Treasury rethink hits defence budget

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by armchair_jihad, Feb 3, 2009.

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. Bad news,Authorised=false.html?
  2. Brown says fund it, unnamed Treasury official says we won't fund it.

    What to believe eh?
  3. Where does Brown say he will fund it, Sven?
  4. Oh! No! Some surprise here - wow!

    Bet 'Sven' and 'ashie' and the revolting 'parapuke', will put the rest of us right. These 'good-guys' will tell us all how my taxes, SORRY - your taxes; are being well spent.

    C'mon posters - are we talking:

    HEALTH (forget C.Difficle); EDUCATION - forget the ludicrous Balls (Oxford degree!) who told all the children to stay at home today, and that the majority are leaving school unable to READ, WRITE and do simple SUMS); SOCIAL SECURITY - = money for doing nothing) ?

    Never mind, I'm sure the unelected and hugely hated Brown will, through Mandelson (the ispso facto Prime minister) , 'soundbyte' the answer.
  5. Folks - I work in the UOR funding area. This article is half truths only.

    The plan is and has been for some years now that HMT funds us up to an agreed limit - that limit is a level which has not presented us with any problems so far. The overspend is only if we exceed the limit when we then pay back the money to the treasury later. It will not prevent us getting UOR kit in year - even if we have to look at the EP again later.

    Will it work? Well lets look at the end of the next FY and see how things go - but I would treat any "HMT to rape budget" articles with a pinch of salt as its an incredibly complicated deal which the average journalist doesnt get (too many long words for their liking!).
  6. Hmm, in contrast Singapore has raised its defense spending by 6% to cope with the recession....they seem to be doing fine, so is this Brown just looking for a plausible excuse?
  7. Jim

    From previous posts it seems you don't actually formulate this policy, so this isn't personal.

    I find two aspects of this disturbing.

    1. "Well lets look at the end of the next FY and see how things go" is not a good basis for a policy which is, supposedly, designed for one purpose - getting urgently needed kit to those whose lives depend on it. The inference is that if it doesn't work by next year some other hair brained scheme will emerge; meanwhile people may have died. (To be fair to Minsiters, they say kit shortages have never been responsible for casualties. This, of course, is bolleaux).

    2. If "its an incredibly complicated deal" then, again, it's no sodding use to those who rely upon it. Keep it simple - concentrate resources on getting the job done. The job is getting the right kit URGENTLY, not over complicating the issue, causing delays.
  8. Bakersfield

    The UOR process policy remains unchanged - it works, it works well and has brought into service an incredible amount of kit much faster than would otherwise be the case. It is one thing the DE&S deliver on and do extremely well indeed.

    My point was more that lets get to the end of this Financial Year and see how we've coped with request vs budget vs overspend rather than anything else - the process has not changed at all though.

    The deal itself is complicated in how the finance is broken down overall - this does not impact on the process though, nor does it stop money getting allocated extremely quickly to a project and procurement commencing. We can (and do) push these things through in days or hours if required to.

  9. Well, here's Sven putting you right.

    IT'S BOLLOX - all half truths and innuendo
  10. I agree, the UOR process works well.

    But, just to get the EP back to CT is causing so much pain that savings are having to be made in future years. The result? FLCs are becoming increasingly reliant on UOR funding to deliver capability some that's genuinely UOR stuff but also some that should be part of the core programme. PJHQ and DECs are not always so diligent in my experience in weeding out the 'nice to haves' from the 'essential'. Therefore, there is a huge bow wave of kit that, lets face it, is not going to be disposed of at the end of the ops and will ultimately want to be bought into the core programme creating unanticipated ESP expenditure in future years.

    My point? Er further pain in PR10 and beyond? :(
  11. ADUX - spot on - its going to be painful when the HERRICK bill for UORs to core lands in the planners desks - TELIC was bad enough! The scrutiny is usually pretty good to be fair - the process is well sorted now and small enough that all the players know each other. The biggest challenge is getting people to realise that while it would be nice to have some gucci kit , its not going to win the war or save life if we do get it. When people get this, and start putting in UORs for only genuinely Urgent, genuinely Operational focussed Requirements, then we'll be well on our way to reducing pain in years to come.