And now another £18 Bn in defence cuts...
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maroonman4
Think you need to check your facts re Future Lynx?
The programme is very much on at the moment...Ring Lynx IPT for the latest or read....
Future Lynx
Long live Teeny Weeny Airways
Think you need to check your facts re Future Lynx?
The programme is very much on at the moment...Ring Lynx IPT for the latest or read....
Future Lynx
Long live Teeny Weeny Airways
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags,
Bl00dy hell - that is one of the most impassioned posts I have seen you make. However, I am totally one hundred per cent behind you. IF the saved money was going to credible and tangible causes - i.e. NHS, Transport and Education and if the Govt were not sending us all round the world in order to punch politically above our weight - then I would be more than happy to scrap the lot, CVS, AH, Typhoon - the whole lot .
I would be more than happy to assist the police force and become a local national guard etc.
But this is just it
(a) The world is more unstable than ever (and I still can't work out why the British public are so niave think that there are still 'Peace Divedends' - what will it take Chemical attack on the tube, B747 into the Houses of Parlt).
(b) The money is going to all of the wasted causes that Beagle refers to. I am certainly not racist, homophobic and hate any 'ism/extreme views. Are we all that dim that we can't see what is going on in front of noses.
So when will the British public backlash against uncontrolled immigration? What will be the libel/litigation case too far? When will people realise that the wellfare state has gone too far and provides not only for the genuinely needy, but also the lazy?
And Mutley,
Of course the Lynx IPT will say the programme is going ahead - just as the SABR IPT did and just as the SCMR/BLUH programme did. Of course no one has made a decision yet and so those industrious Staff Officers will continue to beaver away on an aircraft that is just about to have the plug pulled.
How about NH 90 in the Find role? Now to the bean counter that makes the most sense. Solves the NAO lift quandry and also provides a Find capability (just bolt on the sight/Laser Designator when and if required)
From a capability perspective it is horse c@ck - we all know that. From a treasurey perspective all of their Christmas' come at once. After all they will not have to be the ones in an OP in an airframe with an RCS the size of the Isle Of Wight.
However, from an RAF point of view - how very interesting SH in the Find role....hmmmh, I wonder who will crew them
Bl00dy hell - that is one of the most impassioned posts I have seen you make. However, I am totally one hundred per cent behind you. IF the saved money was going to credible and tangible causes - i.e. NHS, Transport and Education and if the Govt were not sending us all round the world in order to punch politically above our weight - then I would be more than happy to scrap the lot, CVS, AH, Typhoon - the whole lot .
I would be more than happy to assist the police force and become a local national guard etc.
But this is just it
(a) The world is more unstable than ever (and I still can't work out why the British public are so niave think that there are still 'Peace Divedends' - what will it take Chemical attack on the tube, B747 into the Houses of Parlt).
(b) The money is going to all of the wasted causes that Beagle refers to. I am certainly not racist, homophobic and hate any 'ism/extreme views. Are we all that dim that we can't see what is going on in front of noses.
So when will the British public backlash against uncontrolled immigration? What will be the libel/litigation case too far? When will people realise that the wellfare state has gone too far and provides not only for the genuinely needy, but also the lazy?
And Mutley,
Of course the Lynx IPT will say the programme is going ahead - just as the SABR IPT did and just as the SCMR/BLUH programme did. Of course no one has made a decision yet and so those industrious Staff Officers will continue to beaver away on an aircraft that is just about to have the plug pulled.
How about NH 90 in the Find role? Now to the bean counter that makes the most sense. Solves the NAO lift quandry and also provides a Find capability (just bolt on the sight/Laser Designator when and if required)
From a capability perspective it is horse c@ck - we all know that. From a treasurey perspective all of their Christmas' come at once. After all they will not have to be the ones in an OP in an airframe with an RCS the size of the Isle Of Wight.
However, from an RAF point of view - how very interesting SH in the Find role....hmmmh, I wonder who will crew them
Thread Starter
This is the sort of thing I object to the taxpayers' money being wasted on:
"Three schoolgirl sisters have given birth aged 12, 14 and 16.
The Williams sisters, who live with their mother in a council house in Derby, feature in a BBC3 documentary called Desperate Midwives.
Natasha, the oldest, Jade and Jemma, the youngest, are reported to receive £600 a week in benefits.
