Military Job cuts AGAIN
Nursey,
Well, seeing as 104,000 Civil Servants are for the chop between now and 2008 and that the MoD employs 93,000 right now, I guess never.
ZH875,
187,000 trained personnel in the UK armed forces, 23,000 in training plus 46,000 reservists, I do hope you don’t rely on arithmetic in your job if you think 93,000 exceeds 256,000!
1.4% in real terms per year for the next three years, (that’s 1.5% in cash terms) all Iraq and Afghan costs to be met from a separate fund plus a £100m defence technology fund.
Not exactly the “massive cuts in defence spending” all gloomily forecast in many places eh?
I wonder how Hoon and the Chiefs of Staff are going to translate this into a viable Equipment Programme?
Bye bye all southern RAF bases bar High Wycombe and Northolt?
Maybe a cut in the number of headquarters and associated Air Rank posts, does the current size of the RAF REALLY warrant; two Command Headquarters, three Group Headquarters, Headquarters Joint Helicopter Command, Headquarters Joint Force Harrier, Permanent Joint Force Headquarters, all the numerous senior posts in MoD Headquarters, the DLO, and the DPA, Directorates of this, Directorates of that, numerous Force Headquarters. Are they ALL needed or justified in running an organisation with a trained strength of just 49,000 people?
Well, seeing as 104,000 Civil Servants are for the chop between now and 2008 and that the MoD employs 93,000 right now, I guess never.
ZH875,
187,000 trained personnel in the UK armed forces, 23,000 in training plus 46,000 reservists, I do hope you don’t rely on arithmetic in your job if you think 93,000 exceeds 256,000!
1.4% in real terms per year for the next three years, (that’s 1.5% in cash terms) all Iraq and Afghan costs to be met from a separate fund plus a £100m defence technology fund.
Not exactly the “massive cuts in defence spending” all gloomily forecast in many places eh?
I wonder how Hoon and the Chiefs of Staff are going to translate this into a viable Equipment Programme?
Bye bye all southern RAF bases bar High Wycombe and Northolt?
Maybe a cut in the number of headquarters and associated Air Rank posts, does the current size of the RAF REALLY warrant; two Command Headquarters, three Group Headquarters, Headquarters Joint Helicopter Command, Headquarters Joint Force Harrier, Permanent Joint Force Headquarters, all the numerous senior posts in MoD Headquarters, the DLO, and the DPA, Directorates of this, Directorates of that, numerous Force Headquarters. Are they ALL needed or justified in running an organisation with a trained strength of just 49,000 people?
Waivar,
WHAT cutbacks?
1.4% increase in REAL terms for the next three years, that's a 1.5% £3.5Billion increase in cash terms after it was raised in 2002. ALL Iraq and Afghan costs to be met in full from seperate funding and a £100m new defence technology fund.
What has the Torygraph and the Daily Mail done to you people, brain washed you?
THERE IS NO CHANCE OF A EUROPEAN DEFENCE FORCE.
Shouting so you can hear me....................................
WHAT cutbacks?
1.4% increase in REAL terms for the next three years, that's a 1.5% £3.5Billion increase in cash terms after it was raised in 2002. ALL Iraq and Afghan costs to be met in full from seperate funding and a £100m new defence technology fund.
What has the Torygraph and the Daily Mail done to you people, brain washed you?
THERE IS NO CHANCE OF A EUROPEAN DEFENCE FORCE.
Shouting so you can hear me....................................
Bullets..........
No, just someone who can count!
No, just someone who can count!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pr00ne,
You are completely correct in stating that there is to be real terms increase in the funding going to the MOD (not neccessarily the forces) as a result of todays spending review.
However, to suggest that there are going to be no cutbacks is at best premature. Let's wait until the ministerial annoucement due on the 21 July, any coincidence that its due the day before the parlimentary recess begins. Maybe that's overly cynical, or maybe its to prevent proper debate and questioning of the plans.
Much of the increase in money will be swallowed up on the over budget procurement costs that the 90,000+ MOD civil servants have single handedly failed to control (not to mention the multi-million pound refurbishment of main building and phenomally expensive new chairs to stop the poor desk jockeys backs' from getting sore - whose turn is it with the body armour today!). There will almost certainly be cutbacks and closures as well as the cash boost.
You are completely correct in stating that there is to be real terms increase in the funding going to the MOD (not neccessarily the forces) as a result of todays spending review.
However, to suggest that there are going to be no cutbacks is at best premature. Let's wait until the ministerial annoucement due on the 21 July, any coincidence that its due the day before the parlimentary recess begins. Maybe that's overly cynical, or maybe its to prevent proper debate and questioning of the plans.
Much of the increase in money will be swallowed up on the over budget procurement costs that the 90,000+ MOD civil servants have single handedly failed to control (not to mention the multi-million pound refurbishment of main building and phenomally expensive new chairs to stop the poor desk jockeys backs' from getting sore - whose turn is it with the body armour today!). There will almost certainly be cutbacks and closures as well as the cash boost.
Slotback,
I think you are 100% right in what you expect to be announced by Hoon next week.
