Why is our govt so stupid?

rl290

Kohoutek wrote: »

If the government wanted to save money, they could outsource a lot more than a defence contract. Why not outsource clerical positions in the civil services roles to India? Why not automate the NHS booking system? It would save a lot of money, but like this it would cost a lot of jobs.

There has to be a balance between efficiency savings through outsourcing and not gutting our economy of jobs.

Are you kidding me on the NHS system?! The new NHS computer system (which is outsourced) is four years late, will cost at least £13bn and now the government is thinking of scrapping the idea all together:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/pbr/article6946336.ece
Another example of outsourcing gone wrong in the government!

R

ILW

Problem is that as soon as the great British worker (and his union) find out they are virtually guaranteed to get the contract, they will then deliver something that is substandard, overpriced and probably years late due to all sorts of industrial action over differentials, demarcation, tea breaks, etc.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

ILW wrote: »

Problem is that as soon as the great British worker (and his union) find out they are virtually guaranteed to get the contract, they will then deliver something that is substandard, overpriced and probably years late due to all sorts of industrial action over differentials, demarcation, tea breaks, etc.

Or companies know they can rip the !!!! out of Government contracts because they are written with so many holes in courtesy of a Government Minister taking a [STRIKE]backhander[/STRIKE] position at a later date within their company.

Butterfly_Brain

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

& vote who in?

Now there's a question! All MP's are lying,cheating corrupt B's:mad:

leveller2911

The standard issue weapon the US forces use is the M16A2 .In the tests against 4 other weapons including Heckler & Koch it was rated as 5th out of 5,in fact the Military were alarmed at the "stopage rate" (jamming) something like 60 rounds per 10000 would jam.

The ONLY reason they went for it as their main battle weapon is it was made in US.....No other reason, never mind the US soldiers killed because their weapon jammed it all boiled down to $$$$$$$,s....Its rare for the US to procure from abroard.

vaporate

Kohoutek wrote: »

I see what you mean and I think it's the best solution normally, but at the moment our economy is very vulnerable, especially in regions like the NE, where there is a huge amount of uncertainty, for example the mothballing of the Corus plant in Middlesborough. We really want to avoid job losses at all costs.

I'm sure the US defence sector will be OK, the US govt spends more on their military than the rest of the world combined, it still leaves a lot left over even if foreign companies win some contracts.

I just think we're at a time where protecting British jobs is crucial, especially in places like the North East. The government recently paid GM £270 million to keep production going in the UK when they were about to make significant job losses, that's no different in principle than awarding a military contract to a British company to preserve jobs, even if it isn't the cheapest.

Which they can;t really afford. The EU could match that if they really wanted to.

Andy_L

leveller2911 wrote: »

The standard issue weapon the US forces use is the M16A2 .

Pedant time: It's the M4 carbine, a shortbarreled version of the A2. I think only the marines still use the M16A2

leveller2911 wrote: »

Its rare for the US to procure from abroard.

hmmm, from an infantry POV their pistols & shotguns are Italian, their light machine gun Belgium & thier mortar is UK/US, their towed/air portable artillery is UK, some of their APCs are Canadian designed

Their tank guns are UK (if they've got any M1A1s still in service? National Guard perhaps) or German

I would not say its rare for them to procure from abroad these days