Merge the three Services

Have any present-day sailors served on a ship commanded by an equivalent of Captain Queeg?

What did you think of your captain, did you consider staging a mutiny?
Not really, no.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
All this thread has showed me is that a merger will never happen, as it’s compiled of people arguing over the past. Instead of looking to the future. Much like Darth Carter with his Mafia.
Rubbish. The main argument is about the additional training which would be necessary unless people were streamed, and if they were streamed then it wouldn't be a merger.

A single headshed stream from 1* up might work.
 
D

Deleted 3147

Guest
What were the gains?
A long time ago now (2004-6) but I recall unpleasant working allowance was increased as were many others whilst some dropped to the lowest between three Services. I'd have to go back and see if I still have notes. LSSA and LSSB, became LSA, and you can get higher amounts. Interestingly LSAP was to be vastly increased but Army blocked it.

MoD Efficiency Programme was running at the time, it saw JPA as a means to be more effective and create lower running costs for delivering military HR, but the allowances themselves were not a vehicle to create the savings. The deal was very much harmonise and drive out stupid inequalities, remove idiotic allowances (tights allowance) and re-invest where it was possible.
 
A long time ago now (2004-6) but I recall unpleasant working allowance was increased as were many others whilst some dropped to the lowest between three Services. I'd have to go back and see if I still have notes. LSSA and LSSB, became LSA, and you can get higher amounts. Interestingly LSAP was to be vastly increased but Army blocked it.

MoD Efficiency Programme was running at the time, it saw JPA as a means to be more effective and create lower running costs for delivering military HR, but the allowances themselves were not a vehicle to create the savings. The deal was very much harmonise and drive out stupid inequalities, remove idiotic allowances (tights allowance) and re-invest where it was possible.
Im sure UWA was for the few.

I do remember officers touting their "victory" in keeping MMA and only losing the first 3 miles. (So in actual fact another cut, just not as bad as you first made out).

I dont remember any particular gains when they made the cuts in minor perks i mentioned earlier, IE was a relatively new perk that was snatched back after a few years. Apparently pennies make pounds when it comes to dry bumming the lads.
 
My last response to you

Does that cost include the dead weight of the civvie in uniform being paid twice as much to count it as an actual civvie?

Just asking for a friend. And congratulations. In a dozen years on here you are the first to go on my ignore list

And to every one else I apologise once again for allowing this little spat to continue a moment longer than it should have.
He went on mine a long time ago. Spouts a non stop stream of effluence.
 
I said if you were OF4/5 you'd be exposed all the time, didn't say they were the only people and if you go into DE&S a lot of the commodity managers are SR and CS. NMS created waves of people who have to be interested in the figures. There are plenty of Army SNCOs in DE&S and LAND HQ, I bump into them all the time on my travels.

At unit level, say a T23, or an Inf Bn, they should be less interested in costs and more interested in effectiveness as neither CO has the delegations nor commercial levers to make a significant difference against a cost base. I'd hope they were more interested in effectiveness and efficiency in how they achieve their tasking.
If you go back to my first post on this thread, which entered the @Truxx / @stacker1 debate about shoes and cam cream, I agreed with Truxx’s view that the big stuff that saves big money has already been done. I also agreed with Stacker’s point that there is no doubt a lot of low level waste. My point was that driving out waste top down never works; organisations that drive out low level waste do so by engaging and incentivising people to cut out waste at every level.

I have not argued that doing so is necessarily worthwhile in the Forces. In fact, I pretty much agree with your point and the similar one made by @Portree Kid that. At unit level people probably have more important things to do than worry about marginal efficiency savings.

But anyone who argues that there isn’t waste at every level in the Forces is blind.
 
He went on mine a long time ago. Spouts a non stop stream of effluence.
At least you arent bothered enough to tell anyone.
 
bobthebuilder said:
But anyone who argues that there isn’t waste at every level in the Forces is blind.
Waste, or flexibility and resilience?
 
We had RMP on the Galahad on the way to a UN tour. They were as ******* incompetent at sea as they were on land.
The response to a theft being reported was "we'll never catch whoever it was"
Examples like that make me very angry. That was a shit reply (the RMP, not yours in this thread!) and speaking as an ex-RMP, embarrassing. No RMP is ever taught that, and if the person concerned had been in my section they'd have got the good news.

Gen dit: on my last posting before I left I was an instructor in BOWTAG and one of our gigs was 1 RIFLES in Chepstow. Anyway, I was carrying a couple of radios from our temporary radio store to a classroom (CQMS too, for my sins!) when I was stopped by a very young rifleman. He was part of a new draft from ITC, had just collected his MFO box only to find that it had been opened in transit and he wanted to report a theft. I could have chinned him off as it wasn't my role at that time, but I told him that I wasn't acting in an official RMP capacity, and that whilst it was unlikely that the stolen items would be recovered I would take him along to his CSM in order to get it reported properly to Brecon Det RMP, so that a crime number could be issued if he wished to claim on any insurance. That is the correct way and I'm sorry you encountered an idle twat.

Sort of related, but if I came across pissed (but otherwise well-behaved soldiers) heading back to camp I'd always offer them a lift if we weren't busy, on the grounds that it would probably keep them out of trouble. Never officially sanctioned as drunkeness is technically an offence in the Army but a fair use of the exercise of discretion, I think.

