That's Torn It - New Defence SofS
the big issue for Fallon is the prep/writing the 2015 SDSR - the rest is just miniscule stuff.
LRMPA/MMA, Nukes, land force and maritime capability for the next 20 years - these are political/societal issues, not something that 4 years as a JO 35 years ago is going to help decide...
LRMPA/MMA, Nukes, land force and maritime capability for the next 20 years - these are political/societal issues, not something that 4 years as a JO 35 years ago is going to help decide...
Just sayin'
LJ
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,056
Received 2,927 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
Leon..
Probably why the only thing that possibly improved at CAA HQ was the meals in the canteen...
Dame Deirdre Hutton, DBE became Chair of the Civil Aviation Authority on the 1st August 2009 and was previously Chair of the Food Standards Agency until July 2009
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"What makes him so well qualified to do it..." Well, maybe because more people voted for him and his party than anyone else. And if you don't think he does a good job it won't be long before you can choose another lot.
There are countries where political appointments are made on the basis of military service and I'd rather not live in any of them.
There are countries where political appointments are made on the basis of military service and I'd rather not live in any of them.
Shotone
Funny, I don't remember voting for this politician to be the SoS for Defence!!!
What I wanted for the country was a bunch of SQEP individuals to run it, not a bunch of amateurs that are being given a chance to dabble to see how they get on! As. I stated before, I don't believe in career politics and I think all politicians should have some experience in the real world before being immersed in Westminster for years on end.
LJ
Funny, I don't remember voting for this politician to be the SoS for Defence!!!
What I wanted for the country was a bunch of SQEP individuals to run it, not a bunch of amateurs that are being given a chance to dabble to see how they get on! As. I stated before, I don't believe in career politics and I think all politicians should have some experience in the real world before being immersed in Westminster for years on end.
LJ
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever you think of him, Leon, he was democratically elected. That's not to say you get to allocate the jobs. But if you don't like the way his party leader has done so, you'll soon get the chance to say so. I generally agree with your sentiments about experience. The trouble is, if you make a special case for our own vested interest by insisting on military experience for Defence Sec, pretty soon the Health Sec has to be a doctor, Education Sec a teacher, and so on. Before long parliament is reduced to a funfair of special interests
Thing is, though, that he's a different breed of 'career politician' - being in the CRD in the 1970s (or its Labour equivalent) was not quite the same thing as the fast-track to parliamentary candidature that membership of this sort of body has now become, where everyone there is a 'policy wonk' with rock-all idea of the world outside.
Dependent upon what Fallon did in the CRD, he will have become expert and deeply knowledgable about a number of things relevant to the real world (as it was at the time).
It was no different to going into (say) a bank and being one of their research-type teams, or working in a politics department in a University - albeit the contacts and depth of briefing would've been much better.
The ethos was different, too - you didn't join the CRD with the expectation of becoming a parliamentary candidate or an MP; clearly that was an option and many members did just that because doors were opened a little further. The members also worked alongside people who had lots of real-world experience: Enoch Powell before his becoming an MP, for example.
By the same token, though, consituency parties of the time (up to the early 80s) only took the CRD members they rated, since one of the key issues was that the committees - still made up of stereotypical florid-faced retired Majors, ladies who blue rinsed their cats and often fitting the notion that the Church of England was the Tory party at prayer - would ask 'and what does this young man know about anything?'.
If anything, it is a good sign that Fallon was chosen, since glib, jargon-spouting no-nothings got short shrift, unlike today. He'd have been up against people who had 'proper' jobs, and was impressive enough to trump them; even under Thatcher (at least in the first term), the constituency parties brooked no interference from Central Office, and attempting to impose a fresh-faced researcher who someone high in the party liked was a short-cut to rejection; even being known as the 'favourite' of a party figure was not guaranteed to help (particularly if the party figure was disliked by the constituency committee).
But the CRD was taken under closer party control - it was independent of Central Office until Thatcher's time - shortly before Fallon departed and from that point on, you start to see the scenario of the professional politician we know and dislike today - short time making the tea, short time doing some policy research, then becoming a SPAD (no, not *that* sort of SPAD...), then getting a highly-paid press officer's post in your early 30s, etc, etc.
I'm not saying that being a 'professional' political type in the 1970s/80s is a good thing, but lumping Fallon in amongst the 'professionals' of today and ascribing a similar lack of depth, analytical rigour and pure pursuit of political power is a bit unfair because it misses the fact that it was rather different before the opening of the era when Cameron/Balls/Brown/Cooper/Letwin et al started on their path to high office.
Dependent upon what Fallon did in the CRD, he will have become expert and deeply knowledgable about a number of things relevant to the real world (as it was at the time).
It was no different to going into (say) a bank and being one of their research-type teams, or working in a politics department in a University - albeit the contacts and depth of briefing would've been much better.
The ethos was different, too - you didn't join the CRD with the expectation of becoming a parliamentary candidate or an MP; clearly that was an option and many members did just that because doors were opened a little further. The members also worked alongside people who had lots of real-world experience: Enoch Powell before his becoming an MP, for example.
By the same token, though, consituency parties of the time (up to the early 80s) only took the CRD members they rated, since one of the key issues was that the committees - still made up of stereotypical florid-faced retired Majors, ladies who blue rinsed their cats and often fitting the notion that the Church of England was the Tory party at prayer - would ask 'and what does this young man know about anything?'.
