Mail On Sunday - 13 Jan 08 - MOD plans big cuts to contracts

#1
I am unable to find a link to the article but here is the summary:

"...severe budget squeeze caused by the growing cost of the wars...".

"Delay to carrier project possible".

"£14bn contract to replace Army's lightweight battle vehicles is likely to be another victim".

"The RAF could be disappointed by the MOD cancelling its third tranche of... Typhoon".

Here we go again! :cry:

Litotes
 
#2
The Financial Times had this on one half of its front page a couple of days ago and has been tracking the story since, they think that something will go or maybe most.
 
#3
Be fair - they've got all those staff bonuses to pay for! :x
 
#4
Litotes said:
I am unable to find a link to the article but here is the summary:

"...severe budget squeeze caused by the growing cost of the wars...".

"Delay to carrier project possible".

"£14bn contract to replace Army's lightweight battle vehicles is likely to be another victim".

"The RAF could be disappointed by the MOD cancelling its third tranche of... Typhoon".

Here we go again! :cry:

Litotes
Yes, here we go again with another anonymous, single source rubbish story :roll:
 
#5
Sven said:
Litotes said:
I am unable to find a link to the article but here is the summary:

"...severe budget squeeze caused by the growing cost of the wars...".

"Delay to carrier project possible".

"£14bn contract to replace Army's lightweight battle vehicles is likely to be another victim".

"The RAF could be disappointed by the MOD cancelling its third tranche of... Typhoon".

Here we go again! :cry:

Litotes
Yes, here we go again with another anonymous, single source rubbish story :roll:
FT, Times and Mail - Single source?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3177777.ece

You appear to rubbish this story quite quickly. Do you know something we don't?
 
#6
Bonzo_Dog said:
Sven said:
Litotes said:
I am unable to find a link to the article but here is the summary:

"...severe budget squeeze caused by the growing cost of the wars...".

"Delay to carrier project possible".

"£14bn contract to replace Army's lightweight battle vehicles is likely to be another victim".

"The RAF could be disappointed by the MOD cancelling its third tranche of... Typhoon".

Here we go again! :cry:

Litotes
Yes, here we go again with another anonymous, single source rubbish story :roll:
FT, Times and Mail - Single source?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3177777.ece

You appear to rubbish this story quite quickly. Do you know something we don't?
No, it's just Sven being Sven again...... :roll:
 
#7
Seems to me that Sven will not hear a word said against the powers that be.
 
#8
in_the_cheapseats said:
Bonzo_Dog said:
Sven said:
Litotes said:
I am unable to find a link to the article but here is the summary:

"...severe budget squeeze caused by the growing cost of the wars...".

"Delay to carrier project possible".

"£14bn contract to replace Army's lightweight battle vehicles is likely to be another victim".

"The RAF could be disappointed by the MOD cancelling its third tranche of... Typhoon".

Here we go again! :cry:

Litotes
Yes, here we go again with another anonymous, single source rubbish story :roll:
FT, Times and Mail - Single source?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3177777.ece

You appear to rubbish this story quite quickly. Do you know something we don't?
No, it's just Sven being Sven again...... :roll:
Oh yes....Sven :roll:
 
#9
Given that the PUS in his recent new year message last week admitted that cuts are likely, I'd suggest Sven is talking out of his rectum.
 
#10
Bonzo

The Times story is about cuts that have already been made and is extrapolating that future cuts will be made.

No evidence is produced that carriers or vehicles will be lost - indeed, read the first and third paragraphs, they directly contradict one another when the first says

" . . . . . is being forced to slash its planned budget by £1.5 billion a year . . "

Whilst the third paragraph says

" . . . . . it was increasing the defence budget by 1.5% a year taking it to £36.9 billion in 2010-2011"


Incidentally, the third paragraph was from a government statement - where did the first one come from?
 
#11
jim30 said:
Given that the PUS in his recent new year message last week admitted that cuts are likely, I'd suggest Sven is talking out of his rectum.
Perhaps YOU can answer the question at the end of my last post then Jim?
 
#12
Sven said:
Bonzo

The Times story is about cuts that have already been made and is extrapolating that future cuts will be made.

No evidence is produced that carriers or vehicles will be lost - indeed, read the first and third paragraphs, they directly contradict one another when the first says

" . . . . . is being forced to slash its planned budget by £1.5 billion a year . . "

Whilst the third paragraph says

" . . . . . it was increasing the defence budget by 1.5% a year taking it to £36.9 billion in 2010-2011"


Incidentally, the third paragraph was from a government statement - where did the first one come from?
You don't make much sense here. The first paragraph states:

The Ministry of Defence is being forced to slash its planned budget by £1.5 billion a year over the next three years, leaving the armed forces vying with each other to hold on to their new ships, aircraft and armoured vehicles
Seeing that this is in today's Times, it would be reasonable to presume that this is a recent development.

