Leaner MOD

[ITgeek]

Just in...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10960440

interesting there is a quote saying that services won't be merged

"He ruled out merging the armed forces but suggested the number of senior military officers could be cut."

 

[NFTR]

He said, "We cannot demand efficiency from the lower ranks while exempting those at the top”

I'm not holding my breath...................

 

[John Lloyd]

He also said "fundamental assumptions" about tour lengths and intervals for armed personnel must be challenged "taking into account the varying pressures on our personnel resulting from widely varying missions".

Now in politico speak, you can read that both ways round.

 

[Sospan]

So not only are we going to endure a full SDSR but also a 'Defence Reform Unit'.

 

[ITgeek]

just wondering who's budget this Defence Reform Unit will payed out off

 

[Rossco]

A good article here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...big-boys-toys-will-change-forces-forever.html

Just about everyone I speak to hates the idea of the forces being cut. The idea of "choosing between building another hospital or investing in a squadron of tanks" annoys me - how about choosing between cutting the ridiculous welfare budget and a squadron of tanks (or better still, keeping a squadron of tonkas)....

 

[Ex-Splitter and Proud]

A good article here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...big-boys-toys-will-change-forces-forever.html

Just about everyone I speak to hates the idea of the forces being cut. The idea of "choosing between building another hospital or investing in a squadron of tanks" annoys me - how about choosing between cutting the ridiculous welfare budget and a squadron of tanks (or better still, keeping a squadron of tonkas)....

Recent days, the Telegraph has wheeled out its Jolly Jack Tar pundits, today, it's the turn of Thomas Harding - follow the hyperlink in the by-line:
"Thomas Harding is the Daily Telegraph’s Defence Correspondent who covers the Army, Navy and RAF, defence politics and all operations involving the military. He has covered conflicts from Afghanistan, Iraq, Sierra Leone and Balkans and was based in Northern Ireland for three years. He formerly served in The Parachute Regiment, Territorial Army."

So... he doesn't have a biaise, does he?DT_Xtremez_42:

 

[rest have risen above me]

Recent days, the Telegraph has wheeled out its Jolly Jack Tar pundits, today, it's the turn of Thomas Harding - follow the hyperlink in the by-line:
"Thomas Harding is the Daily Telegraph’s Defence Correspondent who covers the Army, Navy and RAF, defence politics and all operations involving the military. He has covered conflicts from Afghanistan, Iraq, Sierra Leone and Balkans and was based in Northern Ireland for three years. He formerly served in The Parachute Regiment, Territorial Army."

So... he doesn't have a biaise, does he?DT_Xtremez_42:

I haven't seen the video (IGS) but his words don't seem anti cuts..

LINK

 

[propersplitbrainme]

In opposition, Dr Fox had said he wanted to cut the department's running costs by 25% and criticised the fact it had 85,000 civil servants while the Army had just 100,000 soldiers.

And why exactly are there so many civilians Mr Fox? Oh wait, that'll have something to do with the fact that the conservatives' Front Line First review back in the 90's cut the number of uniformed service personnel and replaced those in support roles with civilians.

 

[Ex-Splitter and Proud]

I haven't seen the video (IGS) but his words don't seem anti cuts..

LINK

His article has changed somewhat since I read it... I'd agree he doesn't seem 'anti cuts'.... it's where he was looking at those cuts. Unfortunately, I can't find the same phrases he had before, but rest assured, as an ex-para, his focus was geared towards tanks, planes and boats!
DT_Xtremez_42:

My main point - unwritten admittedly - was that the press is wheeling out pundits left, right and centre to support one view or another. Unfortunately, not many are coming out on the light blue side...
DT_Xtremez_06:

 

[Ex-Splitter and Proud]

And why exactly are there so many civilians Mr Fox? Oh wait, that'll have something to do with the fact that the conservatives' Front Line First review back in the 90's cut the number of uniformed service personnel and replaced those in support roles with civilians.

And why was that?....
DT_Xtremez_06:

DT_Xtremez_42:
...


...


Oh yeah... because civvies (especially ex-service civvies) are considerably cheaper to employ and maintain.

DT_Xtremez_34: