Military AircrewA forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.
In this country the vast majority of our politicians are lawyers with hardly any of them having military experience and in my view that makes their character and motivations questionable....
I would welcome anyone into a government who has had to prove their character and integrity through military service - just like Dannat has.
No thats not my point. As he's being appointed to advise a (future) Tory government on defense :
a. Isn't that what MOD are for ??
b. If he is so concerned about the governments lack of defense knowledge why doesn't he offer to advise the govermment now and not wait until mid 2010 Surely his concern for the troops shouldn't be predicated by a peerage and a wait of some 9 months ??
b. If he is so concerned about the governments lack of defense knowledge why doesn't he offer to advise the govermment now and not wait until mid 2010 Surely his concern for the troops shouldn't be predicated by a peerage and a wait of some 9 months ??
Er, they didn't listen to him when he was running the Army so.....
I say good luck to him and I hope Cameron takes his advice/observations on board
It'll be interesting to revisit this thread in a few years time, when Dannat has slashed the RAF
And the RN!
Gen D, in my experience, is far from purple minded. The only winners will be the Army. And the SH force (provided they transfer to the Army!). Remember, Joint is spelt A-R-M-Y!
JN - you're right that the precedent isn't direct, but the point I was making is that the initial bleating we were hearing suggesting that senior officers never, never, ever get involved in politics and that this is some sort of disgrace without the slightest parallel was somewhat off-beam (I would slightly dispute your portrayal of Kitchener, but that's a matter of interpretation).
I agree, though - the problem Sir Richard faces is that if he is to accept the offer which appears to have been put to him, his motives for criticising the government's policy will undoubtedly be put down to personal ambition, rather than genuiune concern for the troops in a series of off-the record briefings from the usual spin-meisters in London.
Had he waited for some time before accepting this offer, then things might be different, but he is now in serious danger of having his term as CGS being portrayed less favourably than he deserves.
Not so much an own goal at the moment and more a case of some sloppy tactical thinking in front of goal which might lead to an unfortunate outcome.
"General Sir Richard Dannatt, the former head of the British Army, is to become a Tory peer and adviser to the Conservative Party on defence, David Cameron is to announce," reports The Daily Telegraph.
This, of course, puts Dannat's interview with The Sun in perspective. He was talking not as a former head of the Army but as a Tory advisor. And how long he has been assuming that role, we shall never know. But since his message yesterday has not changed from his previous pronouncements, we can only assume that this has been the case for some time.
According to Sky News, however, this need not be an assumption. Jon Craig reports a senior Tory MP telling him: "Between you and me, he has been advising us for years." This MP "wasn't at all surprised" when he heard of Dannatt's new role. "There has been talk at Westminster for some time that he might become a defence minister in the House of Lords if the Tories win the election next year."
For a man who has displayed lamentable judgement in his post as CGS, however, this is but a continuation of that same poor judgement. By tradition, ex-service chiefs, on ascending to the Lords, become cross-benchers, staying above party politics. If indeed, while in the post of CGS, Dannatt has been advising the Tories, it is more than bad judgement. It is a betrayal of his office.
Furthermore, by entering the cockpit of narrow, party politics, Dannatt has diminished himself, his former post, and whatever advice he has given and will give. It will be forever tainted.
How interesting it is that, when Dannatt made his debute on the public stage, the Daily Mail called him "a very honest general". It now turns out that he has been a very dishonest general.
For the Conservative Party also – and Mr Cameron in particular – this is appalling judgement. It plays into the hands of those who would have it that Dannat's advice was tainted by party poltics, as opposed to merely being ill-considered. It diminishes substantially the authority of the post of Chief of the General Staff, the holders now being regarded as potential recruits for the political party machines.
Whatever the intentions of General Dannatt might have been, Mr Cameron should never have even considered, much less allowed, a former CGS to take the Conservative whip. This is a major error on his part, and one he will have cause to regret.
I understand (from the Ch 4 evening news ) that on the MOD Main 5th floor , the Army & Navy Chiefs were livid and Jock Stirrup had his head in his hands
I agree with earlier posts - it wll all end in tears !
What makes anyone think that he will act with anything other than self interest? And I don't mean 'army' interest. He is not a soldier any more, he's a politician. When in power, any ideas he may have today, about being overstretched etc, will quickly revert to 'stretched, but not overstretched'. That's Bob Ainsworth's line, more or less, isn't it?
Though I have always voted for them in Westminster elections, and though my political heroes are old school 'one nation' Tories like Gilmour, Pym and Heseltine, and though I view them as being less loathsome than the present lot, the wellbeing of today's Tory party does not really affect or worry me over much.
So I note as an interested observer - rather than as a concerned stakeholder, that this is actually the worst possible outcome for the Tories.
Had Dannatt continued to snipe from the sidelines without Party affiliation, he'd have been a powerful, credible and influential force working in the interests of Servicemen, and holding Governments and Politicians to account. He would have tended to be 'anti-Labour' by dint of the fact that it was Labour who committed us to Afghanistan, and because it was Labour who supplied the forces fighting there.
Had Dannatt accepted the Labour whip, any attacks he made against the Tories would have been entirely undermined, and he's have had the same credibility as any other Labour politician. His recruitment would have been something that the Tories could have roundly condemned and attacked Labour for.
Instead, by 'recruiting' him, they've undermined one of the key things that made him credible and powerful - his status as an apparently non-partisan, non politically biased expert. And that's why it's a colossal own goal.
If Dannat is a going to be a military advisor now, what will his role be when the Tories take the next election?
Military advisors to the government is surely the role of CDS, CGS, CAS and the First Sea Lord. Does this mean that these roles will go?
Will Dannat be able to see beyond the green army and look at improving roles like AT in orderto get the green army to where they need to be and back again?
As an ex Head of Service does he not remain on the Active List and thus receive full military pay?
Pretty sure that he's on half-pay, rather than a pension, but the rules may have changed. I think it was the case that 4*s retired on half-pay, while 3*s took a pension which was higher than the 4*s half-pay!
Linear Mode
