Gen Dannat to be offered Tory Defence post

[Roger Sofarover]

AA
Full Pay Pension!

[philrigger]

Generals Pension Pots

I think you will find that Generals retire on a pension of approx half pay (Depends upon which pension he was on and how long he served etc, etc. Field Marshalls used to stay on the active list and receive full pay, I think, but the rank, along with Marshall of the Royal Air Force and Admiral of the Fleet, was deemed unnecessary some years ago.

Try this;

http://83.138.137.164080/WizPersonalDetails.aspx


Phil.

[Jacks Down]

This is bad news. Firstly, Gen Dannatt has compromised the political neutrality of the armed forces by taking up this appointment, especially as few will believe that he had no party political agenda for at least some of his time as CGS. This should worry us greatly.

Secondly, Dannatt's agenda will be to ensure the supremacy of the Army at all costs. The odds on the "100 year experiment" prophesy coming true just got a lot better.

[FireAxe]

Not sure he should 'hang his head in shame', I am willing to bet that if the posters on pprune were offered the chance to influence future Defence policy (even if it was biased in favour of their own service) most would take the chance. The guy spoke out more against the polititians than any other head, he did not put personal before professional and that is a big tick in my book, unlike most others!!!

[Ivan Rogov]

How on earth can he support a 25% cut in our spending? Would he do the honourable thing and resign or has he become a true politician?
The only answer to any more cuts is to pull out of Afghanistan, allow all 3 services to stop for breath, carry out the SDR and decide what we actually want HM forces to do.

[goofer]

Goofer

I will judge Dannatt as I would any other politician. With profound scepticism. I just hope he really appreciates the devil to whom he has sold his soul. Purple thinking is our best hope for the future. Until the general demonstrates his willingness and ability to overcome a single-service frame of reference I will continue to regard him as a dangerous exception to the convention that those privileged to wear uniform do not abuse that privilege to make political capital.

Let's hear and assess his views on carrier air power and balanced air assets before granting him a moment's attention. The Army is not HM Forces, whatever The Sun - and its contributors - would have us believe.

[Thelma Viaduct]

Another useless fat southern inbred at the trough.........mega

[CirrusF]

The most insidious aspect of this appointment is that Dannat will become a minister without ever having to face an election. He might have a substantial understanding of the military, but he won't have any understanding of the priorities of the family on the street. I don't think it at all healthy, for the country as a whole, that he is likely to have substantial political influence. It smacks too much of a US style cabinet - and look what a mess they've ended up in...

[Pontius Navigator]

IMNSHO, the Army is up to its rse in aligators and is trying to drain the swamp. Both the RAF and RN are focussed on the future - new aircraft, new ships, new deterrent.

Dannatt, before he left, was entirely focussed on the Army mission.

Will he now advise the Tories that the Defence vote should be divided equally, say 55-45 Army v the rest? Or allowing for a 25% cut, 55-20?

[Al R]

Why on earth does Dannatt have to take the whip in order to offer advice? I always suspect vanity in cases like this and that undermines the ultimate motive. I'm sure he has much to offer, but to assume he is able to dictate national policy without being accountable is the act of ultimate conceit and contrary to the principles of democracy that he swore to uphold.

Tim Garden took the Lib Dem whip, didn't he.. but his move from the military to politics seems to have been ultimately, specifically motivated and just one of a series of premeditated actions. Dannatt's, on the other hand, seems to be almost an afterthought, an incidental move. If he wanted ultimate credibility with me, his peers and the nation, he would stand. If he just wants a job and restoration of authority, well - the trough he joins is long and distinguished.

I hope he dopesn't end up like West.. a political puppet with little credibility and reputation enhanced as a whipping 'yes' man who will do anything to keep the job. Now, seeing Dannatt reduced to that would be sad. Full time politics is a different game to the echelon mingling that he is used to.

[Wyler]

I do not think that this is good news in any way, shape or form. The Media has a rediculous level of influence in this country and, despite what Labour say, it does colour opinion, electoral outcomes and hence policy.
Already, Armed Forces = Army. Commentators talk about the 'Troops', little or no mention of the rest. This man will be totally Army-centric and all policy will focus solely on Afghanistan, an unwinnable war IMHO. Lack of long term, multi threat, Purple thinking will be a casualty that could affect the Armed Forces for decades, and not in a good way.
I think he will also quickly find himself out of his depth in the bear pit that is Westminster.
Not good news at all.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Originally Posted by Al R

contrary to the principles of democracy that he swore to uphold.

