MoD must find over £1bn in savings
**** can the carriers and you can find the saving, address the £2.5 Bn shortfall that led Drayson to give up in disgust, and stop f*cking about with PFIs and just buy the FSTA tankers.
**** can the carriers and you can find the saving, address the £2.5 Bn shortfall that led Drayson to give up in disgust, and stop f*cking about with PFIs and just buy the FSTA tankers.
LL
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Shadow
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasted public funds?
(From Barry Beelzebub)
...if we really want to talk about wasted money, how about the £7.5 billion a year paid out in incapacity benefits for such debilitating illnesses as “tiredness”, gout and acne?
I realise that it’s a convenient way for the government to keep the underclasses off the unemployment register, and seeing as they’ve no intention of ever working anyway that’s probably a justifiable step, but do they have to be quite so blatant in their bare-faced bribery?
The Department of Work and Pensions has a checklist of 480 possible complaints that people of working age have used to receive incapacity benefit, including almost 2,000 claimants recorded as suffering from obesity ( pocketing £4.4 million), another 1,100 with sleep disorders, and 50 with the skin disorder acne. So that’s fat, lazy and spotty – remind you of anyone? The average teenager, perhaps?
...if we really want to talk about wasted money, how about the £7.5 billion a year paid out in incapacity benefits for such debilitating illnesses as “tiredness”, gout and acne?
I realise that it’s a convenient way for the government to keep the underclasses off the unemployment register, and seeing as they’ve no intention of ever working anyway that’s probably a justifiable step, but do they have to be quite so blatant in their bare-faced bribery?
The Department of Work and Pensions has a checklist of 480 possible complaints that people of working age have used to receive incapacity benefit, including almost 2,000 claimants recorded as suffering from obesity ( pocketing £4.4 million), another 1,100 with sleep disorders, and 50 with the skin disorder acne. So that’s fat, lazy and spotty – remind you of anyone? The average teenager, perhaps?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 119K East of SARDOT
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DEC and IPTs how we fail
After 8 years in procurement I am more convinced than ever that we should simply give the Chiefs money and guidance and let them buy off the yanks; wither UK defence industry - it and all arguments to retain it are a joke.
After 8 years in procurement I am more convinced than ever that we should simply give the Chiefs money and guidance and let them buy off the yanks; wither UK defence industry - it and all arguments to retain it are a joke.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That 700 million for Uganda won't go to Uganda.... Its been promised to Uganda but it won't actually get there....in much the same way that the money promised to the sufferers of the Boxing Day Tsunami didn't get there....
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DEC and IPTs how we fail
After 8 years in procurement I am more convinced than ever that we should simply give the Chiefs money and guidance and let them buy off the yanks; wither UK defence industry - it and all arguments to retain it are a joke.
After 8 years in procurement I am more convinced than ever that we should simply give the Chiefs money and guidance and let them buy off the yanks; wither UK defence industry - it and all arguments to retain it are a joke.
Last edited by vecvechookattack; 1st Dec 2007 at 11:46.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Somerset
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well edited vecvechookattack.
I think the point theprior was making is that the UK defence industry is self-serving. Yes, also politically driven, but can we as a Nation continue to waste billions of pounds on a 'questionable' procurement strategy that does not deliver frontline requirements on time.
Do want a first class cargo plane asap? Buy a squadron of C17s.
I think the point theprior was making is that the UK defence industry is self-serving. Yes, also politically driven, but can we as a Nation continue to waste billions of pounds on a 'questionable' procurement strategy that does not deliver frontline requirements on time.
Do want a first class cargo plane asap? Buy a squadron of C17s.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: On the edge of reality.
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The plain fact is that defence in the round is an insurance policy.
Now when you or I buy an insurance policy the main driver is cost. We may go for the policy that gives you a courtesy car, so we can carry on in the event a claim is made, and we will probably pay a little extra to avoid a large excess in the event of a claim.
Now, what New Liarbour have done (admittedly on the back of the Tories) is, since they came to power, buy the cheapest possible policy on the market. Then they have made multiple claims, quite small to begin with, Sierra Leone, Kosovo and this gave them a taste for it. So they then made two massive claims, Iraq and Afghanistan. Now foolishly the Insurance Company paid out without looking at the cover they had bought, previous claims etc. Never once did they say if you make these claims your future cover will suffer...
So funnily enough, now, the Insurance Company has said 'your claim history is appaling - time to up your premiums' and the government isn't willing to do so. They would rather reduce the cover even more, even if this means they won't be covered in the event of, say, a journey to Iran.
Now, the Insurance Company actuaries want to keep the business, so they have said 'yes, no problem' and to achieve this they have reduced costs - redundancies, running, not maintaining their buildings as they should, but they are at a point where they are deeply in the red and staff, fed up with their pay reducing in real terms for over 17 years are leaving to join competitors.
Perhaps saying to B-Liar and Broon, 'Calm down dear, it's only a war on two fronts' was not such a wise piece of advice.
