Why is our govt so stupid?

Kohoutek

!!!!!!? I thought Gordon said 'British jobs for British workers', instead the government is determined to destroy even more British industry by myopic decisions like this. Can't they see that paying a bit more for a defense contract and preserving 800 jobs is better than saving a bit of the procurement budget by outsourcing in to America?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7061119.ece

The tank, the British invention that changed the shape of warfare, will no longer be built in Britain after a Treasury decision to overrule the army’s preference for BAE Systems’ Scout vehicle.

Army chiefs wanted the BAE CV90 armoured reconnaissance vehicle for the £1 billion programme that will replace its Scimitar light tanks. But the Treasury has insisted that the contract goes instead to the General Dynamics Ascot armoured vehicle built in Spain and Austria.

BAE had won the contract, initially for 750 vehicles, it could have expected a long-term £4 billion programme to make a range of vehicles that would have created hundreds more jobs at its plants in Telford, Shropshire, and Newcastle. Vickers, now part of BAE, built the last Challenger tank at Newcastle in 2002.

Instead, company sources said that more than 800 jobs would be lost. “Obviously we are going to have to look again at our footprint in the armoured vehicle sector in the UK,” the spokesman said.

The closure of the British armoured vehicles factories will bring an end to an industry that began when Lieutenant Walter Wilson designed the Mark I tank, which trundled into battle in September 1916 during the battle of the Somme.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

I vote it goes to the manufacturer that makes the most suitable vehicle..

Kohoutek

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

I vote it goes to the manufacturer that makes the most suitable vehicle..

Don't you think the MoD is a better judge of that than the Treasury?

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Kohoutek wrote: »

Don't you think the MoD is a better judge of that than the Treasury?

I think the Government has better knowledge of forthcoming "wars" than the Army.

Also General Dynamics call it the ASCOD not ASCOT.

http://www.gdsbs.com/web/sbs_3/index.asp?idioma=2&idzona=2&idcargo=6&idsubcargo=1&nombre=Armored%20Vehicles&nombrec=Tracked%20Vehicles&tipopag=3&menu_zona=2&menu_cargo=6&act=1&pulsar=6&posicion=6

Kohoutek

The army is part of the government. Why do you think a bureaucrat in the Treasury will have better knowledge of the equipment suitable for forthcoming war? They have no experience in deploying armoured vehicles in conflict situations.

The reason the Army/MoD decision was overruled was to save money - there's nothing in the article to suggest it was because the American design was better.

I don't understand why the government can't see the long term view - surely paying more to preserve 800 British jobs is a valid consideration. If those jobs are lost, the government has to pay to support those people and their families when they are made unemployed, and other industries that depend on BAE will suffer too.

The_White_Horse

because it's Labour

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Kohoutek wrote: »

The army is part of the government. Why do you think a bureaucrat in the Treasury will have better knowledge of the equipment suitable for forthcoming war?

The Army is not part of the Government.

The Army is not involved in planning future political strategy.

Anyways The ASCOD (Austrian Spanish Cooperation Development)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASCOD

Faster & more HP than the BAE CV90 & carries an extra bod.

dopester

Kohoutek wrote: »

I don't understand why the government can't see the long term view - surely paying more to preserve 800 British jobs is a valid consideration. If those jobs are lost, the government has to pay to support those people and their families when they are made unemployed, and other industries that depend on BAE will suffer too.

Didn't UK/Europe based companies win some major US military contract about 12 months ago (aeronautics). I recall there was some fury in the US.. same line as you're saying.. about jobs staying there ect. There was a big push being made to get the decision overturned but I didn't follow it up. Another $40 million military contract won by a UK company a few months ago.

I'm sure I could find many more. I think it's a pretty fair good system myself - just make sure what you're offering puts you in with a good chance of winning contracts, not relying on political interference cause 'jobs for British workers' loser syndrome.

Pete111

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

The Army is not part of the Government.

The Army is not involved in planning future political strategy.

Anyways The ASCOD (Austrian Spanish Cooperation Development)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASCOD

Faster & more HP than the BAE CV90 & carries an extra bod.

From the ASCOD wiki article link above

....{it}performed well in a Norwegian vehicles trial, although it ultimately lost to the Swedish CV90.

So the link you posted appears to show it is inferior to the one we passed on..

Doh!?!

Kohoutek

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

The Army is not part of the Government.

The Army is not involved in planning future political strategy

OK, to use strict English they're part of the state not the government. They're not contractors, and their wages are paid by the state. The Ministry of Defence is a department of state.

How is procurement a political decision? It's an administrative decision, and it's very unfortunate that supporting the British economy and British workers can't be a consideration.

There's nothing in this article or others to suggest that better performance was a consideration, it was purely on a cost basis.

StevieJ

Kohoutek wrote: »

The army is part of the government. Why do you think a bureaucrat in the Treasury will have better knowledge of the equipment suitable for forthcoming war? They have no experience in deploying armoured vehicles in conflict situations.

.

It's OK Brownie will be along in minute to reverse the decision if it means a few more votes.