MoD in £1.2 billion underspend...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MoD in £1.2 billion underspend...
MoD in £1.2 billion underspend as thousands of troops are sacked - Telegraph
My italics.
Is MoD fit for any purpose whatsoever, let alone their raison d'être? One gets the impression that a chimps tea party is in progress, 24/7.
The Commons' Public Accounts Committee warned that George Osborne may be "tempted" to make further cuts because of the underspend, which the Ministry of Defence said it could not explain.
Is MoD fit for any purpose whatsoever, let alone their raison d'être? One gets the impression that a chimps tea party is in progress, 24/7.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but last year they overspent by £ 1 bn didn't they?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get the impression we are back to VSO promotion down to budgetary control and underspend as opposed to sensible decision making.
And its currently absolutely destroying morale on the front line.
And its currently absolutely destroying morale on the front line.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before the usual suspects get carried away with the popular passtime of kick-the-MoD, there's a whole raft of reasons why the Equipment Budget has underspent. Without sight of the individual elements, though, we don't know what they are likely to be. As Bastardeux suggested, it could be tactical but that's a dangerous plan where those treacherous sods in the Treasury are concerned.
For all of you who are worked up about cuts to the Manpower Budget, unless someone's changed the rules, you can trade bodies for kit but not the other way round.
For all of you who are worked up about cuts to the Manpower Budget, unless someone's changed the rules, you can trade bodies for kit but not the other way round.
What gets me is not the amount of the alleged underspend but MoD's claim it can't explain it. It smacks of leadership saying "don't overspend at all cost", even if that cost is complete ignorance of what you're doing.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK/ USA
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HH,
The Air Sneaker will have been paid for. The FMS requirement was for an RJ. USAF have delivered as per the contract.
Not being able to fly them, is not USAF's problem.
The Air Sneaker will have been paid for. The FMS requirement was for an RJ. USAF have delivered as per the contract.
Not being able to fly them, is not USAF's problem.
have the MOD been doing!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Based on the limited info available it's a bit early to be taking the usual pot shots. What WOULD be shocking is if it turned out we were reverting to the old -and idiotic practice of "get it spent at all costs". There's lots of valid reasons why a budget might be underspent.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I alluded to initially, and has been mentioned subsequently, it's the MoD's inability to 'explain' the underspend which is ludicrous, not the underspend itself.
A million here or there, fair enough(!), but £1.2 Billion?
A million here or there, fair enough(!), but £1.2 Billion?
How do they know they are £1.2Bn underspent? Presumably because they have some form of accounts in terms of money spent.
Assuming (and it's a big assumption) they had a list of "planned/budgeted expenditure" then surely a comparison of the 2 would show where the under spend has occurred? You can't get much more basic than that.
As WW said, it's not the under spend itself that is embarrassing for MOD, it's the inability to 'explain' how/why/where it occurred that is the cause for concern!
It certainly implies they haven't got a firm grip on things....
Assuming (and it's a big assumption) they had a list of "planned/budgeted expenditure" then surely a comparison of the 2 would show where the under spend has occurred? You can't get much more basic than that.
As WW said, it's not the under spend itself that is embarrassing for MOD, it's the inability to 'explain' how/why/where it occurred that is the cause for concern!
It certainly implies they haven't got a firm grip on things....