Warship deal to secure Scots jobs

"The Govt is poised to give the go ahead for the building of 2 aircraft carriers which will secure thousands of scottish jobs.
The £3bn order is set to cause a political row weeks before the Holyrood elections"
What a suprise.With defeat looming in the Scottish elections and after years of dithering the Govt will give the go ahead for the building of the fabled new carriers.
Amazing what the thought of a humiliating defeat will do for the Govt!!

 

What they give with one hand, they rip from under you with the other...

From ARRSE
http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/index.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=62117#1183274

 

If one was being cynical, the timing of the announcement in the coming week, (rather than in the week before the Elections as expected), would also allow our Dear Leader to get himself a nice soundbite announcing how he was boosting the Navy's capabilities…

…not that he's currently getting a beasting from the press that his cuts and penny pinching contributed to the situation in the Gulf at the moment

 

Cynical!!!!!no.......

 

The possibility of the orders for these carriers being ordered now as an attempt to save Labour bacon at the forthcoming elections has been so well signalled in advance that it is more likely to persuade people that it is jsut that a bribe.

Considering the latest polls show labour shedding votes and seats faster than ever before it is unlikely to stop the rot, if they lose support at the same rate as they have done over the past few months between now and the election they will be the third biggest party come the election.

They also stand to get a hammering in the council elections especially as these will be dne on a single transferable vote system, so by May they could not only have lost in parliament but also most of the councils.

Good high for Tone to go out on.

 

but if we get the flat tops - do we care how.....

(I'm such a political tart....)

 

Not at all! I will dust off my red light now, Whitehall here I come.

 

Good news all round....I wonder how the Argies will react :wink:

 

From what I have heard, the timing of the Carrier (Non) order is much more to do with the practical difficulties in getting the industrial partners in the Aircraft Carrier Alliance to agree to the overall package within the current financial limit and the date for this has been steadily moving right over the last year or so. I suspect that the elections will add yet another hurdle/excuse for not getting it sorted so I suppose a summer anouncement is the best we can hope for now!

 

Just being stupid here but when are the elections(national)? since I'm not in the UK at the mo. And does anyone here think the conservatives will support the armed forces any better than Labour?

 

Neue Arbiet has halved Defence spending as a % of GDP while the Dear Leader has sent us to war more times than any previous PM. We currently spend less as a % than France and Germany… can the Conservatives really do any worse than that?

 

Elections in early May , local as well as national...the Tories will do anything to win votes..as would any other party.

 

The question now is, can BAE and VT stop squabbling like a pair of bitchy schoolgirls and get on and build the thing without going 30% over budget and 3 years late?

 

And there Sir, you have it....

I doubt it very much.

 

Problem with BAe and VT is that they still remember the days of cost plus contracts. These were a licence to print money. Perhaps the time has come that if a company wins a contract then that contract is legally binding to cost. In other words if you can't build it for the price that you bid, don't bid.

 

Indeed, and there has been so much said and written about 'Smart' procurement (I can't remember which edition of the handbook we are on now, but I think its at least Ed 7) that there really can be no excuse for getting something as big and public as this wrong.... can there??

I also believe in Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy.....

 

Slim,
Who do you suggest builds the carriers then?The Contractors are trying,as usual with MOD Contracts,to work the specified requirements within the allowed budget price;this is just a wee bit difficult when MOD does'nt know what the full requirements will be and specifies non commercially available materials in the designs.The suppliers see the use of MOD specific material as a reason to multiply the price they charge because the Contractors cannot look elsewhere .Then add in the modifications requested by the users and up goes the costs

 

As far as I am concerned a contract is legally binding on each side. If the government wishes amendments to specifications after the contract is signed then it should pay for any increased costs (plus a profit margin on these extras). All too often a contract is awarded on the basis of cost alone, this is not always for the best. However having won a contract and therefore deprived competitors of the work the price should be fixed.