£15 Bn in spending cuts

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by TimeToJoinUp, Apr 21, 2009.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. They are meant to be "efficiency" savings - that means you cut the input without affecting the output. If he means what he says there should be NO cuts in RN capability. We'll see!!!!!
     
  2. i've heard form serving members that they aircraft carrier's are being kept but going to have the entry to sevice date lengthened and all the plans to update the RFA have gone out the window.

    there's also talk of cancelling the RAF plans to relocate everyone form cosford to wales and just keep cosford as it is.
     


  3. Ahhhhh, the rumour mill.

    It will happen when it happens. lets just wait and see what the little 'darling' announces!!!!!
     
  4. I heard in the naafi queue the entire fleet was been relocated to Grimsby. Gen Buzz lol
     
  5. I heard a rumour that the RN was being sold, complete with personnel, to The Royal Bank(rupt) of Scotland for exactly £15bn. The money is coming from the taxpayer. ;)
     
  6. I heard from the friend of a friend of the neighbours dog. That the 15 mill. was to spent making the lives of the career unemployed better by upping allowances and making dole money now in line with their aspirations of what they would have aspired too!!!!!!!
     
  7. Is there no end to this Government’s stupidity. So privatising DSDA would create revenue?

    From where and how often? The DE&S IPTs would then need to pay DSDA to hold their Stores. DSDA is not particularly overstaffed and will need to make a profit. Transferred staff made redundant would remain a MoD liability. What would they do with all the RLC stackers who run large parts of the operation?

    The value of the “pieces of equipment†is irrelevant because DSDA doesn’t own them. If those 11 locations include the Naval Base facilities, DSDA doesn’t own them.

    Strangely, even that adverse impact defence is bollox because the Naval Base Partners managed adequately without DSDA.
     
  8. Well here is what Mr Firth (DSDA Chief Exec) had to say about the current situation in the last annual report:

    "The delivery of the remarkable output service changes and net financial and head count benefits ahead of plan masks the fact that the commercial element of the FDSCi proposition is undeliverable, and it is worth noting why this is the case. In simple terms DSDA has neither the physical capacity nor the governance framework to allow for meaningful external business, as an Agency the organisation cannot trade, invest, contract, organise, equip or compete as a commercial organisation, and opportunities for income generation are limited to exploiting the minimal and reducing spare resources. Moreover, the base level of income generated from contracts with MoD prime suppliers, mainly in the complex weapons sector, is falling in line with Defence spending reductions in these areas, and we expect this base income to be halved over the next 5 years."

    he goes on:

    ..."We have to ask ourselves how far the strategies of cutting, efficiency and new ways of working can go, and what is the likely and realistic end point of alternative approaches. We are already committed to deliver additional savings above FDSCi which will mean that over a 3-year period the Agency staff will have been reduced by 50%. I have also considered how sustainable the position is. DSDA has a legacy of lack of
    investment in facilities and infrastructure over decades, to the extent that I now have to consider withdrawal from facilities to meet my obligations to provide a safe working environment. The funding requirements to
    remedy the basic infrastructure amounts to almost £1billion.."


    Sounds like a shocking state of affairs to be honest!
     
  9. But common across much of defence. The majority of our military infrastructure requires huge levels of investment to reach an acceptable state.

    Outsourcing is one way that has some potential to mitigate that, although the consequential effects need to be considered quite carefully, in some cases outsourcing is not a viable option; as indicated by the comments upthread is likely to be the case here.

    One of the problems that I've observed is that the crown side business teams in a market testing environment tend to play at competition, not realising that they're up against teams that do know what they're doing and take the competition opportunity seriously. I've seen business proposals presented that just aren't credible, and are riddled with the assumption that they're safe; despite all the evidence to the contrary. That's not peculiar to defence.
     
  10. To save taxpayers money they should be weeding out the career, parasitic, benefit scrounging, scum fekkers. :evil: :evil:
     
  11. But there are only 646 of them! :eek:
     
  12. Is that all! 8O Hardly worth the effort then.
     
  13. wet_blobby

    wet_blobby War Hero Moderator

    Hah...But that is just the accountable ones, throw in their wives/sons/daughters/pet Labrador/ researcher and we get a much higher figure than 646, and we haven't even included spin doctors and PR departments yet.

    Why is so much spent on spin/PR? We can't argue with the feckers and say " sorry, dont actually like that idea, go and come back with something else" so what's the point of a PR department for a non entity MP, or a cabinet minister or the PM come to think of it?
     
  14.  

Share This Page