Their mother Julie Atkins, 38, who said the girls were too young and had ruined their lives, blamed schools for providing poor quality sex education."
Now, even I'm not daft enough to join the BNP, UKIP or other right wing group, but why on earth should these kids receive one penny in 'benefit' from the state?
And did you know that, in 2003, almost 140000 immigrants settled in the UK, a fifth up on the previous year, according to official figures? Sure some will be needed and will be most welcome, but how many are just welfare state scroungers?
"Three schoolgirl sisters have given birth aged 12, 14 and 16.
The Williams sisters, who live with their mother in a council house in Derby, feature in a BBC3 documentary called Desperate Midwives.
Natasha, the oldest, Jade and Jemma, the youngest, are reported to receive £600 a week in benefits.
Their mother Julie Atkins, 38, who said the girls were too young and had ruined their lives, blamed schools for providing poor quality sex education."
Now, even I'm not daft enough to join the BNP, UKIP or other right wing group, but why on earth should these kids receive one penny in 'benefit' from the state?
And did you know that, in 2003, almost 140000 immigrants settled in the UK, a fifth up on the previous year, according to official figures? Sure some will be needed and will be most welcome, but how many are just welfare state scroungers?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
And did you know that, in 2003, almost 140000 immigrants settled in the UK, a fifth up on the previous year, according to official figures? Sure some will be needed and will be most welcome, but how many are just welfare state scroungers?
BBC: UK government figures show that about 130,000 nationals from eight of the new member states - different rules apply for Cyprus and Malta as Commonwealth members - applied to work in the UK between May and December 2004. About 123,000 successfully obtained work permits.
According to Home Office estimates, the new workers - over half of whom have found permanent employment - pumped about £240m into the British economy during that time. Fears that migrant workers would act as a drain on the economy appear unfounded. More than 95% of incomers are working full time while the number drawing state benefits, according to the Home Office, are "very low"......
"The general opinion is that this migration has been beneficial," says Dr Martin Ruhs, from the Centre on Migration, Policy and Society at the University of Oxford..... "It continues to meet a need in terms of filling labour shortages and there have been no adverse effects such as a rise in unemployment levels."
BBC: UK government figures show that about 130,000 nationals from eight of the new member states - different rules apply for Cyprus and Malta as Commonwealth members - applied to work in the UK between May and December 2004. About 123,000 successfully obtained work permits.
According to Home Office estimates, the new workers - over half of whom have found permanent employment - pumped about £240m into the British economy during that time. Fears that migrant workers would act as a drain on the economy appear unfounded. More than 95% of incomers are working full time while the number drawing state benefits, according to the Home Office, are "very low"......
"The general opinion is that this migration has been beneficial," says Dr Martin Ruhs, from the Centre on Migration, Policy and Society at the University of Oxford..... "It continues to meet a need in terms of filling labour shortages and there have been no adverse effects such as a rise in unemployment levels."
Thread Starter
So, we had ample capacity in terms of housing, health care, education and social services to cope with these extra 130000 immigrants, did we?
So how come Gordon-the-greedy and Fatty Two Jags are trying to come up with yet more schemes to bury our countryside under housing programmes?
As for Dr Ruhs, the words of Mandy Rice-Davies spring to mind once more..... And quite whose 'general opinion' is he stating in any case?
So how come Gordon-the-greedy and Fatty Two Jags are trying to come up with yet more schemes to bury our countryside under housing programmes?
As for Dr Ruhs, the words of Mandy Rice-Davies spring to mind once more..... And quite whose 'general opinion' is he stating in any case?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I think you will find that they are adult (strike education), fit (health) and, as stated above, working (social services). They are also not the ones rushing out to buy houses, the vast majority intending to eventually go home - relieving us of the expense of health care and pensions after they have spent years contributing to our economy.
As the example of the 3 girls discussed previously shows, our problems are home grown, not imported.
As the example of the 3 girls discussed previously shows, our problems are home grown, not imported.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the vast majority intending to eventually go home
Was there an election box in Iraq for servicemen etc during our recent election?
Home grown....only cos the majority of the pink and fluffly brigade were born here. I for one am fed up with funding every tom dick and harry that wants to come here to live, especially when their are pensioners that are struggling to find Council Tax monies.
Thread Starter
Actually, if they did have children in need of education, they probably wouldn't want to come to the UK in the first place if they had any sense, I guess. Orac is absolutely right about the root cause of our domestic problems....