Where would he have sworn that?

If Dannatt ever Teams up with Guthrie, the "blue" contingent can really kiss goodbye to any credible future.

I agree with those who feel that he has negated any value that his earlier “tell it like it is” utterances had. That must be particularly true of his recent “lies” head to head with Brown the Humourless.

[Tourist]

Having spent an admittedly small amount of time with Dannet, (I flew him round the Balkans for a week) I must say he did not come across as the Army-centric type at all.
It's possible he may just be a very good actor, adept at saying the right things too the troops, but I was left with a very positive impression of the man.
Wish he had been head of the Royal Navy, and can only imagine he will be a good influence on any government.

[highcirrus]

Are things now unravelling for Dannatt and Cameron?

From Defence of the Realm (Again):Defence of the Realm

An unwelcome distraction

Given the intensity of the strategic debate on Afghanistan being conducted in Washington, the "Dannatt affair" over here is actually something of an unwelcome distraction, occupying more space in the media than it actually deserves.

However, The Guardian adds to the sum of human knowledge by pointing out a discrepancy between Cameron's speech text and his actual delivery, when he referred to Gen Dannatt's position in the House of Lords.

In the text, Cameron suggests that Dannatt "will join our benches" but the words spoken were merely that he would "sit in the House of Lords". He still goes on to say, though, if we win the election Dannatt "can" serve in a future Conservative government, so there is not an enormous practical difference.

Nevertheless, The Guardian takes this as a reflection of the growing unease being expressed in the senior ranks of the military, said to include the current CGS, Gen Sir David Richards, and General Lord Guthrie, a former CDS, who advised him not to take the Tory whip. "If he's going to the House of Lords, it's best to be a crossbencher," he says. "I will give advice to anyone, Labour or Conservative but I wouldn't want to be associated with any one political party."

Guthrie's views are given some prominence in The Daily Telegraph, which also records that Dannatt's appointment "has raised concerns about the political neutrality of the Armed Forces."

One senior Conservative MP is also said to be alarmed. "It's a mistake. It breaks some of the fundamental rules about defence, and it may be politically dangerous as well." Added to that, the shadow cabinet also seems to have expressed concern after Cameron, apparently, failed to consult key members of the frontbench defence team. Gerald Howarth, the shadow defence minister, was said to be angry after he learned about the appointment from a journalist.

Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, who was consulted about the move, had private misgivings, not least because Dannatt had been expressing to friends a desire to become defence secretary. Cameron later quashed speculation that this might happen by confirming that Fox would take the post if the Tories win the election.

From the Labour benches, Lord Foulkes, a Labour peer with a less than shining reputation, accused Dannatt of working "hand in glove" with the Conservatives and of being a "political stooge", forcing an intervention from William Hague to defend him.

This had followed mistaken criticism from shadow home secretary Chris Grayling, the Tories' "attack dog". Also uniformed by Cameron and thinking that Dannatt had been appointed as a government advisor, he had said: "I hope this isn't a political gimmick." He was "always suspicious of the government’s motives when it does things like this."

The implied criticism, quickly corrected when Grayling claimed he had "misheard" a question put to him by a BBC interviewer, nevertheless prompted a response from shadow chancellor George Osborne who defended the appointment saying that, it "shows an opposition that is taking very, very responsibly its preparations for government."

By then, the Tories' surprise announcement was beginning to look a little tarnished so defence minister, Kevan Jones, could afford to be relatively relaxed, simply observing of Dannatt that, "I always thought he was above party politics." Lib-Dem Sir Menzies Campbell responded with "profound disappointment", adding that "by convention, our senior military are non-political".

Media reaction was also mixed. While the Daily Mail "bows to no one" in its admiration of Dannatt, it feels "very queasy about his decision, within weeks of retiring, to serve under Tory colours." The paper tells us: "Generals, quite rightly, are meant to be politically neutral."

The Financial Times noted defence experts saying it was rare for a former CGS to go on to advise a political party in this way. The appointment, the paper said, "will raise concerns about how a Cameron government would manage policy in Afghanistan. Sir Richard could be advising a Tory prime minister alongside serving military chiefs whom he once commanded."

