|
|
|
|
Richard Beedall predicted this some time ago on his navy website Navy Matters, a fear of many who cherish the navy is realised
today, Adam Ingram MP confirms that 21 of the navies 44 remaining ships will be put into extended readiness state. This is effectively decommissioning them. Ships in this state would take at least 18 months to be made ready for sea again. In many cases their parts would be cannibalised to keep remaining ships running. 21 of 44... thats 48% of the fleet out of action. and suggestions that they plan to close Portsmouth Naval base as well
has this government truely gone totally and absolutely off its rocker? are they insane? Not for nothing is the navy the most important branch of the armed forces. The marines one of the most respected fighting forces in the world. But the marines cannot operate without their amphibious warships and no one should be stupid enough to send in these carriers and assauklt ships without escorts to protect them from attack by land air and sea. though i'm beginning to think our government really is that stupid.
If we run the navy down it will take over a decade to bring it back up to strength again. Under Fisher, the navy may have managed to build a Dreadnaught in 11 months, but these days, a warship takes a couple of years to build and test, crew training and experience takes even longer to build.
We are an island nation, 80% or more of our trade comes via the sea, 90% of the worlds people live within striking distance of the ocean, and every conflict of this century has in some way involved the Navy. Can our government not learn from the Falklands? Can it not learn from its own mistakes in the most recent Iraq campaign and Afganistan?
i read this article from the Times Online, and i tell you truely, i weep.
Half of Royal Navy’s ships in mothballs as defence cuts bite
Michael Smith
HALF of the Royal Navy is to be “mothballed” as it bears the brunt of cuts imposed after a series of expensive procurement projects and the hidden costs of the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Six destroyers and frigates and two other vessels are expected to be put into reduced readiness, known as mothballing, to achieve urgent savings of more than £250m. It can take up to 18 months to bring mothballed ships back into service.
The armed forces have been told to save more than £250m this year, and £1 billion by April 2008, amid a “rebalancing” of the Ministry of Defence’s (MoD’s) spending plans, defence sources disclosed.
The MoD will also cancel the last two of the eight Type-45 destroyers the navy was supposed to get. The navy was promised the government would provide these in exchange for cutting 15 major ships in 2004, sources said.
Julian Lewis, the Tories’ defence spokesman, said the fresh cuts were “absolutely devastating stuff” and that cutting the number of Type-45 destroyers would be “catastrophic”.
“You can’t have a navy without ships. This government is absolutely hellbent on the destruction of the Royal Navy,” said Lewis.
Admiral Sir Alan West, the then first sea lord, has said he only accepted the cuts in return for the “jam tomorrow” of the eight Type-45 destroyers and two large new aircraft carriers he was promised.
Adam Ingram, minister of state for the armed forces, admitted this month that 13 of the Royal Navy’s 44 main vessels were already in mothballs to save cash.
A total of 13 were at sea, and a further 18 in port and ready to go to sea at any time. But the decision to mothball another eight ships will mean that 21 of the 44 are not available. Ingram refused to say which ships were out of action, admitting that this would “enable deductions to be made that could be prejudicial to national security”.
Measures to save money that are already under way include a review of the Royal Navy’s three main remaining bases at Plymouth, Faslane and Portsmouth.
At the height of its power in the 19th century, the Royal Navy was as large as the seven next biggest navies combined. Even as the US and German navies grew at the start of the 20th century, it remained twice as large as its nearest rival.
But the 2004 cuts reduced it to its smallest since before Trafalgar in 1805, and there are suggestions it now needs only two major bases.
The decision last month to renew the Trident nuclear deterrent, based at Faslane, saved the Scottish base and made Portsmouth the favourite for closure.
Mike Hancock, the Liberal Democrat MP for Portsmouth South, said the cuts were “as potentially damaging as the (then defence secretary, Sir John) Nott cuts of the early 1980s, which preceded the Falklands conflict. Closing the Portsmouth dockyard, the most important of the bases, would be an historic mistake. This government keeps cutting back on equipment without cutting back on commitments. It is putting more on crews and undermining the navy.”
