem entirely objective. Both, it would seem are ridden with incompetence and self interest and over officious spending practices. Further, given the amount of cash made available to the NHS (and I don't begrudge them a penny, I have need of their services on routine basis now:ok:) I do think that to defend the NHS and I dare say welfare budgets and complain about poor funding, as others not necessarily yourself have maintained, is a little rich (pardon the pun!) especially when the defence budget has been put through the proverbial mill, not since 2010 but since 1990. By the way, I thought we had the fourth largest defence budget on the planet?:E

FB:)

[Mechta]

Indeed. I was talking mainly about capital expenditure. I recall when the Hotel Booking Service was introduced. A young lady of 16 was sent to Glasgow on a course. Her first time away from home. The HBS booked her into a cheapo place, but when she arrived on the late train she discovered the cost was "per hour".

tucumseh, Love it!!! :D:D:D

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire

The rich senatorial aristocrats in Rome itself became increasingly influential during the fifth century; they supported armed strength in theory, but did not wish to pay for it or to offer their own workers as army recruits.

The ineffectiveness of Roman military responses from Stilicho onwards has been described as "shocking", with little evidence of .. adequate training, discipline, pay, or supply.

The fifth-century Western emperors, with brief exceptions, were individuals incapable of ruling effectively.

Any of this ring any bells?

[salad-dodger]

Tucumseh has a lifetime of axes to grind across the PPRuNe threads. So many bad experiences to recount, whether they are his or experienced vicariously! Every day is groundhog day for Tuc as the opportunities to slate MoD are never ending.

S-D

[The Old Fat One]

Fox3

Very timely and apposite.

Today's announcement re base in Bahrain, reminds us that the Brit way is foreign policy first...throw the job at the military and tell them to get one with second.

First a week of announcing potential mega-cuts, then start talking about new overseas commitments.

OK, I know full well the Bahrain base does not amount to much more than we have been doing for years...that's not my point. We are committing once more to the "international policeman" role, which, whatever its merits, places huge strains on our defense resources. Only after we have made these commitments will anybody start worrying about how we are going to resource them....because basically we always find a way to muddle through. Increasingly the burden of all that muddling falls squarely on the shoulders of the British tommie.

[Melchett01]

The Telegraph are running a story about critical shortages across the Services today, highlighting areas designated as Operational Pinch Points - seems to be a perfect example of where need and budgets collide.

http://http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11276821/Armed-Forces-have-critical-shortage-of-submariners-intelligence-officers-and-medics.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11276821/Armed-Forces-have-critical-shortage-of-submariners-intelligence-officers-and-medics.html)

For the RAF, IntOs, Police and Regt have apparently all been designated OPPs ... I assume there is a plan to resolve the issue if they are undermining operational output ... other than as is suggested, making them exempt from compulsory redundancy????:\

It never ceases to amaze me how Defence has somehow managed to convince itself that being financially responsible somehow equates to not wanting to pay for anything these days.

Biggus - try now, thanks for the heads up. Fat fingers + IT idiocy x iPad = cock up on my part more than likely.

And having just seen Fox3s post, yep, that all sounds familiar!

[Biggus]

Melchett,

Thanks for the info, but your link doesn't appear to work - unless I'm being an IT idiot.

[Lima Juliet]

I have a defence saving - get rid if the Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) and their cartel Regional Prime Contractors (RPCs). The annual infra budget is £4.5Bn and I reckon you could see an immediate £2Bn saving.

Why? Because DIO and their RPC crooks at "40% variance" to all costed jobs - guess what? They nearly always come in over cost near this 40%! I have seen some outrageous costings for very shabby work at Stn level and there is no competition. There are so many good craftsmen in the local area who want the work and would do it for half the cost - I know because I've had some in for a quote, only to be told that I must use the RPC at twice the cost! :ugh:

We only need DIO for a regulatory function and for strategic infra planning - but at the local level, the RPCs combined with DIO is a disaster...IMHO.

As for other Govt savings, then the elephant in the room is HS2. At £50Bn plus and climbing, this should be shelved and investment in existing and dormant rail lines should be made. The new East/West rail link is a good case in point which travels between Oxford and Cambridge (roughly). The cost are ~£300M and there are other options 'up North' which would also bring much benefit for much smaller investment. The soon to be rolled out link between Oxford and Marleybone is also costed at very small amounts (in comparison to HS2) and will carve 25% off the travelling time between London and Oxford. Here is a list of potential improvements for very little cost (also ripe for outside investors): http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/re-opening-rail-lines#em

Finally, scale back the ~£40Bn Trident replacement to cruise missile delivery - from ships, planes and submarines and you could yield at least a £20Bn reduction. Lots of little nukes have a better chance to get through than a few MRV warheads from a single boat.

