MoD funded Military Museums facing a shake-up

Discussion in 'Military History and Militaria' started by dockers, Dec 8, 2011.

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. dockers

    dockers Old-Salt Book Reviewer

    The Museums Journal (Issue 111/12, p5, 01.12.2011) carries a report by Patrick Steel, suggesting that Army museums are facing a shake-up in financing.

    "Changes would save Ministry of Defence more than £0.5m a year

    A review of army museums funded by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) has recommended that 113 posts cease to be civil servant posts and instead be funded directly by the museums through grant-in-aid.
    As part of the process, which would ultimately save the MOD more than £520,000 a year, only one full-time post would be funded for each regimental or corps museum. This would result in the loss of nine posts and further savings of £200,000. The review also said museums of disbanded regiments should receive funding for only 25 years after their dissolution, leading to a fall in MOD-funded museums from 69 to 36 over time.

    The MOD currently spends about £4.3m a year on regimental and corps museums, and £5.4m on the National Army Museum. Many regiments and corps contribute significant funding to their museums, while private donations account for £18m a year.

    Colin Sibun, director of the Army Museums Ogilby Trust, said: “The recommendations are sad but inevitable given the defence cuts; sad because antecedent regimental museums play a valuable role in representing the army in their locality. But when defence overall is reducing in every department, it is inevitable that museums are included.”"

    There appears to be a very real danger that some museums would close or merge with others. While that reflects the economic reality, I wonder whether that is desirable. I would hope that all alternatives would be considered before some of the smaller, rich in content, museums disappear. A lot of these museums would have been volunteer manned before being put on an official footing, perhaps it might be the way forward?
  2. You know things are fucked up when an organisation with a £35 billion budget is scratching round to save £520,000 a year.
  3. IMHO the biggest Forces enemy has always been the MOD (and its predecessors whatever they were called then).

    Without having looked at the books I wouldn’t mind betting that 0.5 million could be saved from MOD’s lavish spending on itself many times over.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. I was at the AMOT Conference recently and the nub of this is to get Civil Servants off the MoD payroll because they cost a great deal more than their headline salaries.

    Things could have been LOT worse but the report by Brigadier Bourne-May was generally favourable and said that the museums provide good value for money in terms of recruiting and KAPE.
  5. I think this is short sighted and shows a serious lack of joined up government.

    1. These museums are significant tourist attractions in their areas. Tourism is one of Britain's major export industries. Besides raising money it ios also an opporunity to project soft power to any johnny foreigner who visit our heritage?

    2. What is the point of putting aside £30m for Armed Forces Community Covenant projects to "fund local projects that increase understanding of, or support for, the Armed Forces in the communities in which they live. " if this is acvompanied by cloisomng down the museums which tell the story of the historic links between the armed forces and the same local communities?

    3. The sums saved are trivial.

    Surely, one of the tactics pought to be a series of Armed Foreces Community Covenant bids to keep the musuems running?
  6. Oh the irony - people on this site spend years suggesting their genius idea to save the defence budget money is to sack civil servants. Now the Dept proposes doing exactly that, and suddenly its a disaster.

    News flash people - the average CS is just the sort of person being downsized here - expect a lot more of this to come as we move ever closer to the 'Arrsetopian vision' of a CS free defence force.
  7. Ever considered the fact that the Armed Forces are part of the MoD, and a large proportion of the the people that run it are in fact serving officers?
  8. Another nail in the coffin of Firepower?
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Why then, is it run like a ******* shambles. Why are these 'serving officers' sat on their fat arses, allowing this situation to carry on.

    The first hint of cuts, redundancies & budget restraints & its not the MOD that have to carry the burden.

    MOD = jobs for the boys!

  10. You beat me to it, but very true.
  11. Ever considered that I might have been concerned on areas of spend outside of those you mention? As you say a PART of the MOD is made up of serving offiercs etc. but what about the rest. Just to quote some reporting on this matter that might suggest gross and wanton MOD waste <>

    "The MOD has been criticised for an ongoing fiasco, having spent £240m on eight Chinook HC3 helicopters which only started to enter service in 2010, years after they were ordered in 1995 and delivered in 2001.[32] A National Audit Office report reveals that the helicopters have been stored in air conditioned hangars in Britain since their 2001 delivery, while troops in Afghanistan have been forced to rely on helicopters which are flying with safety faults.[33] By the time the Chinooks are airworthy, the total cost of the project could be as much as £500m"

    I can't speak for anyone else but when this kind of thing is reported it makes me question the probity of MOD spending. What do you think their priorities should be and do you think they share this view? Do you think they are using funds wisely and dilgently for these purposes?

  12. The MOD spend £9.7 million donations, excluding unit contributions, are £18 million. That tells a story all by itself!

    I do agree that a dept which can piss a billion up the wall for AFVs which fail to materialise, and cost money by mothballing ships before they are built, is obviously going to be pleased to save half a million.

    I wonder what the hospitality and 'fact-finding' budgets are?
  13. They wear suits, mate - lets them blame the civvies for everything. Maskirovka (taps side of nose in knowing fashion).
  14. Indeed.

    "It's all MOD's fault, you see - that well known separate entity, based entirely in London, run by bureaucrats, and nothing to do with Armed Forces at all. Nothing to see. Move along."
  15. The various procurement disasters have been done to death elsewhere on this site, and I don't think anyone would disagree that there have been some weapons-grade cock-ups.

    However, the point you were trying to make was that MoD was blame for the Armed Forces woes - when in fact the two are essentially the same thing, run by the same people, and the notion that the MoD spends money 'on itself' rather than the Armed Forces, is to be honest nonsensical.

    Rather than looking it up on wiki, go to the MoD website, and have a look at some of the pages showing its structure. In addition to Front Line Commands (e.g. HQ Land), there are a number of departments that sit under what is known as the central top level budget, mostly based in London in Main Building - this is the part that most people erroneously define as 'MoD'. However, closer inspection reveals that most of the decision-making posts are filled by senior officers at 1* or above, backed up by a staff including numerous SO1/SO2 officers. Many of those (Army) officers will have come from (or being going to in their next posting) 'Field Army' jobs - at regimental duty, or in one of the operational formations - which often means straight out to Afghanistan. Which is why I find the suggestion that 'the Armed Forces' are being royally screwed by faceless bureacrats at 'the MoD' frankly laughable.