Nothing against the concept of people wanting to move here, just as long as we can cope with their numbers! And yes, quite happy if they were to be 'In My back Yard' - particularly if they happened to be leggy Lithuanian lovelies!
There was an interesting piece on the news not so long ago about a delightful young couple from Latvia who reckoned that they'd just about had enough of life under Blair and were off back to their very pleasant land as soon as they possibly could - for them, moving to Britain hadn't been a good idea.
Nothing against the concept of people wanting to move here, just as long as we can cope with their numbers! And yes, quite happy if they were to be 'In My back Yard' - particularly if they happened to be leggy Lithuanian lovelies!
There was an interesting piece on the news not so long ago about a delightful young couple from Latvia who reckoned that they'd just about had enough of life under Blair and were off back to their very pleasant land as soon as they possibly could - for them, moving to Britain hadn't been a good idea.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK, sometimes!
Age: 74
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Their mother Julie Atkins, 38, who said the girls were too young and had ruined their lives, blamed schools for providing poor quality sex education."
MadMark!!!
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
If someone has a bad driving crash/accident that is their fault, they don't pipe up and blame BSM, so why if they get pregnant/hooked on heroin should they blame the education system?
What is the current UK unemployment figure? Could some of the jobs being done by the 130,000 odd foreign workers coming here not be done by British workers (I am aware of skills shortages in certain areas!!), so scoring the double bonus of not only contributing '£240 million' to the British economy but also reducing the burden on the welfare state? If British workers are not willing to take on some low paid jobs we need to re-examine the way the system works, so it is in their interest to do so (a part wage part benefit system to provide a certain minimal income?)
Just a question from a simple minded individual, who I like to think is not racist, but does have UK plc's best interests at heart first!
Just a question from a simple minded individual, who I like to think is not racist, but does have UK plc's best interests at heart first!
FJJP,
WHAT comparison is there to the nineteen thirties in our current situation, I cannot think of a single parallel you could draw, not one.
Michael Edic,
Spin what? The MOD has a funding crisis, is that new? There is nothing new here, why do you think all the force structure changes were announced in July way before the replacements or enhancements were delivered or even on the horizon? The MoD has had problems managing expenditure and complex project management since the early sixties, it simply cannot do it and no Government of any persuasion has ever managed to get it to work despite numerous reorganisations, reorganisations and initiaves.
mbga9pgf,
Where did you expect to get with this Gov’t? You got £27.9bn this year, £33.4bn in 2007, a £3.7bn increase in the 2004 spending review coming after the 2003 increase which itself was the largest in 20 years. You got an additional £4.4bn from the reserves to fund the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan ops in FULL, with a commitment to an additional £300m against unforeseen operations costs.
Actually, just to show I am not a complete Labour spinnite , I think your idea of growth in the Defence budget in line with economic growth is a reasonable request, yet how likely is it that ANY party will commit to that so long as there is no direct military threat to this country of any kind and a hell of a lot to do in a country that thanks to the Tories has become unable to even countenance additional direct taxation.
Beagle and the rest,
I won’t even grant your racist ravings the decency of a reply.
Biggus,
People like you just don’t get it do you!
We have near as damm it full employment, without a healthy flow of skilled and unskilled immigrants we will just not have enough people to man what is a thriving and growing economy. There is a certain level below which it is just not possible to go in terms of unemployment, incapacity benefit, long term sick, early retirements etc etc. In 1940, with this country with its back to the wall and mobilised to defend ourselves against what looked like overwhelming and impossible odds, there was still an unemployment figure of over one million in this country.
I work professionally with a lot of asylum seekers and legal immigrants, it is not easy for them and if they cannot offer anything in terms of skills and experience then it is bloody hard for them even to get in. Many of them are here for a short time to take up employment such as driving buses for which companies cannot find applicants and set up recruiting fairs abroad. Many regions of the UK now have the absurd situation of offering more jobs in one paper on a single Thursday than there are unemployed in the region. Many of them are Doctors, Dentists, lawyers, accountants, architects etc etc and their skills are in very short supply. Many are nurses or support staff in various health disciplines, we urgently need these people though I would argue in the case of Africa they are more urgently needed at home.
UK Plc needs these people.
WHAT comparison is there to the nineteen thirties in our current situation, I cannot think of a single parallel you could draw, not one.