There you go, I reckon you could make ~£10Bn per year without touching the NHS and schools. Sort out the immigrant access to benefits and other social services without paying any tax/NI and you will have more savings.

Problem, sorted, next? :ok:

LJ

PS. My name is not Nigel Farage!

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Next? is How do you get yourself elected LJ ? ;)

Common sense is all very well, but there seems to be some kind of common sense removal process on getting elected; much like Bootie or Rock Ape brain-removal or WRAF Officer legs inversion etc

[Lima Juliet]

F3WMB

I always found the average bootie way more intelligent than a para - however, that's not much of a comparison!

Yes, I agree, the answers seem so glaringly obvious that sometimes I think I must be missing something. How about a PPrune Political Wing? I'd vote Coffman for the PM and you and I could be in his cabinet, if he'd have us! :ok:

LJ

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

How clever do you think current politicians are?
Intelligent and devious, yes; but not the least bit clever.
If their election depended on their ability to produce effective policy, they'd all be on the dole in a week.
I've worked under 3 people with degrees in politics/history (check the current Cabinet); not one of them could plan for the future worth a damn.

[Lima Juliet]

Ah, the beloved career politician - degree in Philosophy, Polictics and Economics (PPE), internship for a year in the city so that they state they have a commercial background, some time in Political Research Group, support a campaign, get in via a safe seat and then away you go; a life in politics for the rest of your life, never minding if you actually believe in what you are spouting because someone will.

I've always thought that you should be 35+ to become a politician. You must have had a career for at least 10 years before and have to sit some form of general knowledge quiz on the UK to prove that you have a basic 'working knowledge' of the UK.

It will never happen, though, as turkeys don't vote for Christmas and neither will a career politician invoke a scheme like I outlined!

There needs to be a big upset, like UKIP's Euro vote, at the General Election for a new wave of politics to occur. We also need to have a 'night of the long knives' within our own area and get rid of the uniform wearing politicians we have bred who think that Shrivenham Poly is the 'be all and end all'. We've only got to look at some of the crass decisions made by our own in Main Building, PJHQ or 4-star single-service HQs to see that common sense has long since gone in some.

LJ

[CoffmanStarter]

I'd vote Coffman for the PM and you and I could be in his cabinet ...

Only if BEagle will take Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Buster Hayman as Secretary of State for Health and Courtney as Secretary of State for Justice ...

LJ, Defence for you old chap and Fox3WMB, would you like to take Secretary of State for Transport ?

:E

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Education please. - or am I ruled out because I have 12 years experience and an excellent track record? ;)

[CoffmanStarter]

Fine with me Fox3WMB ... Education for you it is then :ok:

Any suggestions for Chief Whip :E

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

http://pursuitmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/dominatrix-in-red.jpg

[tucumseh]

Because DIO and their RPC crooks at "40% variance" to all costed jobs - guess what?

Like it Leon.


uniform wearing politicians we have bred who think that Shrivenham Poly is the 'be all and end all'. We've only got to look at some of the crass decisions made by our own in Main Building, PJHQ or 4-star single-service HQs to see that common sense has long since gone in some.

Like it even more! Don't forget the civilians who "graduate" from Shrivenham with diplomas or degrees in "Defence Administration". I recall one who was allowed to dictate the nature of an Assesssment Phase contract on a Cat A programme (i.e. £400M+). The world and his dog said yes, all milestones may indeed be met on time. BUT, nothing will be delivered that is of any use whatsoever, and in 3 years time we'll have to start all over again. Well, that was wrong. The programme did fall apart after 3 years, but they didn't start again, they diluted it to a fraction of the original endorsement. Main aim of programme? Reduce casualties. Got to get your priorities right, haven't you?

[kintyred]

Leon,

All sound ideas methinks. A saving of of £10bn a year is not to be sniffed at. how are you going to tackle the other £90bn a year that the deficit currently runs at?

[skippedonce]

IPPR (https://mobile.twitter.com/ippr/status/540420928640135168) predicts the next Parliament will need to cut costs in defence budget to tune of £9bn.Which would see the UK lose whatever credibility we currently retain within NATO as one of the flagbearers for the 2% of GDP Defence Spending pledge!

