MOD and DOT: 55 posts earning over £100kpa each...

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by SoylentGreen, Sep 21, 2010.

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. And is your point that there are too many, surprisingly few, productive and earning their keep, non-productive and need to be replaced?????

    Numbers without interpretation mean absolutely nothing and the BBC (who are hardly blameless in the high earning stakes) are just stirring things (as usual). So what if 9,000 public sector employees earn more than the Prime Minister, some, or possibly even most, might even earn it.

    I hasten to add I am not in the military/public sector any more and when I was I never earned anywhere near £100,000
  2. Seadog

    Seadog War Hero Moderator

    Assuming that the majority of comment on the subject of Public Sector salaries using the PM as a datum are hostile to superior remuneration, here is my £160000 worth.

    Some (but not all) of those in the Public Sector earning more than the PM have spent a working lifetime acquiring the qualifications and experience and making the sacrifices necessary for their current post. Their current job may involve yet more sacrifice, more immediate charge over more subordinates. Perhaps their salaries take that into account. A PM does not need qualifications or experience although arguably, fluency in bullshit and a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face* will help.

    Is there some reason why the PM's salary should be a glass ceiling for all Public Servants; because that is the usual inference?

    * General Melchett
  3. How deliciously ironic that these figures are on the BBC website. If you think they're high, how about these apples?

    MOD: Public sector organisation responsible for nation's security.
    BBC: Public sector organisation responsible for nation's information and entertainment.

    Defence Budget: £36.9bn from tax payers.
    BBC Budget: £3.5bn from license fee payers.

    Headcount of Armed Forces: 190,000 regular + 39,000 reserves = 229,000
    Headcount of BBC: c.20,000

    CDS salary: £288k (Bargain!)
    BBC DG salary: £834k. (2009 figures)

    Number of MOD staff earning over £200k: 2
    Number of BBC staff earning over £200k: 47

    Combined pay of top five MOD civil servants: £860k (Bargain!)
    Combined pay of top five BBC executives: £2.7m

    The BBC executive salary bill
    Figures for MOD highest salaries here. Does anyone else think we've got the balance wrong? However, industry would pay millions to people with similar budgets and responsibilities.

    There is a pattern to the current events:

    Step 1. Replace vast numbers of uniformed personnel performing non-frontline jobs with CS or civilian contractors to save money (lower pay, smaller or no Employer's Tax & NI contributions, smaller or no pension contributions, smaller or no accommodation costs, fewer days off, less need for training, sports facilities, food subsidies, etc) and release more service personnel for core tasks and operations. Retain senior officers to oversee all areas, from nuclear reactors to supplies of boots and rations, to MOD's benefit wherever possible.

    Step 2. Implement Defence Review but fail to fund its results. Increase commitments for uniformed personnel and requirement for resources by engaging in two protracted conflicts on a peacetime budget with unplanned expenditure of stores, ammo, POL, etc and increased wear and tear on ships, aircraft, vehicles and other kit resulting in larger maintenance costs, faster consumption of spares and earlier need for replacements.

    Step 3. Start running out of money. Scrap ships. Reduce numbers of platforms and systems ordered and delay procurement programmes thus increasing unit costs and pushing up overall prices.

    Step 4. Run out of money. Register shock and arouse public outrage at the numbers of senior officers in critical management positions and 'shiny-arsed' CS and civilian contractors compared to uniformed personnel, even though most of them are performing mundane low-paid jobs in vital support roles (security, training, logistics, ship, submarine, aircraft & vehicle maintenance, transport, budgets & contracts, clerical & administration, CIS & IT, catering, estate management, cleaning, painting, etc.).

    Step 5. Sack swaths of senior officers and CS and civilian contractors to balance the books.

    Step 6. Backfill gapped CS and civilian contractor positions with uniformed personnel thus reducing numbers available for front line duties and increasing strain on the system.

    Step 7. See Step 1.
  4. No one in the US military is allowed to earn more than the President. The same should apply here.
  5. We have a President?
  6. Nope, a normong.
  7. Blimey, and I thought the MOD had the monopoly on convoluted titles... Editorial Director Project 1? Sounds like something out of the Forbidden Planet... :eek:
  8. Seadog

    Seadog War Hero Moderator

    Making allowances for your shortcomings; as has already been alluded to, we don't have a President, why should no-one in the UK military earn more than the PM? Are you going to make a case for doubling the PM's salary or halving that of the CDS? Make your case - give reasons - please.
  9. The PotUS is the Head of State. Ergo, according to Normong logic (yes, yes, I know, that's an oxymorong) no-one in the military should earn as much as HM the Queen.

    And how much does the PotUS get?
    root source
  10. $ 19,000 for entertainment, is that enough to cover Bliars visits?. brushteeth
  11. I think Bill Clinton used it for other purposes!!!!
  12. MOD EDIT

    Post deleted. No case made, no added value, taking thread off course.............

    Normong isn't norman but the Dick's posts are just as ill-informed, predictable, bandwidth wasting shite. Even as a wind up its merit is not registering
  13. Broadside my dear fellow: I have no point to make. I merely posted the link to see what other peeps would say about it!

    As it happens I think under £300k is reasonable enough for Chief of Defence staff: anyone holding the post never can tell how long they'll be in the job for. They're as likely to resign amidst another procurement scandal or in protest at the political strangling of the armed forces as serve their full term and retire with anyone's thanks. It's hard to compare apples with apples looking at these jobs too. I could say it's under half what the CEO of Nationwide building society gets but one cannot compare a financial institution primarily concerned with making money to one primarily concerned with spending it.
  14. What the Prime Minister earns is of no consequence.
    What an ex-Prime Minister earns... now there's a different story.
    Multi-millionaire Tony Blair used the office of PM to further his own ambitions, the fact that lives were lost in the process seems not to bother him, he's happy with his millions.... throwing a crumb to the British Legion was to boost his already inflated ego... that crumb would have only gone in tax anyway.
  15. I thought as an intern she wasn't paid. Looks as though he wasted away his money instead ...
  16. Soylent - no disrespect intended but posting a link without a comment is a cop out (IMHO). I can understand your interest in other people's views but as a Current Affairs forum I think it is incumbent on anyone starting a thread to actually "start" the thread.
  17. No probs, but I think in Current affairs it's a valid way to start a thread - and so do plenty of other posters (see H4H wristbands banned, Pope Visit threads).
  18. Not quite on topic, but I must agree with Broadside re starting any thread with an opening comment or opinion as that always seems to be sound site etiquette.

    I must admit that I cracked and snapped recently when frustrated by a poster for blithely posting random links without offering the whyfore on each.

    Our RR exception is of course Soleil; who merely brings to our attention matters of an RN interest otherwise they would often pass us by.

    I consider her absent comment to be 'Well now, what think ye of that then, folks?'


Share This Page