Cutting MoD staff will not win wars

adriandrummond

"They work incredibly long hours facing similar conditions to many of the troops"

As someone somewhere else has already pointed out, we haven't seen any MOD staff in coffins at Wootton Bassett.

Peter From Maidstone

This is a completely straw argument. You have pointed out that some of the MOD staff are directly supporting the Armed Forces and then you are suggesting that axing all MOD staff is being proposed.

Since there must be a reasonably significant body of MOD staff who are not directly supporting the Armed Forces and do not deply alongside them it seems entirely feasible and necessary that non-essential MOD staff positions be reviewed with the end of cutting costs.

No-one would suggest cutting doctors or dentists, if these really do make up the numbers of those being counted as MOD staff, but do you seriously mean to imply that there are not large mumbers of MOD managers and administrators who manage and administrate nothing very important?

bernerlap

While I broadly agree with Peter's comments, Daniel does make a valid point that the key issue within the defence budget is not necessarily the size of the civilian tail. The key problem for our armed forces is the disastrous procurement process which probably means that the last defence contract delivered on time and on budget was Hadrian's Wall.
Until that is sorted out Liam Fox could cut every civilian post in the MoD and still make only marginal improvements to the armed forces.

Holly ......

Well then lets just leave them all in place and carry on under funding the front line troops because the pen pushers do REALLY important stuff as well!!!!!!
YEAH RIGHT!!!!
STOP IT with the nonsense!!!
Our troops are under funded and if a pen pusher cull is NEEDED to fund the front line then so be it!!!!!!
Why not just become Labour PR guru's?
Oh yeah I fogot....you already have!
NOT VERY GOOD AT IT ARE YOU?

Chuck Unsworth

"the MoD is clearly in need of reform"

Precisely. And your position is that the incumbents can, somehow, reform or be reformed?

We're dealing with a structural, cultural, fault here. Those who are currently employed - at all levels - have a vested interest in the status quo. Time for a root and branch clear out.

However, you have not addressed the 'interesting' relationships between senior staff at MoD, the political masters and the entire arms industry.

Peter From Maidstone

As far as I can see from reading elsewhere, Liam Fox has proposed an immediate Defense Review, and promised that savings in the MOD budget would be directed towards improving the Armed Forces. I don't see that he has said anything about procurement etc, and so I think that is a separate issue. It seems to me that clearly if he can make savings in the MOD budget, and that is surely doable, and if those released funds are spent on the Armed Forces, then that is an entirely good thing.

Liam Fox has not proposed disbanding the MOD, or suggested that no MOD staff are not necessary to the Armed Forces. But he has proposed that there are likely savings to be made, and I would expect all Spectator readers to agree, even if Spectator writers do not.

Holly ......

Off story.
Nick Griffin to stand as candidate in Barking East London at the General Election.
Should take the gutter press's mind off slating the Tories for a week.

Ken

How about a look at the top heavy top brass. How many warships does the navy have and how many admirals? How many army divisions and how many generals? etc.
(see defenceoftherealm blog )

DavidL

Sorry I'm not with you either on this one. Clearly the tail is important. Equally clearly it is out of proportion with front line forces. The truth is referred to above: we order lots of very expensive kit that sounds sexy but does not fit in the budget and then delay it, amend it, cut it back and then find we no longer need it. 20 new heavy lifting helicopters? By the time they arrive will our forces be back in Europe? That is what Liam needs to get a grip of and it won't be easy.

OldSnowy

I'm an MOD Civil Servant and, like many there, am ex-Service. I've deployed as a Civvy to Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places, so know of what I speak. People do not deploy for the money, but to help out, and do their bit. I have medals, but never get to wear them!

It seems to me that this attack on the MOD is easy enough, the Civil Service is always a soft target, even though MOD numbers have dropped dramatically over the past few years. However, it's not as if we sit around all day doing nothing (odd though that may sound to some). There is a lot of work that must be done, and if it is not done by CS, then by whom?
Servicemen? No, not enough, very expensive, and wouldn't want to do the dull stuff anyway. Contractors? Ah, there's an idea - give more contracts and PFI to companies, that's sure to be cheaper and more efficient.

There is an agenda here, and it's not hard to see it. There are MASSIVE cuts coming to the RN, RM, Army and RAF next year, due to the fact that as a Nation we are broke, and the MOD will take its share I've no doubt - but there are not a lot of jobs left that could be either done without, or contracted out, or militarised, without costing much, much more.

Yes, it's possible to cut CS numbers. Doing so and reducing costs - that is an entirely different matter altogether.

And finally, I've worked alongside the FCO and DfID - and I can tell you as a fact that MOD personnel are far, far cheaper to deploy than either of those!