[Lima Juliet]

Here you go, more ideas to save money...

1. Too many politicians:

A. Look at one parliament for the whole of Britain - devolution is costing money. Party Political 'whipping' is the issue here where your local MP is not allowed to support their local issues if it falls out of line with the party political ideals - this to me has always meant that a Scottish MP couldn't bring local issues to Westminster and why we are in the mess with all the devolution. The savings could be huge if we slimmed down the amount of parliaments.

B. Look at how many councils we have - councils within councils within councils - stick to one County Council. If you look at HS2, the locals in Aylesbury Vale missed out on an intermediate station because the FIVE local councils couldn't agree - that's Bucks County Council, Aylesbury Vale District Council, Chilterns District Council, Milton Keynes District Council and Wycombe District Council - how many Councils do you need to run a small county? More savings there me thinks!

2. More waste in the MOD. To run a Vigilant or Tutor costs at least £400 per hour - to do it at the local flying clubs it costs about £100. Why? Also, the outrageous Dii contract. Why do I need an OFFICIAL SENSITIVE system when I could pop down to PC World, buy a nice computer for 1/4 of the coat, run encryption software across us all and save lots of money. Plus when it goes wrong, I pop into PC World to buy another. I agree we need our own managed and secure system for SECRET and above, but for OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE and below do we really need such an expensive system? Hell, why not give us all iPads and then we could work from home on 3G! Lot's more savings to be made.

3. Out of work people - bring them in to work for their dole money. If they haven't got an interview that day over the 5 day week, get them weeding, picking up litter and painting. No one should get free money unless they are in education, sick, infirm or disabled and unable to work. Whilst this might not save money it would dramatically improve the state of our Nation.

4. Schools. My daughter goes to a Private School, I don't get CEA and my wife and I pay for it (we haven't had a foriegn holiday in 5 years and both our cars are over 3 years old). The recent 'politics of envy' calls against private education makes me cross. If I compare the facilities at her school compared to the State Schools, then I see stark differences - her school didn't (until bery recently) have astro-turf pitches (and we had to raise our own funds for them), no heated pool, no school network for the children and overall has less than the tac-payer's provided Academy in the same town. So why does the private school get better results? The parents have inculcated the importance of learning in their children, the teachers know that they have to achieve to keep their jobs or the school will fall and the importance of learning over gimmicks like heated pools, astro-turf and fancy school networks which waste taxpayer's money if the State Schools continue to under achieve.

5. Rather than pay child allowance in money, pay it in vouchers that have to be spent on the children through companies selling clothes, food and educational items. I would be really surprised if 100% is spent on the children. If it isn't spent on children then take it away or it gets spent on Sky TV, booze, fags and even worse drugs!

6. Charge p!ssed up people who turn up to A&E with non life threatening injury. Stop all cosmetic surgery on the NHS - the money should be only be there to preserve life, extend life and treat chronic conditions. Also, ask for ID before treating - no ID equals no treatment, to stop 'health tourism'.

7. Improve safety on the roads and reduce the number of A&E admissions by insisting on an eye test and education program every 10 years on renewal of the photo-card driving licence. This would employ more people, raise more revenue and reduce road casualties - a good deal all around!

There are so many more. The waste in this country is scandalous. These ideas could help rebalance the books and then we might get better GROWTH, which is the other side of the equation. Along with GROWTH comes an increase in tax receipts and then we might be in business and back in SURPLUS.

We could do so much better in the MoD. It is underpinned by in-house fighting, nepotism and outdated thinking (partly due to Shrivenham Poly majoring on Clauswitz and Sun Tzu!). We should be able to the same we do today with substantially less - procurement, infrastructure, IT and preserving front-line activity should be our key efforts. Why do we have full-time Regulars doing training, HR/Admin, PEd when full-time Reserves would do (and can be mobilised if we really need to take them with us in Ops). Do we really need dedicated FP Field Sqns, when the brown jobs could do this function within 80% of what we get (the loss of Rapier/SHORAD should have spelt the end of the Regt in my opinion, sadly, when we had to lose our core output of combat aircraft to pay for the Regt capability). Go hard and fast on the 3 main forces - if it floats it belongs to the Royal Navy, if it is land based it is Army, and if it flies it is Royal Air Force. If we did this we would see an economy of effort, IMHO. I know putting the Royal Marines or RAF Regt in the Army, or the Fleet Air Arm and Army Air Corps in the RAF, woukd be unpopular but from a purely non-nepotistic point of view it makes sense. Some of our key personnel are reaching the irreducible minima that we feared and clubbing capabilities under one of the 3 arms makes sense to me? I do not propose a Joint Force as we have seen this fail so many times before when other contries have tried it.

