New Defence Secretary
Much more complex than that - both sides have members of the aremed forces deeply embedded in each other's sytems
It is not unknown for someone (say the USMC) to get their British buddies to raise issues in both private and public that they are reluctant to be be seen to back too hard.... then there is a favour owed and will be collected when (say) the RN has problems with the politicians.... DailY Telegraph "US says British should do XYZ" etc etc.....................
It is not unknown for someone (say the USMC) to get their British buddies to raise issues in both private and public that they are reluctant to be be seen to back too hard.... then there is a favour owed and will be collected when (say) the RN has problems with the politicians.... DailY Telegraph "US says British should do XYZ" etc etc.....................
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
This was not always true. In 1964, after Harold Wilson was elected, Dean Rusk pleaded with Patrick Gordon Walker and Dennis Healey for Britain to maintain its East of Suez presence. Wilson was actually keen to do so despite budgetary pressure. The US was probably motivated because of the increasing tempo in Vietnam and we would provide stability on their western flank. Of course Aden went in 1969 but we remained in Singapore until 1974.
The recent events that see a rise to power of Mohammed bin Salma in Saudi will help. He is a propenent of moderate Islam and will likely have a stabilising influence across the Muslim world. He has been one of the leading lights in getting to grips with Yemen which needed to happen.
Mohammad bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud is more liberal than those characters would like and, if their religious iron fist is removed, the Saudis may find themselves living in 'interesting times'.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Middle England
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to the thread....
It transpires that the new Def Sec voted consistently against strengthening the Armed Forces Covenant. Kinda shows what he actually thinks of the men and women of the AF.
It transpires that the new Def Sec voted consistently against strengthening the Armed Forces Covenant. Kinda shows what he actually thinks of the men and women of the AF.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 59°09N 002°38W (IATA: SOY, ICAO: EGER)
Age: 80
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is the record of voting of the new Secretary of Defence on the Military Covenant.
Gavin Williamson consistently voted against strengthening the Military Covenant
TheyWorkForYou has automatically calculated this MP’s stance based on all of their votes on the topic.
All votes about strengthening the Military Covenant:
On 16 Feb 2011:
Gavin Williamson voted against a legally binding Military Covenant set out in law.
On 14 Jun 2011:
Gavin Williamson voted against requiring public bodies and minsters to consider the effects of people's service in the armed forces when setting healthcare, education and housing policy and to consider if special provisions for current, and former, service personnel are justified.
On 26 Jun 2012:
Gavin Williamson voted against calling on the Government to strengthen the military covenant and against requesting a reassessment of the assumptions on which the Strategic Defence and Security Review was based.
Vote information from PublicWhip.
The data on this page may be used freely, on condition that TheyWorkForYou.com is cited as the source.
TheyWorkForYou has automatically calculated this MP’s stance based on all of their votes on the topic.
All votes about strengthening the Military Covenant:
On 16 Feb 2011:
Gavin Williamson voted against a legally binding Military Covenant set out in law.
On 14 Jun 2011:
Gavin Williamson voted against requiring public bodies and minsters to consider the effects of people's service in the armed forces when setting healthcare, education and housing policy and to consider if special provisions for current, and former, service personnel are justified.
On 26 Jun 2012:
Gavin Williamson voted against calling on the Government to strengthen the military covenant and against requesting a reassessment of the assumptions on which the Strategic Defence and Security Review was based.
Vote information from PublicWhip.
The data on this page may be used freely, on condition that TheyWorkForYou.com is cited as the source.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I have said, he is there to do the cutting! Funny how he was "welcomed" by MOD. Also, funny how the USA are shouting against any cuts to UK Defence spending....they can see the cutbacks coming.
OAP
OAP
We hear of 'unaffordable' programmes and lay the blame at underperforming Single Services or MOD planners. Now they may be underperforming in certain respects, but equipment programmes, operations, training activity, they all fall out higher political direction. Not because someone wakes up and suddenly decides ordering a couple of carriers or a new fleet of FJ might be a good idea. Cutting capability means cutting the requirement. To cut the former but not the latter is any one of naive, ignorant, wishful thinking, or just plain stupid. Probably all the above, but it won't make the current situation any better.
