Gen Dannat to be offered Tory Defence post
Yes, Him
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gen Dannat to be offered Tory Defence post
Breaking news, looks like Cameron will give Gen Dannat some sort of defence post.
Stitch that Gordon.
Stitch that Gordon.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why disgraceful? If you read the news and if what Dannat says in it is true, then Labour, mainly Number 10, tried to shaft the General and the forces, and then lied about it.
BBC NEWS | UK | I was smeared, says ex-Army chief
Dannat states that he believes Ainsworth understood and supported the need for more troops on the ground, but that it was blocked by Number 10 due in no small part to the overriding factor of cost during the current financial climate... a very poor reason (that could cost lives) if indeed true!
Whilst many may believe that the heads of the Armed Forces often bend down to the political masters, I doubt very much whether it is that simple. Trying to do your best for your troops whilst jousting with slimy and slippery politicians must be a thankless task, one which is well paid, but frustrating none the less.
BBC NEWS | UK | I was smeared, says ex-Army chief
Dannat states that he believes Ainsworth understood and supported the need for more troops on the ground, but that it was blocked by Number 10 due in no small part to the overriding factor of cost during the current financial climate... a very poor reason (that could cost lives) if indeed true!
Whilst many may believe that the heads of the Armed Forces often bend down to the political masters, I doubt very much whether it is that simple. Trying to do your best for your troops whilst jousting with slimy and slippery politicians must be a thankless task, one which is well paid, but frustrating none the less.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This could be a master stroke by the Torries. If Gen Dannat remains true to himself (no reason to doubt that), he would give honest answers as an advisor the a new Tory Govt. Having seen the mess NuLabia has got us into, it will take a brave SoS for Defence to dismiss his thoughts.
Yes, Him
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Already been some huggy fluff liabout MP on R4 (didn't catch his name) moaning about Dannat "breaking tradition"-- since when did they care about tradition, apart from singing the red flag once a year?
Tradition? Lord Kitchener as Sec of State for War? General Ismay under Churchill's 1951-55 govt?
More recently - assuming the bleat was about senior officers not getting involved in political parties - who was it who made Alan West a government minister again?
More recently - assuming the bleat was about senior officers not getting involved in political parties - who was it who made Alan West a government minister again?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: World Citizen
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a good way to get into the House of Lords without becoming CDS.
A cynic would accuse him of working for the Tories all along (whilst I am normally quite cynical, I don't actually think that it been the case in this instance). May be the line from Labour Spin Doctors though...
A cynic would accuse him of working for the Tories all along (whilst I am normally quite cynical, I don't actually think that it been the case in this instance). May be the line from Labour Spin Doctors though...
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope he remains more highly principalled than that:
His voice outside Government would be independent and impartial.
Former Navy chief Sir Alan West joins the Home Office as a security minister
keep your friends close but your enemies closer. ]"Michael Corleone"
Great Guy !!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Burgess Hill
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When he appeared on Sky (and in the Sun ) undermining ( to the delight of Murdoch) the encumbent goverment I thought he was just a retired soldier with a conscientous concern for the troops - turns out he was a closet spokesmen for the opposition who would eventually be rewarded with a peerage and a place in Goverment for his efforts - disgraceful !
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: East Anglia.
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When he appeared on Sky (and in the Sun ) undermining ( to the delight of Murdoch) the encumbent goverment I thought he was just a retired soldier with a conscientous concern for the troops - turns out he was a closet spokesmen for the opposition who would eventually be rewarded with a peerage and a place in Goverment for his efforts - disgraceful !
Firstly, there is not as much precedent for this as some here pretend.
Kitchener was 64 when the Great War began, and though a Field Marshal does not ‘retire’, (and though his status as a ‘serving’ officer ruled him out as Viceroy in 1911) by the time he became Secretary of State for war, he had been fulfilling ‘civilian’ roles for some years – notably as British Agent and Consul-General in Egypt. Moreover, the post of Secretary of State was not then viewed as being an entirely civilian one, and Kitchener’s predecessor had also been a soldier – Colonel Seeley, who returned to the Army and who saw active service on the Western Front.
