New Defence Secretary

[sharpend]

I may be doing Gavin Williamson a disservice, but is he really the right man for the job? Look up his history.

[Alison Conway]

Sharpie,

Looking back over the Sec Defs since I joined in 1970 there have been a few good men and a whole heap of plonkers. Those that spring to mind: Carrington - carried the can for Falklands unpreparedness; "Sleepy" Fred Mulley - embarrassment; Pym - Sec Def for a while then sacked as FM; Nott - offered to resign over how the Falklands campaign was going - but told to stay where he was by MT; Hesletine - resigned over Westland Affair; "Buff" Hoon - enough said; Hutton - lasted 6 months then resigned politics altogether; Ainsworth - named as one of the highest spenders in Allowances Scandal; Fox - not bad but then let his best man and friend into defence meetings and had to resign; Hammond - over promoted and with high ideas of further promotion.

So, do we give the guy some room to show himself, and Spiderman is a cool nickname!

[Willard Whyte]

Judging the book entirely by its cover, he looks an unctuous little git.

[Alison Conway]

Is that not part of the job spec?

[ShotOne]

OK, so if we don't like this new fellow, who then? By the standards presently being demanded its hard to see how ANY politician from any party will measure up.

[FantomZorbin]

Heaven forfend that it should be someone with military experience! :ugh:

[Frostchamber]

Too hard to read how it will go at this stage. On the one hand, he is clearly no pushover and is an operator. He will also want to make an impression and is high tempo. On the other, he appears to have got up the nose of some of the men in grey suits, there being some disapproval swirling about how he came into the job, including his part in that. As has been said, guess we have to give him a chance and keep everything crossed...

[gijoe]

OK, so if we don't like this new fellow, who then? By the standards presently being demanded its hard to see how ANY politician from any party will measure up.

Penny Mourdaunt, Mark Lancaster, Tobias Ellwood?

They all know quite a bit about Defence....but, no, let's have someone who probably gave himself the job and knows very little about the portfolio.

:D

[muppetofthenorth]

OK, so if we don't like this new fellow, who then? By the standards presently being demanded its hard to see how ANY politician from any party will measure up.

Tom Tugendhat
Hard to disagree with his credentials (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Tugendhat)

[gijoe]

Tom Tugendhat
Hard to disagree with his credentials (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Tugendhat)

Caution warning on this one....gained from working experience.

[BEagle]

TT has also been rather too close to VSOs in his military service, so would be influenced through the old boy network? Also, it would be hard to imagine that his policies would anything other than pongo-centric...

Anyway, thanks to the stupid plebiscite last year and Mother Mayday's daft idea to hold a general election earlier this year, I can't see the government staying in power for much longer, particularly if the Labour mob can bin Comrade Corbychev...

[gijoe]

BEagle,

pongo-centric...FFS...get over it!

[muppetofthenorth]

TT has also been rather too close to VSOs in his military service, so would be influenced through the old boy network? Also, it would be hard to imagine that his policies would anything other than pongo-centric...


And anybody who served in the RAF of the last ~10 years didn't serve in, according to you, the 'real' RAF, so they don't count either.


When you look around and see something wrong with everybody, maybe the real problem is you...?

[Onceapilot]

Hmmm. What is more important is that the Pollies get a grip on UK Defence policy. It seems to me that we have a dichotomy of political opinion that varies between making War with anyone we disagree with and, withdrawing from any conflict. The result is a terrible mish-mash of hollowed-out capabilities because the UK cannot afford real "war-with-anyone" armed forces strength. IMO, part of the responsibility of the government is to have a clearly defined policy on defence that is fully funded and would definitely be able to achieve the stated policy. The Service Chiefs should provide the specialist knowledge to achieve the Government policy. Unfortunately, the last 50 years or so seem to have been a bunfight between the Services as the funds have shrunk and the Government has asked for capabilites that we cannot afford, against a Defence policy that is ill-defined. :*

[Chinny Crewman]

The way the current government are performing I suspect that before long Nia Griffith will be the first female to hold the post.
We'll have something to moan about then!

[Heathrow Harry]

we don't expect the Home Secretary to be an ex-copper, the Minister of Health an ex-doctor or nurse etc etc so why should the MoD be run by an ex-military man?

And if he was the matelots would complain if he wsn't one of them, likewise the RAF & Army...............

If he has any sense he'll have extracted a few promises re funding before he took the job.................

