Military Job cuts AGAIN
Guest
Posts: n/a
Interesting reading there Open Sauce.
If the fire brigade want to go on strike forcing Aunty Liz's finest to cover, then fine. Please crack on.
However, if it were up to me (oh God how I wish it were), all firefighters that went on strike would be threatened with a trip to Iraq, Afghanistan or Ireland to cover our jobs there whilst we covered theirs here. Any of them with the Queen's Jubilee gong would be stripped of it (after all, I seem to remember Govt ministers citing it as a gift from Her Maj in recognition of peoples' loyalty) and their pay would be stopped. If they still failed to go back to work, they get fired.
Simple as that. I'm fed up with these greedy gash bast*rds grabbing all the money they can, on the grounds of how "important" their jobs are whilst we are struggling to fund basic mission vital equipment and manning levels thanks to those muppets in MOD, whilst doing jobs that similarly, peoples' lives depend on.
Compare and contrast the pay of your average SAC and your average firefighter - not that much difference last time I checked but still the same sort of responsibilty. It's about time that some people in this country realised that there is more to life than being a gash and leaving the rest of us to pick up the pieces. And it's usually the people the govt want to get rid of that end up picking up the pieces.
If the fire brigade want to go on strike forcing Aunty Liz's finest to cover, then fine. Please crack on.
However, if it were up to me (oh God how I wish it were), all firefighters that went on strike would be threatened with a trip to Iraq, Afghanistan or Ireland to cover our jobs there whilst we covered theirs here. Any of them with the Queen's Jubilee gong would be stripped of it (after all, I seem to remember Govt ministers citing it as a gift from Her Maj in recognition of peoples' loyalty) and their pay would be stopped. If they still failed to go back to work, they get fired.
Simple as that. I'm fed up with these greedy gash bast*rds grabbing all the money they can, on the grounds of how "important" their jobs are whilst we are struggling to fund basic mission vital equipment and manning levels thanks to those muppets in MOD, whilst doing jobs that similarly, peoples' lives depend on.
Compare and contrast the pay of your average SAC and your average firefighter - not that much difference last time I checked but still the same sort of responsibilty. It's about time that some people in this country realised that there is more to life than being a gash and leaving the rest of us to pick up the pieces. And it's usually the people the govt want to get rid of that end up picking up the pieces.
Last edited by CatpainCaveman; 9th Jul 2004 at 12:14.
And further to the last. John Keegan, Defence Editor for the Telegraph, writes a very succinct article on where the problem lies:
- Politicians who just do not understand what the UK military provides (stand up Gordon Brown) and
- Very Senior Officers who no longer stand up to the politicians.
Worth a read and pretty spot on as far as I am concerned.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../09/do0902.xml
The only thing he missed was the idiot accountants who keep inventing new ways of doing business and the worst of all of them is RAB. Whoever brought that in as a way of doing military (government) business needs publicly flogging!!
- Politicians who just do not understand what the UK military provides (stand up Gordon Brown) and
- Very Senior Officers who no longer stand up to the politicians.
Worth a read and pretty spot on as far as I am concerned.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../09/do0902.xml
The only thing he missed was the idiot accountants who keep inventing new ways of doing business and the worst of all of them is RAB. Whoever brought that in as a way of doing military (government) business needs publicly flogging!!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Englandshire
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An outstanding piece that hits the nail squarely on the head. If only someone in a position of power or authority in either the political or military upper classes would read, understand and act on it. The time for stout hearts and steady nerves is past, the time for courage, leadership and decisive action is here.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How has it come to this? I served for 35 years in the RAF, and my Father before me. I cannot believe that this useless government is allowing the Armed Forces to be reduced to such a low capacity.
Notwithstanding the end of the 'cold war' it must be obvious to just about anyone that the dangers and threats to world peace are as bad if not worse that they ever were.
I remember my final 'interview' with the AOC in 1997, prior to taking off the uniform for the last time. He asked me why I was leaving early and I said, it suddenly hit me that the RAF I had joined way back in 1962 was not the RAF I now served in. You couldnt even fill Wembley Stadium with it, and overstretch was all I could see ahead for years to come.
How my heart aches to see what is happening, I continue my RAF links by working at a UK base, and chat daily with our boys and girls in blue. Yes..its a different, more modern and Politically Correct Royal Air Force, but not one I would wish to serve in.
I will never lose my love for the RAF, its been part of my life for 'almost ever', as a scaly brat and serving member, but I dont have to like what is being done to it, and I wont ever forgive those who are 'doing it'.
Good luck to all of you who continue to serve, you have my respect and support.
