Defence: Public ignorance, the media, and cutbacks

[VinRouge]

But why spend on procurement when you know you arent going to be around past the next election and the electorate dont even see results? Why pay for a400M for example when the cash could go on employing a few extra public sector workers or pay for a million hip replacements?

Thats the fickle reality we face. The other reality is government spending across ALL departments will be cut. If those in the NHS think they can be smug, just wait till the next election. IMO, it will be one of the biggest recipients of future government cuts, together with expenditure on Department for Work and Pensions.

[Bunker Mentality]

Beatriz, I think we are in danger of violent agreement. The question is, what are we going to stop doing that we are doing now? The constant salami slicing of uninterrupted planning rounds means that, by the time we get to a Defence Review, decisions on procurement will have been taken that will turn out to be completely at odds with what the Review identifies as the priorities.

[Beatriz Fontana]

Bunker, yep, agreed. The steel has already been cut on the carriers and the last remaining T45s. But as my ancient mariner dad said only a month ago, that doesn't mean a finished ship would never go to sea. It happened in the 1950s when the WW2-mentality procurement was outdated by the Cold War.

And the UK has a good record of expensive mistakes. Nimrod AEW Mk3 for a start.

I love the smell of mothballs in the morning

Defence procurement need complete reform. It needs a proper process run by people who know what they're doing - not people who are in Bristol counting the days til they move on - and who can run proper procurement projects that remain on time and on budget.

Any system that allows the armed forces to be handed a ship that isn't actually finished and fully kitted out needs ripping out and starting again.

Rant mode off.

[minigundiplomat]

Vin Rouge,

I stand by my forecast, the darkest hour is always before dawn. I agree there is more to come, but I think the damage will be limited to a few institutions that have over-reached themselves. I do think some will be allowed to fail this time around. (And I'll have long gone from both the RAF and UK by then....)

Jim Lad,

I'm sure you are an excellent civil servant, but if they offered to pay you £50 a month, you would leave. You would leave because you'd feel your skills are worth more than that and are saleable at a higher price.

Imagine cutting Flying Pay on top of reduced manpower and high-tempo ops. Who's going to fly the helicopters, transport and CAS fleet when all the aircrew poke off to the Middle East, Aus, Can or NZ?

Trust me, if the MOD doesn't value it's aircrew appropriately, someone else will! The UK, apart from maybe the US and Germany is deeper in the dwang than anyone else. For those looking in, that means bargains on highly qualified personnel.

Lateral recruitment has reopened for the RAAF, the Canadians are desperate for Chinook experience, and the UAE are always in the market for ex-UK forces.

These are not telesales or admin assistants. These people take years to replace, and the experience takes even longer to build to the current (already diluted) levels.

Not A Boffin,

Part of the reason for the gaps can be found in yesterdays Telegraph. The UK is now paying out more in Welfare payments than it recieves in Income Tax for the first time.

[Widger]

Easy way to save money:

1.CEA...Severe tightening of entitlement rules.. I.E you need to be posted out of any instead of just being eligeable, OR complete stopping

2. Flying Pay...Only paid on days flown. No reserve rate for those driving desks.

3. Complete review of higher/lower pay band and realignment so that only those trades that truely deserve to be in the higher band actually are.

Are you freaking mad.....don't have a go at the last few retention positive aspects and no, I do not receive any of them! Minigundiplomat has hit the nail on the head.

Part of the reason for the gaps can be found in yesterdays Telegraph. The UK is now paying out more in Welfare payments than it recieves in Income Tax for the first time.

In 2008/09, gross income tax receipts were £152.5 billion. In the same year, social security benefits cost the Exchequer £150.1 billion.

£150.1 billion !!!!!!!!!!! against £36.9 (2010/11) for defence. That is where the real culprit is.

Whilst I have sympathy with the unemployed, there is nothing better than no income to concentrate the mind on getting a job. There is ample evidence of aversion to manual labour in this country (vegetable picking an example).

Legal aid, income support, jobseekers allowance, incapacity benefit for being too fat! etc etc and lets not get onto the NHS. Whilst it is a magnificent concept, it was supposed to be access to medical help for all, not access to the best and most advanced medicines and medical care for all.

This is where the next Government needs to concentrate. Generate industry with large civil engineering projects, including Defence, get the country working and get the slackers off the dole.

Just for the record, I grew up on a council estate, my child benefit was spent on Bingo by my guardian, I washed windows in the snow and worked in pubs for income and have never received a day of unemployment benefit or whatever it is called these days. (you tell today's kids that and...)

My only ring fence would be children and the elderly. They must be fed, clothed, educated and given proper medical and dental care.


Tin hat on!

[Jackonicko]

Non means-tested, universal child benefit?

Electorally popular, but justifiable?

Many of the parents at the private school where my wife teaches use it for riding lessons and the like.

[Not_a_boffin]

MGD

My point exactly. Pretty much 4-5 times the annual defence budget on "welfare", or more like 12 times the ESP budget. Got to be more scope for savings there in a rational world, you'd think. Oops, time for the medicine.......