[Haraka]

With respect to Beags our generation saw a major shift on how defence budgets worked.'
When we joined. the respective Chiefs of Staffs submitted their requirements estimates to government for negotiation and settlement .'
Then,it changed. Basically Government said "This is what we've got ,sort it out among yourselves as to how it will be spent".$
The door was then open to those currying political favour.

"The RAF ? Stretched ,but not over-stretched Minister."

[charliegolf]

The new guy was described yesterday by a female MP (Tory) as "A self-serving c**t."

From a polllie. Ironic eh?

[NutLoose]

Fallon had stepped down on Wednesday night, admitting that his conduct towards women in the past had fallen short of the standards expected of the armed forces (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/01/michael-fallon-quits-as-defence-secretary), of which he was in charge.

Really? I have heard worse in the NAFF 1

[NutLoose]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/nov/02/theresa-may-seeks-fallon-replacement-as-davidson-calls-for-wider-clearout-of-sexist-politicians-politics-live?page=with:block-59faf97aa2f1ae05ff6eb789#block-59faf97aa2f1ae05ff6eb789

Intersting quotes

Text from senior Tory MP about Gavin Williamson: "He's out of the ****storm. Knifed Fallon and pinched his job. It's way above his ability."

Fallon timeline: Gavin Williamson tells PM that Fallon might have to go. Fallon goes. Williamson gets his job

One minister tells me ‘She is so weak she has let Williamson appoint himself-this is appalling’

There are times when offered a job that it would be better to advise that another would be more experienced & suited to the role.

Another minister:" Gavin is an appalling appointment. He's never stepped foot in a dept + now he's running one of the most important"

Minister tells me: "She's gone mad. It's real 'end of days' stuff. He's [Williamson] a real slimeball, w/ his own leadership team in place"

[VX275]

Are we going to see the RAF reform 127 Sqn to get into this chaps good books?

[brakedwell]

Tom Tugendhat "After attending St Paul's School, London, he studied Theology at the University of Bristol."

A direct line to God might help, because the Tories will need a miracle to extradite themselves from this mess.

[Easy Street]

I think it is better that the SofS is not ex-military. HH's point is well-made and 2 of the services would always feel themselves to be on the back foot..

Any comparison with the US is invalid. Because UK ministers typically need to serve as MPs first, most of the UK ex-mil who have made it to ministerial office left the services as mid-rankers, largely tactical in experience and without the breadth of joint perspective of a 4* like Mattis (who can be appointed without needing to establish a political career). Also, each of the US services has its own minister and civil servants to fight its corner in any disagreements. By contrast, the UK MoD is effectively a single 'joint' ministry, so it is vital that its ministers are as objective as possible. Single-service 'baggage' is unlikely to be helpful in that regard.

All that said, there must have been a better candidate, surely?

[roving]

However unlike many in Parliament he did work in the real world before becoming an MP.

There are always some willimg to mouth off anyone appointed to any post there. It is in the nature of the game played out.

I agree that appointing a former Army Lt Col would have been a disaster. Not sure the Generals would enjoy being ordered about by him either.

https://s1.postimg.org/72pn6vp6kf/Screen_Shot_2017-11-03_at_14.51.56.png (https://postimages.org/)

[Melchett01]

Penny Mourdaunt, Mark Lancaster, Tobias Ellwood?

They all know quite a bit about Defence....but, no, let's have someone who probably gave himself the job and knows very little about the portfolio.

:D

The bad news - he knows nothing about Defence. The next few months are going to be hardwork. Then again, that would be no change you might say.

The good news - it's never a bad thing to have a boss who's close to the PM.

The second bit of bad news - we don't know how long the PM will be PM.

[Onceapilot]

He will do well if he can write the hymn sheet and make everyone follow it. My expectation is, he will force a major review of Defence policy and it will mean cuts of things we don't need to do with expenditure pegged at 2%. At the same time, I think he will also get rid of the 1% cap, maybe next summer. :D

OAP

[MPN11]

But surely launching a 'Major Defence Review' is the obvious first step on taking up office? This proves you are a "Person of Action", and establishes your credentials for the future.

Subsequently, the Government falls (63.8% probability) or the incumbent is re-shuffled by the incumbent PM (83.2 % prob).

* Percentages extracted from PoliticsForKids.com ;)

[Melchett01]

At the same time, I think he will also get rid of the 1% cap, maybe next summer.

The cap is already history as far as policy is concerned, there's too much momentum now not to get rid of it.

