Do you have confidence in the Defence Secretary?

[The Swinging Monkey]

Evening All,
I saw the interview yesterday with David Cameron where he said that if the Defence Secretary 'no longer had the confidence of our Armed Forces' then he should go.

So with that in mind, does Brown have the confidence of anyone in the Armed Forces? Certainly not from me!

My other concern is that Cameron gave the impression that those in the Armed Forces even have a say in the matter!!

Kind regards to all.
TSM

[advocatusDIABOLI]

No, and originally he appeared better than the last idiot! :ugh:

Advo

[PPRuNeUser0211]

nope...... no confidence here. But probably wouldn't if it was any other politician either!

[L1A2 discharged]

Quote: TSM: So with that in mind, does Brown have the confidence of anyone in the Armed Forces? Certainly not from me!

In fact niether Brown :ugh: nor Browne :ugh: :ugh: generate any confidence.

[Yeller_Gait]

According to the news this evening, Des Browne has the backing of each of the individual heads of the Armed Services, so by implication if CAS, CGS and FSL support him, then so do the rest of the forces since they speak for the rest of us.

Or am I missing something here?


Y_G

[The Helpful Stacker]

I've never had confidence in him and this was confirmed when he appeared at Odious a while back for a 'grip and grin-fest', acting dumb when any difficult questions were asked and quoting the party line chapter and verse, seemingly hoping that we were gullible enough to take it all as gospel.

Oh for a half decent Secretary of State for Defence for once.:rolleyes:

[advocatusDIABOLI]

To Our Darker Blue:

So, how much confidence do you all have in the 1st Sea Lord?

Advo

(I haven't too much in any of them)

[Fitbin]

Wakey wakey Helpful Stacker,

You appear to be stuck in a bizarre dream...:}

[Winco]

I think he is as poor as the last fool, Buffoon or someone.

I am utterly dismayed however, to read that the 3 service Chiefs have all apparantly given their support to him, infact I'm appalled at their decision, although I suppose it was only to be expected.

If nothing else, it only goes to show just how out of touch the chiefs are with the Indians!

The Winco

[Fast but Safe]

I couldn't trust him as far as I can throw him. I fear the same answer would be valid for Liam Fox though.:ugh:

When will our blood sweat and tears be recognized by someone with large swingers that will look after us all. When the PM makes a remark about the brave young men and women that put their life on the line I just can't help but think that the diluted statement has no meaning anymore.

Strong leadership that is hard but fair carries respect from the guys on the front line. Let's see some iron put back into our armed forces or I fear we will be the laughing stock of our military partners.

FbS

P.S. Des Browne said to Liam Fox today, he should ask the armed forces if they are behind him...... The high rankers will of course back him or they'll get moved to the store room. Ask the lower ranks and you'll find the real answers. Talk about digging your own grave!

[No Vote Joe]

Wasn't the last one John Reid? :confused:

[maxburner]

I have every bit as much confidence in Mr Browne as I have in the good taste and judgement of our own dear Deputy PM.

In fact, I think the whole crew are pretty much out of the same mold.

[SET 18]

Well, I have met Mr Browne and spent quite a long time in his company ininterrupted. I formed the impression that he was a very trustworthy individual I must say. He did not convey any impressions of insincerity or incompetence to me.

Indeed, he was particularly praising and ernest in his dealings with us, and all of us formed a similar opinion of him. I know that they say that, once you can master insincerity you can make it as a politician, but I really was quite impressed by him.

To that end, his behaviour today was just what I would have expected of him; an honest admission that he had made a mistake. I do not support his party in any form, but I was quite impressed with his admission today.

He who has never made an honest mistake should cast the first stone...

[Heliport]

According to the news this evening, Des Browne has the backing of each of the individual heads of the Armed Services
Browne said once the decision had been taken to allow the individuals to talk to the media, this raised a second question: Should they be allowed to make money out of selling their stories?
This second question was considered by the Navy over the same short period.
The Navy concluded that payments were "Permissible" under Queen's Regulations, and that in this particular situation it was "impractical to attempt to prevent" them.
This was the position presented to me in a note sent from the Navy's HQ in Portsmouth to my office on Thursday afternoon, and which was put to me on Good Friday. I accept that in retrospect I should have rejected the note and overruled the decision.

If that's true and either the 2SL or FSL made the decision on behalf of the Navy, wouldn't that make it difficult for them and maybe the heads of the other two services to say they have no confidence in Browne because he failed to over-rule the Navy's bad decision? :confused:

[nigegilb]

I hope nobody is surprised by the actions and comments of the New Labour Top Brass.

