Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

EPV for naval service

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by ropebag View Post
    If the DoD accepted the bi-annual invitations to Joint Warrior you'd see, and look around, and operate with and on, every possible iteration of PV, Logistics ship, and Assault ship going - that would then allow you sit down with a blank sheet and pencil in the features/capabilities you want.

    There's even a 'politician handling cell' at Faslane to look after visitors - and if you ask them nicely, they'll make sure your visiting politician/hack/beancounter sees the things you want them to see, and be persuaded of the things you want them to think...

    International cooperation is ace, you should try it...
    Fixed that for you

    The 2 main players in this country are those who “advise” on Defence policy (DoD) and those who resource it (DPER)

    Comment


    • Neither of whom know, or care what the job entails.
      DoD should be working for DF, not the other way around.
      For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
        Neither of whom know, or care what the job entails.
        DoD should be working for DF, not the other way around.
        Good God! That's crazy thinking that is, the DOD actually working to make the DF more effective and capable?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
          Good God! That's crazy thinking that is, the DOD actually working to make the DF more effective and capable?
          Can you lot show me how the system works?

          I see investment in the DF - the four P60's, the RBS70 upgrade, the chat about an air search radar - now we can all debate the wisdom of this or that purchase, the missed opportunities of this or that decision, the glaring hole in this or that procurement policy in support of this or that doctrine, but there is money going into the DF, so who is it that gets to decide that there's a requirement, who gets to decide what the parameters of that requirement are, who gets to decide what the priorities are and what gets 'backburnered', who decides that the budget for this or that purchase is €115m and not €118m (for example), and who do those decision makers get advised by and who are they accountable to?

          Are there different policy objectives within 'Defence' - does the Minister of State have a different policy and objective to the Minister, does the civilian structure within the DOD reflect either of them - and who wins - where in the decision making process does the military advice start to lose weight or carry the day?

          Comment


          • There are a number of points in response to this.

            Firstly, there will not be a difference in policy between the minister with responsibility for defence and the minister for defence. The Minister (Taoiseach) has devolved defence matters to the Junior minister. Effectively stating that defence is not a priority in government.

            Secondly, the accounting officer for the defence vote (all defence spending) is the Sec Gen of the DOD. In the past they devolved some of that expenditure authority to the military but they have clawed a lot of that back a lot of that. The perception is that the first response from DOD to any request for expenditure is no. The MA have to bend over backwards to prove the need, usually have to use politicians to exert influence and even then have to demonstrate it can be paid out of existing funds (the ships were paid partly by delaying recruitment). Unlike other departments, the DOD has consistently under spent its budget over the past 2 decades. You would be waiting a long time for the DOD to fight for a bigger budget.

            Comment


            • Cheers for that.

              Originally posted by Bravo20 View Post
              ...You would be waiting a long time for the DOD to fight for a bigger budget.
              Why is this? How has that mindset developed within the DOD - is just within the DOD or within the whole civil service, is it political directive that politicians hide behind?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                Cheers for that.

                Why is this? How has that mindset developed within the DOD - is just within the DOD or within the whole civil service, is it political directive that politicians hide behind?
                To me (and I'm open to correction) it's been a feature of the DOD since the foundation of the state, with spending on defence being seen as something to be prevented, from the state of play before WW2 through to UN Deployments to today, it seems to always be as little as possible and as limited as possible. It's certainly not a wide spread feature of the civil service (looks at the never ending beast that is Health), just seems to be Defence that is stuck with this mindset and due to public/political apathy on the subject they get away with it.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                  Cheers for that.



