Tory MP Douglas Carswell ‘punished’ for damning army kit
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tory MP Douglas Carswell ‘punished’ for damning army kit
From The Sunday Times
August 31, 2008
Tory MP Douglas Carswell 'punished' for damning army kit
Jonathan Calvert and Andy Rowell
A Conservative MP has been thrown off a parliamentary body after speaking up for Britain's "poorly equipped" troops in Afghanistan.
Douglas Carswell, MP for Harwich and Clacton, was excluded from the armed forces parliamentary scheme (AFPS) earlier this year for making outspoken attacks on the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and arms contractors following a trip to Kandahar as part of the scheme.
He revealed in parliament that troops are left without air cover because of inadequate helicopters. Carswell said the parliamentary scheme, which is financed by defence contractors and uses MoD resources, had attempted to censor him but he refused to be silenced.
"Having learnt from our troops on the ground some of the serious problems with helicopter shortages, and then raised the issue responsibly, I found myself slung off the scheme," he said.
"Worse, I discovered the scheme is funded by big businesses that might not want too many questions asked about the way the defence budget is currently being misspent."
The scheme was created more than 20 years ago by Sir Neil Thorne, a former Conservative MP. Its aim is to improve the quality of parliamentary debate on defence issues by giving MPs and peers some first-hand experience of the armed forces.
Last week Thorne said that Carswell was free to criticise who he liked. But the MP's membership was withdrawn after he suggested that defence companies were attempting to buy influence in parliament by giving money to the scheme.
"I haven't gone to all this trouble to build something up over 20 years to have it destroyed because somebody insists on dragging the AFPS name through the mud," Thorne said.
Carswell, 37, joined the armed forces scheme two years ago. He was given an honorary rank and was expected to wear a uniform while on visits to war zones. During the Kandahar trip in March 2007, he had a conversation with an RAF member about an "ancient" grounded Lynx helicopter. He was told that many Lynx craft were not compatible with the Afghan heat.
Back in the UK, the MP learnt that the MoD could have replaced the Lynx with US Black Hawk helicopters, but had already committed to a new Lynx generation apparently costing twice as much.
The Lynx are to be made in Britain by AgustaWestland, one of the three defence companies sponsoring the armed forces scheme. They each give £45,000 a year.
"The defence budget is being spent in the interests of some contractors, not our armed forces," Carswell claimed.
August 31, 2008
Tory MP Douglas Carswell 'punished' for damning army kit
Jonathan Calvert and Andy Rowell
A Conservative MP has been thrown off a parliamentary body after speaking up for Britain's "poorly equipped" troops in Afghanistan.
Douglas Carswell, MP for Harwich and Clacton, was excluded from the armed forces parliamentary scheme (AFPS) earlier this year for making outspoken attacks on the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and arms contractors following a trip to Kandahar as part of the scheme.
He revealed in parliament that troops are left without air cover because of inadequate helicopters. Carswell said the parliamentary scheme, which is financed by defence contractors and uses MoD resources, had attempted to censor him but he refused to be silenced.
"Having learnt from our troops on the ground some of the serious problems with helicopter shortages, and then raised the issue responsibly, I found myself slung off the scheme," he said.
"Worse, I discovered the scheme is funded by big businesses that might not want too many questions asked about the way the defence budget is currently being misspent."
The scheme was created more than 20 years ago by Sir Neil Thorne, a former Conservative MP. Its aim is to improve the quality of parliamentary debate on defence issues by giving MPs and peers some first-hand experience of the armed forces.
Last week Thorne said that Carswell was free to criticise who he liked. But the MP's membership was withdrawn after he suggested that defence companies were attempting to buy influence in parliament by giving money to the scheme.
"I haven't gone to all this trouble to build something up over 20 years to have it destroyed because somebody insists on dragging the AFPS name through the mud," Thorne said.
Carswell, 37, joined the armed forces scheme two years ago. He was given an honorary rank and was expected to wear a uniform while on visits to war zones. During the Kandahar trip in March 2007, he had a conversation with an RAF member about an "ancient" grounded Lynx helicopter. He was told that many Lynx craft were not compatible with the Afghan heat.
Back in the UK, the MP learnt that the MoD could have replaced the Lynx with US Black Hawk helicopters, but had already committed to a new Lynx generation apparently costing twice as much.
The Lynx are to be made in Britain by AgustaWestland, one of the three defence companies sponsoring the armed forces scheme. They each give £45,000 a year.
"The defence budget is being spent in the interests of some contractors, not our armed forces," Carswell claimed.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Planet Tharg
Posts: 2,472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Twas ever thus.
SA's nice new kit is hardly fit for purpose. That's assuming they can find anyone to operate it.
As long as the pollies are happy with their kickbacks I suppose that's all that counts really.
SA's nice new kit is hardly fit for purpose. That's assuming they can find anyone to operate it.
As long as the pollies are happy with their kickbacks I suppose that's all that counts really.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The defence budget is being spent in the interests of some contractors, not our armed forces," Carswell claimed.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect the "story" is more to do with the sponsors of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme not taking too kindly to an MP using his right to freedom of speech and promptly binning him.
John Purdey, do you have a view?
Tower of London for the MP for daring to criticize people who can't answer back?
John Purdey, do you have a view?