But to say it's pay rises all round isn't a given. Fallon himself, at a recent Defence Town Hall I sat in on, said there is no cash for a rise above 1%. If it's 1%+ all round, then there need to be cuts elsewhere; more likely is 1%+ for certain areas and less for others. I don't see that changing regardless of who is running the place.

[Melchett01]

Thinking further, I did like the line he gave in a speech, paraphrasing "I don't believe in stick but you can get a lot done with a sharpened carrot".

Looks like he has a sense of humour.

He'll need one.

[MPN11]

Thinking further, I did like the line he gave in a speech, paraphrasing "I don't believe in stick but you can get a lot done with a sharpened carrot".

Looks like he has a sense of humour.

He'll need one.So will the currently-serving members of HM Forces, and the pensioners.

[Trim Stab]

Tom Tugendhat "After attending St Paul's School, London, he studied Theology at the University of Bristol."

A direct line to God might help, because the Tories will need a miracle to extradite themselves from this mess.

Don't deprecate or trivialise Theology as a degree subject. Perhaps if it were "rebranded" as "Wisdom" it would be more contemporary.

[Onceapilot]

Melchy, my view is based on the political situation. Generally, there are few votes in Defence spending (until it gets too late!) and, at the present time, increasing spending on other domestic issues is becoming important to maintain enough popular support for the Tories. Therefore, I judge that Defence spending will take a hit in the near future. Spreadsheet Phil will bank on that (but not say) in his calculations for the Budget. The Defence cuts will have to be limited to keep to about 2% GNP. As far as the 1% Public pay limit, I see that falling to the wayside in stages.
Opposition to Defence spending cuts from the Service chiefs will be tempered by the (political) Defence review and, the hard fact that, if the VSOs don't like it, they would be dealing with far worse cuts if Corbyn and co get enough popular support. :oh: Just the way I see it. ;)

[Cazalet33]

Don't deprecate or trivialise Theology as a degree subject. Perhaps if it were "rebranded" as "Wisdom" it would be more contemporary.

For centuries the imposition of superstition was branded as "wisdom", on pain of death preceded by ghastly torture for anyone who questioned the crappy dogma that was handed down from a pulpit.

We still fight religious wars militarily: currently an Abrahamic religion is in the cross-hairs --- not for the first time!

We "send a strong message" by immolating them, not at the stake but at the push of a button, with missiles which have biblical names such as Hellfire and Brimstone.

The Church of England has been described as the Tory party at prayer. This Minister of Defence has been appointed for his beliefs, not for his ministerial experience.

Gawd help us all!

[airpolice]

Imagine if you will, a new broom sweeping clean.

He could cancel the F35 order and buy a less capable, but more suitable, and far cheaper aircraft.

How good would that be... imagine the MOD actually gearing up for this war and the next, instead of the one before last?

For anyone rushing to type a list of reasons why we need Typhoons and F35s to see off the Soviet Hordes, I refer you to my comments on the Nimrod while under threat, and all of those on here who said we couldn't do without LRMPA, Mil SAR all over the UK, our own tanker fleet etc. etc.

We are at war with nobody as much as we are at war with white van man, where the van is white, but maybe not the man.

Not only do the great unwashed not care about Russian Bombers 200 miles east of Aberdeen at 410 heading west, they really, really do care about a guy beheading passengers on the East Coast mainline trains.

I for one, think they are right to be more worried about the real threats.

Perhaps Nuclear Weapons are the answer to terrorists, perhaps not. They certainly seem to be the answer to raising the share price of the people selling them.

Why don't the Irish have nuclear attack subs and Typhoons and aircraft carriers? Why do the Swedish Navy not have nuclear subs, capable of melting rocks? Could it be that they have decided to spend their money on emptying the bins every week instead?

The new guy really has got a huge selection of expensive things that he could cut. Without causing the UK public any real harm.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Airpolice,

I'm not an expert on where HMG wants us to go next (expect the unexpected) but you don't just need F35 to go to war with Russia. Anything from Syria upwards would warrant F35 if you actually want some kind of freedom of mvr. In ten years time that kind of tech will be trickling to a lot of other places around the world and I'd rather have an F35 looking over my shoulder than a Gripen or souped up F15/18. (Be nice to have some Growlers along for the ride as well though, admittedly).

[Cazalet33]

Why do the Swedish Navy not have nuclear subs, capable of melting rocks? Could it be that they have decided to spend their money on emptying the bins every week instead?

Buggah! You've done bust the code.

The new guy really has got a huge selection of expensive things that he could cut. Without causing the UK public any real harm.

