Why is our govt so stupid?

drc

Kohoutek wrote: »

!!!!!!? 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

Your use of the term myopic to describe Gordon Brown's decision is rather fitting. Brown is physically and politically myopic.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Kohoutek wrote: »

Wow, that's some pretty inaccurate/misleading reporting from the Times if that is true.

Not off to a good start when they get the name of the "tank" wrong.

Kohoutek

Obvious the Times is determined to discredit Labour! Murdoch is supporting the Tories this time isn't he?

Andy_L

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8580266.stm

So it's quite possible that the Treasury overrode the MoD to preserve UK jobs. Anybody want to swop horses mid-race to attack the Gov :-)

Its a perennial question though, should Millitary (or Government generally) Procurement:

1. Buy the best regardless of cost
2. Decide what capability they want & buy the cheapest that meets that spec
3. Decide their budget (£1billion in this case) and buy the best (literally?) bang for their buck
4. Buy British regardless of what overpriced, late, tat BAE are going to produce this time (ignoring the fact that BAE are only marginally British anyway)
5. Allow for the job etc benefits to "UK plc" of buying British in the calculations of cost.

Personally I'd like a mix of 2 & 5, seeing as how 1 isn't achievable

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Andy_L wrote: »

So it's quite possible that the Treasury overrode the MoD to preserve UK jobs. Anybody want to swop horses mid-race to attack the Gov :-)

I have no idea what is what..

It appears neither did the writer at The Times...


But I will say it is quite possible someone in the Army had an undeclared vested interest..

Andy_L

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

I have no idea what is what..

It appears neither did the writer at The Times...

Unfortunatly that often seems to be the case with reporters when it comes to specialised subjects. The days of the "specialist" correspondent who had a previous carrer in, or had reported, the subject for years seems to be long gone.

It worries me because if the're frequently that wrong on stuff I know about what about the stuff I don't know much about?

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Andy_L wrote: »

Unfortunatly that often seems to be the case with reporters when it comes to specialised subjects. The days of the "specialist" correspondent who had a previous carrer in, or had reported, the subject for years seems to be long gone.

It worries me because if the're frequently that wrong on stuff I know about what about the stuff I don't know much about?

No idea.

I don't know what is more worrying though. The Times guy without a clue or The BBCs Party Line....

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

General Dynamics claims that the contract will safeguard or create 10,500 jobs in the UK.

The contract is reported to be worth £4bn ($6bn).

General Dynamics said its product was not only the best option, but was a patriotic choice too.

"The programme is British to its bootstraps, delivering a military off-the-shelf vehicle with British design by British engineers to the British Army," said Sandy Wilson, president and managing director of General Dynamics.

Is there a storm in a teacup smiley?

Butterfly_Brain

Vote 'em out on may 6

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Butterfly_Brain wrote: »

Vote 'em out on may 6

& vote who in?