                  Why is this? How has that mindset developed within the DOD - is just within the DOD or within the whole civil service, is it political directive that politicians hide behind?
                  Senior civil servants, traditionally, have been rewarded for efficiency. Many equate working under budget to efficiency. The better ones see achieving all the department objectives within, or over budget as success. Sadly the DoD have decided that consistently returning a surplus to the exchequer is to be considered efficient use of funds, and thus, success. Their epartment roles say little about ensuring the Defence Forces are able to achieve their set objectives. In 2016, Program for Government outlined the following goals for the DoD.
                  • Employment support scheme
                  • Double Female participation in Defence forces
                  • OEP will examine creation of a Rapid Response unit, led by Dept of Environment to deal with severe weather incidents
                  • Implement white paper on defence (this is the order in which goals were set)
                  • Provide for move from 8 to 9 ship Navy, More armoured & Logistic vehicles Modernise Athlone (so the locals don't think its about to close) and get new aircraft(to replace old ones) and building in Baldonnel.
                  • Ensure 9500 PDF and maintain full strength reserve. (they have failed miserably here)
                  • Support for Veterans (?)
                  • Maintain Reserve at 4000 and maximise use of them and their skills (50% achieved here)
                  • Address the gap in female participation (Rose of Tralee)-Didn't we cover that already on point 2?
                  • Support and Develop Civil Defence (if anything this has taken a large step backwards lately)
                  • Develop new institute for Peace Support and Leadership training(what was wrong with the old one?)
                  • Encourage partnerships between the Defence Forces and Private enterprise. (Dramatic failure there, in IMERC)
                  • Award a 1916 medal. (Thats it, a medal for turning up on the centenary).
                  • Work with NI Executive to secure funding for a new Sail Training vessel.(Unfortunately there has been no NI executive since this plan was devised)
                  • Expand EAS (Led by Dept of Health)
                  • Complete structural review of Decision Making accross security and defence (Led by Dept of Justice & Equality)


                  The Dept roles and responsibilities has lots of vague assertions about supporting the delivery of a defence capability. In effect, while the DF control the day to day running of the DF, the purse strings are firmly controlled by the DoD.

                  The primary role of the Department of Defence is to support the Minister as head of the Department and in particular to provide policy advice and support on Defence matters, including assistance with policy formulation and the implementation of policy as directed by the Minister.
                  The civil element also has a number of specific roles which include the management of legal, regulatory and litigation policy and related matters on behalf of the Minister; the management of the Department's human resources and industrial relations and the coordination of the delivery of security, emergency and community services by the Defence Forces. In addition, the civil element provides liaison between the Defence Forces and other Government Departments, public authorities, the EU and public representatives. Policy in respect of overseas operations, in furtherance of Ireland's commitments in the area of international security and peacekeeping, is also coordinated by the civil element which, jointly with the military, has an important strategic responsibility in relation to emergency planning coordination and oversight.
                  Civil servants discharge financial managements and audit functions in connection with the Secretary General's role as Accounting Officer and provide administrative support services to the Defence Forces, including pay administration, the management of major procurement and infrastructural programmes and the management of lands used by the military. There is a significant degree of delegation of financial authority to the Defence Forces, particularly in the area of the procurement of goods and services.
                  Finally, the civil element is responsible for the administration and granting of military pensions and has a range of responsibilities in relation to Civil Defence and the Irish Red Cross Society.
                  For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
                    To me (and I'm open to correction) it's been a feature of the DOD since the foundation of the state, with spending on defence being seen as something to be prevented, from the state of play before WW2 through to UN Deployments to today, it seems to always be as little as possible and as limited as possible. It's certainly not a wide spread feature of the civil service (looks at the never ending beast that is Health), just seems to be Defence that is stuck with this mindset and due to public/political apathy on the subject they get away with it.
                    Health is in effect two entities.
                    The Dept of Health, and the HSE. The HSE used to be the provincial health boards. When they merged into the HSE around 2002, there was no replacement of the organisational structure, and the body remained admin heavy.
                    For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                      Health is in effect two entities.
                      The Dept of Health, and the HSE. The HSE used to be the provincial health boards. When they merged into the HSE around 2002, there was no replacement of the organisational structure, and the body remained admin heavy.
                      True, however either way it's a budget beast that consumes as much as it can get and just turn around for more, I mean how many "top up" budgets have been equal to a chunk of the entire DF budget?

