MOD to be cut by 25%: Coalition says.
Thread Starter
MOD to be cut by 25%: Coalition says.
Close this straight away if this is old news...... but is it? Just a headteacher, but 25% is very reminiscent of a quarter to me! What would have to go? Or is it just civil servants?
CG
CG
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Northwest
Age: 64
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It says they aim to reduce running costs by 25%; well the civil service in entirity is only 10% of the departments costs so I suspect it will be a lot more.
Roll on the Defence review to find out how bad things are going to get. Running costs include fuel,spares etc. If you reduce what you intend to do running costs are obviously lower unless you have already signed the contract and have to pay up anyway.
What's the betting the wrong things get cut?
Roll on the Defence review to find out how bad things are going to get. Running costs include fuel,spares etc. If you reduce what you intend to do running costs are obviously lower unless you have already signed the contract and have to pay up anyway.
What's the betting the wrong things get cut?
The document is here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum.../dg_187876.pdf and says:
'We will aim to reduce Ministry of Defence running costs by at least 25%'
This could either be interpreted as meaning the running costs of Main Building, or as the whole of the Defence budget except new equipment/infrastructure. Reflects the lack of understanding of Defence that is typical among our politicos.
'We will aim to reduce Ministry of Defence running costs by at least 25%'
This could either be interpreted as meaning the running costs of Main Building, or as the whole of the Defence budget except new equipment/infrastructure. Reflects the lack of understanding of Defence that is typical among our politicos.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Glesga, Scotland
Age: 51
Posts: 230
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's cut the house off lords and parliment
by 75% as a start!
There's a massive saving ,;-)
Think every one is in aggrement that things that could be done are being done , you can't have a flexible well equiped armed forces on paupers money and resorces .
If your not going to give people the equipment /wages / and decent housing , don't ask them to go to war for you!
by 75% as a start!
There's a massive saving ,;-)
Think every one is in aggrement that things that could be done are being done , you can't have a flexible well equiped armed forces on paupers money and resorces .
If your not going to give people the equipment /wages / and decent housing , don't ask them to go to war for you!
There has been one very subtle, but unpublicised, change in the procurement system in recent years which has "saved" Billions, but at the expense of starving Servicemen of much needed kit.
Throughout GW1, Bosnia, GW2 etc, Urgent Operational Requirements (UORs) had to be delivered while still maintaining schedule on other "routine" programmes. However, one is now permitted to delay these programmes if there is a UOR. Not all are delayed, but it is a ready made excuse adopted by many.
So, while MoD trumpets the delivery of UORs costing a few hundred million, they fail to mention that higher value, and arguably equally important programmes, have been delayed. In Treasury speak, such deliberate deferral amounts to a saving, but what it actually does is prevent timely delivery of properly endorsed programmes. The question becomes - What is the nett spend?
Throughout GW1, Bosnia, GW2 etc, Urgent Operational Requirements (UORs) had to be delivered while still maintaining schedule on other "routine" programmes. However, one is now permitted to delay these programmes if there is a UOR. Not all are delayed, but it is a ready made excuse adopted by many.
So, while MoD trumpets the delivery of UORs costing a few hundred million, they fail to mention that higher value, and arguably equally important programmes, have been delayed. In Treasury speak, such deliberate deferral amounts to a saving, but what it actually does is prevent timely delivery of properly endorsed programmes. The question becomes - What is the nett spend?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Worcestershire
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interestingly if current ops were to cease all current UORs would disappear unless they could be brought into core. This means we would end up with a big pile of useless junk that we have paid millions for. Most of the UAVs for instance.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
One bludgeoning area of 'defence' over the labour years has been Media Relations especially in the RAF. Otherwise known as truth central it has as its aim been a PR exercise, both internal and external, to place the RAF in the public domain.
Think those wonderful airshows at Abingdon (wash-out even without the weather) and Kinross (aka Leuchars - cancelled). media relations probably sprung up as a countervailing PR process in the face of the resolute opposition in the Treasury.
Do we really need public lobbying for aircraft carriers, advanced fighter aircraft etc etc? Public pronouncements by retired senior officers are designed to align public opinion and influence Ministers. Nothing new here, it has been ongoing for over 100 years, but do we really need a defence funded Media Relations organisation to join the fray?
Are they any less partial than privately funded industry lobby groups?
Think those wonderful airshows at Abingdon (wash-out even without the weather) and Kinross (aka Leuchars - cancelled). media relations probably sprung up as a countervailing PR process in the face of the resolute opposition in the Treasury.
Do we really need public lobbying for aircraft carriers, advanced fighter aircraft etc etc? Public pronouncements by retired senior officers are designed to align public opinion and influence Ministers. Nothing new here, it has been ongoing for over 100 years, but do we really need a defence funded Media Relations organisation to join the fray?
Are they any less partial than privately funded industry lobby groups?
How dare they cut after all listening to some posters the MOD were going to get everything they ever needed if the Gubberment changed.
Me I looked at it and saw, cuts and more cuts whoever got elected. Same Suits, different day.
Me I looked at it and saw, cuts and more cuts whoever got elected. Same Suits, different day.
Believe the Met Office is now seperate. Given their repeated climate change tagline, wouldn't suprise me if they were now part of the energy and climate change portfolio.
I believe Met Office is still technically part of MOD, but it is a very loose relationship - similar to DSTL. I'd see it as a prime target for privatisation post SDR.