LJ :ok:

[orca]

Concur LJ - and introduce a common sense manning cap.

If you can only field x squadrons then you only need x/2 thousand people in your Air Force. If you only have 30 DD/FF hulls you only need 20,000 in your navy.

And the actual kicker. As the military you pay the going rate for the cheapest kit that fulfils the actual requirement. And if someone wants you to buy stuff from UK suppliers that's more expensive and worse -well they pay, not you.

[kintyred]

You hit the nail on the head by mentioning waste, Leon. I've never understood why our society accepts it so readily. Lack of accountability invariably leads to waste and government departments are perfect examples of this. The State should do minimum necessary for its citizens and enable and private business to do the rest (suitablyregulated) If you put the output of the MoD on one side your balance sheet and the cost on the other side you'd see how little you were getting for your money. I'd fund a small R & D department to ensure the UK retained/developed skills and inventions and let UK defence industries go to the wall if they weren't internationally competitive. We'd save a fortune.
By the way, I'd also look closely at charitable staus for all sorts of enterprises....private education being one of them!

[MSOCS]

Nicely put LJ and I very much like some of your proposals.

:D:D:D:D:D

[tucumseh]

Well said Leon.

The most coruscating report on MoD waste I've read is report D/DIA/5/295/10 dated 27th June 1996 entitled "Requirement Scrutiny".

The audit team looked at every single MoD department responsible for aviation expenditure. They concluded, to PUS (the Chief Accounting Officer), that the instigating officer's original complaint, that vast amounts were being knowingly wasted, year on year, was correct. That, compensatory savings were being made at the expense of safety, instead of attacking the root cause. (Where Haddon-Cave got this line! The evidence his 1998 date was wrong).

The audit was initiated in direct response to the actions of AVM Chris Baker, Director General Support Management, who was 2 i/c to AMSO/RAF Chief Engineer, ACM Michael Alcock. In December 1992 he had threatened 7 civilian staffs in London with dismissal if they continued to highlight the waste and refuse to implement AMSO's wasteful policies. Had they implemented them, they would have been committing fraud by false representation. The audit was a device to head him off and prevent sackings.

It worked in the short term (as he couldn't take action while it was ongoing), but the report, when eventually issued, was dismissed by senior staffs as irrelevant. In MoD(PE), the Director General Air Systems 2, Mr Ian Fauset (Chinook, Nimrod etc), took a similar view ("of no concern") and also sanctioned disciplinary action against staffs who refused to commit fraud. In 1999 his boss, the Chief of Defence Procurement, Sir Robert Walmsley, upheld this policy, as did Director Personnel, Resources and Development, Mr David Baker.

To this day, DE&S Secretariat at AbbeyWood continue to cite all of these rulings when supporting the actions of staffs who knowingly waste money. As do Ministers for the Armed Forces, the Head of the Civil Service, the Civil Service Commissioners and the HofC Defence Select Committee (the latter by their inaction, the rest by direct support of the policy).

Otherwise known as, the elephant in the room.

MoD deny having the above report. As it was marked "No Further Action", DIA say they destroyed it after 7 years. But MoD forget that the instigator gets his own copy, provided under cover of letter D/DIA/5/295/10 dated 16th July 1996........

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/exploringtheblue/coverpage_001_zps06c127c1.jpg (http://s214.photobucket.com/user/exploringtheblue/media/coverpage_001_zps06c127c1.jpg.html)


A hearing took place in AbbeyWood on 9th September 2002 to determine if the disciplinary action taken against staffs should stand. It was chaired by DPRD (Baker, above). He determined that it should stand, and advised CDP (Walmsley) to issue such a ruling, which he did (and, a 2nd time, when the Union pointed out the illegality of his decision. DPRD later briefed PUS in April 2003 that MoD stood by this policy, thus completing the audit trail showing PUS was fully aware). As DPRD provided the minutes secretary, and were well known for conveniently "forgetting" to distribute minutes and then denying any meeting took place, the hearing (with a Trades Union) was fully recorded. DPRD did indeed refuse to issue the minutes and ever since MoD have denied the hearing took place. (The recording is crystal clear. The hearing lasted a minute short of 2 hours. DPRD accepted many actions and fulfilled none).