The problems with the defence budget are largely caused by cost overruns in procurement projects such as the RAF’s Eurofighter Typhoon, the Bowman communications system, and the Navy’s Astute submarine and Type-45 destroyer programmes. The Eurofighter Typhoon programme costs about £1 billion a year, which will rise in the next financial year to £1.3 billion. The other major programme costs are: the Type-45 destroyer £600m, Bowman £545m and Astute £415m.
The cost overruns on procurement are exacerbated by the Treasury’s refusal to refund the costs of training for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and up to 40% of the cost of actual operations. The Treasury claims to meet the full cost.
The MoD said it was not prepared to provide details of internal government budget discussions but it did not expect to see an overspend in this financial year and no budget had been set for next year.
Here me every man jack of you. Use your voice, use your democratic power, and should you posess it, use your vote and at every opportunity oppose this government and everything they stand for. at the soonest opportunity, vote them out. vote them out before they destroy further what remains of our once great nation.
[Updated on: Sun, 31 December 2006 00:13]
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... this isn't something which I could claim to know much about.
However, it does appear to me that as the range of military aircraft increases, so the need for surface support decreases.
Yes, I accept that the vast majority of world trade is sea-borne, but the primary threat to such trade is from attack by aircraft or submarines. Bog-standard warships do not afford the best defence against such attacks.
The basic function of today's Royal Navy is to safely deliver aircraft and manpower to locations where it is required. The present balance of vessels is not aimed at that objective. The simple fact is that modern weaponry will ensure that there will never be another Trafalgar.
I'm an ardent historian. I deeply regret the passing of my local regiments - The Border Regiment, The Scottish Borderers, The Northumberland Fusiliers, The Durham Light Infantry - but my regret is borne of nostalgia rather than hard analysis. Similarly, I have an emotional affinity with the Royal Navy of the past. But the world is changing. The present cuts may invite detailed opposition, but in broad terms they are justified - as were John Nott's (Conservative) cuts in the 1980s.
And, I have to say, though there is much I regret in the actions of our Labour government, it has never come remotely close to damaging the fabric of British society in the way Margaret Thatcher's policies did in the 1980s. Though broadly a left-winger, I would have to agree that the power of the trade unions needed to be limited - but limiting union power hardly justifies the total destruction of communities. Communities among which I lived; did you?
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the Falklands is a classic example of why naval power is necessary and continues to be so
when presented with the problem of the argentinian invasion this is what happened
the Chief of the Defence Staff advised Thatcher there was nothing the military could do, the Chief of the General Staff told her there was no where to launch a counter invasion from, the Chief of the Air Staff told her there was no place to provide air support from. the US assessment was that britain could not hold the islands without carrier support.
The first sea lord simply said, give me the carriers, and i'll give you the islands.
without Hermes and Invincible we could not have retaken them. Without escorts to protect the Carriers and Assault ships, we'd have lost the entire task group to argentinian airstrikes. Without submarine support, we wouldn't have scared off the argentine navy.
the first troops into Iraq were british, not american. Royal Marines launching from HMS Ocean and supported by US Navy Seals established the beachhead on the Al Faw peninsula, and secured docks for US landing support ships to land armoured regiments.
In taking Al Faw, the marines were supported by naval bombardment from HMS Montrose, by Apache helicopters from HMS Ocean and USS Carl Vinson, by Harriers from HMS Invincible and Hornets from the USS Carl Vinson. British and American submarines were also launched Tomohawk cruise missiles in support of the invasion.
you cannot escort merchant convoys with submarines. submarines work best as a striking weapon, tying them to the convoy negates their ability to seek out and destroy their prey. the best anti submarine weapons are the towed array sonar systems carried by british Duke class frigates and US Arleigh Burke class destroyers.
As to air defence, military aircraft still need somewhere to launch from. if your vital convoy is under attack in the middle of the atlantic from enemy aircraft, by the time air support arrives from either the US or Britain, half the convoy is sunk... there is a reason why Carriers are such vital vessels.
but the most vital vessels, the assault ships, the landing ships, and the carriers are incredibly big vulnerable targets without capable escort vessels able to deal with an attack from land air or sea.