The third paragraph states:

The government announced in July it was increasing the defence budget by 1.5% a year taking it to £36.9 billion in 2010-2011.
(I have quoted this paragraph in in full - unlike yourself - selective quoting, particularly missing out th date of the information in the third paragrpah, to support your own argument).

So the first paragraph refers to a recent information and the third paragraph refers to a statement made in July makes the whole article contradictory? I see it as a change of direction in funding by the Government and a precursor of, "We have no money to fund anything above 2.9%". But then again, we already knew that, didn't we?

Edited for spelling
 
#13
Bonzo. I think you are being somewhat over optimistic with the 2.9% but maybe thats just the cynic in me.
 
#14
" The budget problems are caused by the costs of a number of large equipment projects coinciding in this year's budget.

But they have been exacerbated by the Treasury's refusal to pay the full cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In theory, the Treasury is supposed to pay the full bill, but in reality it reclaims the costs of any new equipment required for operations from subsequent defence budgets. "

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3177777.ece

Since your Government sponsored myopia made it tricky for you to spot these three paragraphs I thought I'd put them here just to help you Sven.

I also suggest that perhaps http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/index.cfm might have helped the Sunday Times or the FT to work out where moneis going.

And try working it out first. Try this idea. If I only have £100 to live on every week, spending £50 down the pub one night leaves me £50 to spend on the bills and food. MoD has been forced to spend a considerable sum of money over the last few years because this regime wants to big it up. That money has increasingly come out of MoD's "Weekly Living" Budget, which means MoD can't pay all the bills........

So, for change try using the 3-4lbs of grey matter between your ears.....if you're got any
 
#15
I'll repeat the question - where did the 'evidence' of £1.5 billion cuts for the first paragraph come from, a journalists fevered imagination?
 
#16
Kitmarlowe said:
" The budget problems are caused by the costs of a number of large equipment projects coinciding in this year's budget.

But they have been exacerbated by the Treasury's refusal to pay the full cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In theory, the Treasury is supposed to pay the full bill, but in reality it reclaims the costs of any new equipment required for operations from subsequent defence budgets. "

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3177777.ece

Since your Government sponsored myopia made it tricky for you to spot these three paragraphs I thought I'd put them here just to help you Sven.

I also suggest that perhaps http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/index.cfm might have helped the Sunday Times or the FT to work out where moneis going.

And try working it out first. Try this idea. If I only have £100 to live on every week, spending £50 down the pub one night leaves me £50 to spend on the bills and food. MoD has been forced to spend a considerable sum of money over the last few years because this regime wants to big it up. That money has increasingly come out of MoD's "Weekly Living" Budget, which means MoD can't pay all the bills........

So, for change try using the 3-4lbs of grey matter between your ears.....if you're got any
At the risk of repeating myself - where did this information come from - there isn't even an anonymous source for this.
 
#17
Sven said:
I'll repeat the question - where did the 'evidence' of £1.5 billion cuts for the first paragraph come from, a journalists fevered imagination?
Nope.....Blancmange.

Big fat Freddie.

If MoD has to spend £1.5 Billion of it's budget on things that HM Treasury has normally covered the cost of in the past, then MoD has to find £1.5 Billion from somewhere. The two big budgets are Wages, New Toys and Toys in use. Try joining the dots up.

And please. Just try any paper and find the named source.

Like here http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3177612.ece

No named source in this article

Or here

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3177613.ece

Bugger me....No named sources here

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3177684.ece

Oh look, No named sources here.....
 
#18
Sven said:
I'll repeat the question - where did the 'evidence' of £1.5 billion cuts for the first paragraph come from, a journalists fevered imagination?
So, because you, personally, are not aware of the source of the information, it is rubbish? You should take a long hard look in the mirror.

Read the report at the link and then tell us all where the increased spending for Iraq and Afghanistan operations is to come from.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmdfence/138/13804.htm#a6
 
#19
Sven

In a nutshell the problem has come from two areas. Firstly the increase in real terms of the budget is directly linked to MOD providing a significant amount of "efficiency savings" - in other words to get the full increase, MOD must somehow make substantial savings on running costs year on year to demonstrate efficiency.
The other key problem is inflation and the fact that costs are overrunning - meaning that the small increase will be cancelled out by the increased costs of the programmes. The EP is overheating, and something has got to give.

So, we have a budget that will only increase if substantial savings are made (don't have exact figures to hand but will look them up in work tomorrow). At the same time the treasury has woken up to the fact that a lot of the kit bought under the UOR process is being used for ongoing ops - in other words we cheated on the procurement side by buying more than the budget permitted and now they want their pound of flesh.

As for "proof" - I've seen CDS and PUS admit that we've got tough spending decisions ahead due to the very poor budget settlement and the issues mentioned above. Thats proof enough for me.
 
#20
Press leaks rarely come from those within the area affected, its usually by those who will lose out through cuts, such as contractors, the DA and so on.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top