Notwithstanding the end of the 'cold war' it must be obvious to just about anyone that the dangers and threats to world peace are as bad if not worse that they ever were.
I remember my final 'interview' with the AOC in 1997, prior to taking off the uniform for the last time. He asked me why I was leaving early and I said, it suddenly hit me that the RAF I had joined way back in 1962 was not the RAF I now served in. You couldnt even fill Wembley Stadium with it, and overstretch was all I could see ahead for years to come.
How my heart aches to see what is happening, I continue my RAF links by working at a UK base, and chat daily with our boys and girls in blue. Yes..its a different, more modern and Politically Correct Royal Air Force, but not one I would wish to serve in.
I will never lose my love for the RAF, its been part of my life for 'almost ever', as a scaly brat and serving member, but I dont have to like what is being done to it, and I wont ever forgive those who are 'doing it'.
Good luck to all of you who continue to serve, you have my respect and support.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
military cuts
Now this may seem a little sarcastic, but i know the RAF has more officers of air rank than y=they do aircraft, as the navy have more one stars than ships, now in all these cute buy the MOD, advised by One stars and above do you think they are reccomending cuts to staff officer jobs? Are they F***. We, the grass roots front line troops/ sailors and aircrew/groundcrew are gonna take the fall under the taitle of a new and improved reationary force for the 21st century. I gots news fer yer, come to Iraq an see, we are over stretched, under funded and under appreciated!!!!!!!!
The staff rasnking officers are hapoy, full pay as a pension an a middle ranking climber to write his rantings, cut staff jobs and MOD think tanks and get the friont line what we need to do our jobs! Oh an by the way, 20 mins phone card and flak jackets aint a welfare package. Still the one stars are safe in Bently, Northwood, Sanhurst, MoD and the link. Cut some of ur own jobs, make u all happy, i am sure One Star I/C silly operation names can go!!!
Later dudes, sorry for spelling mistakes, two can rule biting, after 3 weeks on stand-by!
The staff rasnking officers are hapoy, full pay as a pension an a middle ranking climber to write his rantings, cut staff jobs and MOD think tanks and get the friont line what we need to do our jobs! Oh an by the way, 20 mins phone card and flak jackets aint a welfare package. Still the one stars are safe in Bently, Northwood, Sanhurst, MoD and the link. Cut some of ur own jobs, make u all happy, i am sure One Star I/C silly operation names can go!!!
Later dudes, sorry for spelling mistakes, two can rule biting, after 3 weeks on stand-by!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: States sometimes
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just read that as the armed forces are bracing themselves for massive cuts, the MOD has splashed out for a load of new chairs for its Whitehall civilian staff (approx 3000). This is the best bit, they retail at over £1000 a piece. An MOD spokesman said that it will save money in the long run as the chairs should reduce the amount of sickness and therefore time off work due to back pain.
Words fail me!!
GM
Words fail me!!
GM
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: A Barren Featureless Wasteland
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GM,
Here's the article:
MoD chairs £1,000 each as troops face axe
By Michael Smith Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 12/07/2004)
The Ministry of Defence has bought each of its 3,150 Whitehall civil servants a £1,000 chair as it plans the biggest cuts in the Armed Forces since the Cold War.
The Herman Miller Aeron chair, described as the "most comfortable office chair in the world", is also the most expensive.
It is the kind David Dimbleby uses on BBC1's Question Time and has been on display at the New York Museum of Modern Art as one of America's designs of the decade.
The purchase is part of a £342 million refurbishment carried out at the ministry.
It was sanctioned just as British troops were being sent to war in Iraq. It later emerged that many of them had been dispatched without the proper equipment.
The expense has come to light as Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, prepares to announce cuts forced on him by the Treasury, in part because his ministry's civil servants got their sums wrong.
Sixteen teams of civil servants, with minimal representation from the three services, have looked at every aspect of the Armed Forces to find ways of saving up to £1.5 billion.
The cuts are expected to be so bad that Mr Hoon will announce them on July 21, the day before Parliament rises for its summer recess, to limit criticism from MPs on both sides of the House.
The Royal Navy will lose up to seven surface ships, making it smaller than the French navy for the first time since the 17th century.
As many as four Army infantry battalions are expected to be axed and the RAF will lose five bases, about 7,000 personnel and many of its front-line aircraft.
The ministry denied that the Aeron chairs were an extravagance during a period of cuts, saying that they brought the working environment up to "acceptable modern standards" and would improve efficiency.
It said it did not pay the full recommended retail price of £1,050 for the chairs. A spokesman refused to say how much it did pay because "the exact cost is a commercially sensitive matter between the MoD and Herman Miller".
