Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

DF Commission Report

1181921232427

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 23,619 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    €200 million headline increase and a specific target of 400 additional head.

    Its not in line with a curve to achieve the LoA2 commitment, but we don't have the capacity to do that anyway, until the structures are in place.

    This is almost entirely a management challenge for the next 2 to 5 years, not a money one.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,167 ✭✭✭Dohvolle


    When inflation is factored in, the headline increase is far less.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,052 ✭✭✭jonnybigwallet


    Fiddlers money I'd call it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 240 ✭✭Grassy Knoll


    Finance little to do with it, D/Per controls expenditure policy. Anyway on the budget strikes me commitments re advertising for 400 more staff - and poss MRV is delusional stuff.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭sparky42


    I think at this stage keeping mentioning the MRV is more an accountancy trick than anything else, if its supposedly in the Capital expenditure plan already and was circa €200 million, if they tell the truth and kill it, then the already lack of spending collapses into the pack of lies that it is.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 73 ✭✭RavenP


    Genuine big question here. With the current government financial position and other departments getting above inflation increases, no one would have batted an eyelid at a couple of hundred mil extra for the DF. One has to ask why this has not happened. Is there one element of the government or civil service who have a particular dislike of the DF? Is there some kind of hangover from post-civil war politics going on? Or is there a bigger influence on government or alternatively fear of the PANA types than usually credited and are the government going to find additional funds from the unallocated two billion later on? Are the DF not structured to actually spend the money right now? Is there some organisational issue within the way the government or civil service that mitigates against spending on Defence?



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭sparky42




  • Registered Users Posts: 73 ✭✭RavenP


    @sparky42 I really do not know. If the public finances had been really tight in the run up to the election, I could understand other departments with very good reason squeezing defence, but this is the least tight spending round in a long time. The exasperation of Cathal Berry in the Dail yesterday spoke volumes. If the management issues in the DF were so bad that they could not usefully spend any increased money, then I imagine Berry would not have made the statement he did, almost suggesting he would support an alternative government after the election, by whom I presume he means SF. It might simply because they are afraid to addressing DF pay and conditions in advance of an election unless there is a cascade of other calls for money from other sectors. Berry was right to compare himself to David MacWilliams though. This is criminal negligence by the government at a time of such risk for Ireland.



  • Registered Users Posts: 201 ✭✭mupper2


    It's a fitting metaphor for the state of the DF that the day after the budget this forum is dead quiet because nothing was done...



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 201 ✭✭mupper2




  • Registered Users Posts: 3,167 ✭✭✭Dohvolle


    Now lads, the minister has let it be known that he's very disappointed with all your negativity...


    Tánaiste defends Defence spending, rejects 'knee-jerk' calls for military resources (thejournal.ie)



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Boo **** Hoo, at this stage the Navy should just go for a full safety stand down and dare the Government to complain.



  • Registered Users Posts: 240 ✭✭Grassy Knoll


    I make it a less than 2% yo-yo increase from the 2023 allocation, about half the rate of inflation €21m - no more needs to be said.

    The problem IMHO is at this stage there is hardly the capacity to absorb any spend so the money can’t really be given to Defence. Money for wages is allocated for men and women who are not there. we buy ships, they will rust at the quay wall for lack of key personnel to crew them, aircraft , we are limited to only small numbers of basic models as the more complex gear requires tech support we don’t possess or training / operational frameworks we are years away from. Army may be a little more different as the equipment is smaller and arguably less complex in scale. In all cases there has been a historic neglect as manifest in underequipment across all services, lack of investment as seen in crumbling facilities, poor pay and conditions.

    it seems to be fair DoD is undergoing a gradual cultural change, albeit from a very low base. Furthermore the officials there traditionally did not ‘game’ the system as per Health, Housing social protection etc where money has gone literally on old rope. Instead they should be fighting to increase their budget etc , almost’ expand an empire’ rather than infighting with the military side. Also the transformation programme seems impressive on one level, a lot of structures etc which might serve the process well over the long term.

    However, the key issue of pay and conditions is the elephant in the room and they are at nothing, zero, zilch until that is addressed. It is well over a year since the Commissions report was published - a very realistic and practical blueprint- except it didn’t get into the pay issue - it is alright to be delivering the report recommendations as a tick box exercise but the key horizontal enabler - pay - needs to be addressed swiftly and decisively - words with respect I wouldn’t associate with Martin or McGrath etc

    Certainly if progress was made on this we could begin to see gradual improvements, probably never reach the full establishment level, but at least staunch the flow. Talk of high end radars at this stage, MRVs etc is pie in the sky - who will man them, they will prob rust away for lack of technical crew at this point. The point that militaries are highly skilled, technical organisations operating complex platforms still has not registered in my view.

