91Èȱ¬

So, basically, It's a Answer which doesn't answer the question, saying a lot while not saying anything.

What an accurate portrayal of Politics.

The £10 billion answer is typical rubbish from new labour.

They don't say that it should only have cost £ 6 or 7 billion and well to be honest they couldn't organise a drinking session in a brewery.

"The MoD has received the draft version of this review and the issues identified are being discussed with Bernard Gray. I await a further statement saying "This was an early draft which Bernard Gray now recognises contains material errors of fact, and that other parts have been written in a way that allows errors of interpretation to arise"

"We want to ensure equipment is purchased as efficiently as possible and this review will feed into our recently announced Green Paper on Defence." In other words, instead of dealing with the problem we intend to wrap it up with other matters so that focus will be lost, and action deferred while we look at other things as well"

"We are constantly improving the procurement process which has seen us deliver £10bn of equipment to the frontline over the last three years." I wonder how much of that figure has been ammunition expended, and how much has been to replace damaged and destroyed equipment. Or to put it another way, how much of the total has been spent on genuinely additional or better equipment?

"Still no word back from Number 10 - maybe after their row with the MoD they want to keep out of this." How about: "Men cannot be trusted to do the shopping."

Laura: in your "Massive Agenda" piece you likened HH to "a well known yeasty spread." Now I am very partial to said spread, or I was until you made the comparison. I'm now less than certain that I will be able to have any with a bit of toast in the morning without a truly dreadful image entering my head. While I know exactly what you meant I just wish you hadn't said it.

Why is none of this featured in the 10pm news? As said earlier by one comment, it is the not the amount that is spent that matters but whether that money is spent properly. Spending £10 billion is nothing to brag about if it should have cost a lot less. However, this is typical of this government, bragging about the amounts spent whilst hiding behind confidentiality clauses to ensure that nobody knows whether this is spent wisely or not, in all areas.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Whoops, it has just come up on the news. Sorry to the 91Èȱ¬ News editorial team.

#2 Ecomonicallyliterate - I fear it may be NL's ability at organising drinking sessions in breweries where most of these ideas originate.

Out of interest, has there ever been a statement from NuLabour in response to a scandal like this that hasn't quoted some imaginary figure that refers to how much "investment" they've made?

Keep up the great work, Laura.

Having served within the armed forces and subsequently the MoD, I can tell you that the figures mentioned here are pretty conservative!

Trying to explain to anybody that is not ex-military within the government that good planning and preparation is the key to delivering working equipment and effective forces is simply impossible.

Money is routinely thrown with reckless abandon at any project that takes the fancy of whichever moron politican is currently holding the purse strings. Don't for one moment believe that in the current labour shambles the defence minister has ANY power over how those funds are hurled at projects.

Currently many politicians are also under heavy influence by certain defence companies to green light very dubious ventures which the military has no desire or need for (Trident II, Typhoon, Joint Strike Fighter etc) and a little digging will find out how quickly rival non-american projects are removed from any consideration without even making it to the Procurement Executive level at the MoD.

It is now commonplace to expect late, overpriced and under performing equipment with only the guys & gals operating it paying the ultimate price for the MoD & the cabinet offices incompetence.

Laura,

Don't bust a gut. (That was rather crude and should probably read - don't move from glowing to perspiring! I still haven't tracked down the source of that remark, so any input would be welcome. Even the Mods...)

We've grown accustomed to a posting that is supposed to sustain a feeding frenzy for 2 or 3 days. Having "real" blogs so often can be a bit overwhelming. I like it, but even you could never respond to the early birds and night hawks and keep us all enthralled!

"Still no word back from Number 10 - maybe after their row with the MoD they want to keep out of this."

Surprise!

Number 10 is currently far too focused on local women's issues. The life and death (or possible rehabilitation of maimed military - whether men or women) doesn't really "fit" the present incumbent's strategy. I've no idea whether the Deputy Leader has considered the psychology of those dedicated women (ladies I prefer to call them) who may be mothers, but still offer their services to this country via the military services.

Maybe it doesn't "fit" the feminine image that some people imagine? Tough. Women make extremely good leaders, in peace or war. As they are at least as - probably more - intellectualy and socially capable as men (except, maybe, in some limited physical aspects). But each one - just like their male counterparts - choose different lives.

Right now, with a nation at war, it would be good to appreciate all the people who volunteer to get in the line of fire.

It would be a good time to consider whether this government's strategy of making booze available for far longer than in the past has helped or hindered the development of a "caring" society. Not based on my experience of stepping over females' bodies and (being frightened to touch) call in the rescue services...

I expect government spending to be wasteful. I don't like it, but any government that measures achievements by the amount of tax-payers money it spends, rather than the outcome it delivers, just has to be wasting our money!

If this amount of waste can occur in a Ministry dedicated to defending the nation's interests, just how much is wasted across the full spectrum of the nation's spending?

At least the military can explain where the armaments were expended. Given their limited resources, they seem to do pretty well.

Goodness, we still have a few more occupants to come before Gordon comes back after his "community service" holiday.

Keep a low profile Laura. Or at least check that the 91Èȱ¬ will back you up for offering an honest comment. I seem to recall some terrible consequences for the Beeb when a reporter said something based on reality...

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The MoD has received the draft version of this review and the issues identified are being discussed with Bernard Gray.

Did not New Labour and Conservatives agree not to release such repots till the House of Parliament had heard what was in the report first

Is this another Mod report that some one in the MoD thinks they can make some thing out of it

if it is leaked to the press there may be political gain in it for some of them

It looks to me that there are too many civil servants in the MoD who do not know

How to draw up procurement and specification contracts that requires suppler's to deliver on time and in budget and on spec

These Contracts should have an life time up grade guarantee in them so that if the supplier up grades the equipment in the life time of the contract the supplier will automatically up grade the spec on the the equipment at no extra cost

I all so can under stand why Equipment is never bought to a world wide operating spec

That is to say that the equipment can be modified in 48 hours to operate in any where in the world