The spokesman said the ergonomic design would mean that fewer civil servants had to take time off work with back pain and that the chairs would last twice as long as ordinary ones.
Paul Keetch, the Liberal Democrats' defence spokesman, said he was sure that the ministry refurbishment was necessary but described the decision to buy Aeron chairs as "a joke" at a time when the Armed Forces were facing enormous cuts.
"The MoD has its priorities badly mixed up if it is happy to spend £1,000 on a chair while soldiers in Iraq have to buy their own boots," he said.
"It is a disgrace that, while the MoD is facing its worst cash crisis in a generation, soldiers are the ones who have to suffer. The Government must look after soldiers better before it can start buying fancy furniture."
MT
Here's the article:
MoD chairs £1,000 each as troops face axe
By Michael Smith Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 12/07/2004)
The Ministry of Defence has bought each of its 3,150 Whitehall civil servants a £1,000 chair as it plans the biggest cuts in the Armed Forces since the Cold War.
The Herman Miller Aeron chair, described as the "most comfortable office chair in the world", is also the most expensive.
It is the kind David Dimbleby uses on BBC1's Question Time and has been on display at the New York Museum of Modern Art as one of America's designs of the decade.
The purchase is part of a £342 million refurbishment carried out at the ministry.
It was sanctioned just as British troops were being sent to war in Iraq. It later emerged that many of them had been dispatched without the proper equipment.
The expense has come to light as Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, prepares to announce cuts forced on him by the Treasury, in part because his ministry's civil servants got their sums wrong.
Sixteen teams of civil servants, with minimal representation from the three services, have looked at every aspect of the Armed Forces to find ways of saving up to £1.5 billion.
The cuts are expected to be so bad that Mr Hoon will announce them on July 21, the day before Parliament rises for its summer recess, to limit criticism from MPs on both sides of the House.
The Royal Navy will lose up to seven surface ships, making it smaller than the French navy for the first time since the 17th century.
As many as four Army infantry battalions are expected to be axed and the RAF will lose five bases, about 7,000 personnel and many of its front-line aircraft.
The ministry denied that the Aeron chairs were an extravagance during a period of cuts, saying that they brought the working environment up to "acceptable modern standards" and would improve efficiency.
It said it did not pay the full recommended retail price of £1,050 for the chairs. A spokesman refused to say how much it did pay because "the exact cost is a commercially sensitive matter between the MoD and Herman Miller".
The spokesman said the ergonomic design would mean that fewer civil servants had to take time off work with back pain and that the chairs would last twice as long as ordinary ones.
Paul Keetch, the Liberal Democrats' defence spokesman, said he was sure that the ministry refurbishment was necessary but described the decision to buy Aeron chairs as "a joke" at a time when the Armed Forces were facing enormous cuts.
"The MoD has its priorities badly mixed up if it is happy to spend £1,000 on a chair while soldiers in Iraq have to buy their own boots," he said.
"It is a disgrace that, while the MoD is facing its worst cash crisis in a generation, soldiers are the ones who have to suffer. The Government must look after soldiers better before it can start buying fancy furniture."
MT
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But will they get to keep their fancy chairs as a retirement bonus?
Brown to cut or relocate 100,000 Civil Service jobs
By Andrew Sparrow, Political Correspondent
(Filed: 12/07/2004)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../12/nciv12.xml
Gordon Brown will today announce plans to axe or relocate about 100,000 civil servants to pay for public service reforms he will set out in his long-awaited spending review.
The Chancellor will also promise to increase by around 20 per cent the money available for anti-terrorism activity.
Ministers hope that the statement, which will cover spending plans until 2007/08, will help to mitigate the damage expected later in the week from two by-elections and publication of the Butler report on the misuse of intelligence before the Iraq war.
By promising to reduce the Civil Service by almost a fifth, Mr Brown also intends to deprive the Tories of their ability to champion this proposal as their own. Michael Howard has already announced a similar idea.
The job cuts will be set out in a report drawn up by Sir Peter Gershon. It will say that departments should be able to cut their costs by 2.5 per cent by 2007/08, saving £20 billion a year for investment in front-line services.
In his Budget this year, Mr Brown announced plans to axe 40,000 Civil Service jobs, mostly from the Department for Work and Pensions and through the merger of the Inland Revenue with Customs and Excise.
Today he will say that a further 40,000 posts must go from departments all over Whitehall over the same period. Many of those affected will be relatively senior and based in London.
The Gershon report will say that Whitehall can achieve the savings by streamlining functions that are carried out on a department-by-department basis at present. It is planned that departments will be much smaller in future.
