Calling UK jornos and opposition MPs

[Biggus]

Everyone in the UK military appears to be poised awaiting the announcement of cuts to the front line. These cuts are not being made because funding is being cut, on the contrary, it is actually going up slightly! Rather it is because the cost of the Iraq 'involvement' is being borne directly by the defence budget, which, coupled with some procurement spending overuns, means something has to give to pay for it! By something we mean hardware, and some peoples jobs!!!

We in the military are all expecting something to be announced a day or two before parliament breaks for the summer, so the politicians can avoid any awkward questions afterwards. What I would like to know, given that this situation is an 'open' secret, is why are jornos and opposition MPs not asking questions now, prior to any announcement, to embarass the government and that nice Mr Hoon. Perhaps force an earlier statement from them. Surely this is an ideal opportunity to get them on the ropes. How about asking that nice Mr Hoon where he will be on holiday when some of our boys and girls come back from Iraq to find that their regiment/squadron/ship has been disbanded/scrapped?

Just some thoughts from a bear with a very small brain!! Comments anyone?

[Jackonicko]

Believe me, we're asking.

I know I am, and I suspect that others are too.

But those that know aren't telling (in some misguided adherence to procedure, and despite the damage that will be done) and most of those who are telling don't know, and as a result all that one gets is rumour.

Some journos (Mick Smith at the Telegraph, most notably) have printed these rumours, from the premature scrapping of the Invincible class through to the early withdrawal of the Jag, Harrier and Puma, and the closures of various bases.

And there's a credibility problem. How many serving officers would trust a journo like me enough to 'spill the beans'? I know that I am scrupulous in not identifying sources, but do they? Would they trust the anonymity afforded by PMing me, and if they did, without offering some clues as to their general identity (rough indication of branch, rank, station, and community) how can I treat their input as more than rumour?

And do I want to be encouraging anyone to breach the OSA?

[Biggus]

I was suggesting asking/embarassing politicians, not serving officers! See if it is possible to get the politicos to admit that there are planned cuts, or alternatively get them to deny it, before the actual announcement.

How far in advance is the programme for parliament released? How about forcing the politicians to admit a statement will be made just before the recess. Press them on the reason for the timing, etc, etc...


I am NOT asking, or suggesting, that anyone breaks the OSA!!!

[Jackonicko]

"Forces face cuts" simply is not a story. It's been done to death. Without some intelligent back up on what exactly is likely to go, it's of limited interest to our editors. Without similar back-up opposition MPs can do little either, since simple questions that cannot be backed up by reference to actual plans can be swatted aside all too easily by the Hoonster and his minions.

I believe that these cuts will be so damaging, and so dangerous to Britain's long term interests, that I personally think that they are worth fighting, but I'm not the one who has to make uncomfortable decisions about whether or not that means that I should throw crumbs to a journo.

Anyone who does have the balls to do so could post the details here, or they could write to the papers, or they could take an orange box just round the corner from the RAF Club and shout at the passers by from it. They could even PM me, of course, in absolute and complete confidence, but I'm not actively encouraging anyone to do so.

[JessTheDog]

Journos will find it a lot harder to get gen on service issues, now that the corporate comms empires have been taken from the single services and brought under MoD.

One questiont hat may be worth asking is what is the perception held by service personnel of the "psychological contract" between the services and the government, as highlighted in the recent Air Force Board Liaison Team report.

The "psychological contract" is the bond of trust between us in uniform (who will do what we are required) and those in government (who provide us with the necessary support).

The report basically states that most of us in uniform wouldn't trust the government as far as we could throw one of the (too heavy for take off) Joint Strike Fighters!

Interesting to see what Buff Hoon's reply will be, if asked. I predict there will be none!

[Jackonicko]

With no meaningful freedom of information legislation the chances of anyone seeing the recent Air Force Board Liaison Team report are probably remote. Unless someone wants to leak it.....

[Archimedes]

Not that you're actively encouraging anyone to do that, of course, JN!

[Jackonicko]

Perish the thought, Archimedes.

Perish the th.....

Oh alright then!

[JessTheDog]

With no meaningful freedom of information legislation the chances of anyone seeing the recent Air Force Board Liaison Team report are probably remote. Unless someone wants to leak it.....

Ooohhh, naughty! These reports enjoy very wide distribution in any case, printed and left around messes and crewrooms as corporate comms tools, to show we are being "listened to". A sanitised version will probably appear in Pravda, sorry RAF News.

MOD response would probably be "we don't comment on leaked reports." If our elected MPs (or some of them, who are doing very well at present) continue to ask searchinq questions, this is a productive route for an "on the record" response. Unless the lying snakes at the top employ the "disproportionate cost" (not valid in this case) or the "I will write" responses rather than attempting to answer the question.

[VP959]

Jackonicko wrote:

"Anyone who does have the balls to do so could post the details here, or they could write to the papers, or they could take an orange box just round the corner from the RAF Club and shout at the passers by from it. They could even PM me, of course, in absolute and complete confidence, but I'm not actively encouraging anyone to do so"

As one who knows quite a bit of what's going on, I suspect that it will almost certainly get leaked (as some appears to have been to the Telegraph) over the next few weeks. It seems that the "old hotel in London" is getting to be a notoriously leaky place from what I can see. Getting anyone to own up to leaking it is pretty near impossible though, as it would be very seriously career limiting, given the security classification and caveats placed on it.

Still, mid-July should see the spin well and truly out in the open, otherwise known as "how to take an awful lot of dosh out of the equipment programme, and present it as positive for defence".