In any event, what pertained in 1914 is not really a guide to what is acceptable today. (When war broke out, it was only ten years after a member of the House of Lords had been Prime Minister!)
As to Ismay, his role was explicitely military – as Churchill’s principal link between Churchill and the Chiefs of Staff Committee. He did not take up an overtly political appointment until 1951 – five years after his retirement from the Army.
Secondly, and more importantly, Dannatt’s voice would carry far more weight were he to speak simply as former CGS than it will if he is seen as a Government or Opposition spokesperson.
The issue of properly equipping the Armed Forces for operations in Afghanistan is diminished if it is reduced to a partisan, party political one, and Dannatt’s objections will be more easily dismissed if he himself can simply be dismissed as ‘just another Tory Politician’.
And Dannatt’s recent statements are already being dismissed on the grounds that, as a closet Tory and putative Tory appointee, he was being fed a line by the Tory party, somewhat diminishing the credibility those remarks had when the appeared to come from a professional, apolitical head of the Army.
And what happens when (as will undoubtedly happen) the Tories impose defence cuts of their own, when Dannatt (under a party whip, and perhaps even governed by collective Cabinet responsibility) will be expected to trumpet them as being a good thing.
He will look as morally compromised as Lord Garden did when he was trotted out to justify Lib Dem lunacy on cancelling Typhoon, etc. and he will look just as disloyal to the interests of the service that he once commanded.
This is a sad development, as it makes it more easy to dismiss genuine concerns about equipment for the Armed Forces as cynical, politically-inspired and party-political manoeuvring.
This looks like a bit of an own goal, to be honest.
Kitchener was 64 when the Great War began, and though a Field Marshal does not ‘retire’, (and though his status as a ‘serving’ officer ruled him out as Viceroy in 1911) by the time he became Secretary of State for war, he had been fulfilling ‘civilian’ roles for some years – notably as British Agent and Consul-General in Egypt. Moreover, the post of Secretary of State was not then viewed as being an entirely civilian one, and Kitchener’s predecessor had also been a soldier – Colonel Seeley, who returned to the Army and who saw active service on the Western Front.
In any event, what pertained in 1914 is not really a guide to what is acceptable today. (When war broke out, it was only ten years after a member of the House of Lords had been Prime Minister!)
As to Ismay, his role was explicitely military – as Churchill’s principal link between Churchill and the Chiefs of Staff Committee. He did not take up an overtly political appointment until 1951 – five years after his retirement from the Army.
Secondly, and more importantly, Dannatt’s voice would carry far more weight were he to speak simply as former CGS than it will if he is seen as a Government or Opposition spokesperson.
The issue of properly equipping the Armed Forces for operations in Afghanistan is diminished if it is reduced to a partisan, party political one, and Dannatt’s objections will be more easily dismissed if he himself can simply be dismissed as ‘just another Tory Politician’.
And Dannatt’s recent statements are already being dismissed on the grounds that, as a closet Tory and putative Tory appointee, he was being fed a line by the Tory party, somewhat diminishing the credibility those remarks had when the appeared to come from a professional, apolitical head of the Army.
And what happens when (as will undoubtedly happen) the Tories impose defence cuts of their own, when Dannatt (under a party whip, and perhaps even governed by collective Cabinet responsibility) will be expected to trumpet them as being a good thing.
He will look as morally compromised as Lord Garden did when he was trotted out to justify Lib Dem lunacy on cancelling Typhoon, etc. and he will look just as disloyal to the interests of the service that he once commanded.
This is a sad development, as it makes it more easy to dismiss genuine concerns about equipment for the Armed Forces as cynical, politically-inspired and party-political manoeuvring.
This looks like a bit of an own goal, to be honest.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd love to see his application for outside appointments form which he would have to send to the Cabinet Office for approval. Particularly the bit where it asks who the competitors of your prospective employer are!