Mr Brown will also confirm that he intends to move about 20,000 Civil Service jobs to the regions, where costs are much lower than in London.
The budget increases in this year's review will not be as big as in the last one in 2002 and overall spending is expected to go up by around 2.5 per cent a year from 2006.
The biggest increases are expected to go to those agencies dealing with the war against terrorism and civil defence.
Ministry of Defence spending is expected to go up by around one per cent in real terms despite big cuts in ships, aircraft and troops.
The Treasury has been demanding efficiency savings from the MoD's budget but the overall settlement is said to be much the same as it was in the last spending review.
Ministers are relying on a good reception for the spending review because on Wednesday the Butler review is expected to criticise the Government quite strongly for the way intelligence was misused in the approach to the Iraq war.
On Thursday there will be by-elections in Leicester South and Birmingham Hodge Hill. Labour won both seats with 10,000-plus majorities at the last election but party officials are expecting to lose one and possibly both.
Last night Civil Service unions attacked the proposed job cuts.
Jonathan Baume, the leader of the First Division Association, the union for senior civil servants, said: "I suspect and fear that over the next two to three years the Government will have to use consultants. They do not count as civil servants, so you can hide some of the costs."
The Public and Commercial Services Union, which represents 312,000 civil servants, said: "We are very concerned about these cuts, not just because of the impact on our members, but also because of the effect on public services."
The Conservatives have already announced plans to cut the size of the Civil Service from 500,000 to 400,000.
Oliver Letwin, the shadow chancellor, said he doubted that Mr Brown would be able to fulfil his promise.
"He said two years ago that he was going to get rid of 18,000 civil servants. Since then the service has increased by 3,500."
Brown to cut or relocate 100,000 Civil Service jobs
By Andrew Sparrow, Political Correspondent
(Filed: 12/07/2004)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../12/nciv12.xml
Gordon Brown will today announce plans to axe or relocate about 100,000 civil servants to pay for public service reforms he will set out in his long-awaited spending review.
The Chancellor will also promise to increase by around 20 per cent the money available for anti-terrorism activity.
Ministers hope that the statement, which will cover spending plans until 2007/08, will help to mitigate the damage expected later in the week from two by-elections and publication of the Butler report on the misuse of intelligence before the Iraq war.
By promising to reduce the Civil Service by almost a fifth, Mr Brown also intends to deprive the Tories of their ability to champion this proposal as their own. Michael Howard has already announced a similar idea.
The job cuts will be set out in a report drawn up by Sir Peter Gershon. It will say that departments should be able to cut their costs by 2.5 per cent by 2007/08, saving £20 billion a year for investment in front-line services.
In his Budget this year, Mr Brown announced plans to axe 40,000 Civil Service jobs, mostly from the Department for Work and Pensions and through the merger of the Inland Revenue with Customs and Excise.
Today he will say that a further 40,000 posts must go from departments all over Whitehall over the same period. Many of those affected will be relatively senior and based in London.
The Gershon report will say that Whitehall can achieve the savings by streamlining functions that are carried out on a department-by-department basis at present. It is planned that departments will be much smaller in future.
Mr Brown will also confirm that he intends to move about 20,000 Civil Service jobs to the regions, where costs are much lower than in London.
The budget increases in this year's review will not be as big as in the last one in 2002 and overall spending is expected to go up by around 2.5 per cent a year from 2006.
The biggest increases are expected to go to those agencies dealing with the war against terrorism and civil defence.
Ministry of Defence spending is expected to go up by around one per cent in real terms despite big cuts in ships, aircraft and troops.
The Treasury has been demanding efficiency savings from the MoD's budget but the overall settlement is said to be much the same as it was in the last spending review.
Ministers are relying on a good reception for the spending review because on Wednesday the Butler review is expected to criticise the Government quite strongly for the way intelligence was misused in the approach to the Iraq war.
On Thursday there will be by-elections in Leicester South and Birmingham Hodge Hill. Labour won both seats with 10,000-plus majorities at the last election but party officials are expecting to lose one and possibly both.
Last night Civil Service unions attacked the proposed job cuts.
Jonathan Baume, the leader of the First Division Association, the union for senior civil servants, said: "I suspect and fear that over the next two to three years the Government will have to use consultants. They do not count as civil servants, so you can hide some of the costs."
The Public and Commercial Services Union, which represents 312,000 civil servants, said: "We are very concerned about these cuts, not just because of the impact on our members, but also because of the effect on public services."
The Conservatives have already announced plans to cut the size of the Civil Service from 500,000 to 400,000.
