Do you have confidence in the Defence Secretary?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: N America
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vote of Confidence
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?
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?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Give him a break
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.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Clouseau's apartment block
Age: 57
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Welcome to the PPRUNE Lefty Workers Union of Complaining
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.
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.
Nixor ut Ledo
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: In a Beaut of a State
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
plus ca change!
The inimitable Fred Mulley (also Labour - but that's probably just a huge and unfortunate coincidence)
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.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Under a stone
Age: 68
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What price loyalty?
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
"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
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Age: 54
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Age: 54
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Last edited by nigegilb; 18th Apr 2007 at 23:04.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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 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?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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