Sorry, too many verifiable facts on a rumour forum? :ok:

[jayc530]

Dorman's judgements about the existing FF 2020 in the present context are scathing, calling its defined force structure an unaffordable, land-centric, top-heavy military designed to fail".

As of April 2014 the RAF is over manned at Air Cdre level and above by 115%. Sqn Ldr onwards is also over manned at all levels.

[downsizer]

Do FTRS count in these overmanning figures or are they accounted separately?

[jayc530]

Full time trained strength.

[Party Animal]

Can you provide any factual link to back up your statement jayc530? I was told the other day we are still seriously short of aircrew officers in the sqn ldr / wg cdr bracket. If we are overloaded, then why the extensions to age 60? And why is the OSB taking on lots of newly changed aircrew posts?

[jayc530]

Manning website under Trade Sponsor - Annual Compendium of Statistics. Page 19.

[Chugalug2]

Some excellent posts on this thread, and perhaps time to declare a new political philosophy - Leonism? But lest we shift into a Pete and Dud type exchange, tucumseh brings us unerringly back to our own particular part of the patch. Those who have followed the all too many airworthiness related fatal accident threads in this forum know that the true cost of MOD Gross Negligence is in blood as well as in treasure. His testimony here and elsewhere illustrates the reality of the present UK Military, that at 1* and below you are a potential scapegoat, but above that you are fireproof!

So whether you have a professional concern or not about the airworthiness of UK military aircraft (and who here does not?), plain self preservation would suggest that the corrupt self governing and self regulating morass that is the UK Armed Forces High Command has to be urgently reformed. To misquote Pastor Martin Niemoller;

First they came for the JO's and I did not speak out,
because I was not a JO.

Then they came for the CS's and I did not speak out,
because I was not a CS.

Then they came for the SO's and I did not speak out,
because I was not an SO.

Then they came for me - and there was no-one left to speak for me.

[Lima Juliet]

Chug

I think we could just call it 'real world common sense'!

Tuc's posts always make me think of the incompetence that I have also seen at a lesser level on procurement; if only we had a method of getting change then I would hope that we could make some of the required savings.

As for May 15, I need a billionaire sponsor to start the 'Monster Raving Leonist Party' - any takers? :ok:

LJ

[Lyneham Lad]

In the Sunday Times - Six jets axed as Osborne’s cuts hit the royal flight (http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Society/article1492787.ece?shareToken=da208e24260f87b42f8775e53f72fe 3d)

[dctyke]

As long as these fine people are happy with their lot........

Champagne wars in the Lords as peers say no to a cheaper vintage | Politics | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/07/champagne-house-of-lords-reform-taxpayer)

[TwoTunnels]

PA- I was told the other day we are still seriously short of aircrew officers in the sqn ldr / wg cdr bracket.

I too heard that there was a shortage of SO2s- that is why they are commissioning NCA.

Although I do think that there is a 'shortage' because new Sqn Ldr JPANs are established at the drop of a hat- rather than create them at MAcr/JO level.

I also heard recently that the SLT are aware that a lot of the morale issues throughout the RAF are due to over eager SO1s and SO2s who are more concerned about their careers than the personnel they 'lead'

TT

[Boudreaux Bob]

An American Perspective on Life in the Military post Budget Cuts and Downsizing.

AMERICA'S MILITARY: A force adrift (http://www.militarytimes.com/longform/military/2014/12/07/americas-military-a-force-adrift/18596571/?sf34440316=1)

[Whenurhappy]

We could do so much better in the MoD. It is underpinned by in-house fighting, nepotism and outdated thinking (partly due to Shrivenham Poly majoring on Clauswitz and Sun Tzu!).

Good post LJ.

I cannot, for the life of me, understand the dogmatic adherence at Staff College(s) to the philosophy of a dead Chinaman and a dead German. Arguably, Clauswitzean logic brought us the Great War (the final, climatic battle theory), whereas Sun Tzu speaks in riddles. A couple of years ago I did a foreign staff college and we spent 6 weeks on Clauswitz. As a result, I fully understand friction, fog of war and an overwhelming desire to commence a book-burning.

We should be able to the same we do today with substantially less - procurement, infrastructure, IT and preserving front-line activity should be our key efforts. Why do we have full-time Regulars doing training, HR/Admin, PEd when full-time Reserves would do (and can be mobilised if we really need to take them with us in Ops).