Modern weaponry does ensure that the great fleet actions of Trafalgar and Jutland are history and nothing else.
But modern naval warfare isn't about fleet action. its about projecting power. Its about the Carrier, and the Assault Ship, not the Battleship.
And before we question the need for a navy, i direct your attention to the following
Coalition Task Force 58
Theatre - northern gulf
Commander - currently RAN Commodore
task - maritime security. providing anti smuggling anti piracy and sealane security to iraqi oil operations
Coalition Task Force 57
Theatre southern gulf
Commander - O/C US 5th Fleet Bahrain
task. Maritime Security Operations. Providing anti smuggling and piracy and shipping interdiction along with security operations around the Hormuz Strait.
International Task Force 158
Theatre Indian Ocean
Commander - last i heard, a British Commodore had taken over from a pakistani rear admiral, flying his flag from a German destroyer.
Task - provide maritime security and anti piracy operations along the coast of somalia, up to the gulf, and across the northern indian ocean.
task force is notable after warships in the group came under attack by pirates in motor boats wielding rocket propelled grenades
why are these 3 important?
between them, they provide security that allows the clear and large majority of the worlds oil tankers to exist the gulf.
moving on, the Straits of Malacca. Patrolled by warships of the Singapore and Indonesian Navies this is the worlds piracy hotspot right now. its one of the busiest sea lanes in the world, and vital to japanese oil shipments.
current defence negotiations between the 5 Powers Defence Association to open the way for Royal Australian Navy units to assit in patrolling these waters.
moving on
the Royal Navy operates 3 Offshore Patrol Vessels, (River Class) and the Fishers Protection Squadron (mostly Hunt Class minesweepers) which provide coastal security work around british waters. only last week, HMS Mersey rescused the crew of a Trawler in distress in the North Sea.
lets go to the caribbean
a Royal Navy warship, and Royal Fleet Auxillary support ship, working in leage with the Caribbean Regional Security Force and the US Coast Guard have captured several millions worth of drugs and drug runners.
the best example was when a lynx helicopter from RFA Wave Knight carrying marine sharpshooters from the Fleet Protection Group shot out the engines of a fast moving motorboat, rendering it helpless in the water until HMS Southampton arrived to pick the crew up
similar operations have been carried out off the coast of africa, with royal navy atlantic patrol ships working with Spanish Navy and Coastguard Units
As we speak, even over christmas, the Royal Navy has the following units deployed
Carribean Security Force - 1 destroyer, 1 support ship
Falkland Islands patrol - 1 Castle Class Patrol Ship
Antarctic Patrol - HMS Endurance
South Atlantic - 1 destroyer
NATO Standing Task Force North Atlantic - 1 frigate, 1 supply ship
NATO Standing Task Force Med Theatre - 1 frigate
CTF-58 - 1 frigate
CTF-57 - 1 Naval Air Squadron based in Oman
ITF-158 - 1 supply ship, command team from the Fleet Battle Staff
Nuclear Deterrent Patrol - 1 Vanguard class Submarine
3 minesweepers on exercise somewhere off the coast of Norway
the restructuring of the infantry was necessary
the cuts were not
before Chriastmas, Des Browne said he needed more infantry battalians to the tune of 4 new battalian sized units. He said they were necessary to meet current commitments and ensure contnued training.
the numbers required match the number of units axed in the cuts
ironic that...
stupid thing is, he'll probably get them. the treasury is more inclined to invest in the army, than in the navy or air force.
without the navy or airforce though, the armies operations in Iraq and Afganistan would not have been able to go ahead.
the navy is a vital part of our defence forces. and as Admiral West warned before he retired as First Sea Lord, if you run the navy down, it will take a decade to bring it back to its former level.
you can't run any of the branches down, and then expect them to go off and fight at a moments notice.
and i'd have thought anyone could understand that you simply cannot increase defence commitments whilst at the same time cutting defence spending, cutting procurement projects, downsizing your armed forces, and expecting them to run on old and outdated equipment
the government has a long history of military ignorance.
we paid a terrible price at Jutland, but the government refused to learn the lesspons of that battle, and that resulted in the loss of the HMS Hood in WWII.
the Falklands should have taught us a lesson too... it doesn't seem like its being remembered and the british forces are already paying for the governments stupidity in lives.
how many of the deaths in Iraq could have been prevented with proper investment in equipment?
if we'd been using proper armoured vehicles instead of the light armoured landrovers, if our troops had the correct body armour, if the latest communications system (the Bowman sysyem mentioned in the article) was available for use...
