PUBLIC SPENDING/DEFENCE REVIEW - WHERE TO CUT ?

#1
All parties admit they are going to target the public budget in the run up to the General Election, Tories say they willl protect NHS and Overseas Aid.

Easy MOD targets are civvies but ......they have always been with us and nothing changes.

So then, REALLY big savings - Trident, Eurofighter (or whatever), FRES, carriers

Quote today 'Treasury contacts suggest CEA must be reconsidered in light ...etc'

So equipt and/or CEA - where do you think the MOD should Find the extra $ ?

G2
 
#2
Trident should go (£20 billion isn't it?), and we probably wouldn't use it anyway, even if the septics let us. Carriers need to stay, and £1 billion has already been spent on them anyway so now it is whether the government would now spend £1.5 billion each for two aircraft carriers (as they can't get the money which has already been spent back),probably a worthwhile investment. Eurofighter will probably be scaled back. FRES will probably be scrapped and a new system put in place. Ideally though they'll do a white paper and match the commitments needed (some dream eh?). The odd thing is that almost every single other country is raising defense spending to cope with the recession in order to create more jobs through public spending, France even placed an order for a new Mistral class. Also with a long-term war in Afghanistan, rising piracy off Africa and a range of other deployments a rise in defense spending is justified to cope with that. The tories have also been banging on for a long time about how labour have been unsupporting etc. (too right), so they can't replicate that themselves, and they've also pledged to match spending to commitments, and as they are fully supportive of the war in Afghanistan then politically they don't have much of a choice other than to do just that, match spending to commitments and thus raise the defense budget. Having said that, there's no way that's going to happen and they'll presumably find a way to wriggle out of it...
 
#3
Off the cuff I'd say:

Reduce number of QUANGOs

Reduce number of MPs and Lords

Reduce number of NHS and Education 'mid-level managers'

Make MPs submit reciepts for ALL expenses monthly (the rest of us have to don't we?)

give me a minute while I cool down
 
#4
The tri-service community would do well to make lots of small savings, not just the big things like carriers and nukes. As someone has rightly mentioned Civ-Servants would be very high on my list. The other area where big savings could be made is to get rid of some of the private contractors currently deployed in Afghanistan. Not sure of the figures, but apparently it costs up to 100,000 to keep a full screw in service regardless of where said screw serves. When you take into account Barracks SLA/ SFA loa wages uniform trg burden etc etc it can't be that far off of the mark. WTF do high ranking officers think it is cost effiecient to then keep said full screw in Bks twiddeling their thumbs while a contractor (usually ex full screw) deploys to theatre in their place at huge cost (I think the figure mentioned was in the region of 50K).

"ahh BPS666 why are the lads starting to sign off again?"

"dunno sir, probably because they can't get on tour and if they go and work for the contractor that you pay to do his job he gets nearly double his wage!"

"mumble mumble bayonets mumble mumble politically capped mumble mumble mumble"

So in my blinkered view I could make a saving of about £1M and employ tradesmen in the job they joined up to do rather than stagging on and marching up and down the square outside the bosses house. This only takes into account what the civvies get paid so the contract is probably worth at least this much again. Good thing is it was them good all Civ Servants that put the contract in place!
 
#5
Disband the RAF and let the Army and Navy do the the jellywopter, and fast jet stuff ....... save loads on hotel bills, but Gordon's Gin stock shares may take a dive :)

J
 
#6
Simple approach:

Buy back editions of the Guardian. Go to jobs pages. Identify any jobs with word:eek:utreach, gender, facilitator, integrated. awareness, inclusive, multi-cultural, counsellor, co-ordinator, lifestyle, etc, etc etc. Get rid of all the jobs identified, transfer savings to Defence.

In MoD, re-deploy anyone involved in Media Ops, IiP, performance and target monitoring, gender/orientation awareness issues. Scrub all ceremonial duties for 2 years to facilitate surge to ops. All MoD Plod duties handed back to RMP, local police or Mil Guard Force as appropriate. Do a proper review of the cost-effectiveness of military CSS functions compared to contractor support - I've been on both sides and know which is more effective and lucrative for me - a sound analysis is needed to confirm my gut feeling.
 
#7
MLHDTC said:
Off the cuff I'd say:

Reduce number of QUANGOs

Reduce number of MPs and Lords

Reduce number of NHS and Education 'mid-level managers'

Make MPs submit reciepts for ALL expenses monthly (the rest of us have to don't we?)

give me a minute while I cool down
You're doing fine. The Quangos bit though - by reduce I suspect you mean "get rid of totally". £64 Billion saved. Up Defence Spending and as herrumph alludes to above anything involving an -ism, an -ist or anything smelling vaguely of Socialist twaddle - do a Dalek on it.