Oliver Letwin, the shadow chancellor, said he doubted that Mr Brown would be able to fulfil his promise.
"He said two years ago that he was going to get rid of 18,000 civil servants. Since then the service has increased by 3,500."
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Beyond the last Blue Mountain
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Grand Dad
I know imitation is commonly regarded as the best form of flattery, but you must really try to avoid plagiarism. Your post on July 6 is a word-for-word "lift" of one of mine to another military website. If you can't be original, please desist from stealing other people's ideas and info. Bad form.
I know imitation is commonly regarded as the best form of flattery, but you must really try to avoid plagiarism. Your post on July 6 is a word-for-word "lift" of one of mine to another military website. If you can't be original, please desist from stealing other people's ideas and info. Bad form.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Red Red Back to Bed
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not give 1/2 these surplus Civil Servants some lightweight combats and an SA80 and ship them out to Iraq ........
And give the other half some firefighting training ............
And give the other half some firefighting training ............
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Beyond the last Blue Mountain
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Watch for the mega-spin later today when Grasping Gordon announces a "rise" in defence spending. I'd bet he won't mention the fact that the Treasury is refusing to stump up around 500 million of the cost of Iraq ops, which will come out of the MoD's existing kitty, or that part of the selfsame 'rise' will come from the loss of pen-pushers' jobs and reform of procurement. I'll believe that when I see it. It's self-funding at best and smoke and mirrors at worst. I take that back. It's just New Labour double-hatting the figures. No change there, then.
The lying $ods in government will use any form of spin they can conjure up, but the basic fact is that Bliar's adventurism in licking Bush's ar$e in what is increasingly being exposed as a highly dubious war in Iraq has drained the MoD kitty. Greedy Gordon won't bankroll Bliar and BuffHoon's war - so there will have to be cuts as a consequence.
Good to see that there are folk of strong character standing in certain Scottish constituencies as 'Save our Forces' party candidates.
Nice to hear that the taxpayer can afford such jolly nice office chairs for the pen pushers in Whitehall though. A really sound use of finite resources - something straight out of Blackadder.
Good to see that there are folk of strong character standing in certain Scottish constituencies as 'Save our Forces' party candidates.
Nice to hear that the taxpayer can afford such jolly nice office chairs for the pen pushers in Whitehall though. A really sound use of finite resources - something straight out of Blackadder.
OLD RED DAMASK
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lancashire born. In Cebu now
Age: 70
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Outlaw 51 What most people are missing is the fact that Gordon Brown is saying there will be a 1% rise in defence spending,but with inflation at 3.5% this actually means a CUT of 2.5%.Amazing how figures can be manipulated.
Unfortunately this looks like the end of the line for our forces as we all knew it.
Blair and Hoon would have been shot as traitors not so long ago.
Our present serving personnel can't protest,maybe us ex members should..anyone for a march down Whitehall?
Unfortunately this looks like the end of the line for our forces as we all knew it.
Blair and Hoon would have been shot as traitors not so long ago.
Our present serving personnel can't protest,maybe us ex members should..anyone for a march down Whitehall?
lasernigel,
What YOU are missing is the point that the rise is one per cent in REAL TERMS, that is after inflation has been taken into account.
Since when has inflation been at 3.5%? More like 1.3.
Still going to be an awfully painful few weeks though, no doubt their Airships are allready working on how to retain the maximum number of Air rank posts in the Command and Group rationalisation to come.
What YOU are missing is the point that the rise is one per cent in REAL TERMS, that is after inflation has been taken into account.
Since when has inflation been at 3.5%? More like 1.3.
Still going to be an awfully painful few weeks though, no doubt their Airships are allready working on how to retain the maximum number of Air rank posts in the Command and Group rationalisation to come.
Suspicion breeds confidence
With a bit of luck, a much heavier blow will fall on MoD pen pushers rather than front-line troops. Rumours of 10,000 floating round today. What on earth do 93,000 of them do?
lasernige
I'll walk up/down Whitehall with you if I can sit down and recover on one of those nice, expensive MOD chairs when the protest over. My poor old pins ain't what they used to be!
I'll walk up/down Whitehall with you if I can sit down and recover on one of those nice, expensive MOD chairs when the protest over. My poor old pins ain't what they used to be!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Puken
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since when has the true figure for infation been 1.3%?!
You look at how the cost of houses has shot up lately. Tradesmen have seen wages increase by up to 50% in the last year in some parts. This effects everybody, householder, company and corporation. 1.3% is a Labour produced figure to hide the fact that the cost of living is increasing out of control way beyond the measly pay increases that public sector workers are 'awarded'.