Yup. A dogfighter was a really useful tool when aerial dogfighting was a mode of warfare. Not any more, but it used to be.

Similarly, an ability to joust with lances on horseback was a really worthwhile technology to indulge, once upon a time. Not any more, but it used to be.

How useful is an F-35 against a nutter who drives a van along a crowded pavement?

What use would any of that style of equipment be if a Francoist government decided to walk across the runway in Gib and militarily take control of the place 'back' to the rest of Spain?

Can we rely on the F&CO to signal to Mod that such an invasion is forthcoming?

Will they do so in sufficient time to allow MoD to charter SS Canberra and Herald of Free Enterprise and a few other collections of ferrous oxide to go down there with a brass band and a coupla hundred squaddies to sort out the swarthies?

Is the gumment Chief Whip up to the task?

[airpolice]

pba, it's sticking our nose into Syria that got people killed in London. People were already dying in Syria, "we" are not helping (us) there any more than "we" helped in Libya.

HM's next G might well have a better agenda, with more focus on protecting our own people.

Let the Russians assist Syria to do what they will to the region. The US will resolve it, if it becomes a real danger.

[Cazalet33]

squaddies with guns and ammo

Guns and ammo?

Now you are stretching the plonker's budget.

Blaircraft carriers don't pay for themselves y'know. Then there's the berthing fees for the long black things to go alongside at King's Bay. And stuff.

You really can't have it all, y'know.

[Heathrow Harry]

and to be blunt - why do we need Gib. if we're not going to fight wars in the Med & N Africa?

[PPRuNeUser0139]

You really can't have it all, y'know.

It's the fantasy promoted to the electorate that we always "punch above our weight". Why can't we simply punch at our weight? We're no longer the 19th century colossus that stood astride the world, painting it pink wherever we trod.
Dean Acheson's observation that "Great Britain has lost an Empire and has not yet found a role" is as true today as it was in 1962 when he said it.
As a starting point, it would be helpful if our Lords & Masters could decide what our weight should be. Now would be a good time to do it as we separate from European institutions and aspire to a different world role.

[Onceapilot]

It's the fantasy promoted to the electorate that we always "punch above our weight". Why can we simply punch at our weight? We're no longer the 19th century colossus that stood astride the world, painting it pink wherever we trod.
Dean Acheson's observation that "Great Britain has lost an Empire and has not yet found a role" is as true today as it was in 1962 when he said it.
As a starting point, it would be helpful if our Lords & Masters could decide exactly what our weight is.

Quite so sidevalve. Spreadsheet Phil is right now trying to get his columns to add up and...he can't do it!
Similar situation in the '60s, UK poor, foreign military capabilities scrapped. FEAF, NEAF, Carriers, Army etc

OAP

[kaikohe76]

With the notable exception of Lord Carrington, there have been only two other honorable & very capable holders of this position for many years. Roy Mason & Merlyn Rees & yes both Labour Secreteries of Defence, with the exception of Lord Carrington, the rest of the Conservative lot, have been pathetic.

[Heathrow Harry]

It's not seen to be a very important job within the House of Commons - the only job nearer the door is whoever gets the Energy portfolio..................

Fallon was (almost) there for 3 years - AND THAT IS SOME SORT OF RECORD............ says it all really

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Airpolice

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but my point is that if HMG want to do such things (and I'm referring to taking on Syria the nation state and not the ops currently conducted with regime consent) then it doesn't need much time until you really need something like F35 to get the job done.

I'm not saying it's the right priority, but to suggest that F35 is only needed if we want to go to war with Russia/China is living firmly in the 90's.

[Basil]

and to be blunt - why do we need Gib. if we're not going to fight wars in the Med & N Africa?
How do we know what will happen in the future?
Why give away a British possession?
The Spanish government are desperate to turn public attention away from their economic woes and that was before Catalonia took off.

[tucumseh]

there have been only two other honorable & very capable holders

Two different attributes. I don't disagree about the latter. But I would say Malcolm Rifkind was more honourable than most, breaching long standing Parliamentary protocol by openly disagreeing with the findings of his civil servants and senior RAF officers over the Mull of Kintyre case; and saying so in the media. No, he didn't do it at the time, but he was lied to by the Air Staff, and immediately went public upon being shown the evidence. Similarly, although he still seriously misled Parliament, Liam Fox.