They left their uniform behind a few ranks ago....

[Flik Roll]

No.

Can we have a poll.... please :E

[Winch-control]

In reply to the afore mentioned question. Simply...NO!

[Mick Smith]

All this blaming of the navy is complete garbage and I'm surprised he's got away with it. D News's organisation told the navy there was no way they were going to be able to stop the families selling their stories - without the MoD/Navy having any control - so they had better sort it out. The navy then comes up with the plan. Browne said it was "one of my officials" who talked him through the plan, not a matelot. So was that official not complicit in the plan?
As for CGS 1SL and CAS backing Browne, what were they supposed to do? Stirrup rings them up, or gets them in, and at best asks do you have confidence in SoS? What are they going to say? Even if they give a qualified response, he can go away and say we all have confidence in him.

[Winch-control]

Does
Anyone have any confidence anymore? How many times to be let down...That starts with the stars...and stops with the gov. Past time...

[Rude C'man]

NONE, in any of the suits that sit in Whitehall , NON in PMA Non in JPA NONE full stop , its time to pack up go get a suit and take my chances outside me thinks !!! or maybe sit the last 5 yrs out to tsake that big fat cheque and retire to the sun !! I watched Parliment today , and what a JOKE!

[vecvechookattack]

It is not the job of members of the Armed Forces to pick and choose who the SofS for Defence is. It has no bearing whatsoever, whether our Sailors, Soldies and Airmen have confidence in the SofS or not. Indeed the last SofS that I had any confidence in was Tarzan. He, for one was a bloke who stood up for his principals, stood up to Mrs T and when it became clear that his voice was not being heard he promptly resigned. Irony was that he was correct all along.

[Joe Black]

No, he's a co£k with a shocking hairdo.

[MooseJaw]

I would suggest that the Military - so long as they do their job - have just as much right to express confidence and/or preference in their leadership as ... say a Political Party has the right to change its Leader and political focus without reference to the electorate?!

Actually, given the respective work nature, remuneration packages and associated job risks of the military and political environments - perhaps your observations would be better directed towards any political party that might be contemplating such leadership changes?
:ok:

[Wyler]

He is not up to the job.


Just like the very senior officers who advise him. They too, are a disgrace.

[Tappers Dad]

Having met Des Browne at my son's repatriation service I found him to be a very genuine caring guy. He has been put in this job when our armed forces are overstretched and the death toll is rising all the time. I think he is doing the best he can and we all know allowing the sailors to tell their stories was for propaganda purposes. We were offered large amounts of cash after the Nimrod crash to tell our story but choose to talk to who we wanted and have never received any money.So I don't agree with the payment side of the story.

[Inspector Dreyfuss]

I think the vast majority of today's politicians fail to understand the ethos of the military. Moreover, the incumbents in the FO, DPM and many other offices fail to inspire a great deal of confidence. In an age of instant celibrity that revels in profound ignorance and values reading about the love lives of the Royals over substance then perhaps the public gets the political leadership it deserves. On the other side things of the political fence things are not a great deal different with the leader of the opposition a somewhat shallow character presiding over a party that was responsible for 'Options for Change' and the sale of the Families' Quarters.
The present Defence Secretary does appear to have some standards - he does not appear in combat jackets riding in the top of tanks, nor does he make cheap political capital out of glad handing relatives. I despair to think what will happen when Broon takes over at No 10 though.

[airborne_artist]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/04/17/matt.gif

[dallas]

A couple of fairly reliable sources tell me Browne is a decent chap and the best of the recent series of choppers to do the job. Sure, he's a politician but that's a qualification unfortunately. What I did like, especially for a minister of our outgoing Labour government, was his statement that the buck stops with him - a rare admission indeed from this lot! He's also been given the poison chalice of defence at a particularly sh1tty time and while tradition tends to fashionably call for the head's head, there's something to be said for keeping someone in a job for more than a few months to allow them to actually do some good. Obviously the RAF don't and look at the state we're in.

He made a mistake. He stuck his hand up - whether it was actually him or not - so I'm warming to him. When the Tories win by default in the next election we could get a lot worse.

[GasFitter]

Who has ever liked any SofS.

He said he got it wrong and admitted so in light of senior naval officers advice. What more do you want from him? Oh, a resignation, that';ll really help us all .. NOT! If you get rid of him, who's next in line to come in? Someone that has to be 'spooled up' to speeed on Defence issues. He seems pretty genuine and from the comments of people who actually work with him, seems an upright and honest bloke.