You could make a pay cut/increase look however you want with careful manipulation of the figures. A job that Mr Brown exels at.
The joke is that this government are swamped with funds, tax has spiralled out of control, just look at the frozen stamp duty issue. How many more properties are beyond that in value now? Ans I'm not going to start on about fuel revenue or traffic fines.....
£3bn. That's all there's a shortfall of. Peanuts. Labor pocketed £20bn+ by selling fresh air to mobile phone companies, for god's sake!!!
Rant over
You look at how the cost of houses has shot up lately. Tradesmen have seen wages increase by up to 50% in the last year in some parts. This effects everybody, householder, company and corporation. 1.3% is a Labour produced figure to hide the fact that the cost of living is increasing out of control way beyond the measly pay increases that public sector workers are 'awarded'.
You could make a pay cut/increase look however you want with careful manipulation of the figures. A job that Mr Brown exels at.
The joke is that this government are swamped with funds, tax has spiralled out of control, just look at the frozen stamp duty issue. How many more properties are beyond that in value now? Ans I'm not going to start on about fuel revenue or traffic fines.....
£3bn. That's all there's a shortfall of. Peanuts. Labor pocketed £20bn+ by selling fresh air to mobile phone companies, for god's sake!!!
Rant over
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Defence spending lower than before 1997
Financial Times
"The defence budget is lower in real terms today than before Labour come to power in 1997 in spite of the additional commitments the military has taken on in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is also set to remain lower as a result of Monday's spending review. If, as expected, the defence budget is increased by an annual average of about 1.25 per cent in real terms for each of the two new years covered by the review, at the end of the period it will be worth about 8 per cent less than in 2001-02......
"The defence budget is lower in real terms today than before Labour come to power in 1997 in spite of the additional commitments the military has taken on in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is also set to remain lower as a result of Monday's spending review. If, as expected, the defence budget is increased by an annual average of about 1.25 per cent in real terms for each of the two new years covered by the review, at the end of the period it will be worth about 8 per cent less than in 2001-02......
Join Date: May 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MoD chairs £1,000 each as troops face axe
MoD chairs £1,000 each as troops face axe
By Michael Smith Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 12/07/2004)
The Ministry of Defence has bought each of its 3,150 Whitehall civil servants a £1,000 chair as it plans the biggest cuts in the Armed Forces since the Cold War.
The Herman Miller Aeron chair, described as the "most comfortable office chair in the world", is also the most expensive.
It is the kind David Dimbleby uses on BBC1's Question Time and has been on display at the New York Museum of Modern Art as one of America's designs of the decade.
The purchase is part of a £342 million refurbishment carried out at the ministry.
It was sanctioned just as British troops were being sent to war in Iraq. It later emerged that many of them had been dispatched without the proper equipment.
The expense has come to light as Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, prepares to announce cuts forced on him by the Treasury, in part because his ministry's civil servants got their sums wrong.
Sixteen teams of civil servants, with minimal representation from the three services, have looked at every aspect of the Armed Forces to find ways of saving up to £1.5 billion.
The cuts are expected to be so bad that Mr Hoon will announce them on July 21, the day before Parliament rises for its summer recess, to limit criticism from MPs on both sides of the House.
The Royal Navy will lose up to seven surface ships, making it smaller than the French navy for the first time since the 17th century.
As many as four Army infantry battalions are expected to be axed and the RAF will lose five bases, about 7,000 personnel and many of its front-line aircraft.
The ministry denied that the Aeron chairs were an extravagance during a period of cuts, saying that they brought the working environment up to "acceptable modern standards" and would improve efficiency.
It said it did not pay the full recommended retail price of £1,050 for the chairs. A spokesman refused to say how much it did pay because "the exact cost is a commercially sensitive matter between the MoD and Herman Miller".
The spokesman said the ergonomic design would mean that fewer civil servants had to take time off work with back pain and that the chairs would last twice as long as ordinary ones.
Paul Keetch, the Liberal Democrats' defence spokesman, said he was sure that the ministry refurbishment was necessary but described the decision to buy Aeron chairs as "a joke" at a time when the Armed Forces were facing enormous cuts.
"The MoD has its priorities badly mixed up if it is happy to spend £1,000 on a chair while soldiers in Iraq have to buy their own boots," he said.
"It is a disgrace that, while the MoD is facing its worst cash crisis in a generation, soldiers are the ones who have to suffer. The Government must look after soldiers better before it can start buying fancy furniture."