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the Black Prince wrote:
the Falklands is a classic example of why naval power is necessary and continues to be so
Was the Falklands war justified? If it was, according to what criterion or criteria? If it was not, why not?
Just curious.
(This is a general question, not directed specifically at the Black prince.)
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
It was justified in that land should never change hands by force, even if it has done so in history previously. The sins of our forefathers are no justification for sinning again today. The issue with this is that using force to recover that which was taken by force produces a logical anomaly. However the response to the invasion was immediate, and with strong warning. It was Argentina's choice to remain and face the consequences. This is very similar to Nazi Germany's decision to remain in Poland.
It was justified in that the inhabitants did not want to be ruled by Argentina.
That "War is never the answer" is also a truism. But this war returned the status quo. The answer after that restoration should be obtained by the will of the people, not force of arms.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i don't agree with the statement war is never the answer
by what other method could hitlers reich been countered with? we saw in the case of poland what our diplomacy counted for. not to mention the fact that the good word is best heard when backed by the big stick.
argentina claimed the islands themselves, but what people lived here? the people were british, both by international law, and by choice. if they had wanted to become part of argentina, and we forced them to remain seperate, perhaps justification would be otherwise.
as defenders, our case is more easily justified here. we were defending british sovereign territory and british citizens from an unprovoked attack upon our soil.
the only part of the war i ever heard being called unjustified was the sinking of the General Belgrano by HMS Conqueror. we had maintained a strict policy of defensive action up till this point. we were enforcing british sovereignty, not attacking argentina. the belgrano was outside the exclusion zone and heading away from it when she was attacked.
was it justified? yes.
the action neutralised argentinas biggest surface threat to the taskforce. it kept the rest of their navy in port.
sometimes, that which is evil must be done, to prevent that which would be worse. at least the belgrano was a legitimate military target
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The situation really isn't that clear-cut, and it wasn't at the time of the Falklands conflict either.
the Black Prince wrote:
> as defenders, our case is more easily justified here. we were defending british sovereign territory and british citizens from an unprovoked attack upon our soil.
"British citizens" has been an emotional but meaningless cry since the early 1960s when the assorted categories of Bristish citizens / subjects who are not allowed to enter or reside in the UK were introduced. The British Nationality Act 1981 was taken by many - not just Argentinians - as signalling a desire to disengage with people who were seen as relics of the UK's colonial past (including both the Falklands/Malvinas and Hong Kong - both areas which subsequently had amended provisions made for them).
The assertion that the Falklands/Malvinas is "British Sovereign Territory" is of course contentious, and it probably best regarded as colonised territory under dispute - in which case the provisions of UN resolution 1514 probably apply, requiring a vote to be taken by those living there. Such a vote could, of course, have been heavily influenced by the funding that any state was prepared to pump in to the Islands - at the timre of the occupation, the UK was reducing such support from an already low level.
Up til immediately before the Argentine occupation, in short, the UK had given strong signals that it didn't give a toss about the Falklands/Malvinas. The Argentine occupation was indefensible, largely because there are good grounds for believing that it would have achieved its ends within a couple of decades by peaceful means ... something which will now never be possible. But the UK must take a share of responsibility for the situation which encouraged the invasion, as must the murky network of favours and obligations between the Argentine and the (US) CIA. All these facts were obvious at the time.
As always, there were times and decisions at which armed conflict could have been avoided. This is not hindsight - my views on this have been consistent (and unpopular!) since the day of the Argentine landing!
Of course, I approach this from a very different perspective from TBP: he states "i don't agree with the statement war is never the answer ", whereas my firm belief is that war and armed conflict are short-term measures that inevitably lead to further grievances and further armed conflict ... that the only solution is to change to mode of discourse entirely.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... I feel the urge to add one or two more comments to this thread.