My "campaign" about this round of 'realignments,' 'changing emphasis' or what ever you want to call it was triggered by the hysterical and inaccurate nonsense in the specialist press, the Daily Mail and the Torygraph prophesing huge cuts in defence expenditure.
The fact that there are going to be less fast jets, fewer surface warships and heavy armour was announced as fact in the last Defence White paper.
I do think that the blame should be focused a little more sharply on the guys at the top of those numerous "Headquarters" I quoted in an earlier mail. After all, if you have procurement cock up after procurement overspend after procurement delay, why is it NEVER the fault of the Air ships and their ilk who run these oganisations!
BTW,
I think that very few of the 93,000 MOD civil servants are involved in procurement decisions, that is the realm of the ministers and the senior officers who NEVER take the blame or feel the pinch.
I think you are 100% right in what you expect to be announced by Hoon next week.
My "campaign" about this round of 'realignments,' 'changing emphasis' or what ever you want to call it was triggered by the hysterical and inaccurate nonsense in the specialist press, the Daily Mail and the Torygraph prophesing huge cuts in defence expenditure.
The fact that there are going to be less fast jets, fewer surface warships and heavy armour was announced as fact in the last Defence White paper.
I do think that the blame should be focused a little more sharply on the guys at the top of those numerous "Headquarters" I quoted in an earlier mail. After all, if you have procurement cock up after procurement overspend after procurement delay, why is it NEVER the fault of the Air ships and their ilk who run these oganisations!
BTW,
I think that very few of the 93,000 MOD civil servants are involved in procurement decisions, that is the realm of the ministers and the senior officers who NEVER take the blame or feel the pinch.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Point taken, the civil servants may not make the procurement decisions, those are left to the senior officers and more often politicians with ulterior motives. However, the civil servants are responsible for drawing up contracts and ensuring compliance to said contracts. In addition they monitor progress and spend on projects and more often than not have a heavy hand in acceptance of inappropriate or defective equipment.
Its about time defence procurement contracts reflected penalty clauses for industry's over run or non-compliance with specification etc, and not just penatly clauses tieing the MOD into buy the end product regardless of result
Its about time defence procurement contracts reflected penalty clauses for industry's over run or non-compliance with specification etc, and not just penatly clauses tieing the MOD into buy the end product regardless of result
Gentleman Aviator
pr00ne
...er ... hate to confuse an argument with facts but JHC, JFH, MoD< DLO, PJHQ et al aren't just for the RAF.
So to answer your question:
NO - but they do an awful lot more than run the RAF.
Are you sure you're not a politician??
does the current size of the RAF REALLY warrant; two Command Headquarters, three Group Headquarters, Headquarters Joint Helicopter Command, Headquarters Joint Force Harrier, Permanent Joint Force Headquarters, all the numerous senior posts in MoD Headquarters, the DLO, and the DPA, Directorates of this, Directorates of that, numerous Force Headquarters. Are they ALL needed or justified in running an organisation with a trained strength of just 49,000 people?
So to answer your question:
Are they ALL needed or justified in running an organisation with a trained strength of just 49,000 people?
Are you sure you're not a politician??
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to be cynical, but is this all new money that has not yet been spent? The Treasury has a long history of repackaging spending to make it look new. A Jane's commentator, can't remember who, was scratching his head somewhat trying to make sense of the sums.
Also, how does an increase compare with RAB? Is this an increase in the pre-RAB or post-RAB balance sheet? And does this include any of the cash for war on Iraq, which you can bet will not cover the actual cost! As for civil servant savings, when redundancy and relocation costs are considered the MoD's eye will probably look once at us in uniform who can do nothing about receiving a P45 and can't complain about working harder with less!
We've got the nicely-wrapped present, time to open it!
Also, how does an increase compare with RAB? Is this an increase in the pre-RAB or post-RAB balance sheet? And does this include any of the cash for war on Iraq, which you can bet will not cover the actual cost! As for civil servant savings, when redundancy and relocation costs are considered the MoD's eye will probably look once at us in uniform who can do nothing about receiving a P45 and can't complain about working harder with less!
We've got the nicely-wrapped present, time to open it!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sorry, but as much as I think our Lords & Masters are a bunch of fine upstanding Muppets, I must agree with Jess here. Has anyone done the sums of job cuts Vs increase in defence spending?
The cynic inside me says that this is all a political spin - again.
PM - who me spin things?? No, never, not I Sir! I'd never do that.
I would love someone to work out the balance between how much 'we' will save from the current defence cuts, sorry reallignments (PrOOne -don't even think about starting - objection over ruled or whatever it is you wig-sporting chaps say in court!) and comparing it to the amount being awarded in the 'defence spending increases'.
I'd put my neighbour's mortgage on the fact that there isn't a huge difference between the £3.x Bn we have been given and the savings made by impending cuts.
Sounds to me like what we call circular reporting, where A cancels out B and you end up witha zero sum balance. Which in the end will probably be a negative balance cos you can't replace experience, capability and infrastructure as quickly as you can announce a £3.x Bn budget incerase.
The cynic inside me says that this is all a political spin - again.