    I hope Dr Cathal Berry keeps it up, the man is a high achieving, high credibility individual with an elite military pedigree. He might well ask what good is he doing, but it would be worse in my view without his public contributions. The only criticism I would have is he is perhaps too reasonable. Helped by his interventions any informed, reasonable individual you meet has well absorbed the message that our defence is sub par and needs urgent attention. Martin is becoming rattled as seen by reports of his press conference.



  • Registered Users Posts: 240 ✭✭Grassy Knoll


    I see some commentary here is that the increase for 2024 is €55m = 21 current +34 capex extra - presumably taken as gospel from press releases etc. However, I would like to point out this is an accounting sleight of hand, from the published Budget expenditure report book p25 table D sets out that the original NDP capital allocation for 2023 was cut by 34m from 176m to 142m, (which is actually close to the 2022 capex outurn. So 2023 capex is to be flat y-o-y)

    in effect all that has been done in the budget is this has been restored to 176m for 2024, so in net terms we are getting the original 2023 capital allocation a year late. There may be reasons for this (delayed equipment payment ?) however to present this as an increase is disingenuous. There was no effort to reallocate this to other defence projects. IMHO 2024 allocations should be compared to the original 2023 capital one as published in the REV which is the basis of voted government expenditure. All of this is verifiable by looking at some online docs - buried in plain sight of course.

    so if we are to compare on a like for like basis, defence spend is actually only rising by 21m on the current side. Let there be some honesty on the figures please …



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,167 ✭✭✭Dohvolle


    It isn't being increased in line with inflation either, as was promised. We have a steep climb if we want to reach €1.5bn by 2028(adjusted for inflation). At present the 1.5 is already 1.6.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,481 ✭✭✭roadmaster




  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,141 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    So I've scanned it twice... Does it actually say anything?



  • Registered Users Posts: 201 ✭✭mupper2




  • Registered Users Posts: 3,167 ✭✭✭Dohvolle


    It's a bit like a safety statement you'd find at your place of employment. Nobody reads it though everyone signs a piece of paper to say they have. It details all the things that happen in every possible H&S scenario, but the reality is, if such event happen, its only afterwards this document is produced as a defence for "I thought that was your job" or "why didn't you" and "you should have" complaints.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,481 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    They are still working on the detailed implementation plan which is at "Advanced stage". The same plan which was suppouse to ready at the latest of January 2023.

    Its not like they need to rush or that there are any issues in the defence forces such as only 1 full strenght unit in the state whose troops are being sent from Bundorn to all over the country to cover duties. So nothing to worry about.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,167 ✭✭✭Dohvolle


    They are counting down the clock, hoping to pass it on the the next dail, and sit on the opposition benches, complaining that the implementation plan is not out yet...



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭sparky42


    So after the budget the “Implementation Plan” is reportedly finally going to cabinet and will be published, DOD and Finance will be happy about pushing things back another few years:

    How low are the expectations?



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,481 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    Will they propose to commision a report on how to implement the Implementation Plan?



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭sparky42


    With a review as well into the report, and then perhaps a public consultation, and then maybe a panel to correlate the findings?



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,167 ✭✭✭Dohvolle


    I'm sure the first objective of the implementation plan will be to recruit a team of independent academics, senators and TDs to supervise the implementation of the implementation plan. They will report to an Assistant secretary in the DoD who has yet to be recruited.



  • Registered Users Posts: 201 ✭✭mupper2


    Have we asked the AG if any of this is allowed by the Constitution?



  • Registered Users Posts: 201 ✭✭mupper2


    You forgot the vital trips to see how other countries do it, so junkets to Australia, Mexico, Spain, etc will have to be made



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,481 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    The year is 2026.

    Sec Gen: Minister we are now able to put the plan in place.

    Minister: Excellent when do we Start.

    Sec Gen: Thats the problem the last service member finished up last week and we now have no Military.

    MInister: Can the guards step in a form a paramilitary Unit like in Spain.

    Sec Gen: Funny Story the Guards have all quit aswell the Justice Sect Gen tells me



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,167 ✭✭✭Dohvolle


    Don't forget NZ, which won't be done at the same time the Aus trip is on.



Advertisement