32 replies to this topic

[GarryWeston]

We all understand that due to current climate goverment agencies have to make cuts and savings,as a serving prison officer ime well aware of this,but cutting funds to the CWGC is not on.What happens when new remains are uncovered,due to cuts do we not try to identify them,do we not give them a proper burial with full honours or do we just not give them a headstone,these men fought and died for this country and we owe it to them to give them full respect and honours as they deserve.

[David Faulder]

ianw, on 20 February 2011 - 10:05 PM, said:

Yes, UK would have to involve the other nations in any discussions on the CWGC budget. Perhaps it is time to look again at the apportionment of costs. The former Empire countries are now mature and powerful countries with similar economies. Perhaps they can come to the assistance of the old mother country again - this time with hard cash!

CWGC Annual Report 2009-10 said:

part b (p6)
The cost is shared by the partner governments - those of Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, South Africa and the United Kingdom - in proportions based on the numbers of their graves.
part e (p33)
Government ... Percentage
United Kingdom 78.43
Canada ....... 10.07
Australia .... 6.05
New Zealand  .. 2.14
South Africa . 2.11
India ........ 1.20
TOTAL ...... 100.00

part e (p49) also gives a breakdown of numbers of war dead by force (nationality) - but this does not easily yield "graves" by force due to the non allocation of the unidentified (many of whom are probably at least identified by nationality of force).

How might one "reapportion"?

David

[ianw]

David Faulder, on 05 March 2011 - 04:46 PM, said:

How might one "reapportion"?

David

I suppose any "reapportionment" would be an abandonment of the principal of payment related to casualty numbers. A possible justification for this might be to consider that the fixed cost element of the entire contruct that is the CWGC should be apportioned by means of a more equally shared "standing charge" with a reduced amount of the overall costs thereby being apportioned by reference solely to numbers of casualties.

This a matter of practicality for countries such as Canada and Australia who may well look askance on the possible results of CWGC budget cuts given how important their Great War casualties are in their national stories. The solution may have to be for them to dig deeper into their pockets.

All the countries on the contributors list are well able to afford to pay a standing contribution of say £3 million a year each with the balancing contribution being casualty number related. Of course, the question will be raised "Why should they given the numbers of their losses?" One reason why they should perhaps consider such a move might be based on the old adage "He who pays the piper etc". If they want more influence on what happens in the CWGC cemeteries far from home, then how much they contribute would assist this aim.

[Michelle Young]

On my recent visit to the 1915 sector quite a few  cemeteries were a little bit scruffy; long grass, breakout growth of rough grass in patches and weeds. I wonder if the CWGC are planning to  visit and maintain the less well visited sectors less frequently as part of their budget restrictions? Contrasting with the cemeteries around the Rue du Bois area, Pheasant Wood cemetery was immaculate- more vsitors? Who knows, maybe just speculation.The cemeteries are still very special places though.

Michelle

[ianw]

Assuming that our dry weather has been mirrored in Flanders, perhaps they are taking advantage of the relative lack of growth to cut a few gardening visits out and save a bit of over-time.

[apple]

To play devil's advocate.

RN hasn't an operational aircraft carrier, at the moment. RAF has virtually no usable combat planes and the army is cutting numbers.

Antony  

P.S. This "story" is also in the Mirror.

Keith Roberts, on 20 February 2011 - 12:32 PM, said:

I am also concerned for the living; my son will be back in Afghanistan  in September for his third tour, but any significant cut in CWGC resources will still be a fleabite in the context of MOD resources.


Keith

[ianw]

The costs of running the CWGC are "lost in the noise" when you consider that the decision to modify the aircraft carrier you refer to to take other aircraft will cost somewhere between £1 billion and £2 billion. No one seems to know how much.

[ianw]

Perhaps it was the tiz, outrage and moral indignation that has concentrated minds in HMG and made them realise that this is a controversial issue. I understand that it is a tactic to put the idea out there in the form of a "rumour" and establish public opinion. If this is the case, I'm happy.

(oh the post I was responding to has gone. But I'll leave the comment, it might come back)