PM - who me spin things?? No, never, not I Sir! I'd never do that.
I would love someone to work out the balance between how much 'we' will save from the current defence cuts, sorry reallignments (PrOOne -don't even think about starting - objection over ruled or whatever it is you wig-sporting chaps say in court!) and comparing it to the amount being awarded in the 'defence spending increases'.
I'd put my neighbour's mortgage on the fact that there isn't a huge difference between the £3.x Bn we have been given and the savings made by impending cuts.
Sounds to me like what we call circular reporting, where A cancels out B and you end up witha zero sum balance. Which in the end will probably be a negative balance cos you can't replace experience, capability and infrastructure as quickly as you can announce a £3.x Bn budget incerase.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Well North of London
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MoD section of the Spending Review can be found here:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/...r2004_ch13.pdf
(Is it just a coincidence that it is Chapter 13?)
The way I read things the increases require the MoD to fully meet its obligations to achieve £2.8billion in efficiency savings - less savings, less money.
It is also interesting to see that Defence got the smallest increase of all the major departments - even Culture got 2.3%.
D4R
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/...r2004_ch13.pdf
(Is it just a coincidence that it is Chapter 13?)
The way I read things the increases require the MoD to fully meet its obligations to achieve £2.8billion in efficiency savings - less savings, less money.
It is also interesting to see that Defence got the smallest increase of all the major departments - even Culture got 2.3%.
D4R
Guest
Posts: n/a
In light of the imminent butchery and lack of resources and funding for ops type stuff, I wonder if we should think about re-naming the Global War on Terror the Global Severe Talking to on Terror???
About all we can afford to do these days is take their sweets off them and make them stand in the corner during play time.
Looking at all the recent spending blurb, a little bird tells me we will probably only see a fraction of that £3.x Bn on the front line where it is needed.
Lots will go to the stackers and adminers for logistical 'support' to the services along with IT infrastructure, whilst I am led to believe the govt imposes a little known about (outside stakcer/scribbly/staff lines) surcharge on everything we keep in stores. If we store it and it depreciates, then we have to pay the govt compensation for it. So that will eat into lots of the cash, although a lack of body armour should save a few quid. And we still need to fund the bits of TELIC from this lot that Prudence won't pay for because he claims we would have spent it anyway during peactime trg/ops; plus there's the black hole in the Typhoon funding that was taken to bolser TELIC funds.
My guess, if we're lucky, about £1.5Bn, if that, will make its way to where it's really needed. Or just enough to fund the latest hair-brained PC Euro-bollox directive.
About all we can afford to do these days is take their sweets off them and make them stand in the corner during play time.
Looking at all the recent spending blurb, a little bird tells me we will probably only see a fraction of that £3.x Bn on the front line where it is needed.
Lots will go to the stackers and adminers for logistical 'support' to the services along with IT infrastructure, whilst I am led to believe the govt imposes a little known about (outside stakcer/scribbly/staff lines) surcharge on everything we keep in stores. If we store it and it depreciates, then we have to pay the govt compensation for it. So that will eat into lots of the cash, although a lack of body armour should save a few quid. And we still need to fund the bits of TELIC from this lot that Prudence won't pay for because he claims we would have spent it anyway during peactime trg/ops; plus there's the black hole in the Typhoon funding that was taken to bolser TELIC funds.
My guess, if we're lucky, about £1.5Bn, if that, will make its way to where it's really needed. Or just enough to fund the latest hair-brained PC Euro-bollox directive.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lincs
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spending money on IT
I see your point regarding the admin and blanket stacking, but if you were one of those on Telic trying to unsuccessfully force the ATO, target folders, misreps and WSV down our thin bits of electric string to our out-dated computers, you'd want money spent on the IT and comms too!
I was, and a carrier pigeon would have been faster.....(tastier than MREs too!)
SBG
I was, and a carrier pigeon would have been faster.....(tastier than MREs too!)
SBG
Guest
Posts: n/a
SBG - was there, did it and by the sounds of it we read the same book and have the same t-shirt. And yes it would have been handy if I had had some useful IT that had a slightly greater carrying capacity than an off-colour Speckled Jim. Seem to remember my IT being so screwed up that it was quicker to A-B via C in another country than direct A-B.
However, they won't spend it on useful IT. It will all go on logs support IT, to order and track all those £1000 chairs for the new civis we employ and to administer the latest administrative cock-ups.
If they gave the ops side some good IT then I wouldn't mind a jot about spending less on kit for ops and more on IT, it just won't happen.
I do hope that Speckled Jim has recovered in time for the next war! Although carrier pigeon is actually quite nice if you add those little bottles of Tabasco after cooking.
However, they won't spend it on useful IT. It will all go on logs support IT, to order and track all those £1000 chairs for the new civis we employ and to administer the latest administrative cock-ups.
If they gave the ops side some good IT then I wouldn't mind a jot about spending less on kit for ops and more on IT, it just won't happen.
I do hope that Speckled Jim has recovered in time for the next war! Although carrier pigeon is actually quite nice if you add those little bottles of Tabasco after cooking.