Job's a good 'un!
 
#8
Herrumph said:
Simple approach:

Buy back editions of the Guardian. Go to jobs pages. Identify any jobs with word:eek:utreach, gender, facilitator, integrated. awareness, inclusive, multi-cultural, counsellor, co-ordinator, lifestyle, etc, etc etc. Get rid of all the jobs identified, transfer savings to Defence.

In MoD, re-deploy anyone involved in Media Ops, IiP, performance and target monitoring, gender/orientation awareness issues. Scrub all ceremonial duties for 2 years to facilitate surge to ops. All MoD Plod duties handed back to RMP, local police or Mil Guard Force as appropriate. Do a proper review of the cost-effectiveness of military CSS functions compared to contractor support - I've been on both sides and know which is more effective and lucrative for me - a sound analysis is needed to confirm my gut feeling.[/quote]

I suspect that I know where your loyalties lie in this respect, given your 'combat indicator' in ittalics. Might have got you wrong but are you seriously suggesting that CSS function is contracted out on a more permanent basis? In extremis you could theoretically contract out all aspects of defence and it's been mentioned before that the likes of blackwater can put an Air-Land Bn on the floor if required. It might be lucrative for you at a personal level but would you seriously countenance such a move?

PS give us a job!
 
#9
No exactly the opposite. Much as I like contractor rates of pay I believe most functions are done better by serving military. No profit margin and excessive rates of pay. More military also allows reasonable harmony rates and quality of service on exercises, in barracks and ultimately on ops.

Contractorisation is politcally motivated because Civil Serpants and politicians don't like large standing army.

Due to your misunderstanding of what I didn't make clear your job application is rejected!
 
#10
Scrap overseas aid, slash education and NHS budgets as a large chunk of their budget goes on form filling to prove they've met New Liebours 'targets'.
 
#11
Herrumph said:
No exactly the opposite. Much as I like contractor rates of pay I believe most functions are done better by serving military. No profit margin and excessive rates of pay. More military also allows reasonable harmony rates and quality of service on exercises, in barracks and ultimately on ops.

Contractorisation is politcally motivated because Civil Serpants and politicians don't like large standing army.

Due to your misunderstanding of what I didn't make clear your job application is rejected!
pml!

Now if you could just get PJHQ et al on side. Heard via a 3rd party that a certain Director thinks contractorising CSS is great because it frees up the lads and lasses to do sexy stuff like marching up and down the square and patrolling the green line! It might look sexy in the corps rags but sexy to me is seeing the lads and lasses getting stuck in at the business end of the supply chain, conducting CLP's and the like and actually "fighting logistics through". Still, I only pay taxes and don't really mind giving it to someone who doesn't pay tax to do my job for me while I sit and try and get my head round how we ended up in the state we are in.
 
#12
Oil_Slick said:
Scrap overseas aid, slash education and NHS budgets as a large chunk of their budget goes on form filling to prove they've met New Liebours 'targets'.
They are all the same, the Tories recently announced that the ONLY two areas of public expenditure that would NOT be cut would be the NHS and Overseas aid. We now have the MOD budget at approx £42 billion and I don't see any Govt raising that much in the future. So to fund future kit/pensions etc we will have to have internal 'house-keeping' across the three Services - each with their own agenda.

Cost of Trident replacement (full life) was £32 billion in yesterday's Times, that looks prime. Also, each Eurofighter costs the same as an Inf Bn for ten years (same source). Cost of CEA - £200 million a year, one fifth of the allowance budget for less than 8000 claimants, suggest that as most of the RAF & RN families spend all their careers in UK they will have to use state schools or pay the cost of private education themselves ?

Less litigation would also be useful !
 
#13
"Contractorisation is politcally motivated because Civil Serpants and politicians don't like large standing army."

Fantastic - what an absolute belter of a statement, with no proof to back it up!

To save money, you have to ask some hard questions about what you want Defence to do, and then how you can cut force numbers to reduce costs. Service personnel are very expensive in terms of capitation and support costs, so to make real savings, you have to reduce your staffing levels. I see a move away from HM Forces to contractorisation because its so much cheaper in the near term - I know there are massive issues with contractorising facilties, but when you can get rid of a Cpl on 30K plus allowances and replace them with a civvy on 17-20k with no allowances, then savings soon mount up.

For the Army, I would ditch the RF structure, and have all Bdes answer to 2/4/5 Div. I'd also take a long hard look at all NATO postings and other 'sunshine' posts and ask what they contribute to Defence. I suspect that anything which doesnt help us achieve success on current Ops will rightly be in the firing line.