James Kirkup, political correspondent for the Telegraph took this point a little further, asking if, say, Gen Sir David Richards, the current CGS, advises one course of action and Sir Richard another, whose counsel will carry more weight?

Hinting at the reason why Dannatt – despite his public popularity – is so disliked in certain quarters, Kirkup also notes that, as CGS, Dannatt was party to a lot of controversial military decisions, all carefully minuted and documented. Some MoD people, he writes, "are privately seething that he has publicly criticised things that, they say, he signed off."

There is, in fact, even more to this. Some of the decisions for which Dannatt subsequently took credit he actually opposed. The operational allowance for combat troops is one of those. Dannatt was strongly against the idea, arguing that it was "devisive", calling instead for an across-the-board pay increase for the whole Army. Kirkup asks what might happen if those decisions start to come to light. His record in office must now be reassessed in the light of his new position.

As that starts to happen, as and indeed it will – Dannatt has made too many enemies for it not to – Cameron will find that his new recruit is a declining asset. Dannatt is already on the back foot, having to deny that he has been "plotting" for some time with the Tories. His current decision to join the Conservatives, he claims, was triggered by a direct invitation from Mr Cameron.

He said he had taken a two week holiday after retiring in August and was fishing in the River Spey, "when my BlackBerry burbled. It was David Cameron," he claimed.

Actually, things do not work that way. They never work that way in politics. A leader of the opposition does not make "cold calls" to prominent personages with offers of preferment, just on the off-chance that they might accept. Apart from anything else, it is far too risky. The "target" might not only refuse, but could leak details of the offer to the media, giving rise to some embarrassment.

Before Cameron would have even thought of lifting a 'phone, Dannatt would have been discretely "sounded out" by an intermediary and his agreement in principle secured. A call from Cameron would have been made only to close the deal. Thus, even at this stage, Dannatt cannot be telling the whole truth. There is more yet to emerge.

With more leakage about his professional background, which will not be favourable, and doubts about his earlier relationship with the Tories, this, as one commentator in The Times suggests, "is the Conservatives' biggest mistake." Crucially, as we also suggested, it is "another sign of Cameron's lack of judgement."

And the scale of that lack is just beginning to become apparent. The Daily Mail is reporting that the "military top brass" are planning to tell Cameron they do not want Dannatt as a defence minister in a Tory government. A senior Army officer has contacted the paper to make clear the reservations about his new role.

This officer said: "The Army won't wear it if Dannatt is made a minister in the MoD. You can't have someone walking out of his office in a green uniform and then walking back in wearing a pinstripe suit to sit just down the corridor a few months later ... He has had his go. It would be quite wrong for him to come back and peer over the shoulders of his successor."

And, the "leakage" has already started. A "well-connected figure" is saying that, while frontline soldiers were fond of General Dannatt for speaking out publicly in their support - or so they think - senior officers were less appreciative. "Some of them sat in meetings with him and saw him outmanoeuvred repeatedly by the Navy and the RAF," the source said.

In one fell swoop, Cameron has upset some of his front bench and senior MPs, he has failed to consult the Army and is facing a "rebellion" from senior officers, and he has picked a loser. That, for a prime-minister in-waiting, could be a problem.

[highcirrus]

Politicians and Generals - Don't you just love 'em?

I've just completed my morning trawl of bookmarked blogs and Rod Liddle's latest on the Spectator website, here, is certainly worth a read

Sir Richard Dannatt’s usefulness to the Conservative Party has just reduced by about ninety per cent as a consequence of his decision to accept an advisory post with the party. Henceforth, all criticisms he makes of the conduct of the war in Afghanistan will be taken with a pinch of salt, because he is now a Tory primarily, rather than an independently-minded soldier who wants only the best for his former comrades. Worse, future criticisms of the government – should there be any – from currently serving military leaders will also lose much of their potency through association: we will not know if they too are about to hop on board the Cameron wagon as well. We might suspect their motives. I wonder why Cameron was not able to persuade the man to remain a supposedly “independent”, and thus highly potent, voice of concern – but then, as his underlings will tell you, Dannatt has a certain liking for the limelight.

