Quizzes & Puzzles40 mins ago
MoD budget to be cut by a quarter
Is this possible without it affecting our ability to defend ourselves effectively. Shouldn't we be increasing spending as we appear to be badly equipped already. Is this a white flag to our enemies?
Answers
1 to 13 of 13
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think they want to cut a quarter from the *cost of running* the MOD which is about 1/5 of the whole budget.
That's only a 5% cut
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/08/liam-fox-mod-defence-review
That's only a 5% cut
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/08/liam-fox-mod-defence-review
We are not going to solve this on AB.
In very round numbers, the annual cost of running the MOD is £30bn. About £10bn is frontline costs, £10bn maintains the supply chains and infrastructure support costs, £10bn gets spent annually on capital equipment. Those are very rough numbers, but they give you some idea. It will be the middle one of these that the Tories are targetting and this is where the majority of the civil servants are employed.
It isn't just spares - there's a collosal support infrastructure many parts of which been progressively outsourced to the private sector over the last 10 years, with the MOD managing the process. These are long-term (10-15 year) contracts which can't just get turned off without penalties.
The MOD unions have been remarkably successful at managing not to have all the support chains jobs outsourced (TUPE'd) into the private sector. This is where the Tories will address their efforts - but it won't equate to 25%.
Start ambitious in the search for a smaller number to settle on. 15% of the £10bn should be possible.
In very round numbers, the annual cost of running the MOD is £30bn. About £10bn is frontline costs, £10bn maintains the supply chains and infrastructure support costs, £10bn gets spent annually on capital equipment. Those are very rough numbers, but they give you some idea. It will be the middle one of these that the Tories are targetting and this is where the majority of the civil servants are employed.
It isn't just spares - there's a collosal support infrastructure many parts of which been progressively outsourced to the private sector over the last 10 years, with the MOD managing the process. These are long-term (10-15 year) contracts which can't just get turned off without penalties.
The MOD unions have been remarkably successful at managing not to have all the support chains jobs outsourced (TUPE'd) into the private sector. This is where the Tories will address their efforts - but it won't equate to 25%.
Start ambitious in the search for a smaller number to settle on. 15% of the £10bn should be possible.
Britain with an economy far less than Germany and France still pretends we are ruling the world. We no longer plunder the wealth of commonwealth countries, our industrial economy is in ruins, our social security system is the envy of every illegal immigrant and those wishing to come here, our class ridden country ensures people are kept in their place, and the future looks bleaker every year.
But there are those in the higher establishments who insist our wealth is plunged into overseas missions that want nothing to do with us. We may have ruled by force in the past and have weaponry to destroy our enemies but our economy has suffered as a result making us all poorer.
We should spend no more on defence than our economy can afford and not be living in the past.
But there are those in the higher establishments who insist our wealth is plunged into overseas missions that want nothing to do with us. We may have ruled by force in the past and have weaponry to destroy our enemies but our economy has suffered as a result making us all poorer.
We should spend no more on defence than our economy can afford and not be living in the past.
Probably true, Rov. But that implies a reduction right across the board - not just amongst the civil servants as the Tories are proposing.
It costs an incredibly large sum to keep a Service person in uniform. I'm not bleating it is too much - just that things need to be kept in proportion.
Is it widely realised on here that Service personnel benefit from (mostly) free housing, free meals during the working day, private health cover, private schooling for children and so on.
There are about 160,000 uniform personnel, 7000? of them in Afghanistan at any one time. The level of infrastructure to support the front-line troops is massive.
It costs an incredibly large sum to keep a Service person in uniform. I'm not bleating it is too much - just that things need to be kept in proportion.
Is it widely realised on here that Service personnel benefit from (mostly) free housing, free meals during the working day, private health cover, private schooling for children and so on.
There are about 160,000 uniform personnel, 7000? of them in Afghanistan at any one time. The level of infrastructure to support the front-line troops is massive.
As if Britain is not acting above its weight in having 9000 troops in Afghanistan it has just been announced we are going to send another 500. The £bns spent on this unwinnable war would pay for many other usefull projects. We don't need a referendum on the EU but whether our politicians can commit so many British troops without our agreement.
We havn't had the need to defend ourselves properly since 1945. Everything since then have been affairs we have needlessly poked our unwanted noses into.
There are plenty of countries in Europe who concentrate on themselves and what happens in their countries. Something we should do. We spend quite enough.
There are plenty of countries in Europe who concentrate on themselves and what happens in their countries. Something we should do. We spend quite enough.
I'm sure the Governor at Port Stanley might not be too pleased at being likened to a penguin, however true it might be.
Rov: One cannot just turn on / turn off the costs of running the MOD based on the number of troops out there. The £10bn I refer to, of salary and other benefits, are fixed costs that take time to run down, and many years to rebuild again, should it ever be needed. If the fighting troops out there it is true they could be somewhere else, but their fixed costs would be the same. Much of the £10bn in supply chain costs are fixed as well.
Rov: One cannot just turn on / turn off the costs of running the MOD based on the number of troops out there. The £10bn I refer to, of salary and other benefits, are fixed costs that take time to run down, and many years to rebuild again, should it ever be needed. If the fighting troops out there it is true they could be somewhere else, but their fixed costs would be the same. Much of the £10bn in supply chain costs are fixed as well.
Many Government Departments are undoubtedly bloated, but all the evidence suggests that the MoD is not one of them. Vast amounts of money have however been wasted on dodgy procurement and useless IT. I am not sure how a future Tory led MoD will be able to change that and save money.
Is "we will make savings" code for "We will make cuts"?
Is "we will make savings" code for "We will make cuts"?
1 to 13 of 13
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles45 mins ago
Will Rishi Sunak Resign On Friday ?
News101 mins ago
Will The Libdems Be Up To The Job Of...
News107 mins ago
News108 mins ago
News142 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.