I'd downsize Abbey Wood to a point, but accept that too much downsizing means instability and not enough staff to bring projects in. Personally I'd extend procurement tours by 1-2 years, and get the armed forces to accept that a 2 year tour doesnt set you up for life as a 3* as head of procurement, and that to get it right, you need to spend your time buying stuff, and not doing "broadening appointments". Sorry, bit of a bug bear that we get great staff in, but just as they are professionally competent in post, we move them on again.
 
#14
Generalissimo said:
Trident should go (£20 billion isn't it?), and we probably wouldn't use it anyway, even if the septics let us. Carriers need to stay, and £1 billion has already been spent on them anyway so now it is whether the government would now spend £1.5 billion each for two aircraft carriers (as they can't get the money which has already been spent back),probably a worthwhile investment. Eurofighter will probably be scaled back. FRES will probably be scrapped and a new system put in place. Ideally though they'll do a white paper and match the commitments needed (some dream eh?). The odd thing is that almost every single other country is raising defense spending to cope with the recession in order to create more jobs through public spending, France even placed an order for a new Mistral class. Also with a long-term war in Afghanistan, rising piracy off Africa and a range of other deployments a rise in defense spending is justified to cope with that. The tories have also been banging on for a long time about how labour have been unsupporting etc. (too right), so they can't replicate that themselves, and they've also pledged to match spending to commitments, and as they are fully supportive of the war in Afghanistan then politically they don't have much of a choice other than to do just that, match spending to commitments and thus raise the defense budget. Having said that, there's no way that's going to happen and they'll presumably find a way to wriggle out of it...
Isnt it £20 billion over its lifetime some 20yrs?
 
#15
jim30 said:
"Contractorisation is politcally motivated because Civil Serpants and politicians don't like large standing army."

Fantastic - what an absolute belter of a statement, with no proof to back it up!

To save money, you have to ask some hard questions about what you want Defence to do, and then how you can cut force numbers to reduce costs. Service personnel are very expensive in terms of capitation and support costs, so to make real savings, you have to reduce your staffing levels. I see a move away from HM Forces to contractorisation because its so much cheaper in the near term - I know there are massive issues with contractorising facilties, but when you can get rid of a Cpl on 30K plus allowances and replace them with a civvy on 17-20k with no allowances, then savings soon mount up.
For the Army, I would ditch the RF structure, and have all Bdes answer to 2/4/5 Div. I'd also take a long hard look at all NATO postings and other 'sunshine' posts and ask what they contribute to Defence. I suspect that anything which doesnt help us achieve success on current Ops will rightly be in the firing line.

I'd downsize Abbey Wood to a point, but accept that too much downsizing means instability and not enough staff to bring projects in. Personally I'd extend procurement tours by 1-2 years, and get the armed forces to accept that a 2 year tour doesnt set you up for life as a 3* as head of procurement, and that to get it right, you need to spend your time buying stuff, and not doing "broadening appointments". Sorry, bit of a bug bear that we get great staff in, but just as they are professionally competent in post, we move them on again.
In reference to my bold - I refer you to your own spurious statement

Fantastic - what an absolute belter of a statement, with no proof to back it up!

Are you saing that contractors can carry out the core function of CSS. Because if you are, I think you are talking shit! What do most of the CS's contribute to operational success in theatre at the moment. Bedding storeman in blankshire for example! The point made was a direct reference to contractorisation not CS's but seen as you brought it up about how you great you all are.

"Where the fuck is the replacement for my equipment which is nearly 50 years old you bunch of money sucking cunts!"

time and again CS's trot out the same old line about it slipping to the right due to funding etc etc etc Utter bollocks the money was given and set aside and lo and behold it was subsumed into another budget by a CS so just fuck off the lot of you! Waste of fucking time and couldn't write a ****ing simple contract that delivers if your life depended on it! Leeches!

If you are all so fucking great go and get a real job in the private sector.

edited to add that the civvies replacing Cpl's in theatre do not get paid 17K either they are erning well in excess of 40k in some cases so your theory doesn't add up, because the full screw is sat in camp picking winnits out of his arrse and wondering why he isn't doing the job he signed up to do. Strike him off strength? Gonna get a contractor to turn up on the start line at 0430 with his cam cream and gun are you? for 17k my arrse!
 
#16
Herrumph said:
In MoD, re-deploy anyone involved in Media Ops, IiP, performance and target monitoring, gender/orientation awareness issues. Scrub all ceremonial duties for 2 years to facilitate surge to ops. All MoD Plod duties handed back to RMP, local police or Mil Guard Force as appropriate. Do a proper review of the cost-effectiveness of military CSS functions compared to contractor support - I've been on both sides and know which is more effective and lucrative for me - a sound analysis is needed to confirm my gut feeling.
MoD Plod are probably cheaper than getting squadies to stag on, not to mention retention issues...

Stop ALL overseas aid... especially to India. A country with a space programe and nuclear power doesn't need aid.
 