First of all, the Falklands conflict. Unlike NW, I don't subscribe to the view that war is never the answer, but I can't fault his review of the situation. The UK had little interest in the far-flung remnants of empire, other than in the context of controlling fisheries and potential oil reserves.
That does not, of course, provide any sort of justification for the Argentine invasion, and contemporary independent commentators made it very clear that the islanders had no wish to be ruled by Argentina. Nevertheless, there are certainly grounds for arguing that the unilateral UK reaction was precipitate. There were other avenues which could very possibly have led to the same result with far less loss of life. It's a very complex subject, and I am not attempting to support any particuar alternative view, but the UK reaction was certainly of dubious merit. Using it to justify maintenance of our naval strength is emotive rather than logical.
As regards the sinking of the 'General Belgrano', we may never know the true facts; at least until the relevant cabinet papers are released we can only speculate. But why did official sources at first deny that the ship was moving away from the 'exclusion zone'? And what, indeed, was the relevance of the 'exclusion zone'? The theatre of war was limited to the islands and their dependencies. The UK declaration of an exclusion zone around the islands logically implied that hostilities were limited to that zone. There is a tenable moral argument that the sinking of the 'General Belgrano', outside of and moving away from the zone, was no more jusifiable than dropping bombs on the Argentine mainland. I don't deny that war is sometimes inevitable, but I certainly do not subscribe to the view that might is right.
I agree entirely with Timmy's suggestion that Argentina had lost any moral claim to the Falklands/Malvinas by virtue of the passage of time. I can never understand the justification for attempting to unpick history in accordance with modern conceptions of morality. Yes, it is right to redress wrongs which were unlawful by contemporary standards - as, for example, were some of the actions of the US government in relation to Native Americans, but - using the same example - it's surely naive to compensate Native Americans for loss of land as a result of military action. It's naive simply because there is no logical or practical end to it. Wales has been united with England for more than 700 years, having been conquered by Edward I in the closing years of the 13th century. Is that justification for seeking Welsh independence now? And which of the many waves of immigrants - Celts, Romans, Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Vikings, Danes, Normans and the rest - has claim to England today? It's all nonsense; the only sane answer is that the country belongs to its current inhabitants. There's a parallel with the naivety of those who demand that the United Kingdom should apologise for its part in the slave trade. Every right-thinking British citizen deplores that episode in our history, but we cannot 'apologise' for the wrongs of our ancestors. We can deplore their actions and deeply regret the harm that was done, but we cannot 'apologise', because we are not THEM and we live in a another time, in which concepts of right and wrong are completely different. I realise that this paragraph is a digression, but it is, I think, an interesting issue.
In conclusion, I have to admit that I was provoked into entering this discussion by the final paragraph of TBP's original post. This is not in any true sense a party political issue. Both of the principal political parties in the UK have reduced our military capability in recent years. The primary political agenda is to secure re-election. There is no such thing as a free lunch - nor is there such a thing as a free battleship. All political acts have a price, and that price is raised through taxation. Cutting taxes (or at least appearing to do so) is therefore the top political priority for both parties. Forty years ago, the effective rate of taxation on the top slice of income of an average wage-earner was 32%. It is now 22%. The very rich paid, at one point in the 1970s, up to 98% on the top slice of investment income (83% on earned income); whilst such rates are indefensibly high, the current rate of 40% is indefensibly low. Because so many taxes - Value Added Tax, Fuel Taxes, Alcohol Duties and many more - are indirect taxes, unrelated to the wealth of the person paying the tax, we have the ridiculous result that the richer you are, the smaller the percentage of your income which is siphoned off in tax - and that is before taking account of the huge tax avoidance industry available to those who are rich enough to pay for its services.
