I wish ..
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Westerham, Kent
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wish ..
.. there would be a new structure installed to govern our Armed Forces.
For, at the end of the day if you have a cabinet who fail to appreciate the crucial nature of successfully managing the military, or who are in any way indisposed to the military, then the Armed Forces will forever be kicked about and mistreated.
In Thatcher's day (despite her lack of service experience) this was not a problem but subsequently, well, that's another story.
What I would like to see is an utterly reformed hierarchical arrangement within the government with the appointment of a military Chief of Staff who's powers incorporate those of the Defence Minister.
This Chief of Staff would be a member of the cabinet and there would no longer be a Defence Minister, the Chief of Staff would assume the minister's responsibilities as well as acting as the primary adviser to cabinet on all matters pertaining to the military.
There should be a cross-party agreement that the post of Chief of Staff (Defence) be non-politically aligned and the post occupied by a candidate elected from among the three services and rotated (as at present) between them.
The Chief of Staff then serves the nation by managing the Armed Forces with the executive powers formerly held by the Minister of Defence, by acting as primary adviser to the government on defence issues (as a member of cabinet) and by supporting the work and life of the Forces with the benefit of his own experience as an active serviceman.
Such a person, if chosen well from a board of senior staff across the services, would have the opportunity to develop the potential of the Armed Forces, to "sell" this potential to the government at every opportunity and, crucially, the defend the Forces from within the heart of government.
One of the key strategies of this new structure would be to eliminate much of the bureaucracy within the Ministry of Defence and to streamline this with significantly smaller administrative units (perhaps in some cases devolving authority to specific units and branches).
An arrangement along these lines would give our Armed Forces a chance at survival, of developing their own unique abilities and enabling them to truly serve our country to the very best of their ability.
As I say, a wish!
For, at the end of the day if you have a cabinet who fail to appreciate the crucial nature of successfully managing the military, or who are in any way indisposed to the military, then the Armed Forces will forever be kicked about and mistreated.
In Thatcher's day (despite her lack of service experience) this was not a problem but subsequently, well, that's another story.
What I would like to see is an utterly reformed hierarchical arrangement within the government with the appointment of a military Chief of Staff who's powers incorporate those of the Defence Minister.
This Chief of Staff would be a member of the cabinet and there would no longer be a Defence Minister, the Chief of Staff would assume the minister's responsibilities as well as acting as the primary adviser to cabinet on all matters pertaining to the military.
There should be a cross-party agreement that the post of Chief of Staff (Defence) be non-politically aligned and the post occupied by a candidate elected from among the three services and rotated (as at present) between them.
The Chief of Staff then serves the nation by managing the Armed Forces with the executive powers formerly held by the Minister of Defence, by acting as primary adviser to the government on defence issues (as a member of cabinet) and by supporting the work and life of the Forces with the benefit of his own experience as an active serviceman.
Such a person, if chosen well from a board of senior staff across the services, would have the opportunity to develop the potential of the Armed Forces, to "sell" this potential to the government at every opportunity and, crucially, the defend the Forces from within the heart of government.
One of the key strategies of this new structure would be to eliminate much of the bureaucracy within the Ministry of Defence and to streamline this with significantly smaller administrative units (perhaps in some cases devolving authority to specific units and branches).
An arrangement along these lines would give our Armed Forces a chance at survival, of developing their own unique abilities and enabling them to truly serve our country to the very best of their ability.
As I say, a wish!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
I can't see the politicians going for that one, placing the armed forces out of direct political control. The COS would obviously oppose all attempts to cut his budget which wouldn't suit any party. As a non-MP he wouldn't be able to answer questions in Parliament either which would mean that someone else would have to do so instead - PM or Foreign Sec? Defence would therefore lose its direct voice in the House of Commons. It would also mean that the Head of the Armed Forces was an appointee rather than elected which is not really the way our democracy functions.
Still, given the irrelevance that defence commands in the eyes of most of the population & its elected representatives then perhaps removing it from their immediate sight would not be a bad thing, they could continue to ignore it until such time that they might want to invade or attack something.
Still, given the irrelevance that defence commands in the eyes of most of the population & its elected representatives then perhaps removing it from their immediate sight would not be a bad thing, they could continue to ignore it until such time that they might want to invade or attack something.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Westerham, Kent
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would also mean that the Head of the Armed Forces was an appointee rather than elected which is not really the way our democracy functions.