#17
MoD Policemen, the last time I checked get paid normal police rates of pay and any below Inspector pick up overtime same as civie police. How much crime do they really deal with? How does police pay compare with your average JNCO? If a soldier does a 24 hour duty or a weekend how much extra does he get nowadays? Are military on pager allowances yet?

Bedding storeman in the Blankshires is hardly a CSS role? There may be some scope for looking at how many trained infantry are employed in the QMs, MT and Corps of Drums but that is not what we are talking about. You could argue that the non-effective bayonets in teeth arms give units the ability to rest and re-habilitate the sick and injured - and I would have no argument with that approach. Obviously the bean-counters would not agree - but they would also not be prepared to deploy to Helmand either, unless there was a very generous financial package. Someone up to date might want to let us know what the average bonus to civil servants is when they deploy on Ops - the answer was given in a FOI release last year but notices publishing the figures kept being torn down!

As a consultant or contractor to the MoD, I can pick up £350 a day minimum. For that I do 8 hours work. My employing company also picks up a sizeable chunk (which they don't disclose to me but is about £150) How does that compare to capitation rates - which is in itself a questionable concept?
 
#18
Herrumph said:
MoD Policemen, the last time I checked get paid normal police rates of pay and any below Inspector pick up overtime same as civie police. How much crime do they really deal with? How does police pay compare with your average JNCO? If a soldier does a 24 hour duty or a weekend how much extra does he get nowadays? Are military on pager allowances yet?

Bedding storeman in the Blankshires is hardly a CSS role? There may be some scope for looking at how many trained infantry are employed in the QMs, MT and Corps of Drums but that is not what we are talking about. You could argue that the non-effective bayonets in teeth arms give units the ability to rest and re-habilitate the sick and injured - and I would have no argument with that approach. Obviously the bean-counters would not agree - but they would also not be prepared to deploy to Helmand either, unless there was a very generous financial package. Someone up to date might want to let us know what the average bonus to civil servants is when they deploy on Ops - the answer was given in a FOI release last year but notices publishing the figures kept being torn down!

As a consultant or contractor to the MoD, I can pick up £350 a day minimum. For that I do 8 hours work. My employing company also picks up a sizeable chunk (which they don't disclose to me but is about £150) How does that compare to capitation rates - which is in itself a questionable concept?
H, I'm bang on message this time mate!.......Give us job!
 
#19
Oh dear - someone misread my post and thought that I was talking about contractorisation of theatre tasks and not home tasks. Thats embarrassing, but hey ho, this is ARRSE.

"Are you saing that contractors can carry out the core function of CSS. Because if you are, I think you are talking s***!"

No I'm not, I am referring to day to day life in the homebase. Currently the biggest cost involved in running Defence is its manpower. Having seen the capitation rates for supporting staff in London, and understanding that we are paying an extortionate amount of public money to keep many junior personnel in posts, where we could quite literally double the number of staff available, once you compare starting salaries in the private sector to the all up package for HMF.

"What do most of the CS's contribute to operational success in theatre at the moment."
From my own personal experience, well I could tell you but then I would spend an awfully long time in prison for breaching the OSA. Suffice to say it helped save lives, and made a real difference.
More widely, that the CS in theatre bring a lot of experience in their specialist areas, particularly in Intelligence Civ Sec, contracting, finances, providing policy advice and so on. Stuff that mil staff could do, but either don't work in often enough to have depth knowledge, or where it eases the burden on deploying mil staff.

"The point made was a direct reference to contractorisation not CS's but seen as you brought it up about how you great you all are. "

No I didn't say we are great - I think quite a few of the MOD CS are incompetent, over promoted wastes of space at all levels. I also think the same of many members of HM Forces who I have had the misfortune to work with over the years. My point was more that if you want to employ contractors then you can get them to do similar jobs for usually 1/2 to 2/3rds the price - short term gain, but plenty of long term pain.

"
time and again CS's trot out the same old line about it slipping to the right due to funding etc etc etc Utter bollocks the money was given and set aside and lo and behold it was subsumed into another budget by a CS so just **** off the lot of you"

Just out of curiosity, have you experienced how the Equipment Programme is drawn up? You know the one which cuts and increases budgets? Presumably you do know that the funding programme cuts are proposed by, drawn up by, and approved by the Military and not the CS? Having worked in this area, I was amazed at how good the military are at conveniently blaming the CS for their own actions when it comes to making cuts.
 
#20
I say we sell the Welsh, if that doesn't raise enough then birmingham also. We should also stop providing state education for woman and ginger kids. If people have been unemployed for more than a year with no medical reason they should be used for mine/ied clearence in afghanistan (just make them run around until something goes bang)

That should raise enough cash until next year.
 

Latest Threads