I agree, in part. However, I really don't think that the Air Force will survive with just aircrew and technicians. If the recent stories from Akrotiri are true, some of this will be down to the thining, and thining, and thining of the support tail. My admin is now down via a defence contractor; well meaning but utterly disconnected with my mission. I have had to explain, on several occasions, that I'd really like to get hard copies of my payslips, for example. Instead they are posted to my support unit ('to save on postage') - in another continent - and told, 'well you can get them on line'. Wrong. Just try and log on to a MOD.UK website in a number of countries and the ISP blocks you. And, of course, no JPA.

I was trying to get back for a conference in the UK that was to be invoiced to another UIN. The Spt unit wouldn't/couldn't book my travel as I was not physically located 'on site' ('not in the contract, Pal' was the helpful reply). I then got in to trouble booking my own flights!

We try to inculcate the manoeuvrist concept and mission command with our people yet require ridiculous levels of oversight of minutiae - vide 1* approval for biscuits at a meeting.

I could go on. I understand that we need to be lean and cut down on waste, but I think of what costs in my time I incur doing, in effect, other peoples' jobs. ANd then multiply it by X number of personnel in my situation, who are obliged to self-administer, in spite of a system that is to provide support.

Give our people the tools, I suppose, is the strap-line.

[SamYeager]

I agree we need our own managed and secure system for SECRET and above, but for OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE and below do we really need such an expensive system?

Because the profit from the OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE system helps cover the cost of the SECRET system. :)

[BEagle]

I see that the MoD's jolly clever idea of recruiting reservists isn't going too well.....

The latest Ministry of Defence manning figures show the number of Army reservists rose from 19,290 to just 19,310 despite a multi-million pound recruitment campaign.

The MoD insists it is still on track to grow the Army’s reserve forces from 19,000 to 30,000 by 2019, as the number of regular troops is cut by 20,000.

Growing, re-equipping and retraining the Army’s reserve forces is a cornerstone of the Coalition’s cost-cutting defence reforms.


Hence all these expensive reservist recruiting adverts on TV, I guess?

No doubt this will be of interest after the General Election when the next round of defence cuts is examined.....:\

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I remember thinking, during the the IOT office simulator phase back in the Cold War, just how efficient the Pers/Admin system was. One guy checks a book, looks at a couple of files, maybe phones a mate or has a quick word with his Boss or Flt Sgt, makes a decision and writes a chitty. Things happened. That was when everything was in house.
The current dog's breakfast is vastly less efficient and more expensive (I've recently watched an Army Officer on the phone for 3 hours trying to get reimbursed for a Duty hotel stay in Poland - without success), it's just that it's now on someone else's budget. Ultimately however, it's all on the taxpayer's budget.

The Reserve system is all of the aggro and almost none of the benefits - no wonder nobody wants to join it.

The MoD insists it is still on track Well, that's a straight lie.

However, recruitment of new regular soldiers was behind schedule in 2013-14. The Army recruited 6,366 regular soldiers against a target of 9,715 (a shortfall of 34 per cent).
1,975 reserve soldiers recruited by Capita in 2013-14 against a December*2012 Army Demand Plan requirement of 6,000

Here's the full NAO report

http://www.nao.org.uk/report/army-2020-2/

The MOD decision to reduce the size of the regular Army and increase the number of trained Army reserves was taken without appropriate testing of feasibility or evaluation of risk.
That's the simple headline; by the Government itself.

How can the MoD claim it's on track? Easy - there's no track!
The Army has not publicly detailed what aspects of the transition to Army 2020 it needs to achieve by when for it to operate effectively. This makes it difficult to measure progress towards full implementation. The Army has also not set clear trigger points for enacting any contingency plans.
If an Officer Cadet did this in training, s/he'd be failed.

[Bigbux]

Leon


Here you go, more ideas to save money...


I'd vote for you...can we include a restriction on NHS care for smokers and fatties?..also ugly people. Oh hang on...scrub that last one.:{

[mr fish]

I know a way to save money, no more pointless, illegal wars.


In response to the person who suggested out of work people should "clear litter" or "paint stuff", well these jobs are currently (as far as I'm aware) done by STREET CLEANERS and PAINTERS.


My point being, if the job is worth doing EMPLOY THEM and pay, you know, like wages. That way they can, you know, like pay taxes and stuff.




FISH.

[Bigbux]

I know a way to save money, no more pointless, illegal wars.

Hear hear, I hate them when they are pointless, and as for being illegal - well that's just laziness in not stretching legal opinion far enough.