[NURSE]

Those of us in the NHS are facing cuts already never mind in the future! our departmental budget this year has shrunk and our expected patient turnover has increased. Fine not a problem as long as we have the resources and staff to do this. The NHS could save millions if not billions by having a front line first type review and getting rid of the Management consultants and layers of management. In the same way the armed forces have had to go through over the last few years. I do wonder how much could be saved if the "Trusts" systems was abandoned and all the corperate identity stuff which must cost a fortune to design, print, create etc? How much cheaper if we had common uniforms and paperwork instead of the individual trust uniforms?
Realisticly and rationally to sort the Defecit of the country all govt depertments will feel some pain. Unfortunatley the Mod has been under this pressure for to long and the cuts will mean real loss of capability which is crazy.

[andyy]

Found this on a trawl through the web:

Government Spending in Real Terms
2000-01 2007-08
Social security benefits 121,000 (27.9%) 133,882 (24%)
Health 52,000 (12%) 89,673 (16%)
Education 16,786 (3.9%) 57,846 (10.4%)
Local Government 33,000 (7.6%) 22,000 (3.9%)
Defense 32,183 (7.4%) 32,831 (5.9%)
Home Office 10,423 (2.4%) 13,571 (2.4%)
Scotland 15,018 (3.5%) 23,510 (4.2%)
Wales 7,885 (1.8%) 12,481 (2.2%)
International Development 2,819 (0.5%) 4,637 (0.8%)

Total Government Expenditure 433,161 557,400m

Social Security includes:
• Unemployment benefit
• Housing Benefit
• Child support
• Pensions
• Income support
• Sickness benefit

[BEagle]

So defence spending has gone down 20.2% (5.9/7.4) and spending on Jockistan has gone up by 20% (4.2/3.5)......??



No doubt Comrade Pr00ne will be along soon to tell us that nuLabor has actually increased defence spending though.

[minigundiplomat]

Increases for LFA7 & 14?

Ah, that will be for the Welsh Parliament that 25% of them voted for. 3 fold increase in education but the poor blighters seem worse than ever. With Comrade Balls at the helm (if anyone was ever appropriately named- it's him) I can't say I'm suprised. He makes feel a little sick in my mouth.

[pr00ne]

BEagle,

Yawn....................

If you could count Beags then you would be well aware that the £22bn budget of the Tories in 1997 was in fact a tad smaller than the £36bn of Labour in 2009.
If you want to find REAL large cuts in Defence expenditure go look at 1957, 1989, 1992 and 1994. Who was in power then?

Does 'Defence Costs Study' or 'Front Line First' ring any bells? How about "NO more manned combat aircraft" or privatisation, civilianisation and contractorisation?

All gleams in the eye of a Tory Prime Minister and Defence Minister.

[BEagle]

So what happened to your boast that under nuLabor the UK was getting an 'increase in real terms' in defence spending?

Anyway, this bunch of charlatans and champagne socialists' days are surely numbered.......

[jim2673]

Good bye.....if that's the way you feel. Much like the senior officers in "Nero building" who never fought for flying maintainers to be paid on a continuous basis.

Guess what who's now got no Flying maintainers......Turkeys Christmas i think.

As for CEA just how many people do i know that have done the YVL/Abbeywood/DES YVL route and never been "out of area" and continue to pay for their kids to go to Private schools.

Tough times call for tough decisions.....If lfe will be deemed to be unbearable with no F/P then you don't deserve to wear the uniform.

[Jumping_Jack]

I'm not sure why there is such a fixation on CEA....the amount spent on CEA is absolute peanuts compared with the figures that need to be saved, tinkering in the margins simply won't do it. And no, I don't claim CEA.

[Biggus]

I once heard that in the 50s a NATO nation paid its aircrew flying pay on the basis of how many flying hours they achieved each month. It sounds like a good idea, fair, practical, etc....

What actually happened?

The aircrew stayed airborne as long as possible on each sortie, using diversion fuel, etc, and landing on fumes, all to maximize their flying pay. When the nation in question starting losing aircraft on the basis of engines flaming out they decided to re-examine the cost effectiveness of their policy.

As to adopting policies that may make people leave - there is a fine line to tread. On the one hand you can't be held to ransom, but on the other, to deliberately introduce a policy, or remove a current one, that will result in experienced people (who can cost several million pounds each to replace) leaving needs to questioned. Cost effectiveness is the name of the game. How many people does an unpopular policy have to force out before any savings made are outweighed by the costs of replacing those who leave....

[jim2673]

Funny how the people normally stating that loss of FP will see them leave are SO2/3 ranks. Guess £140 a day 52/7 or £51K a year is not enough for their "oh so" valuable service.

[VinRouge]

My solution Jim, would be to sack Civil Servants. Lots and lots of them.

They add very little value to the armed forces and cover roles that are handles by junior officers as a secondary duty. Do we get paid extra for doing this work? Do we heck. We just get on with it.


you also forget we have a massive retention issue regarding SO2/SO3. And I am neither.

Climb back under your bridge.

[pr00ne]

BEagle,

It did, you really CAN'T count can you?

All I ever argued on this board was that defence was not suffering huge CUTS in actual expenditure, as was constantly and inaccurately claimed. The increases, for such they are, may well not be enough and the money very badly spent and managed, but they were increases in actual expenditure.

Why can't we, with the third largest defence budget on the planet, sustain and properly equip a force of 8000 in Afghanistan?

[NURSE]

reducing LOA might be a great idea by bringing the remaining army units back from Germany. Or wil we need them there for the Euro army advocated by the IPPR study being promoted by the BBC?