If he ignores the senior military, everyone's up in arms ... if he supports them, everyone's up in arms! No win.

For all those having a dig, what's your answer once he goes? Who would you want? Milliband, Primarolo, Blunkett, Darling, Clarke ......

We're always slaves to the politicians .. that's life! Welcome to the real world.

[allan907]

plus ca change!

The inimitable Fred Mulley (also Labour - but that's probably just a huge and unfortunate coincidence)

He is best remembered for falling asleep during the Queen's Jubilee Review of the Royal Air Force at RAF Finningley in 1977 when there was considerable noise around him. Having a small sleep during exercise was referred to by members of the RAF as having a "Fred Mulley". It was suggested in the satirical magazine Private Eye that Mulley was guilty of treason (then still a capital offence) for having slept with the Queen.

[chippy63]

He may come across as caring, decent etc, but I think the whole apology, which had to be wrung out of him, is a cynical timesaving device- he is one of broon's men, broon will look after him, but not just yet. This was purely a holding exercise to tide him over to the "leadership" change at Labour HQ. Did you see the smirk on his face on the photo of him leaving MoD to go to the commons?

[Release-Authorised]

Admiral A B Cunningham, Commander of the Mediterranean Fleet during WWII famously said about the risks of evacuating Allied troops from Crete in 1941:

"It takes 3 years to build a ship - it takes 300 years to build a tradition. The Army needs our help. Let's go".

Sadly, the attitude of our current crop of politicians/leaders is:

"How much will it cost and can we do it cheaper".

Witness the destruction of the regimental system etc. The politicians are only interested in their own jobs and egos - not the moral and welfare of its forces and what is best for their departments and the Country.

The SoS is responsible for the Armed Forces as a whole - we would happily put up with hardships and fighting if we were given back the respect and rewards that have traditionally been ours. Sadly, despite being a nice chap (apparantly) , the current SoS does not seem to have a clue about leadership and our way of life: we are just a balance sheet to him. He needs to stand up to the treasury on our behalf and not act as a sycophant to the man who is potentially his future boss. We don't want a "nice man" - we want someone to act on our behalf despite intimidation from the wretched NL spin machine who are only interested in saving money to attempt to buy into the marginal seats at the next election.

Rant Over

RA

[general all rounder]

I don't think the strengths and weaknesses of individual Secretaries of State have an awful lot of relevance in explaining our woes. The current incumbent is as good as any we've had recently.

The electorate is not very well informed of the relative needs of the various government departments; the electorate generally wants better schools and hospitals because that's the bit of the public sector which they see and use most. They also want lower taxes.

The British media are extremely partisan for the most part, present opinion as news and grossly distort arguments of public interest to fit particular editorial positions. They are also entirely disinterested in the boring but important detail of public policy. Scandals sell newspapers not policy debates. Furthermore the public sector broadcaster, the BBC, has allowed most of its news output to become shallow, sensationalist tabloid nonsense. I remember John Craven's newsround having more substantial content than the 6 O'Clock News today. The shockingly poor quality of the news media today, unless like me you rely on AP, Reuters and the FT leaves the majority of the electorate as ignorant on matters of public policy as it has ever been. Politicians respond by touting policy which is eye-catching but frivolous.

To remain in power politicians have to respond to the wants of the electorate, that's how democracies work. The needs of the Armed Forces are not presented in any meaningful way to the electorate which, for the most part, has little knowledge of what we do. Consequently, we are not a political priority in the way health and education are.

The UK spends more cash on its armed forces than any other Country in the World except the United States, expenditure which currently sits at about 2.4% of GDP. This is a proportion of the nation's expenditure which has been the norm in times of peace in the past. The problem for us is that we are embroiled in 2 medium scale wars. In the past, medium scale wars, (Crimea, Boer) caused 6% of the nation's GDP to be spent on Defence. There is therefore a good argument that Defence should be getting a bigger slice of the cake at present but the media won't print that because its more boring than the latest MOD equipment scandal.

The other problem is that defence costs go up at the rate of 6.9% per annum, significantly higher than the CPI on which our budget increases are based. The causes for this are wage costs (careful everybody) and equipment cost increases largely caused by the relative lack of competition in the Defence Industry as well as high R&D costs recouped over reducing equipment sales. Each year therefore Defence gets a real cut of about 4%. Finally, for foreign policy reasons the UK seeks to retain a broad range of capabilities to face a broad range of future contingencies. Great, except that the 4% year on year cut means each capability gets hollowed out to a greater or lesser extent and we risk critical failure in some of them. Vice an increase in the Defence Budget or a significant decrease in defence inflation it could be argued that a major defence capability (or two) will have to be cut completely to provide the headroom for the rest to remain viable.

