Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by HectortheInspector, May 20, 2010.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
It says the same for NHS admin costs I think.
It might be painful but there isn't really much choice is there?
"We will aim to reduce Ministry of Defence running costs by at least 25%."
So it all rather depends on what you class as a "Running Cost". Played that game before and ended up with "Change Costs" and "Restructuring Costs" and the inevitable huge p1ssing matches over what went into the various buckets and when.
Phrase to note is "aim" and "ministry of defence" - what do they mean by this - do they mean MOD as Main Building, or MOD as in whole of Defence - either way that could be painful!
May not be so bad, they can cut lots of fat here and there without affecting frontline services (e.g. procurement, consultation fees e.t.c). It really depends on how clever the bloke doing it is, and if he has the support of the various chiefs.
Not that clever and no support from the various chiefs and heads, I would hazard a guess
I'm fairly sure that means MOD as in 'Main Building' (and, of course, all the ancillary parts) rather than 'defence spending'.
it it was that easy I think it might have been tried before.
It actually looks like this government may be quite good for defence. Those working with CR2 or AS90 should probably be getting ready for some serious cuts, but I think everyone else could do quite well out of this.
is it more of a bye bye to a good portion of cash guzzling civil servents, Generals, Admirals and Air Marshall types?
I get an error message 503 so cant read the doc.
What has "easy" got to do with it?
Harsh reality is that Brown spent the lot and then spent a lot more he didn't have.
The UK is skint, not just a little hard up but properly, seriously up the creek.
Spending has to be cut.
My own preference would be for health and welfare to bear the brunt of cuts but I'm not the man holding the purse strings.
Reality is that public spending needs cutting by at least 25% across the board. Its just the way it is and everyone will have to get used to it and try to do the best they can with the slice they get.
I believe that is the intention but it isn't specific.
I was suggesting the idea that 25% cut can be found through "efficency savings"
Actually I'm firmly convinced it can be, in all government departments.
For a start they can have cheaper chairs, a freeze on office "titilation" and sensible spending on cars and other capital costs, that should save a bit for starters.
Separate names with a comma.