Michael Edic,
Spin what? The MOD has a funding crisis, is that new? There is nothing new here, why do you think all the force structure changes were announced in July way before the replacements or enhancements were delivered or even on the horizon? The MoD has had problems managing expenditure and complex project management since the early sixties, it simply cannot do it and no Government of any persuasion has ever managed to get it to work despite numerous reorganisations, reorganisations and initiaves.
mbga9pgf,
Where did you expect to get with this Gov’t? You got £27.9bn this year, £33.4bn in 2007, a £3.7bn increase in the 2004 spending review coming after the 2003 increase which itself was the largest in 20 years. You got an additional £4.4bn from the reserves to fund the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan ops in FULL, with a commitment to an additional £300m against unforeseen operations costs.
Actually, just to show I am not a complete Labour spinnite , I think your idea of growth in the Defence budget in line with economic growth is a reasonable request, yet how likely is it that ANY party will commit to that so long as there is no direct military threat to this country of any kind and a hell of a lot to do in a country that thanks to the Tories has become unable to even countenance additional direct taxation.
Beagle and the rest,
I won’t even grant your racist ravings the decency of a reply.
Biggus,
People like you just don’t get it do you!
We have near as damm it full employment, without a healthy flow of skilled and unskilled immigrants we will just not have enough people to man what is a thriving and growing economy. There is a certain level below which it is just not possible to go in terms of unemployment, incapacity benefit, long term sick, early retirements etc etc. In 1940, with this country with its back to the wall and mobilised to defend ourselves against what looked like overwhelming and impossible odds, there was still an unemployment figure of over one million in this country.
I work professionally with a lot of asylum seekers and legal immigrants, it is not easy for them and if they cannot offer anything in terms of skills and experience then it is bloody hard for them even to get in. Many of them are here for a short time to take up employment such as driving buses for which companies cannot find applicants and set up recruiting fairs abroad. Many regions of the UK now have the absurd situation of offering more jobs in one paper on a single Thursday than there are unemployed in the region. Many of them are Doctors, Dentists, lawyers, accountants, architects etc etc and their skills are in very short supply. Many are nurses or support staff in various health disciplines, we urgently need these people though I would argue in the case of Africa they are more urgently needed at home.
UK Plc needs these people.
Ahh. Good to see prOOne back with his leftist claptrap. I had almost missed the ramblings and rantings; so much that I was beginning to believe that his disappearance coincided a bit to neatly with the announcement of our new Minister of Defence. Now that would explain a few things!!
Nice to see the usual retort of the bankrupt left/centre political (un)intelligentsia!! Can't argue against it so resport to calling people racist and their (heartfelt?) comments as ravings. Well I believe that the chattering classes are politically and, perhaps more importantly, morally bankrupt and the root cause of the 3 pregnant not quite teenagers?
Now back to the thread. Of course prOOne is right (in one respect) the Defence budget is always in a predicament. The biggest problem here has been caused by decades of under investment, probably going back to the 60s when Old Liarbour axed so many replacement programmes. The Armed Forces have been forced to make do and make good and all the time the dreaded 'bow wave' in the equipment programme has been building. There are only two real ways to solve the problem - we need money to pay for the new equipment and lots of it. Perhaps Health and Education and Social Security (which is paying £600 per week to a bunch of irresponsible silly little girls and their mother (just why should I/we/you pay them a penny? Self inflicted injuries?!?!)) might start finding a few savings to go towards the Defence Budget!
Or we need to scrap a couple of expensive programmes - I would suggest the carriers (sorry RN I actually support the need for them). This is the only way that the savings can realistically be made. If Noo Liarbour is to be forced into acting we need to hit back at the centrepiece of expeditionary warfare and say "Sorry something has to go, we do not have the budget to build them". (I think that there would be many in government that would actually breathe a sigh of relief). And before I provoke a retort of single service protectionism please know the facts on cancelling TypHoon - it would cost us as much to buy 100, or 150 or the 232 on order so ther ARE NO savings there. (For once the contract was written almost too well - between the partner nations anyway).
