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

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Litotes, Jan 13, 2008.

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. 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:

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

    You appear to rubbish this story quite quickly. Do you know something we don't?
  6. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    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. 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. Perhaps YOU can answer the question at the end of my last post then Jim?
  12. You don't make much sense here. The first paragraph states:

    Seeing that this is in today's Times, it would be reasonable to presume that this is a recent development.

    The third paragraph states:

    (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. "

    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 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?