The early years of the Thatcher era saw enormous tax cuts for the very rich; the majority of the electorate neither desired nor understood the extent of the transfer of the tax burden from the rich to the poor. That said, by reason of the political imperative already mentioned, neither party has made any constructive attempt to redress the balance. Which brings me back to my basic point. There is, in real terms, not a lot to choose between the major political parties. To make a reasoned choice between them requires careful and considered research and evaluation. TBP, your exhortation to get rid of the present government at all costs on the strength of a single issue demonstrates that you have not undertaken that research and evaluation.
This site can be - and has often been - overtly political, but it has thrived on reasoned political discussion - and disagreement! - not upon the use of political blunt instruments better suited to party conferences.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the navy isn't the only reason i want to get rid of labour, but thats a whole nother thread
i'm also well aware that current defence cuts come on top of tory cuts in 1990 and again in 1994 that among other things cost the navy its upholder class submarines. a criminal waste of tax payers money.
but thats the issue here. wasting money.
the money going into the MoD is all going in the wrong places, much like the NHS and the Police.
the UK taxpayer paid £3.4Bn on a research project called Future Surface Combatent that was secretly axed behind the scenes in november 2004.
QinetiQ, the defence contractor involved in that project then sold the designs and research to the US navy, where its potentially being used to develope their newest offshore patrol vessel.
the three biggest naval ship building projects are all hideously behind time and well over cost (Bay Class Astute Class and Daring Class), the same is true of the EuroFighter Typhoon.
if the government didn't waste hundreds of millions of our money on poorly managed defence contracts, the three services wouldn't be cutting back on existing equipment to pay more for less in the future.
in the event (as many fear) that the CV1 Carrier project is ultimately axed, i shudder to think how much money will have been wasted on that, given how far we've come, but the that will be in the hundreds of millions too.
while i'm in less of a position to knowledgably comment on the NHS and Police, its well known that a lot of the money being thrown at these services hasn't so much as gone into the service as its gone into administering and managing the services, with an end result in the case of the NHS that money is being spent on managers and administrators while nursing staff are being made redundant to cut costs.
i'd be quite willing to pay higher taxes if i thought my money was being well spent...
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
If your money were well managed you would not need to pay higher taxes.
None of this is the fault of governments per se, except when a project is a political project. Much is the fault of generations of career civil servants being guided into a culture of wasteful practices. Such practices are so ingrained that they are almost impossible to undo. One such migrated to industry: The "Spend it this year or lose it next year" budget.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the Black Prince wrote:
the navy isn't the only reason i want to get rid of labour, but thats a whole nother thread
Look at it through the eyes of an outsider. Let's do a swap: you take our Prime Minister (please, please, pretty please) and we'll take yours any day, any time. You know something, we'll even throw in our Defence Minister as well, to make it a more attractive deal (for us). Two for one: can't do better than that, can you? 
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
.... Rhubarb!
My response to both TBP and Timmy is otherwise unprintable! I WAS a civil servant throughout the relevant period. It began well before the Labour victory. Suddenly, measurement became more important than effectiveness. Civil Servants with vast experience of practical management were deflected into number-crunching. And, inevitably, the numbers were manipulated. I was there. I saw it happen. Managers dictated that no correspondence should remain unanswered for more than 14 days - so any correspondence older than that was shredded. I was a legal advisor, so I was not directly caught up in this orgy of dishonesty - but it became absolutely clear to me that the preferred response was to ignore any investigation which required financial input. In the Inland Revenue, for example, there was a focus upon investigations into accounts which could be 'easily' challenged - milkmen, publicans, coal merchants and the like - in a context which made it economically attractive to admit to misdemeanours which had not in fact happened rather than risk the cost of true justice.
Believe me, the pathetic attempts of governments of either political persuasion to reduce 'waste' are at best naive and, at worst, criminally deceptive.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
A serving of custard with that rhubarb.
In my formative years I used to attend the Home Office and draw a salary for doing almost nothing, as did my colleagues. I spent three years there being bored out of my head except in summer, when the team used to go and play frisbee in the park from about noon until about 3pm. No-one actually cared, you see.
I agree that misplaced politically inspired schemes to cut waste cause more waste, and I agree wholeheartedly that the vast majority of civil servants want now and wanted then to work more efficiently and effectively. The challenge has always been that good people working with good wilol created systems that were often impenetrable
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