Now when you or I buy an insurance policy the main driver is cost. We may go for the policy that gives you a courtesy car, so we can carry on in the event a claim is made, and we will probably pay a little extra to avoid a large excess in the event of a claim.
Now, what New Liarbour have done (admittedly on the back of the Tories) is, since they came to power, buy the cheapest possible policy on the market. Then they have made multiple claims, quite small to begin with, Sierra Leone, Kosovo and this gave them a taste for it. So they then made two massive claims, Iraq and Afghanistan. Now foolishly the Insurance Company paid out without looking at the cover they had bought, previous claims etc. Never once did they say if you make these claims your future cover will suffer...
So funnily enough, now, the Insurance Company has said 'your claim history is appaling - time to up your premiums' and the government isn't willing to do so. They would rather reduce the cover even more, even if this means they won't be covered in the event of, say, a journey to Iran.
Now, the Insurance Company actuaries want to keep the business, so they have said 'yes, no problem' and to achieve this they have reduced costs - redundancies, running, not maintaining their buildings as they should, but they are at a point where they are deeply in the red and staff, fed up with their pay reducing in real terms for over 17 years are leaving to join competitors.
Perhaps saying to B-Liar and Broon, 'Calm down dear, it's only a war on two fronts' was not such a wise piece of advice.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its a classic paradox: money gets tipped into the top of the defence funnel and is syphoned off by those earlier in the process for whom the resultant underperforming, shoddy or simply insufficient amount of kit is of little consequence. Those in uniform, actually performing the defence role, have to suck it up because they're on duty - but given the money to go shopping for the kit they want they could save billions. Of course this wouldn't be politically expedient and the same people that allocate the money and call for thrift, dictate that it must be wasted.
Instead, funds are reduced at the top of the funnel, Project Pie in the Sky still gets a relative amount to waste and the people with no vote at the end of the process - you and me - get even less equally shoddy kit.
As has been observed, there is scope for Chiefs to have more buying power and I think that's been recognised. I still favour bulldozing the whole defence process and building a model that works today - something akin to what we're going to have to do in the future when we lose badly.
Instead, funds are reduced at the top of the funnel, Project Pie in the Sky still gets a relative amount to waste and the people with no vote at the end of the process - you and me - get even less equally shoddy kit.
As has been observed, there is scope for Chiefs to have more buying power and I think that's been recognised. I still favour bulldozing the whole defence process and building a model that works today - something akin to what we're going to have to do in the future when we lose badly.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
I hereby elect to donate my personal £900 NVTPM (non-voluntary, tax payer's money) stake in Northern Rock to the defence budget.
I'll be telling Gordon to get Alastair to transfer it on monday.
Oh, yes, while he's at it, he can cancel my contribution to foreign aid for Sudan.
I'll be telling Gordon to get Alastair to transfer it on monday.
Oh, yes, while he's at it, he can cancel my contribution to foreign aid for Sudan.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But you assuming that the Role of the UK Defence industry is to provide equipment for the UK Armed Forces......
60% of the output from the UK defence industry is exported.
60% of the output from the UK defence industry is exported.
60% of the output from the UK defence industry is exported
pretty much see the collapse of the economy in the UK
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and so there you go.... clearly a good reason why not to lose the UK defence industry..... because if we did then the Labour party would lose votes and the David Cameron-Blair would be voted in....and nobody wants to see that happen.
the Labour party would lose votes and the David Cameron-Blair would be voted in....and nobody wants to see that happen.
Or should that be the hand that beats you? Now, lets think again about Noo Liabour losing votes.
Maybe we should persuade the electoral commission to come up with some sort of scheme where by the number of Liabour seats in the House are tied to the amount the defence budget has increased in real terms since they took power in 97. Wonder what they'd think of that? How would they spin themselves out of that one? - from an overall majority to opposition ' "but I think you'll find it's an increase in the number of seats in real terms" said the ex MP and Minister of Defence Bob Hainsworth'
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
We have been engaged in the present conflicts as long as we were engaged in WW2. Maybe we need to return to the Principles of War, selection and maintenance of the aim.
During that war the Defence Industry effort was focussed on war production to defeat the existing enemy. True, towards the end of the war research labs started to look to the future but were aiming at a future over 10 years hence.
Now we are both fighting current conflicts and also maintaining an R&D effort for future unknown conflicts - SSBN, CVS, JSF, etc. Why?
One answer is that in the passed the generals have always been accused of preparing for the last war not the next.
We must however question why we are preparing for the next when we are ill prepared for the present.
During that war the Defence Industry effort was focussed on war production to defeat the existing enemy. True, towards the end of the war research labs started to look to the future but were aiming at a future over 10 years hence.
Now we are both fighting current conflicts and also maintaining an R&D effort for future unknown conflicts - SSBN, CVS, JSF, etc. Why?
One answer is that in the passed the generals have always been accused of preparing for the last war not the next.
We must however question why we are preparing for the next when we are ill prepared for the present.