Senior leaders need to start asking questions of themselves and what their aims and objectives are, and then if the answer needs resource, resourcing it rather than pretending we can do everything with nothing. We are the Armed Forces not the Magic Circle; leave the rabbits and hats to them. But to keep continuing this saga of the emperor's new clothes does nothing for national standing or capability and seriously compromises our ability to project influence as we aspire to do in this post-BREXIT era.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
What did we do with Crimea when we eventually conquered it and pinched it from the Russians?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_War
......”Peace negotiations at the Congress of Paris resulted in the signing of the Treaty of Paris on 30 March 1856. In compliance with article III, Russia restored to the Ottoman Empire the city and citadel of Kars in common with "all other parts of the Ottoman territory of which the Russian troop were in possession". Russia returned the Budjak, in Bessarabia, back to Moldavia. By article IV Britain, France, Sardinia and Turkey restored to Russia "the towns and ports of Sevastopol, Balaklava, Kamish, Eupatoria, Kerch, Jenikale, Kinburn as well as all other territories occupied by the allied troops"........
It all seems like the Defence plan put together by Sir Michael is about to be severely tampered with. I know you shouldn't judge a book by its glossy cover, however, the cut of this Williamson chap strikes me he should be offering loans and overdrafts to people who won't be able to meet the eye watering repayments. As such his only perception as Defence Secretary will be to march off down the route of cuts, cuts and more cuts. Expect some more outrageous outsourcing, possibly?
FB
FB
You may well all be right re cuts. However I'm also conscious that there is (understandably) a well-established "Private Frazer" tradition in these parts. For example I recall in the run-up to the 2015 SDSR there were many consistent and very definite predictions of imminent chainsaw massacre being visited upon defence by the review.
I suspect that with all the "leaks" re the amphibious capability etc we're being softened up so that what actually happens won't be seen as quite so bad after all.
I also tend to look for straws to clutch at at times like these (ie most of the time). One such is the fact that politically young Mr W is in some respects in quite a strong position (as long as Theresa May lasts, which admittedly may not be very long); and will want to make a name for himself. Personally I'd be surprised if he wants to make his mark as doing HMG's bidding in relation to cuts, and to be remembered for that. But I've been wrong before, so who knows.
I suspect that with all the "leaks" re the amphibious capability etc we're being softened up so that what actually happens won't be seen as quite so bad after all.
I also tend to look for straws to clutch at at times like these (ie most of the time). One such is the fact that politically young Mr W is in some respects in quite a strong position (as long as Theresa May lasts, which admittedly may not be very long); and will want to make a name for himself. Personally I'd be surprised if he wants to make his mark as doing HMG's bidding in relation to cuts, and to be remembered for that. But I've been wrong before, so who knows.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You may be right Frostie but in some ways the constant salami slicing is worse than facing the facts and making cuts to get us to the position where we can see what we have and what we can do rather than more and more stretching
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Melchie but I think
"Senior leaders need to start asking questions of themselves and what their aims and objectives are, and then if the answer needs resource, resourcing it rather than pretending we can do everything with nothing"
Has been doing the rounds since options ...
..if not before..
"Senior leaders need to start asking questions of themselves and what their aims and objectives are, and then if the answer needs resource, resourcing it rather than pretending we can do everything with nothing"
Has been doing the rounds since options ...
..if not before..
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: North Up
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Make the navy look to its history - make them Privateers. It worked for Elizabeth 1
Should we have the RAF sub-let our aircrews out to the likes of Ryanair for a few quid?
Or should we perhaps rent out pongos out as nightclub bouncers, flogging dope produced from poppy crops which they so munificently oversaw when they patrolled Helmand? That sort of thing worked very profitably for the best part of 99 years in Honkers.
Should we perhaps funnel their pay and perks through the Caribbean? It works for upper echelon Duchies, such as those of Cornwall and Lancaster, which have a very lengthy history of booty-grabbing, particularly in that part of the world.
Sounds like you've got the beginnings of a business plan. Have it on my desk in Douglas or St Helier or Road Town Tortola by Monday morning, please.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should we have the RAF sub-let our aircrews out to the likes of Ryanair for a few quid?