We did not get anywhere near the Full funding! Much of the money that was spent was then counted by HMT as part of the EP. Many of the UOR equipment programmes that were bought to do the Government's bidding were then deemed to have been an aspiration on the EP so HMT refused to fund them. This further adds to the EP bow wave as money had to be taken from future programmes to pay for UOR programmes that the Treasury refused to pay for! If, and I stress IF, Gulf Ops have been funded in full, then that is only right and proper. If they hadn't been then we would have to say good bye to the carriers, T45, FRES, and a few others beside. And we have debated the smoke and mirrors 'increase' in the budget and the cash part of the Defence Budget still remains at about £23 - 24 B so where is the increase?
I won’t even grant your racist ravings the decency of a reply
Now back to the thread. Of course prOOne is right (in one respect) the Defence budget is always in a predicament. The biggest problem here has been caused by decades of under investment, probably going back to the 60s when Old Liarbour axed so many replacement programmes. The Armed Forces have been forced to make do and make good and all the time the dreaded 'bow wave' in the equipment programme has been building. There are only two real ways to solve the problem - we need money to pay for the new equipment and lots of it. Perhaps Health and Education and Social Security (which is paying £600 per week to a bunch of irresponsible silly little girls and their mother (just why should I/we/you pay them a penny? Self inflicted injuries?!?!)) might start finding a few savings to go towards the Defence Budget!
Or we need to scrap a couple of expensive programmes - I would suggest the carriers (sorry RN I actually support the need for them). This is the only way that the savings can realistically be made. If Noo Liarbour is to be forced into acting we need to hit back at the centrepiece of expeditionary warfare and say "Sorry something has to go, we do not have the budget to build them". (I think that there would be many in government that would actually breathe a sigh of relief). And before I provoke a retort of single service protectionism please know the facts on cancelling TypHoon - it would cost us as much to buy 100, or 150 or the 232 on order so ther ARE NO savings there. (For once the contract was written almost too well - between the partner nations anyway).
You got an additional £4.4bn from the reserves to fund the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan ops in FULL, with a commitment to an additional £300m against unforeseen operations costs.
Last edited by Roland Pulfrew; 31st May 2005 at 07:07.
Thread Starter
Good call, Roland!
But actually, the rot started with that complete ar$e Duncan Sandys with the infamous 1957 White Paper. A Tory, incidentally.
pr00ne makes even 'Comical Ali' Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf look rather amateur when it comes to believing your own political spin!
But actually, the rot started with that complete ar$e Duncan Sandys with the infamous 1957 White Paper. A Tory, incidentally.
pr00ne makes even 'Comical Ali' Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf look rather amateur when it comes to believing your own political spin!
A) You might well hate this.
B) I should not be using my Mod username, sorry Danny.
C) Totally anecdotal.
D) Can't be specific due to family reasons.
E) Doesn't mean much anyway; BUT
Talked to the new Minister recently in a relaxed setting. With me being a total civvy with no obvious service connection. Result being:
Hoon an idiot.
HM Forces needing a far bigger sort out than NHS
That above is more important.
That Airforce safe but integration will happen.
That Army tanks are out but rotors are in.
Reservists and TA may well be extended.
With India, China most of South America and also Emerging East Europe increasing defence spensing the UK will fall behind without spending inceases of +12%.
This won't happen therefore management of decline is paramount.
Ergo, carriers will happen.
Gleaned in 14 minutes and I shouldn't have told you.
Cheers
WWW
B) I should not be using my Mod username, sorry Danny.
C) Totally anecdotal.
D) Can't be specific due to family reasons.
E) Doesn't mean much anyway; BUT
Talked to the new Minister recently in a relaxed setting. With me being a total civvy with no obvious service connection. Result being:
Hoon an idiot.
HM Forces needing a far bigger sort out than NHS
That above is more important.
That Airforce safe but integration will happen.
That Army tanks are out but rotors are in.
Reservists and TA may well be extended.
With India, China most of South America and also Emerging East Europe increasing defence spensing the UK will fall behind without spending inceases of +12%.
This won't happen therefore management of decline is paramount.
Ergo, carriers will happen.
Gleaned in 14 minutes and I shouldn't have told you.
Cheers
WWW
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"You got £27.9bn this year, £33.4bn in 2007, a £3.7bn increase in the 2004 spending review coming after the 2003 increase which itself was the largest in 20 years."
Please tell me how you did the pre and post RAB calculation to arrive at this figure?
Speaking from an Industry perspective, where are the new programmes?
Regards
Retard
PS Good to see you back.