David Lindsay

It's just a start, but could we try keeping out of wars in the first place?

Snowman

Before we start slashing budgets at the MOD at whichever end shouldn't we cull a few of the outreaching lot?

strapworld

Whilst I am inclined to agree with POM my sympathy is with people like 'Snowy'. I am sure that, as he admits, there is ground to make cuts in the number of civilian staff - as there is in most government departments.

It is all a matter of efficiency.
Can we say that the MOD is 'fit for service' is efficient? Well on procurement it certainly is not.

But efficiency can easily be measured and the dross weeded out.

BUT and this is a very big BUT, I am getting rather sick of the left wing nonsense being spouted by this man, Korski and other writers. This Spectator has, as Verity quite pointedly observed, become the New Statesman since that sheep in wolf's clothing, Fraser Nelson, became editor.

Goodness me where is the FOX NEWS right wing approach highlighting the massive failures and downright criminal behaviour of this most incompetent governments?

Mr Nelson, take heed, you are losing your base support. That cannot be good for business.

Peter From Maidstone

Old Snowy, I certainly wouldn't want to take a pop at the MOD more than any other department of state. But having worked in private business all of my life I know for sure that there always economies and efficiecies that can be made.

When I first started working for my last company 19 years ago there was a Purchasing department of about 10, when I finished earlier this year there was one buyer who performed that role part-time, most purchasing was done automatically by the computer system or was performed directly by production staff.

Indeed the company got rid of me in February because it was cheaper to out-source my role, even if it meant that they lost the luxury of having me on site.

There were lots of other things I did as part of the team, and they lost those as well, but a company often needs to ask 'what are we really here for' and staff accordingly, especially when money is tight.

In fact there are lots more economies that company could make but doesn't want to, not least getting rid of 3 of the 4 people being paid a Managing Director salary in a small UK office of 50 people. In fact I am sure that the company could do as much work with a 50% reduction in staff.

That is not unique either. There are always efficiencies and it is very hard to believe they are not waiting to be introduced in the MOD. Everyone thinks their job is entirely necessary, but usually it is not the case at all. (I thought the same about myself :-)).

I would expect that every department of state will be asked (told) to reduce headcount and do less things better. And I'd expect the pressure should be put on management who will lose their jobs if they do not make the efficiencies, and who will also have to shed some of their numbers as well.

Graeme Goldsworthy

If they are essential then they can be simply mustered into their relevant services on 'Hostilities Only terms':

Doctors, Dentists, Nurses to the RAMC, QARANC etc

Policemen / Security Guards to the Military Police etc

Intelligence analysts to the Int Corps and
RFA sailors, well they are a frontline service anyway...

Parallax Brief

Um, any particular reason why the Spectator started defending government waste and bureaucratic over-staffing?

There are 22,000 staff involved in procurement, which is about 3 times what was needed to fight the second world war. Ripe for cuts. Even 5% would save, if my maths isn't terrible, GBP130 mn, by the figures in the article above.

So what gives? Speccie gone soft on Big Government and Civil Service inefficiency? Time to name the other departments that can count on the Spectator to defend their staffing levels.

quadratus

Being ex-R.N.,I naturally have the greatest respect for R.F.A.seamen, but even their skills would be heavily taxed to find a salt-water harbour in Afghanistan?

Beer Moth

David Lindsay

Using the logic of Jim Bowen, he of Bull's Eye fame: just look at the wars we could have been in.

Meh

So when Liam Fox gets into the MOD will he stop asking all those bone questions which take legions of minion staff officers and civil servant to answer by yesterday dammit. Will he cut away the Government installed processes and checks and reassurances and endless Ministerial briefs which dominate the rhythm of the MOD? Or will he just sack half the staff and carry on regardless? How any staff work in direct support of the Minister and how many of them will he cut?
What a bluffer. This mob smell fishy to me. Fortunately I have a wide variety of places to throw my useless protest vote to. Maybe I'll just move to France and be done with it.

Mikey G

there may not be a salt water harbour in Afghanistan but there are in Iran, North Korea or wherevere else we get dragged to

Most Annoyed

The comments on this Website are beyond belief, the vast majority of you do not have a clue about the Defence of this country, I must take issue with Parallax Brief's comments with regards to 22,000 staff involved in Procurement which is 3 that was needed to fight the Second World War. There were 3.5million British Soldiers involved in World War 2, this does not include the Navy, RAF and Civilians. I could go on all day and villvify every nergative comment on this site but you are beyond help. I have served as both a Soldier and a Civilian and I have been to Iraq. Both Military and Civilian Staff work equally as hard and are very dedicated to the cause. I beg that you stop listening to the nonsense in the Media and actually engage with the people who know what they are talking about.