John Healey - Minister of Defence announces cuts across the three Services

[amateur]

44 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Unfortunately it will NEVER happen.........................

Well, not for the next 4 1/2 years, and then only if the Conservatives can get their act together.

[oowee]

17 minutes ago, amateur said:

Well, not for the next 4 1/2 years, and then only if the Conservatives can get their act together.

Goodness I hope not it's the Tories that got our public services here in the first place. Everybody wants more but few want to pay for it. All that Starmer is doing is saying it like it is. Fortunately he is confirming the Tory pledge to increase defence spending but unlike the Tories he is looking for the cash. 

 

[amateur]

55 minutes ago, oowee said:

Goodness I hope not it's the Tories that got our public services here in the first place. Everybody wants more but few want to pay for it. All that Starmer is doing is saying it like it is. Fortunately he is confirming the Tory pledge to increase defence spending but unlike the Tories he is looking for the cash. 

 

The public sector needs a good dose of efficiency injected into it, as some of us were doing in the 1980s.

Pumping money into ever open maws is not the answer.

[welsh1]

1 hour ago, oowee said:

Goodness I hope not it's the Tories that got our public services here in the first place. Everybody wants more but few want to pay for it. All that Starmer is doing is saying it like it is. Fortunately he is confirming the Tory pledge to increase defence spending but unlike the Tories he is looking for the cash. 

 

 

10 minutes ago, amateur said:

The public sector needs a good dose of efficiency injected into it, as some of us were doing in the 1980s.

Pumping money into ever open maws is not the answer.

Is the right answer, the civil service is very bloated, inneficient and needs to slim down. and while they are at it end the extremly generous pensions and bonuses that we the public pay that would save a shed load of money.

[Windswept]

I would have hoped this story would have made more of a splash. From the DM as I don't have access to the Times

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14017135/Ministry-Defence-pen-pushers-outnumber-service-personnel-RAF-Navy.html

Quote

But there are 28,840 trained members of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines plus 28,420 in the RAF. That means the combined total of 57,260 is less than the number of civil servants working in the Whitehall department

 

Quote

Lord Lee of Trafford, a defence minister in the 1980s and the Liberal Democrat peer who uncovered the figures, told The Times: ‘We have ended up in a situation where there are 63,000 civil servants employed when the Army itself is only 72,000-strong. 

'I can’t think of a large private sector firm that hasn’t, through efficiencies and modern telecommunication, reduced their headcount and yet in the MoD, it has actually increased. The whole thing is extraordinarily lopsided and surely it’s time to take a really hard look at these [figures].’

The overall civil servant tally increased from 384,230 in 2016 to 510,665 in March this year

 

 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Absolutely SHOCKING......................

[Minky]

This thread is a classic case of FAKE NEWS.  Yes there are going to be cuts BUT the other day I was reading a financial revue of military cuts & expenditure.  All of this stuff is donkeys years old and has been put forward to be scrapped before.  All of it is due for replacement and some of it has already been put into service.  Some of this chinook helicopters are over 50 years old.. YES 50 .  one of the ships. had been in for a refit during which major structural problems had been found which were so large that the ship would have to be dismantled and completely rebuilt making it uneconomical and if rebuilt you would still have an old ship.  The Lockheed Hercules were old and had mainly been replaced with A400 transports.  It also showed where most of the first tranche of Fighters had been delivered and money allocated for the next tranche to be order making the total up to 148 planes.  There were fairly comprehensive lists of all sorts of new replacements.  SO the story about cuts etc was true but it didn't show the full story.  These cuts had come from the top military who had asked for replacements.  The whole world seems to have taken on board this culture of spin and only partially reporting the whole story irregardless of the whole truth and other implications.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

15 minutes ago, Minky said:

This thread is a classic case of FAKE NEWS.  Yes there are going to be cuts BUT the other day I was reading a financial revue of military cuts & expenditure.  All of this stuff is donkeys years old and has been put forward to be scrapped before.  All of it is due for replacement and some of it has already been put into service.  Some of this chinook helicopters are over 50 years old.. YES 50 .  one of the ships. had been in for a refit during which major structural problems had been found which were so large that the ship would have to be dismantled and completely rebuilt making it uneconomical and if rebuilt you would still have an old ship.  The Lockheed Hercules were old and had mainly been replaced with A400 transports.  It also showed where most of the first tranche of Fighters had been delivered and money allocated for the next tranche to be order making the total up to 148 planes.  There were fairly comprehensive lists of all sorts of new replacements.  SO the story about cuts etc was true but it didn't show the full story.  These cuts had come from the top military who had asked for replacements.  The whole world seems to have taken on board this culture of spin and only partially reporting the whole story irregardless of the whole truth and other implications.

The OLD Chinooks are perfectly capable aircraft. These will probably sold on and will be used for another 20 years.

The Hercules are long gone and before their time. Again many were sold on to other operators.

The A400s have had loads of problems. 

At a time when Putin is on the march, should this country really be scaling down?

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Apparently,

"Mr Healey defended the cuts as “common-sense decisions” which he said would allow the Armed Forces to focus on the future."

 

 

Do the Armed Forces of this once great country have a future?

[oowee]

1 hour ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

The OLD Chinooks are perfectly capable aircraft. These will probably sold on and will be used for another 20 years.

The Hercules are long gone and before their time. Again many were sold on to other operators.

The A400s have had loads of problems. 

At a time when Putin is on the march, should this country really be scaling down?

Where are we scaling down? Cutting old tat and moving the cash to other areas is exactly what we should be doing.

This is a non story if ever i read one:-Lord Lee of Trafford, a defence minister in the 1980s and the Liberal Democrat peer who uncovered the figures, told The Times: ‘We have ended up in a situation where there are 63,000 civil servants employed when the Army itself is only 72,000-strong. 