Please tell me how you did the pre and post RAB calculation to arrive at this figure?
Speaking from an Industry perspective, where are the new programmes?
Regards
Retard
PS Good to see you back.
Engineer is right. Nowadays you simply cannot compare like with like when discussing the Defence Budget. The new accounting method used post-RAB prevents it and to simply state there has been an increase is disingenuous.
Over the years I’ve been unfortunate enough to be interviewed by various Treasury and Audit teams. (Having once discovered a company triple-billing, my name featured high on their “speak to him” list. I was young and stupid, so PE gave me a pat on the back and told me not to do it again if I wanted to progress. I didn’t progress). I think myself a fair-minded person, and looking at it from their point of view, I know for a fact they consider such things as:
Manning
The Services grumble they are undermanned. The argument is forever lost when you consider the sheer number of Servicemen at the likes of Abbey Wood, Wyton/Brampton and Andover (DPA/DLO). The Treasury look at the (Treasury determined) grade description of a junior civilian project manager (C2) and think “As a PM he is required to be a wholly competent Requirement Manager and ILS Manager, so why are most RM and ILSM posts manned by more senior Servicemen (and some by even more expensive consultants)?” Similarly, why are there rafts of Sqn Ldr/Wg Cdr/Gp Capts playing at being Supply Managers? It’s a waste of highly trained talent. I don’t know how many people I’ve covered there – perhaps an infantry battalions worth?
Fiscal Efficiency
Similarly, the Treasury only have to get out the numerous Auditors reports, both MoD and independent, and say “This report recommends there are savings to be made which will not affect the Services capability in any way. Test cases have proven hundreds of millions can be saved each year through simply following mandated instructions. Why do you refuse to do it?” It’s like ripping up money, so no wonder the Treasury resist budget increases.
Sorry, I have every sympathy with those at the front line who have to suffer but, given examples like these, the Treasury will always win. I suspect a forum consisting of mainly aircrew and engineers will (perhaps secretly) agree with me. What is needed is someone with the b***s to sack those who knowingly waste the money. Perhaps Dr Reid will pin the DPA and DLO XBs to the wall and kiss them goodnight in good old Glasgow fashion.
Over the years I’ve been unfortunate enough to be interviewed by various Treasury and Audit teams. (Having once discovered a company triple-billing, my name featured high on their “speak to him” list. I was young and stupid, so PE gave me a pat on the back and told me not to do it again if I wanted to progress. I didn’t progress). I think myself a fair-minded person, and looking at it from their point of view, I know for a fact they consider such things as:
Manning
The Services grumble they are undermanned. The argument is forever lost when you consider the sheer number of Servicemen at the likes of Abbey Wood, Wyton/Brampton and Andover (DPA/DLO). The Treasury look at the (Treasury determined) grade description of a junior civilian project manager (C2) and think “As a PM he is required to be a wholly competent Requirement Manager and ILS Manager, so why are most RM and ILSM posts manned by more senior Servicemen (and some by even more expensive consultants)?” Similarly, why are there rafts of Sqn Ldr/Wg Cdr/Gp Capts playing at being Supply Managers? It’s a waste of highly trained talent. I don’t know how many people I’ve covered there – perhaps an infantry battalions worth?
Fiscal Efficiency
Similarly, the Treasury only have to get out the numerous Auditors reports, both MoD and independent, and say “This report recommends there are savings to be made which will not affect the Services capability in any way. Test cases have proven hundreds of millions can be saved each year through simply following mandated instructions. Why do you refuse to do it?” It’s like ripping up money, so no wonder the Treasury resist budget increases.
Sorry, I have every sympathy with those at the front line who have to suffer but, given examples like these, the Treasury will always win. I suspect a forum consisting of mainly aircrew and engineers will (perhaps secretly) agree with me. What is needed is someone with the b***s to sack those who knowingly waste the money. Perhaps Dr Reid will pin the DPA and DLO XBs to the wall and kiss them goodnight in good old Glasgow fashion.
Did anyone read the article in the Torygraph about Terminal 5? BAA seem to have come up with a very interesting concept in taking on all the risk themselves. At the moment the project is on time and I believe on budget. The parting shot of the article was from the project manager stating that his project was a lot more complicated than a couple of Aircraft Carriers.
I am not an economist or an engineer but, does he have a point?
I am not an economist or an engineer but, does he have a point?