If anything, it is a good sign that Fallon was chosen, since glib, jargon-spouting no-nothings got short shrift, unlike today. He'd have been up against people who had 'proper' jobs, and was impressive enough to trump them; even under Thatcher (at least in the first term), the constituency parties brooked no interference from Central Office, and attempting to impose a fresh-faced researcher who someone high in the party liked was a short-cut to rejection; even being known as the 'favourite' of a party figure was not guaranteed to help (particularly if the party figure was disliked by the constituency committee).
But the CRD was taken under closer party control - it was independent of Central Office until Thatcher's time - shortly before Fallon departed and from that point on, you start to see the scenario of the professional politician we know and dislike today - short time making the tea, short time doing some policy research, then becoming a SPAD (no, not *that* sort of SPAD...), then getting a highly-paid press officer's post in your early 30s, etc, etc.
I'm not saying that being a 'professional' political type in the 1970s/80s is a good thing, but lumping Fallon in amongst the 'professionals' of today and ascribing a similar lack of depth, analytical rigour and pure pursuit of political power is a bit unfair because it misses the fact that it was rather different before the opening of the era when Cameron/Balls/Brown/Cooper/Letwin et al started on their path to high office.
Even the Conservative Research Dept (CRD) for Lord Carrington whilst in opposition from 1977-79 and then Baroness Elles from 1977 for €urope stuff is again not pushing any buttons with me as to Mr Fallon being the right man for the job.
Look I have nothing against Mr Fallon MP, I just question why we seem to have persons that would appear on paper to be a better fit for the SoS for Defence post, that's all. I would have thought that he would be far better suited to Health with his recent directorship of care and nursing homes? He sounds like someone that I would and I might vote for in the future, but I question the PM's decision making process for selecting a SoS for Defence. This is a question that I have long considered and whether we do things right in our selection for the top posts within the Westminster village. I am not convinced!
LJ
Look I have nothing against Mr Fallon MP, I just question why we seem to have persons that would appear on paper to be a better fit for the SoS for Defence post, that's all. I would have thought that he would be far better suited to Health with his recent directorship of care and nursing homes? He sounds like someone that I would and I might vote for in the future, but I question the PM's decision making process for selecting a SoS for Defence. This is a question that I have long considered and whether we do things right in our selection for the top posts within the Westminster village. I am not convinced!
LJ
But who is better-qualified? Being an expert in the field is not, in fact, part of an MP's job description, nor a minister - unless it is a legal position where having legal qualifications is essential.
In some instances, expertise has brought disaster: we've had a number of Chancellors who were economists by trade/training and with the exception of Roy Jenkins, they've all been disasters.
Ted Heath's appointment of a former Director of the CBI as Sec of State for Trade and Industry ended in disaster (John Davies ended up as an excellent shadow foreign secretary instead; he didn't get the job in 1979 because he retired from politics in 1978 after being diagnosed with a brain tumour which killed him in the following summer).
Being well-qualified on paper doesn't always translate to good execution of the job, particularly in politics...
In some instances, expertise has brought disaster: we've had a number of Chancellors who were economists by trade/training and with the exception of Roy Jenkins, they've all been disasters.
Ted Heath's appointment of a former Director of the CBI as Sec of State for Trade and Industry ended in disaster (John Davies ended up as an excellent shadow foreign secretary instead; he didn't get the job in 1979 because he retired from politics in 1978 after being diagnosed with a brain tumour which killed him in the following summer).
Being well-qualified on paper doesn't always translate to good execution of the job, particularly in politics...
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Emptying the litter bin
Age: 65
Posts: 409
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Doesnt matter who is SoS. He just signs off on it all. UnCivil serpents make all the decisions.
I could take over as SoS. Dad ex Para. Me ex RAF.
Missed the last APC to Malta due to matelot breaking nose.
So forget your Subs and Carriers.
Dont hold grudges
I could take over as SoS. Dad ex Para. Me ex RAF.
Missed the last APC to Malta due to matelot breaking nose.
So forget your Subs and Carriers.
Dont hold grudges
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hiq et Ubique
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't trust career politicians as they will say anything to keep their chosen careers alive
Let's see how well this recently appointed Minister does then as PUS and Minister Reserves in the MOD:
Judging by the comments of some here, it will be a disaster. Somehow, I suspect he will do better than that. 
LJ
Julian Brazier has been the Conservative MP for Canterbury and Whitstable since 1987. He has been a member of Defence Select Committee from 1998-2001 and from 2010 until his appointment as a Minister. He served as an officer in the Territorial Army for thirteen years, six of them in Airborne forces.
LJ
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought I recognised that name. He served in 21 SAS.
Julian comes from a military family, his dad was a Lt Col and his wife
is the daughter of a Brigadier !
Julian comes from a military family, his dad was a Lt Col and his wife
is the daughter of a Brigadier !
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Brazier and I served in the same squadron in 21 at the same time.
To say that he was well-liked would be untrue. To say that he was a good soldier would be even less true.
Quite why he was commissioned is a mystery 
To say that he was well-liked would be untrue. To say that he was a good soldier would be even less true.
his dad was a Lt Col and his wife is the daughter of a Brigadier !
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA
I was wondering if you were going to poke your head up
Tell me, considering this is not the first time you have and others
have mentioned someone wasn't a good soldier, how the hell they
pass the SAS Selection and onwards ???
I was wondering if you were going to poke your head up
Tell me, considering this is not the first time you have and others
have mentioned someone wasn't a good soldier, how the hell they
pass the SAS Selection and onwards ???