Detail aside that's why we're in the mess we're in, you can't pin it all on the Defence Secretary.

[cornish-stormrider]

is it me or did that last one actually make sense??

[nigegilb]

You forgot to add that a major reason for the lack of investment in the sort of warfare that UK AF have been involved in in recent years is the insistence by the Top Brass to procure equipment fit for the Cold War, but not the kind of asymmetric warfare fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. Until the upper echelons are staffed by officers who understand this kind of warfare our Defence Budget will continue to be wasted on extremely expensive toys. I notice FLYNX has doubled in cost. Why not buy a shed load of combat proven Russian helos at a fraction of the price. The argument for pushing on with these projects completely ignores the terrible loss of life that is occurring as a result of agreeing to open a 2nd front in Afg without adequate manning or equipment. I would agree that a significant increase in the Defence Budget is required but I do not have any confidence that the Top Brass will spend it in the required areas.

[GeeRam]

The needs of the Armed Forces are not presented in any meaningful way to the electorate which, for the most part, has little knowledge of what we do.

And this ever decreasing vicious circle of the deepening chasm between public and AF will get worse with the every further budget cut.

The smaller our AF get the less exposure to the public and more hidden from site it'll get.

In years gone by, with RAF, RN and Army bases here there and everywhere holding at home days, open days, meet and great etc., local displays and of course the much missed traditional Royal Tournament at the height of the London tourist season and school hols, the public could get far closer AF could foster better understanding and relations.

Now virtually all gone.......it's therefore not surprising that joe public below a certain age has far less knowledge/understanding or interest in AF than 30+ years ago or even longer.

The saying of "Out of site, out of mind" is a very apt one.

[general all rounder]

You forgot to add that a major reason for the lack of investment in the sort of warfare that UK AF have been involved in in recent years is the insistence by the Top Brass to procure equipment fit for the Cold War, but not the kind of asymmetric warfare fought in Iraq and Afghanistan.


The Cold War equipment being delivered today was ordered and committed to in the Cold War. Equipment is procured to serve a long time and has to be flexible and capable of responding to a range of different contingencies. If you procure Russian helos today only to find that tomorrow you're confronting the Russians how valuable would your investment have been? The way forward is to have a range equipment in Service which is flexible enough to be used for lots of different things and designed to be reconfigured and upgraded.

[nigegilb]

I disagree, and I would not be surprised if we lose some of the Typhoons ordered. What we actually need right now is more men. The Army desperately needs more troops, but I notice that was not on your list. The Top Brass have continued to agree to a run down of manpower over a period of years. We are now in a desperate manpower position, only masked by a continual drawdown of personnel. What use was Trident in the recent showdown with Iran? The patrol craft that the RN used to operate are acually up for sale. Your answer could have come straight from the lips of an MoD spokesman. I only hope that the Inquiry announced yesterday will be far reaching and not a whitewash. In your rush to excuse the incapability Browne you overlooked the fact that we are at war and we need strong leadership by both Top Brass and Ministers. I see little on offer from either. As a result personnel are sent to war in rubber dinghys and combat proven Russian helos are ignored for expensive machinery, delivered late, with safety equipment stripped out - as standard.
As a foot note, just how long do you think we are going to be in Afg? Some Western Govts are working on 25 years. Or do you prefer the MoD John Reid line of our troops being out in 36 months without a shot being fired?

[Roadster280]

I think some of the problem is that as equipment capability increases, there's a perception that this capability increase means fewer ships/aircraft/tanks are necessary to fulfil the role, rather than say that the same number of ships have 3x the firepower of the previous ships.

The reason I say this, is that for some tasks, sheer quantity, rather than quality, is required.

Example 1. Op Corporate. Many frigates & destroyers employed as missile screens. 4 x vessels sunk, at least as many again damaged. No capital warships lost. Doesnt matter how many shells the thing can fire, or how good the ASW kit is, the physical presence of the ship was what mattered.

Example 2. Numbers of inf bns. Steadily reduced, as things like Warrior came in. So what if the Warrior is faster and better armed than the FV432? The troops they carry are what matters when you're occupying ground.