Tower of London for the MP for daring to criticize people who can't answer back?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nigegilb
From
House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 22 Mar 2007 (pt 0001)
Poor dears, (BAE, RR, AugWest), it's not propriety that prevents them answering back, rather that to do so would validate the assertion.
From
House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 22 Mar 2007 (pt 0001)
Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme
Mr. Carswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which companies financed the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme in each of the last five financial years; and how much was contributed by each. [128643]
Derek Twigg: We are profoundly grateful to the sponsors of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme (BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce, AugustaWestland and their predecessors). Since 2002 each has contributed an average of £40,500 per year to the scheme. We are also grateful to Sir Neil Thorne for the very considerable moral and financial support he has lent the scheme since its inception in 1989.
Mr. Carswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which companies financed the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme in each of the last five financial years; and how much was contributed by each. [128643]
Derek Twigg: We are profoundly grateful to the sponsors of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme (BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce, AugustaWestland and their predecessors). Since 2002 each has contributed an average of £40,500 per year to the scheme. We are also grateful to Sir Neil Thorne for the very considerable moral and financial support he has lent the scheme since its inception in 1989.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Surely even with the Defence budget as tight as it is £121,500 is still small change?
Wouldn't it be better for the money for the AFPS to come from relatively untainted sources within the MoD than from sources that invariably have an interest in, shall we say, a certain party line being followed?
I'd rather the military fronted the resources for educating MP's on what goes on in the military than one of our dubious manufacturing 'partners'.
Wouldn't it be better for the money for the AFPS to come from relatively untainted sources within the MoD than from sources that invariably have an interest in, shall we say, a certain party line being followed?
I'd rather the military fronted the resources for educating MP's on what goes on in the military than one of our dubious manufacturing 'partners'.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetex Jim, I am grateful to you.
Don't suppose you have a list of appointments where retired Chiefs of Air Staff and other seniors have gone to in recent years, would you?
Or shall we just use the same answer and call it quits?
I am told the history of Bowman is a cracker BTW....But he hasn't left yet.
Don't suppose you have a list of appointments where retired Chiefs of Air Staff and other seniors have gone to in recent years, would you?
Or shall we just use the same answer and call it quits?
I am told the history of Bowman is a cracker BTW....But he hasn't left yet.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or shall we just use the same answer and call it quits?
I am told the history of Bowman is a cracker BTW....But he hasn't left yet.
Do tell, this is just a rumour network after all...
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nigegilb
'Broken' £2.4bn radio put troops' lives in danger - Telegraph 23 Aug 2008 This is is a very sad story.
But I see that the NAO say that one of the errors was that no senior owner was actually assigned 'ownership' of the project. But you believe otherwise?
An infantry commander(Lt Col Nick Borton) in Helmand described the system, the second most expensive piece of equipment in British military history after the RAF's Eurofighter, as "astonishingly bad". ...All of the senior officers present at the meeting, which was witnessed by The Sunday Telegraph, accepted Col Borton's comments without question.
But I see that the NAO say that one of the errors was that no senior owner was actually assigned 'ownership' of the project. But you believe otherwise?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take a look and see how the project was "moved". I have a very good idea why it changed departments, so to speak, but I have to be very careful what I say. It is something "in process", if you know what I mean. But ask yourself, how can a Land comms project be moved to an airborne IPT?
Hopefully will be able to be less opaque about this subject in the near future.
I would argue that contrary to NAO Report (toothless organization that it is), there has been collusion at the highest levels over BOWMAN.
Hopefully will be able to be less opaque about this subject in the near future.
I would argue that contrary to NAO Report (toothless organization that it is), there has been collusion at the highest levels over BOWMAN.
Last edited by nigegilb; 1st Sep 2008 at 14:29.
No doubt Tucumseh will be along soon to put his million quids worth in, seeing Bowman is one of his pet hates. Saying that, before you all out, read up on ground wave propagation in hot and dusty places, and you will find that the Infantry’s beloved Clansman is not that hot in those types of places either, in fact no man portable radio system that is not Satcom based is. Got to admit though, overall Land's IPT have made a total mess of this project from the looks of it.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do I understand correctly that the AFPS funds MPs trips to military theatres? How does the US who seems to have pollies of virtually all ranks down to dogcatcher in theatre shaking hands while wearing mil-style garb fund such activities? (See example below)
Somehow I doubt it's Lockheed and Boeing but I'm open to correction.
Somehow I doubt it's Lockheed and Boeing but I'm open to correction.
Last edited by MarkD; 5th Sep 2008 at 17:29. Reason: different picture as looking at full size previous one plainly not "in theatre"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Individual government figures tend to "pay their own way"... in a manner of speaking. If they can pass it off as a "fact-finding mission", then they bill it to the government.
Sometimes lobbyist organizations pay, but that falls into the government rules on "gifts", "campaign contributions", etc.
Usually, however, the government foots the bill for members/employees of the government, feeling it is better that the taxpayers as a whole pay for the trip, than for "undue influence" to be thrown around.
Sometimes lobbyist organizations pay, but that falls into the government rules on "gifts", "campaign contributions", etc.
Usually, however, the government foots the bill for members/employees of the government, feeling it is better that the taxpayers as a whole pay for the trip, than for "undue influence" to be thrown around.
