The Defence Budget [superthread]

[OldSolduer]

;D


Are you going to try "Green" next time around?



>

I did the last provincial election. At least the Greens are up front about Defence- they don't like the military. The Conservatives, like the LIBs, used us for political points.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

So the Conservatives just played the same shell game on us the Liberals did.


They won't be getting my vote the next time.

I disagree.  Baseline funding has been dramatically increased over the last 8 years.  They aren't the problem - we are.  We refuse to make any tough decisions, and would rather fiddle while Rome burns.  To continue the Rome analogy, we would rather squeeze more taxes and tribute from the provinces than change Rome itself.

 

[OldSolduer]

Good point. I tend to shoot from the hip sometimes.

As people that know me.....well they know that.

 

[Old Sweat]

I disagree.  Baseline funding has been dramatically increased over the last 8 years.  They aren't the problem - we are.  We refuse to make any tough decisions, and would rather fiddle while Rome burns.  To continue the Rome analogy, we would rather squeeze more taxes and tribute from the provinces than change Rome itself.

Remember the reaction, or apparent lack of ability to take a hint, when the front office told the DND/CF to reduce the administrative tail instead of cutting the sharp end.

 

[GAP]

If they don't do it themselves, they may just find someone else doing it for them....

 

[The Bread Guy]

If they don't do it themselves, they may just find someone else doing it for them....

:nod:

 

[dapaterson]

I recall reading a business article where a corproate president explained "Change happens.  By you or to you - your choice."

I suspect that change is going to happen to the CF...

 

[Journeyman]

We can't really expect otherwise.  When the administrative tail (our massive, multiple HQs) are directed to cut that administrative tail, it all sort of collapses into a mobius strip of powerpoint-driven inertia.

One doesn't have to look past the threads here on courses being cut or the elimination of education funding; any change to the overarching HQ (CDA)?  Nope.  :not-again:

 

[Old Sweat]

We can't really expect otherwise.  When the administrative tail (our massive, multiple HQs) are directed to cut that administrative tail, it all sort of collapses into a mobius strip of powerpoint-driven inertia.

One doesn't have to look past the threads here on courses being cut or the elimination of education funding; any change to the overarching HQ (CDA)?  Nope.  :not-again:

And on occasion, after the headquarters staffed firm direction to reduce the tail, I have seen some NDHQ directorates actually grow.

 

[Remius]

Hmm.  Well I can't speak to other HQs or what not, but where I am at they've cut half the class b positions.  About 75 positions all told.  As well, through attrition we've seen a number of people leave and not be replaced.  New hiring is stopped and only hiring from within our org is allowed.  My former team has gone from 5 to 3 with no plans to staff the two vacant positions.  I've been moved to another part of the org to make up for lack of numbers on another team.  I'll be doing parts of jobs from three people that have left.

I also know that the ADR office has been completely decimated leaving I think one or two people left from what was a staff of 15 or so. 

Not saying that the tail has been cut enough but cuts are there and that they do exist.

 

[dapaterson]

And on occasion, after the headquarters staffed firm direction to reduce the tail, I have seen some NDHQ directorates actually grow.

Well, someone has to track & follow up to make sure the change happens  :

 

[Edward Campbell]

I disagree.  Baseline funding has been dramatically increased over the last 8 years.  They aren't the problem - we are.  We refuse to make any tough decisions, and would rather fiddle while Rome burns.  To continue the Rome analogy, we would rather squeeze more taxes and tribute from the provinces than change Rome itself.

:goodpost: and it needs repeating.

 

[Journeyman]

I'll be doing parts of jobs from three people that have left.

That is the other part of the equation. Are we willing to accept that some tasks will not be done, or will we burn people out trying to "do more with less"? 

Please tell me that the Directorate of Useless Bling and Random Re-namings will not be kept as a high priority.

 

[dapaterson]

Please tell me that the Directorate of Useless Bling and Random Re-namings will not be kept as a high priority.

[I Wish This Was Sarcasm, But Even I'm Not Sure]

First of all, it's a Director General, with directors for useless bling and random re-namings.

Second, after the dust settles we need someone to hand out "DM/CDS Innovation & Change Leadership Awards" - and who better to receive one than the Fearless Director who actually did all those random re-namings?

[/I Wish This Was Sarcasm, But Even I'm Not Sure]

 

[George Wallace]

That is the other part of the equation. Are we willing to accept that some tasks will not be done, or will we burn people out trying to "do more with less"? 

"More with less" has been the standard SOP.  I doubt it will change........or perhaps that box can be ticked off on someone's PER and the SOP will change.......Well!  That was an idiotic thought.  SALY.

 

[McG]

Once an organization is created, it seemingly becomes far to easy to justify why it must persist forever … even if the original requirement is no longer present.  I think HQs and staffs can be amongst the worst for this.  Maybe proximity to their own problems and organizational tendancy for self preservation seeps into staff recommendations for where to make cuts.

I have seen sr officers choose not to point out where they see redundancies so as to not offend the people currently in the positions.  So the wastefulness of the positions continues; the problem has nothing to do with the hard working pers in the positions but everything to do with the work of the positions being unnecessary.

 

[ArmyRick]

Agree 100%. You can be the hardest working and most efficient broom and mop tracker in the organization BUT if we don't need a damn broom and mop tracker....Sorry job done. Or at least thats the way it should be.

Did General Leslie not compare a HQ with being down sized to a dying badger defending itself? Or something like that?

I think the CF as an organization, needs INTEGRITY, how dare we go through with historical name changes (like adding royal this and that) and boost HQ/admin tail and then somewhere else in the CF, tell some sect comd he only gets 2-3 occupants in the back of his LAV or a Platoon can only have 4 guys shoot C9 PWT3 instead of its 6.

Sometimes, we have a hard time putting priority where it needs to be.

 

[OldSolduer]

Agree 100%. You can be the hardest working and most efficient broom and mop tracker in the organization BUT if we don't need a damn broom and mop tracker....Sorry job done. Or at least thats the way it

Sometimes, we have a hard time putting priority where it needs to be.

Agreed.

I would change the "sometimes" to "most of the time."

Our whole reason for existing is to rain death and destruction upon  our  enemies, those who would do our nation and its people grievous harm.

Too many bureaucrats, military and civilian.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I think the CF as an organization, needs INTEGRITY, how dare we go through with historical name changes (like adding royal this and that) and boost HQ/admin tail and then somewhere else in the CF, tell some sect comd he only gets 2-3 occupants in the back of his LAV or a Platoon can only have 4 guys shoot C9 PWT3 instead of its 6.

Has there been any financial numbers released on the cost of adding Royal to some organization yet ?  I would be interested to see the actual financial distress this has put on the CF.  And how that money was shifted from other facets to pay for such a change.

I say show integrity by admitting some of these HQs and what not are needless and only exist to have positions for officer and senior ncm career advancement while actually providing little in the combat or combat support capability of the CF.  Lets look at the break down of chiefs to indians in the CF re work that voodoo magic a little...

Just the opinion of one under-educated lower decker...

 

[UnwiseCritic]

I can agree that the CF needs a little house cleaning. And that there has to be budget cuts so we no longer run a deficit. But a huge problem with the CF is the lack of discrimination. If we just raised the bar told some people no and your fired (in a polite way) we could save a lot of money and still maintain an effective fighting force. And everything should be based around the combat arms and maybe even leaning towards special forces as they now spearhead everything we do. But this 5 million for overseas deployments is ridiculuos and nothing in reserve... Great planning guys.