                      Comment


                      • And some would reduce the defence budget further, to feed this insatiable beast that is Health.
                        For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                          And some would reduce the defence budget further, to feed this insatiable beast that is Health.
                          Course they would, without realising that Health would blow that in weeks at best given how small it actually is.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
                            True, however either way it's a budget beast that consumes as much as it can get and just turn around for more, I mean how many "top up" budgets have been equal to a chunk of the entire DF budget?
                            Health is a very political beast and very parish pump driven, defence is a nasty must have that soaks up money that could be a vote getter else where. The DF and their families fit ten times into the Health Service staff.... the customer base of the health service is countless, while that of Defence is only notional.

                            So the money goes with the vote....

                            Agree or disagree with the concept...this is where the money goes.. and always has done, it won't change but the DoD must ring fence its own funding and prevent it being shared else where. Projects like the building of a three vessel class ensured this , there was no opt out once the spend had begun.

                            One of our biggest failings is a failure to separate pensions and wages and welfare from capital projects, they should be two budgets ...even in health and nothing should encroach on either.
                            Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
                              Health is a very political beast and very parish pump driven, defence is a nasty must have that soaks up money that could be a vote getter else where. The DF and their families fit ten times into the Health Service staff.... the customer base of the health service is countless, while that of Defence is only notional.

                              So the money goes with the vote....

                              Agree or disagree with the concept...this is where the money goes.. and always has done, it won't change but the DoD must ring fence its own funding and prevent it being shared else where. Projects like the building of a three vessel class ensured this , there was no opt out once the spend had begun.

                              One of our biggest failings is a failure to separate pensions and wages and welfare from capital projects, they should be two budgets ...even in health and nothing should encroach on either.
                              Due to a change in political philosophy, government has shed most of it's direct controls on Departments running the social and commercial fabric of the State,and has become a customer for services supplied by quangos or private organisations. Defence is one of a few with total control and spending is fitted with brakes and return springs . No pay increases since 2008 and continuing FEMPI on pensions since 2011. Capital spending is regarded as a source of pandering to those wishing to become part of Defence Alliances and upsetting the neutralists and Clare and Mick.
                              Last edited by ancientmariner; 20 May 2019, 08:41.

                              Comment


                              • Necrosis in our state organs is, sadly, nothing new. Much of it derives form the fundamentally conservative nature of the surviving members of our revolutionary generation and a strong bias among our public administrators for the replacement of a disconnected government by fiat from Westminster with a slightly less disconnected government by fiat from Kildare Street.

                                The phenomenal rise of the Irish economy has been allowed to devolve into a materialist, even objectivist society. All the while our political class have hidden behind a laissez-faire economic philisophy as an excuse not to develop the necessary new policy competencies our society requires. An economic philosophy, as it turned out, they barely understood.

                                A much more communitarian approach to the common good, along the Nordic Model, is urgently required.

                                A society that respects only money will soon demand money as the only means, not only of material sustenance, but of social respect.

                                A place to begin would be the reinstatement of the national agreement process. The state should agree to trade comprehensive reform of housing and accommodation policy, in the interests of society and the economy, against rising income demands. This would not be dissimilar to the way that reform of the tax system was traded for similar national objectives in the past.

                                Essential state employees, particularly in areas where recruitment is proving most difficult, should have limited preferential access to accommodation.

                                The NS could, with appropriate government support, do more to address the housing needs of it's men and women.

                                That pay and conditions among DF personnel require urgent consideration goes, I would think, without saying.

                                Unfortunately, what is required is, essentially, a top down government response. National policy is what had brought us to this situation, and realistically, only national policy can address it.

                                Apologies to the mods in advance if I've drifted somewhat from the thread topic. Glad to continue this topic elsewhere, if someone can direct me to an appropriate thread.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X