In my view, it's the job of the SofS to get the funding in place from the Treasury to provide what the Service Chiefs tell him is needed. If he/she fails to do so, then either a) they are failing their troops, or b) the Service Chiefs aren't asking for the right funding.

Of course it would be ridiculous to have a vote of no confidence in CDS, wouldn't it?

[The Swinging Monkey]

general all rounder
Your comment "The way forward is to have a range equipment in Service which is flexible enough to be used for lots of different things" I believe to be part of our problem in this country.
By it's very nature, military equipment should be designed to combat a specific threat or to achieve a specific purpose. Trying to get one bit of kit to 'do all' is folly, and all you end up with a bit of kit that does lots of things.... rarther badly!
Look at Tornado as an example. Ground Attack/Bomber? yep OK, wouldn't argue about whether it's good or bad, but turn it into a fighter as well (F3) I rest my case Sir!
I believe that the SoS is there to support the armed services and fight for what the COS's want and get it from the treasury. Now if the chiefs don't ask, they won't get. But I am certain that they will have been asking for a lot, and have been given diddly squat. So it is now up to them to start shouting and bleating from the tallest mast that things are bad. Infact, do what the 15 RN bods did and give a press conference to the British public, telling them that they can no longer do their job, because Bliar and Brown won't give 'em the money.
Its no good waiting till they leave the service, thats just a waste of time. They must do it whilst they are still in uniform if it is to any any value and creedance whatsoever.
So CAS, its over to you Sir.........................................
TSM

[Pontius Navigator]

Is it my imagination but are there some big hitters joining pprune?

As for the Top Brass to procure equipment fit for the Cold War, but not the kind of asymmetric warfare fought in Iraq and Afghanistan., the CAS said only last month that we must ensure our equipment is capable of matching not only the current threat, but the threat in 2025. He said there was one thing of which we could be sure. The threat in 2025 would not be the one we were facing now.

Given that, what would you advocate? By lots of cheap and cheerful today and replace it all tomorrow?

[nigegilb]

PN, I guess you are referring to strategic thinking and strategic procurement. Golly, would have been refreshing if some of the Brass had exercised a bit of strategic thinking when agreeing to the Iraq war, or the 2nd front in Afghanistan. However, once you agree to those ops you are duty bound to look after the people who are fighting in them. One of the major reasons for the level of discontent now is the disconnect between the red rosette wearing Top Brass and the blokes on the ground. No amount of strategic procurement is going to sort that out. I say again the biggest shortfall is a lack of manpower, don't hear CDS or CAS talking about that do we. They just agree yet another draw down. Ridiculous.

[Pontius Navigator]

nige,

creek and paddle come to mind.

On the question, yes, I think I do have confidence in Dismal Des, OTOH I am not sure, I think . . .

Just who could do it?

[Roadster280]

Nicholas Soames?

[Pontius Navigator]

We certainly couldn't do any brown water work with Slim Nick.

[Roadster280]

Maybe the problem is in the system of government. Secretaries of State really have to be MPs, though I do understand that occasionally peers will do, though even they, it appears, will be fully elected in the future. Being an elected official, they have to make themselves electable.

Rather than being focussed from the outset on matters military, they have to be jacks of all trades, with the attendant lack of mastery. Furthermore, aspirant MPs probably have the aim of the Premiership, not a lower Cabinet office. So Defence is not their primary aim nor consideration. I don't suppose Margaret Beckett grew up saying "I want to be Foreign Secretary one day".

For continuity, we have the senior Civil Servants; though these people do not appear to be remotely connected to the coalface. Oddly, this is in contrast to MPs, who will in fact go on a jolly every now and then to the less dangerous parts of Aunty Betty's train set. They have to make themselves appear electable, don't they?

[Pontius Navigator]

I don't suppose Margaret Beckett grew up saying "I want to be Defence Secretary one day".

Now there is a thought. At least she is used to living rough, using a kazzie in the field etc, just like Monty.

Then there is the Carry on the Kyber scene raising their skirts.

[dogrobber]

you should understand that in the last 20 to 30 yrs def secs have always been picked in the understanding that they are totally subservient to the treasuary.... met geoff personally once( a real eye opener )it was in an operational capacity and he didnt have a clue what was goin on till we told cas and then he ,sheepishly had to go and brief him , it was hilarious to see him in a tent eating ice cream and totally ignorant of the various metaphorical bombs dropping around him, that just about sums up most ill appointed ministerial ,uninformed, un educated ,and above all un safe def secs.

[Old Ned]

Perhaps Patricia Hewitt would be better? (She may have better legs!):yuk: ;)