And, similarly, Des Browne over Nimrod XV230, ordering the Nimrod Review the very same day his junior ministers and MoD were lying through their back teeth to the media, having withheld the truth from their boss. Also, he fought hard for important changes to the Military Covenant, only to be overruled by Browne's "without significant cost" caveat. (Which Fallon reversed in a speech earlier this year, without media comment. Williamson won't stick to that promise I wager). And Browne was subject of perhaps the most disgraceful decision in recent times, to combine Secys of State for Defence and Scotland. Something you'd expect from the Tories, but not Labour. Just trying to be fair, in a time when very few Ministers have the slightest clue about how their Department works.

[scifi]

I feel rather ashamed that we ever left India, in a way leaving those good people to fend for themselves. We built up their country (much like the Romans did for us.) and gave them cricket and a railway system. Since we left, they have only slowly upgraded their railway system into the 21st century.
Having talked to several Indians, they are quite happy that we left, but they would say that wouldn't they.
.

[glad rag]

Airpolice

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but my point is that if HMG want to do such things (and I'm referring to taking on Syria the nation state and not the ops currently conducted with regime consent) then it doesn't need much time until you really need something like F35 to get the job done.

I'm not saying it's the right priority, but to suggest that F35 is only needed if we want to go to war with Russia/China is living firmly in the 90's.

Remind us when the F35 was designed....

[iRaven]

it's sticking our nose into Syria that got people killed in London

Airpolice

Oh dear, do you really believe that? The rise of Muslim extremism has been a long time coming - the Crusades, the fall of the Byzantine Empire, Palestine, Arab/Israeli War, the fall of the Shah of Iran, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Gulf Wars 1 and 2, the rise of Al Qaeda, the Arab Spring and rise of Daesh. If we had gone to Syria or not then Islamic Terrorism would still be around us - plenty of attacks/planned attacks in the UK before Syria.

As ever defence requires a balance of forces and a spectrum of capabilities to react to the unexpected. Who predicted the retaking of the Crimea by Russia or the taking of some Ukranian land? Finally, the Irish and Swedish that you mention rely upon the strength of its neighbouring allies in NATO - however, as nations within are not meeting their 2% GDP then this alliance is weaker than it should be. The UK is only barely meeting its share and it is one of NATO’s biggest spenders outside of the US.

Finally, no F35 then may as well sell off the Blaircraft Carriers. No ‘cats and traps’ means that its a one horse race of what can fly from them...

[airpolice]

Raven: Briefly, the great unwashed don't care about Crimea, and why can't we just rely on the Americans?

[Cazalet33]

Who predicted the retaking of the Crimea by Russia

What did we do with Crimea when we eventually conquered it and pinched it from the Russians?


We blew it to bits and buggered off.

[Cazalet33]

why can't we just rely on the Americans?

Oh, Good Grief!

Where should one start?!

[Dougie M]

Just remember the words of the sagacious Orange One. "America First"
The only president to say it out loud. The "Special Relationship" is a myth and if there is no threat from Putinia to the U.S. then NATO will be relegated to the desirable but not essential folder.

[DirtyProp]

The "Special Relationship" is a myth and if there is no threat from Putinia to the U.S. then NATO will be relegated to the desirable but not essential folder.As it should be.
Isn't it time we start growing a pair and stop relying on others to sort out our messes?

PS: by "we" I mean Europe.

[roving]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/05/iraq-weapons-mass-destruction-america-misled-britain-gordon-brown

[Basil]

Oh dear, do you really believe that? The rise of Muslim extremism has been a long time coming - the Crusades,
The Crusades didn't kick off Muslim violence.
Islam exploded out of Arabia Felix carrying the 'new message' by Quran and sword.
Where are Ferdinand & Isabella when you need them?

[Dougie M]

Charles Martel for Defence Secretary. Battle of Tours 732AD. Called Ma'arakat Balat ash-Shuhada by the other side. But for him we would all have prayer mats and a compass.

[iRaven]

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.

[Buster15]

Just remember the words of the sagacious Orange One. "America First"
The only president to say it out loud. The "Special Rnelationship" is a myth and if there is no threat from Putinia to the U.S. then NATO will be relegated to the desirable but not essential folder.

Of course the special relationship is a myth which simply demeans the UK in that we somehow need it. The Americans have little affinity to anyone else and why should they. They are certainly big enough not to need a relationship with us. What they do value though is our support when they flex their muscles in that our support somehow legitimises their actions.
The relationship between Mrs Thatcher and Regan was more personal than strategic. Gawd knows what will happen if they decide to take actions against NK...
They want America first so that proves their intentions and we should stand back and let them go alone.