Though the CoS wouldn't be elected from a normal constituency he would be elected from among senior members of all three services. The finer details of how something like this might work are somewhat irrelevant but I am interested to hear any views on how a head of defence who has the sort of powers I have outlined might serve not only the Armed Forces but the nation.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right, so you want our armed forces to be answerable only to an unelected unaccountable individual who can't be removed? There's certainly plenty of precedent. Just go to North Korea or latterly Egypt or any number of places where soldiers strut about in reflective ray-bans.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Westerham, Kent
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not what I'm suggesting - at all. The "details" of how such an appointment would operate are so hypothetical that it does not merit setting-out such a plan, only (for me at least) the contemplation of a situation where you have a theoretical chief of defence who cannot be bullied by government.
Having said this, in my "model" the CoS would be answerable to cabinet who would have to agree to his suggestions and recommendations, much as they do in managing decisions at present. The difference in the model I am suggesting is that you are removing important layers of bureaucracy as well as replacing the political head with a serviceman.
Can anyone see what I'm getting at?
Having said this, in my "model" the CoS would be answerable to cabinet who would have to agree to his suggestions and recommendations, much as they do in managing decisions at present. The difference in the model I am suggesting is that you are removing important layers of bureaucracy as well as replacing the political head with a serviceman.
Can anyone see what I'm getting at?
as well as replacing the political head with a serviceman.
Second, encourage retiring service personnel to stand as MPs. I find it a little galling that both labour and the coalition keep encouraging retiring service personnel to join the teaching profession/police/fire service/NHS etc but studiously ignore becoming an MP. If you look at some of the Hansards from the 20s there were a significant number of MPs speaking in the House who were former serviceman. Lets face it, any reasonably decent serviceman can turn his hand to any number of jobs in civvie street and can usually become very successful in the companies for which they work. I'm pretty certain that some of us could do a significantly better job of running some government departments than the current or previous incumbents, particularly those career politicians who don't really have any proper skills!
Roland, Sir,
Succinctly put. No doubt the more, dyed in the wool PPruners, might grate at such heresy regarding "professional politicians". Sometimes the facts are hard to take.
Smudge
Succinctly put. No doubt the more, dyed in the wool PPruners, might grate at such heresy regarding "professional politicians". Sometimes the facts are hard to take.
Smudge
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
Roland,
A fine suggestion but how many ex-servicemen are there currently in the House of Commons? Maybe half a dozen? Previous generations served in the world wars so that most had a period of military service behind them but these days very few of the population even know someone who's served let alone been in themselves.
Encouraging ex-servicemen to stand for election would mean overcoming their feelings of revulsion at having to associate with the type of person that normally does that kind of thing.
A fine suggestion but how many ex-servicemen are there currently in the House of Commons? Maybe half a dozen? Previous generations served in the world wars so that most had a period of military service behind them but these days very few of the population even know someone who's served let alone been in themselves.
Encouraging ex-servicemen to stand for election would mean overcoming their feelings of revulsion at having to associate with the type of person that normally does that kind of thing.
Ken
Don't disagree with you, I've met a few politicians in my time and to quote, was it Blackadder (?), I wouldn't trust some of them to sit the right way round on a toilet. But one has to start somewhere; bringing some decent leadership, moral courage, honour and standards to the ranks of the political "class" might be a good thing!
Don't disagree with you, I've met a few politicians in my time and to quote, was it Blackadder (?), I wouldn't trust some of them to sit the right way round on a toilet. But one has to start somewhere; bringing some decent leadership, moral courage, honour and standards to the ranks of the political "class" might be a good thing!
Clausewitz is trotted out excessively, but on this topic his "war is a continuation of politics by other means" is exactly the appropriate quotation. There are only 2 ways to avoid the awkward political - military interface: to have a military government or to have a civilian armed force. Neither of those options are particularly appetising. What we have is not perfect, but it is better than the alternatives.
Last edited by Easy Street; 5th Sep 2013 at 00:06.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent points, Roland. I can see, and agree with what Churchill is trying to achieve but democracy just doesn't and can't work the way he set out. The core problem is that "people like us" are increasingly disengaged from politics. It would be good to see more ex servicemen standing, or even just becoming involved with (any) political party.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A worthy objective but, for the reasons cited, unlikely to come to pass.
Perhaps, (only slightly) more realistically, the military should be taken out of party politics altogether by establishing a multi-party agreement a) that the armed forces cannot be subject to every short term whim of whichever party happens to be in power and b), therefore, the armed forces strategy, objectives, budget and equipment will be agreed on a cross party basis which will maintain oversight but which can only review and change at fixed intervals and then only with a significant majority of all parties so agreeing. If this can allied to a mechanism whereby the military exercise greater direct control over e.g. procurement to ensure less "spec creep" and fewer cost overruns, so much the better.