The hilarity occasioned by poor Chris Grayling’s failure to understand that Dannatt had joined his own party, rather than the government, was matched only by the performance of that smirking half-wit, the home office minister Phil Woolas. Give Labour the chance of an open goal three yards out and they grab the ball with gusto and boot it back down the pitch into their own net. Grayling, bless him, had been shown suggesting that he thought the appointment of Dannatt by the government was a gimmick, until it was pointed out that Dannatt had actually been appointed to a position in his own team. That was a laugh. But then Phil Woolas managed to shoot himself in both feet simultaneously by suggesting a)that Dannatt’s appointment was indeed a gimmick but that b)Labour’s co-opting of the great and the good could never remotely be described as gimmicky. As such he appeared petty, stupid and contemptuous of the electorate – and his gaffe was worse than Grayling’s. What Woolas should have offered was unqualified magnanimity: we are delighted Sir Richard is to continue to devote his considerable talents to public life and wish him great success in the Conservative Party. And all the while grinned inwardly that Dannatt’s hubris has actually helped to get them off the hook over Afghanistan.

[Vertico]

"Lord" Dannatt

By coincidence, the day before the news broke I was in a group visiting the House of Lords. Our "sponsor" was MRAF Lord Craig of Radley, CDS in Gulf War 1. He remarked that he had been honoured to receive a peerage on his retirement and said that most of the ex-Service chiefs in the Lords sat on the cross-benches, from where they could contribute to debates from an informed but non-partisan position.

Exactly as it should be!

[8-15fromOdium]

According to Dannet himself, he got the job because Cameron doesn't rate his own defence team:

"He put it to me that he was concerned that his defence team - at a time when defence was really important, and Afghanistan was really critical - lacked expert understanding, and would I be prepared to advise his team?"

A ringing endorsment for Liam Fox then!

[Gnd]

I am not sure he can change his spots quickly. We have bemoaned the fact that useless politicians have no idea what we do as they have never done - Dannett has done. I just hope he sticks to his MoD knowledge (by no means restricted to green) and DOES tell it like it is.

I have a great problem passing good and timely info to a B1/2/3/4/5/6 whatever IPT/PT bloke who has no idea what day it is let alone what I am talking about. They are the interface between industry and us but seem to think they are the filter. Lose them (accept that our staff work will increase) and let the work we do be judged by results, not incompetent PT dinosaurs; they seem to be 20 years behind most of the time. And according to the press (!!!!!) they are 33% - problem solved?

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

They're all at it!



Page last updated at 15:08 GMT, Friday, 9 October 2009 16:08 UK
E-mail this to a friend Printable version
Ex-Army chief to advise ministers


The retired officer will advise the SNP government on military matters

A recently retired Army general has been appointed as a specialist military adviser to the first minister.
Major General David McDowall was Scotland's most senior soldier, until earlier this year.
It is expected that he will advise the government on issues concerning war veterans and their families.
The appointment of Major General McDowall emerged as former British Army chief General Sir Richard Dannatt was asked to advise the Conservatives.
It is understood that Major General McDowall will not be joining the SNP and he will not be paid.
The Scottish government said it was determined to do all it could to support those Scots veterans who had served the country.
His vast experience ... will be a huge asset to this administration


Scottish government spokesperson

The government has extended free bus travel to injured veterans and wants further action in housing, education and access to public services.
A spokesperson for Communities Minister Alex Neil said: "We are delighted that someone of the calibre and experience of Major General McDowall is joining the Scottish government as an expert consultant on armed forces veterans' issues.
"His vast experience, in a career which saw him rise through the ranks from private to become the officer commanding the Army in Scotland, will be a huge asset to this administration, and as such his advice on a range of issues relating to former service personnel will prove invaluable.
"This government is determined to do all it can to support those Scots veterans who have served the country, often in the most difficult and testing circumstances and who deserve ongoing support in civilian life.
"Major General McDowall's advice will help us in providing ex-servicemen and women with that support."
Major General McDowall was born in Stranraer and joined the Army. In 2002 he became head of the Royal Signals.
In 2007 he assumed command of the UK 2nd Division, the Army in Scotland and the north of England.

[Pontius Navigator]

ROG, I see a difference. He is being enlisted to give specific advice on selected topics.

Now it may be true of Dannatt too that he is asked for advice only on Army matters and that the appropriate shade of blue or purple is sought for the wider picture.