[Heathrow Harry]

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.....................

[Buster15]

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.....................

I fully understand that much goes on beneath the surface. However, do you honestly believe that the benefits are equally shared?

[Pontius Navigator]

They are certainly big enough not to need a relationship with us.

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.

[Basil]

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.
The problem there is the combination of 'Church and State' with the Wahabis supporting al Saud so long as al Saud lay off the Wahabist medieval brand of Islam and permit them to call the religious shots.
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'.

[iRaven]

Buster 15

Here is just one of those special relationships detailed on the open internet...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement

[Jumping_Jack]

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.

[ricardian]

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.

[Wander00]

He'll fight the "defence" corner OK then........

[Onceapilot]

As I have said, he is there to do the cutting! :ooh: 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. :eek:

OAP

[Melchett01]

As I have said, he is there to do the cutting! :ooh: 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. :eek:

OAP

Further cuts, for that's what they are despite weasel word demands to call them adjustments, will be futile and damage UK standing at a time we are desperately pushing our global credentials.

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.

[ORAC]

What did we do with Crimea when we eventually conquered it and pinched it from the Russians? We didn’t pinch it......

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"........

[Finningley Boy]

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?:ouch:

FB:)

[Frostchamber]

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.

[VX275]

Expect some more outrageous outsourcing,
Make the navy look to its history - make them Privateers. It worked for Elizabeth 1

[Pontius Navigator]

Do we have a new Sec Def this week?






Yet :)

[Heathrow Harry]

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

[Pontius Navigator]

HH, remember DC used an axe and not a scalpel - Harrier and Nimrod.

[glad rag]

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..

[Heathrow Harry]

the way things are going we may never get to another Tory Review....

[Cazalet33]

Make the navy look to its history - make them Privateers. It worked for Elizabeth 1

Waddayamean?

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.

[Torquelink]

Should we have the RAF sub-let our aircrews out to the likes of Ryanair for a few quid?

Well, the RAF already lets a few tanker/transports out for a few quid . . .

[ICM]

Not at all sure about that. Isn't it the Airtanker consortium that leases the aircraft to users, including the RAF?

[Wander00]

Apparently new SofS made some comment about "services should properly reflect current society". Lovely letter in DT (just seen it reprinted in the Week that has just arrived) from Lt Col Ewen Southby-Tailyour, a just famous Royal Marine. He offers a counter view that RM (and by implication the other services) should not reflect nor be regarded as an all inclusive employer. He then lists classes and groups of people the Royal Marines would not employ, whilst employing those they can train to fight, withstand arduous conditions and if necessary kill with their bare hands. e trusts that such training and skills are not representative of modern society. I think he may be right and the SoS wrong. Or just maybe I am a dinosaur.

[Melchett01]

Apparently new SofS made some comment about "services should properly reflect current society". Lovely letter in DT (just seen it reprinted in the Week that has just arrived) from Lt Col Ewen Southby-Tailyour, a just famous Royal Marine. He offers a counter view that RM (and by implication the other services) should not reflect nor be regarded as an all inclusive employer. He then lists classes and groups of people the Royal Marines would not employ, whilst employing those they can train to fight, withstand arduous conditions and if necessary kill with their bare hands. e trusts that such training and skills are not representative of modern society. I think he may be right and the SoS wrong. Or just maybe I am a dinosaur.

No, I think you're right Wander00. It probably should, but leadership and command and ordering people to take life and risk their own is not a common characteristic across society. Unfortunately that isn't a viewpoint that tallies with the current views in many (not all) elements of society - revisionist, social media driven, popular authoritarianism with self-centred snowflake tendencies. Frankly I think society would be better if it came up to our level than we descended to its.

Controversial, I know. Donning tin hat and retreating to my 'safe space'!

[ORAC]

The Royal Marine is a regular contributor to the Daily Telegraph Letters columns. Address Ermington, not known to my chum on the Ermington Parish Council. Did I not know better, I might think the Royal Marine to be a 'plant.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewen_Southby-Tailyour

https://keyassets.timeincuk.net/inspirewp/live/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2015/08/LRfasttrack.jpg

[Wander00]

And ISTR provided information of inestimable value to the Falklands Campaign following previous visits by sailing yacht

[Pontius Navigator]

ORAC, my claim to fame was to be sitting behind him on 2 April 1982 when he was called out of a lecture at Senate House. A number of others were also called back to their offices as well.

[jindabyne]

WanderOO,

I agree strongly. You are by no means a dinosaur!