9 July 2004: Forces face biggest cuts since Cold War
http://www.dream-tool.com/tools/mess...+brownenvelope
By Michael Smith Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 12/07/2004)
The Ministry of Defence has bought each of its 3,150 Whitehall civil servants a £1,000 chair as it plans the biggest cuts in the Armed Forces since the Cold War.
The Herman Miller Aeron chair, described as the "most comfortable office chair in the world", is also the most expensive.
It is the kind David Dimbleby uses on BBC1's Question Time and has been on display at the New York Museum of Modern Art as one of America's designs of the decade.
The purchase is part of a £342 million refurbishment carried out at the ministry.
It was sanctioned just as British troops were being sent to war in Iraq. It later emerged that many of them had been dispatched without the proper equipment.
The expense has come to light as Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, prepares to announce cuts forced on him by the Treasury, in part because his ministry's civil servants got their sums wrong.
Sixteen teams of civil servants, with minimal representation from the three services, have looked at every aspect of the Armed Forces to find ways of saving up to £1.5 billion.
The cuts are expected to be so bad that Mr Hoon will announce them on July 21, the day before Parliament rises for its summer recess, to limit criticism from MPs on both sides of the House.
The Royal Navy will lose up to seven surface ships, making it smaller than the French navy for the first time since the 17th century.
As many as four Army infantry battalions are expected to be axed and the RAF will lose five bases, about 7,000 personnel and many of its front-line aircraft.
The ministry denied that the Aeron chairs were an extravagance during a period of cuts, saying that they brought the working environment up to "acceptable modern standards" and would improve efficiency.
It said it did not pay the full recommended retail price of £1,050 for the chairs. A spokesman refused to say how much it did pay because "the exact cost is a commercially sensitive matter between the MoD and Herman Miller".
The spokesman said the ergonomic design would mean that fewer civil servants had to take time off work with back pain and that the chairs would last twice as long as ordinary ones.
Paul Keetch, the Liberal Democrats' defence spokesman, said he was sure that the ministry refurbishment was necessary but described the decision to buy Aeron chairs as "a joke" at a time when the Armed Forces were facing enormous cuts.
"The MoD has its priorities badly mixed up if it is happy to spend £1,000 on a chair while soldiers in Iraq have to buy their own boots," he said.
"It is a disgrace that, while the MoD is facing its worst cash crisis in a generation, soldiers are the ones who have to suffer. The Government must look after soldiers better before it can start buying fancy furniture."
9 July 2004: Forces face biggest cuts since Cold War
http://www.dream-tool.com/tools/mess...+brownenvelope
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Far and Away
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.modoracle.com/?page=http:...il.h2f?id=5793 :
What were the headlines for defence in 2002?
When Gordon Brown stood up to deliver his last spending review on July 15 2002, it was just eight months before the war in Iraq. Already an invasion looked inevitable. Consequently, the chancellor handed defence secretary Geoff Hoon a £3.5bn annual increase until 2005, calling it the "biggest planned increase in defence spending for 20 years" - and reportedly three times more than Geoff Hoon was expecting. At 2002 prices, that took annual expenditure on the MoD from £29.3bn in 2002 to £32.8bn by 2005-6. Mr Brown boasted that the strength of the economy had allowed him to find the extra billions "to fight international terrorism" despite having also funded huge extra spending in health and education. However, the money came with a sting in the tail: Mr Brown insisted that the MoD agree to "looking even harder at ways of improving efficiency to ensure the taxpayer gets more value for money from defence spending" - a barely concealed reference to the MoD notorious over-spends on hardware projects.
What have they spent since then?
The money - in line with the government's post-cold war Strategic Defence Review of 1998 - was mostly earmarked for modernising defence logistics and business information systems, in tune with the more high-tech, lightweight armed forces envisaged for the peacekeeping roles and humanitarian interventions favoured by Tony Blair. £1bn of new capital and £0.5bn of new resources for new equipment and an extra £578m for modernising logistics and IT systems. In return, it emerged Mr Brown was demanding 2.5% of "output efficiencies" each year. However, just ahead of the Iraq war Mr Brown announced an emergency reserve fund of £3bn to pay for the conflict, with a further promise to "spend what it takes" - virtually his only comment on the war. An additional £800m was soon added to that sum, taking the total "spend" on the war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq to £6.3bn.