The concern is the Army itself is only 72000 strong, barely a months supply on the Russian front line. 

 

 

 

Edited 19 hours ago by oowee

[Gordon R]

Is the cash being moved to more modern areas? If it is, why is the budget going down by £500 million?

[TIGHTCHOKE]

There is an impending Defence Review due early next year, gawd knows what the labour government will do with that.  

[oowee]

11 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Is the cash being moved to more modern areas? If it is, why is the budget going down by £500 million?

Where did you see this? 

"These are not the only difficult decisions we will need to make as a new government to deal with the fiscal inheritance," Healey said, adding that the changes would "secure better value for money for taxpayers and better outcomes for our military".

The savings will be retained in defence and all personnel will be redeployed or retrained, Healey said.

1 minute ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

There is an impending Defence Review due early next year, gawd knows what the labour government will do with that.  

Lets hope we don't leave it to the three services they are incapable of chopping into history. We should bring in some from Ukraine to assist. 

[welsh1]

19 minutes ago, oowee said:

Where are we scaling down? Cutting old tat and moving the cash to other areas is exactly what we should be doing.

This is a non story if ever i read one:-Lord Lee of Trafford, a defence minister in the 1980s and the Liberal Democrat peer who uncovered the figures, told The Times: ‘We have ended up in a situation where there are 63,000 civil servants employed when the Army itself is only 72,000-strong. 

The concern is the Army itself is only 72000 strong, barely a months supply on the Russian front line. 

 

 

 

Old tat you say, i take it you are not a Veteran, speaking as a Sapper who was a qualified rigger and marshaller, and who helped testing different configerations of equipment to be underslung on Chinooks, and who has used them to "hop" from place to place, and even had the pleasure to "surf on the tailgate while low flying they are an immense piece of military equipment, hugely versitile and unless there is something to replace them (there isn't at this stage) they will be greatly missed.

The same as the Puma, hopping on and off as they picked you up and took you about NI, what a work horse.

[oowee]

5 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

Old tat you say, i take it you are not a Veteran, speaking as a Sapper who was a qualified rigger and marshaller, and who helped testing different configerations of equipment to be underslung on Chinooks, and who has used them to "hop" from place to place, and even had the pleasure to "surf on the tailgate while low flying they are an immense piece of military equipment, hugely versitile and unless there is something to replace them (there isn't at this stage) they will be greatly missed.

The same as the Puma, hopping on and off as they picked you up and took you about NI, what a work horse.

I am sure it was great. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

17 minutes ago, oowee said:

Where did you see this? 

"These are not the only difficult decisions we will need to make as a new government to deal with the fiscal inheritance," Healey said, adding that the changes would "secure better value for money for taxpayers and better outcomes for our military".

The savings will be retained in defence and all personnel will be redeployed or retrained, Healey said.

Lets hope we don't leave it to the three services they are incapable of chopping into history. We should bring in some from Ukraine to assist. 

Just about your silliest comment ever on PW. They are a little busy at the moment.

[oowee]

7 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Just about your silliest comment ever on PW. They are a little busy at the moment.

🤣 They are here. 

[Flashman]

£500M = defence cuts.

£280M = estimated cost of Covid enquiry. 

Beyond my comprehension. 

[oowee]

11 minutes ago, Flashman said:

£500M = defence cuts.

£280M = estimated cost of Covid enquiry. 

Beyond my comprehension. 

I can see that it is.  Buying a cup of tea rather than a cup of coffee is not a cut in consumption. 

[12gauge82]

6 hours ago, amateur said:

Well, not for the next 4 1/2 years, and then only if the Conservatives can get their act together.

Stuff the Conservatives, we need Reform in. 

[oowee]

7 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Stuff the Conservatives, we need Reform in. 

Do you think Farage will want to do the work required? I doubt he is up for it. How long till he gets a green card? 😁

[welsh1]

1 minute ago, oowee said:

Do you think Farage will want to do the work required? I doubt he is up for it. How long till he gets a green card? 😁

He has been a politician a lot longer than the huge majority of politicians in the uk , he campaigned for us to leave the eu, he won, his  reform party got 4 million votes and had only been going a short while, on the scale of it he's quite succesful.And polls show he is way more popular that starmer the farmer hating, pensioner killing pm.

[12gauge82]

6 minutes ago, oowee said:

Do you think Farage will want to do the work required? I doubt he is up for it. How long till he gets a green card? 😁

Yes, yes I do. Farage love him or hate him isn't driven by the materialistic things that most politicians are. He's driven by an annoyance at what is happening to the UK. He doesn't want to lead but a dissatisfaction of what's currently happening is making him do it. 

In a nutshell, he's genuine and I'll vote for that. 

[old man]

6 hours ago, oowee said:

Goodness I hope not it's the Tories that got our public services here in the first place. Everybody wants more but few want to pay for it. All that Starmer is doing is saying it like it is. Fortunately he is confirming the Tory pledge to increase defence spending but unlike the Tories he is looking for the cash. 

 

Yep, he's saying it as it is? Unfortunately it is in the absolute shambles we have due to the very poor performance of all of the politicians involved now and previously?

[Flashman]

3 hours ago, oowee said:

I can see that it is.  Buying a cup of tea rather than a cup of coffee is not a cut in consumption. 

Shush. 

Pumping out dross in reply to every post does not make you appear wise.  It makes you look unemployed or employed by the State (little difference) and a Johnny No-Mates. 

You’ve delighted us all enough with your guff - don’t you have mates down the pub who are interested in your waffle.

Somehow, I doubt it…