Perhaps, (only slightly) more realistically, the military should be taken out of party politics altogether by establishing a multi-party agreement a) that the armed forces cannot be subject to every short term whim of whichever party happens to be in power and b), therefore, the armed forces strategy, objectives, budget and equipment will be agreed on a cross party basis which will maintain oversight but which can only review and change at fixed intervals and then only with a significant majority of all parties so agreeing. If this can allied to a mechanism whereby the military exercise greater direct control over e.g. procurement to ensure less "spec creep" and fewer cost overruns, so much the better.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Westerham, Kent
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roland, this would be fine but I suspect that the sort of ex-servicemen who would be of greatest benefit to government really don't want to go anywhere near parliament (as has been mentioned). Moreover, the trend is for politicians to distance themselves from military service. It isn't too hard to imagine Lib/Lab types seeing any kind of military service (in their own career) as something of an anathema.
Torquelink, this would be a good start.
Torquelink, this would be a good start.
to have a military government or to have a civilian armed force. Neither of those options are particularly appetising.
Although I'm aware of exceptions such as LT, I doubt that many of those for whom this website was created would be interested in standing for Parliament.
I do know a couple of Army officers who may have considered politics; must ask.
I do know a couple of Army officers who may have considered politics; must ask.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Conservative Party | People | Members of Parliament | Bob Stewart DSO MP
Col Bob has always been a firm advocate of Defence through his limited political career since leaving the British Army.
I for one wonder if it has become an unwritten rule these days to prevent ex-mil to reach the highest levels of cabinet, especially when some recently problematic Pol/Mil relationships have been outwardly embarrassing (e.g. Hoon/West).
Col Bob has always been a firm advocate of Defence through his limited political career since leaving the British Army.
I for one wonder if it has become an unwritten rule these days to prevent ex-mil to reach the highest levels of cabinet, especially when some recently problematic Pol/Mil relationships have been outwardly embarrassing (e.g. Hoon/West).
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: In the middle
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roland's right - lets get some more representation in the Commons - but I don't think 'hiding' amongst the pathetic shambles that currently exist is the way to go about it...........how about our own party - the Khaki Party..?!
Deposits being taken for anyone interested.......!
Deposits being taken for anyone interested.......!
I strongly disagree - I think it is vital for a civilian to lead on defence, and preferably one who comes at it 'fresh'. The reason being is that Ministers will come without baggage, and be willing to question sacred cows and ask hard questions. This encourages people to really think about why something is happening or not.
To bring a military guy into post would merely put someone who has spent a career thinking one way, and who subconciously probably has a series of biases or views, which they are less likely to question.
Frankly, if the military are unable to make a good case for themselves when briefing new Ministers, then they should ask whether this is the fault of the Minister, or their fault for being unable to articulate clearly what they need.
As for culling bureaucracy, my experience is that the Armed Forces excell at creating it, not cutting it!
To bring a military guy into post would merely put someone who has spent a career thinking one way, and who subconciously probably has a series of biases or views, which they are less likely to question.
Frankly, if the military are unable to make a good case for themselves when briefing new Ministers, then they should ask whether this is the fault of the Minister, or their fault for being unable to articulate clearly what they need.
As for culling bureaucracy, my experience is that the Armed Forces excell at creating it, not cutting it!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How would this Military God figure interact when the Treasury "no cash available squire"?
He/She would have no authority, no public backing and no constituency
What we need is more CROSS PARTY Agreement on defence so that a newly elected Govt doesn't just trash their predecessors ideas out of hand
PS and remember that the Blessed Margaret wasn't as big a fan of the military as you think - she was behind the Nott Review, supported a £240 mm cut in the defence budget in 1983, delayed and cut back innumerable programs etc etc
He/She would have no authority, no public backing and no constituency
What we need is more CROSS PARTY Agreement on defence so that a newly elected Govt doesn't just trash their predecessors ideas out of hand
PS and remember that the Blessed Margaret wasn't as big a fan of the military as you think - she was behind the Nott Review, supported a £240 mm cut in the defence budget in 1983, delayed and cut back innumerable programs etc etc
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Westerham, Kent
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PS and remember that the Blessed Margaret wasn't as big a fan of the military as you think - she was behind the Nott Review, supported a £240 mm cut in the defence budget in 1983, delayed and cut back innumerable programs etc etc
but I don't think 'hiding' amongst the pathetic shambles that currently exist is the way to go about it...........how about our own party