But MoD balance sheets have been badly hit by a string of flagship projects - most notably the Eurofighter, but also the Nimrod and Astutesubmarine - going £3bn overbudget. A frenzied struggle has begun to save money elsewhere, by juggling the books, cancelling exercises and postponing equipment deliveries. The Eurofighters - designed to intercept Soviet MIGs over Europe - come at £35m each. Britain is committed to 232, although that may be cut back by 50 or so. Many critics think the entire project should be scrapped. Another £4.5bn is committed to six new navy destroyers - again originally designed to keep shipping lanes free of Soviet subs. The imposition of a new form of Treasury accounting, known as resource accounting, which includes assets as well as expenditure, led the MoD to close four RAF bases, with further sell-offs expected, in an attempt to shave a £1bn off its books.
Have they done their job?
Not really. Ahead of the Iraq war, the papers were full of squaddies' complaints that even simple essentials such as boot, rifles and radios were faulty or unsuited to the desert heat. The smart money is on a 1% increase for the next three years. At his liaison committee grilling last week the prime minister surprised MPs by saying: "I don't think we'll be cutting defence spending at all." However, to meet existing spending commitments, even a small rise is likely to be balanced by cuts and amalgamations in the existing regiments, forces and manpower. Black Watch, the Royal Scots and the Kings Own Scottish Borderers are likely to amalgamate or disband, causing a political ruckus north of the border, and a fuss from the SNP at Westminster. In terms of future spending, 12 out of 19 projects will require peak expenditure between 2007 and 2011 - beyond the scope of the current 2005-8 spending review. Spending commitments for the next 10 years amount to about £65bn.
What were the headlines for defence in 2002?
When Gordon Brown stood up to deliver his last spending review on July 15 2002, it was just eight months before the war in Iraq. Already an invasion looked inevitable. Consequently, the chancellor handed defence secretary Geoff Hoon a £3.5bn annual increase until 2005, calling it the "biggest planned increase in defence spending for 20 years" - and reportedly three times more than Geoff Hoon was expecting. At 2002 prices, that took annual expenditure on the MoD from £29.3bn in 2002 to £32.8bn by 2005-6. Mr Brown boasted that the strength of the economy had allowed him to find the extra billions "to fight international terrorism" despite having also funded huge extra spending in health and education. However, the money came with a sting in the tail: Mr Brown insisted that the MoD agree to "looking even harder at ways of improving efficiency to ensure the taxpayer gets more value for money from defence spending" - a barely concealed reference to the MoD notorious over-spends on hardware projects.
What have they spent since then?
The money - in line with the government's post-cold war Strategic Defence Review of 1998 - was mostly earmarked for modernising defence logistics and business information systems, in tune with the more high-tech, lightweight armed forces envisaged for the peacekeeping roles and humanitarian interventions favoured by Tony Blair. £1bn of new capital and £0.5bn of new resources for new equipment and an extra £578m for modernising logistics and IT systems. In return, it emerged Mr Brown was demanding 2.5% of "output efficiencies" each year. However, just ahead of the Iraq war Mr Brown announced an emergency reserve fund of £3bn to pay for the conflict, with a further promise to "spend what it takes" - virtually his only comment on the war. An additional £800m was soon added to that sum, taking the total "spend" on the war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq to £6.3bn.
But MoD balance sheets have been badly hit by a string of flagship projects - most notably the Eurofighter, but also the Nimrod and Astutesubmarine - going £3bn overbudget. A frenzied struggle has begun to save money elsewhere, by juggling the books, cancelling exercises and postponing equipment deliveries. The Eurofighters - designed to intercept Soviet MIGs over Europe - come at £35m each. Britain is committed to 232, although that may be cut back by 50 or so. Many critics think the entire project should be scrapped. Another £4.5bn is committed to six new navy destroyers - again originally designed to keep shipping lanes free of Soviet subs. The imposition of a new form of Treasury accounting, known as resource accounting, which includes assets as well as expenditure, led the MoD to close four RAF bases, with further sell-offs expected, in an attempt to shave a £1bn off its books.
Have they done their job?
Not really. Ahead of the Iraq war, the papers were full of squaddies' complaints that even simple essentials such as boot, rifles and radios were faulty or unsuited to the desert heat. The smart money is on a 1% increase for the next three years. At his liaison committee grilling last week the prime minister surprised MPs by saying: "I don't think we'll be cutting defence spending at all." However, to meet existing spending commitments, even a small rise is likely to be balanced by cuts and amalgamations in the existing regiments, forces and manpower. Black Watch, the Royal Scots and the Kings Own Scottish Borderers are likely to amalgamate or disband, causing a political ruckus north of the border, and a fuss from the SNP at Westminster. In terms of future spending, 12 out of 19 projects will require peak expenditure between 2007 and 2011 - beyond the scope of the current 2005-8 spending review. Spending commitments for the next 10 years amount to about £65bn.