Anyway, back to the thread and I still think that it's a bad idea to fully amalgamate the Service Police, whilst also recognising that - up to a certain point - there was commonality of training across all four services and that this has been jointly delivered since 2005.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
 
Is fitted for a helicopter, not always with.
I can't speak for T23/T45 but on no manning diagrams for T26 have I seen Flight being embarked with their own chef.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
 

bob231

War Hero
Non sequiturs are GO
No - it's the trade between an efficient system (which functions to a designed output very well) and a system with sufficient redundancy/flex to expand and adapt to a different desired output.

We can make the Forces efficient to a task, but either that's to achieve a lot of complex tasks (expensive) or to do not very much rather well (great up until you want to do more).
 

Truxx

LE
Waste, or flexibility and resilience?
Not just that but often what looks like waste, or inefficiency from one perspective is less so from another.

The dreadful game of shops caused by the budget structure is of particular note. A saving here causes a cost in a different budget, which may be greater.

This is particularly true if that cost only manifests itself much later and in a different part of the organisation.

Another structural killer is annuality, the yearly nature of government resourcing. Most cost centres will, about now or within a few weeks be getting urged to tighten their belts. This year in particular the costs of supporting the coronavirus effort will be starting to come in. The treasury will be keen to adopt the position of costs lying where they fall. In the case of the MO D the argument will be that they had all those people and that equipment and a budget for doing stuff. The people, equipment and some level of activity were already paid for, so why give you more?

But the bean counters will be worried about overspending, so everyone will be invited to propose savings measures just in case. And everyone will. Cam cream, shoes, the works. And we are not talking small amounts here. As a BLB I was routinely asked for 15%, which half way through the year can be a tall order. It equates to 30% across the year.

But everyone comes up with the goods and gets on with life.

Some BLBs though (I know I was one) run what I called an unfunded aspiration list. These were things that could be done and paid for quickly.

Come the spring it will be clear that we are all heading for an underspend and the bean counters panic. If they hand back anything substantial "underspend" then an equivalent amount is lopped off next year automatically.

So come 1 March it is spend spend spend. In my last 3 years before retiring my BLB proffed to the tune of over 12 million. All spent wisely, obvs, but not all of it on stuff that would improve things over time ( you could not get the money spent quick enough on, say, infrastructure because you could not get the project completed by 31 March)

It's a crap way of running a business.

ETA it is the same across all Departments of State and no matter how you organised the armed forces it would be the same.
 
Last edited:
Yup - at one point we were seriously considering sending people to Chandlers across the south coast to buy binos in the last two weeks of the financial year.
 

Alamo

LE
Yup - at one point we were seriously considering sending people to Chandlers across the south coast to buy binos in the last two weeks of the financial year.
We tried to buy some laptops last year, but couldn’t find a company that could install an OS that outdated. Gen.
 
We tried to buy some laptops last year, but couldn’t find a company that could install an OS that outdated. Gen.
This bit about IT in the MoD world utterly baffled me. It made no sense to keep buying Mircosoft when the hardware MoD buys is retained in use about 10 times the normal length of use in the private sector. MoD screwed itself when it would have made far more sense to just pick a Linux package and write software that it required for itself. No need to pay Microsoft repeatedly to keep supporting software that Microsoft have dumped. No need to end up trying to bodge software to run on hardware that it's only just capable of.
 

bob231

War Hero
I'd go one further and suggest that it probably would make more long-term financial sense to employ some competent and thoroughly vetted coders to maintain the MOD's own slightly bespoke OS!
 

Truxx

LE
I'd go one further and suggest that it probably would make more long-term financial sense to employ some competent and thoroughly vetted coders to maintain the MOD's own slightly bespoke OS!
See my previous about anuality. Much easier to procure a complete (if outdated and inefficient) service than to own it yourself. Even better if you procure it via a lease arrangement.

In other departments the annuality issue manifests itself as stuff like PFI.

That actually gives me a good example of the game of shops. Manpower. Both military and civilian. A TLB or lower can declare a saving by reducing manpower. But. The manpower does not reduce. No one gets laid off. Only natural wastage (cost) or a formal redundancy package (cost), both of which are out with the TLB.

There are many others. I think the point at which I gave up and wrapped my hand in was in response to yet another measure. My organisation had hundreds of civil servants. We had a fixed output. My "business manager" wandered in one day to tell me that a new term if service was being introduced whereby an individual could elect to go "part time" in his or her final couple of years.

Decided and Implemented but the reduction in capability un resourced. We would need to hire more (cant do that) or get everyone else to take up the slack( cost we did not have). It was just one of a very long list of things.

It was at that point I realised that I was putting up with all this bollox for about £23000 a year and pressed the button.
 
It was at that point I realised that I was putting up with all this bollox for about £23000 a year and pressed the button.
23k for a man with 34 year military experience?
 
Waste, or flexibility and resilience?
I think @Truxx has answered that one and he’s right. Across government there is huge waste arising from managing finances to comply with Treasury rules. There’s also huge waste arising from the basic doctrine of cost lying where they fall. In other words, dump costs on those who can accept them.

Not the same as wasting cam cream though.
 

Latest Threads

Top