Defence Budget Agreed

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Infiltrator, Jun 23, 2013.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Breaking news is that George Osborne says that he has agreed the new defence budget without any loss of capability.

    Waiting for a linky to appear.

    Not sure what this means. No cuts? Cuts but at the blunt end? Who knows?

    I suppose that the devil will be in the detail!
  2. There will be cuts, they may not be declared cuts, but cuts there will be. My depts TLB has to cut by 6% in the next round.
  3. Reduction in the civvy head count without reducing capability sounds suspiciously like contracting out.
  4. I wonder if the reporter on BBC News got it right or was just showing the usual BBC staff lack of military knowledge, "no reduction in soldiers, sailors or aircrew".
  5. MOD CS is now understrength and its ability to deliver is now slipping.
    Of the 4 C2 posts in my dept, two are gapped, and the two sitting incumbents have develped stress related illness from working 50hr weeks. The C1 is also covering the gapped B2 post.

    The cunning plan is to draft in spare uniformed bodies to fill the holes. Go look up what a Lt Cdr earns compared with a C2 and the work efficiency impact of detailing your one and only D grade to hand hold them while they learn the ropes before they bugger after 6 months to be replaced by another Lt Cdr.
    Smart budgeting at its finest.
  6. That's pretty much word for word what George/Geoffrey/Gideon said to Sophie Raworth on the Andrew Marr show this morning.
  7. Out of interest...what actually IS the defence budget? I've read everything from 33.8 to 35.something or other billion.
  8. Reducing the civil workforce is going to happen anyway over the next few years as BFG based units relocate back to the UK. Oh, wait, will they need to recruit a new civilian workforce in the UK to replace the German one?
  9. So, a reduction in RAF ground crew is on the cards?
  10. That's the RAF Regt f@cked then!
  11. Not a chance in hell at the moment. The RAF is on its arrse even for current commitments, no matter what you may think of them. They are robbing Peter to pay Paul at the best of times.

  12. If people are going off on stress fir working a 50hr week then I would suggest that the staff selection process in your place is wrong. How about we get the recruitment process right in the first place.
    • Like Like x 2
  13. Yeah, because working two full extra days per week for months on end is not stressful. There is nothing wrong with the recruitment process, both these guys have been doing the job for well over a decade, its the never ending rounds of job cuts, no pay rises, no overtime payments, gapped posts and extra work.
  14. This is a worrying development built around cheap political headlines and not a considered strategy. The SDSR laid out plans for taking the CS from 83,000 to 52,000 in 4 years (2011 - 2015) - a loss of some 31,000 jobs in half the time it is taking the Army to shed 18,000 jobs.
    The CS figure now looks set to go even lower, but it is hard to see what can give. You could take as writ that the GOCO function will be adopted by DE&S, leading to some 10-12000 job cuts from the CS strength, but not actually removing the liability as a whole. This takes procurement entirely out of public sector hands, which comes with large risk.
    You could impose a 10% - 20% headcount reduction on the department as a whole (say 5-10,000 on top of current cuts) and make them across TLBs. This would mean gapping vacancies, not recruiting posts, and reducing outputs. The problem is that these jobs are linked to defence outputs, so you have to be really clear what defence will no longer be able to do as a result of these cuts.
    You also have to consider how small these savings will be - the entire MOD wages bill for a department currently 65,000 strong is less than one third that of the military, meaning any cuts will have a negligible impact on the overall bill. I've said it before and will say it again - cutting military manpower is the easiest way to make real savings in the budget - you reduce not just salaries, and allowances but also equipment and a lot of other overheads. Cutting CS merely saves wages and desk space.
    The problem is that the current leadership are too scared to sack military, despite their astonishingly high costs and overheads, because it is unacceptable to the voters. The irony is that many of the CS who will be pushed here are likely to be SMEs (say in Defence Intelligence) who cost the taxpayer a pittance, but have invaluable skills that make a difference to HMG.
    In our ever increasing desire to publicly lambast anyone who is a public servant, we will now miss another opportunity to make savings and perhaps have an honest discussion about how many military we really need. Instead we'll fire another tranche of CS and hope the problem goes away (for a year or so at least).
    • Like Like x 4