Corbin and CDS Squaring-Up
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Odiham
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Facts.
When we deployed to Helmand in 2006 we had too few helicopters.
When the 2010 SDSR scrapped the Nimrod it left us unable to effectively patrol our waters.
Both facts but the CDS at the time didn't go on TV and state them. If he had done he'd have been accused of playing politics. As I said before I'd have more respect for the lot of them if they had have done so.
It was a cheap shot and with the reputation of the General Staff at a pretty low point it was ill advised.
When the 2010 SDSR scrapped the Nimrod it left us unable to effectively patrol our waters.
Both facts but the CDS at the time didn't go on TV and state them. If he had done he'd have been accused of playing politics. As I said before I'd have more respect for the lot of them if they had have done so.
It was a cheap shot and with the reputation of the General Staff at a pretty low point it was ill advised.
Corbyn feels that this, the second criticism of him and his views (potentially labour party policy) by the military, specifically the army
Why are people getting so het up about this? We have a CDS who is quite clearly on top of his job and is not afraid to express well-reasoned opinions whilst in post - unlike his predecessors, who meekly presided over the continual emasculation of the armed forces and who now snipe from the sidelines in the House of Lords.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Odiham
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He'll be in the Lords next year elevated by DC because he towed the line like the rest of them.
CC,
I don't know what his opinions are on the issues you raise - simply because he wasn't asked about them during the interview and therefore he did not offer gratuitous views.
You clearly have the inside ear on CDS's future. We shall see!
I don't know what his opinions are on the issues you raise - simply because he wasn't asked about them during the interview and therefore he did not offer gratuitous views.
You clearly have the inside ear on CDS's future. We shall see!
...at the Royal United Services Institute, in what he described as "an outing of professional conscience", he said Britain risked being left without enough military manpower in the future, with the Royal Navy particularly vulnerable.
He said: "Unattended, our current course leads to a strategically incoherent force structure: exquisite equipment, but insufficient resources to man that equipment or train on it.
"This is what the Americans call the spectre of the hollow-force. We are not there yet; but across defence I would identify the Royal Navy as being perilously close to its critical mass in manpower terms."
Gen Houghton suggested spending decisions were too often made "with an eye on supporting the United Kingdom's defence-industrial base" and said a programme of "balanced investment" in manpower and equipment was needed.
He said: "Unattended, our current course leads to a strategically incoherent force structure: exquisite equipment, but insufficient resources to man that equipment or train on it.
"This is what the Americans call the spectre of the hollow-force. We are not there yet; but across defence I would identify the Royal Navy as being perilously close to its critical mass in manpower terms."
Gen Houghton suggested spending decisions were too often made "with an eye on supporting the United Kingdom's defence-industrial base" and said a programme of "balanced investment" in manpower and equipment was needed.
Chinny Crewman.
Where are his opinions regarding the shortfalls in equipment, worsening pay and conditions, failure of the reserve recruitment program
Sir Nicholas was absolutely correct to answer the question openly when asked. As others here have rightly stated his response was a statement of fact and he has also made it clear that it was not just a matter of opinion. Corbyn set out his position on the use of nuclear weapons publicly and that has the potential to completely undermine a cornerstone of Britain's defence, something that CDS is duty bound to uphold and to make sure the public understand. That is not politics, it is a competent leader performing his duty.
If Corbyn feels it is a personal attack it can only be because someone far better qualified than he to speak on this issue has demonstrated why the public statement of his personal ideology is dangerous to the security of the U.K. CDS has not criticised the man, just the public announcement of his position and the undermining of UK Defence Policy in (IMO) a very foolish way. I should add that position is not even Labour policy.
It's Corbyn that has made himself look like a leftie fool, not CDS and he is understandably feeling pretty stupid about it - hence his outburst.
Well, spoken, Sir Nicholas.
If Corbyn feels it is a personal attack it can only be because someone far better qualified than he to speak on this issue has demonstrated why the public statement of his personal ideology is dangerous to the security of the U.K. CDS has not criticised the man, just the public announcement of his position and the undermining of UK Defence Policy in (IMO) a very foolish way. I should add that position is not even Labour policy.
It's Corbyn that has made himself look like a leftie fool, not CDS and he is understandably feeling pretty stupid about it - hence his outburst.
Well, spoken, Sir Nicholas.
Having just had a moment of clarity I will add one more thing. Taking the Clausewitzian view of the relationship between warfare and politics, absolutely anything the CDS says can be interpreted politically. He cannot avoid the political sphere precisely because he is part of it. There is a difference between making a factual statement that can be interpreted politically, as CDS did, and entering the realm of party politics; it is Corbyn that has dragged it into the latter through his response to CDS.
From the BBC report:
The maintenance and deployment of Trident is a military task. The decision to aquire and use it is political. The expression of worry is that the politicians may undermine and withdraw the deterrent. That is a political comment.
I agree that this is an implication. But it implies that Corbyn and his ilk don't understand the responsibility of power and don't understand the principle of deterrence. (They may not, but pointing it out influences votes.)
For the record I agree with CDS's comments wholeheartedly, just not the platform he used. I fully support the decision to acquire and maintain a deterrent. I do not support Nuclear disarmament. But this would be a political decision based on best advice. CDS's thoughts and advice are for him to give to the politicians to help them understand the gravity, reponsibility and cost. He should not cast aspersions on the integrity, maturity and responsibility of the politicians in public. That way is dangerous. I recall the military rumblings over Wilson, not good.
Asked about Mr Corbyn's refusal to use nuclear weapons, Sir Nicholas said: "It would worry me if that thought was translated into power as it were."
"Most of the politicians I know understand that and I think that, dare I say, the responsibility of power is probably quite a sobering thing and you come to a realisation, 'I understand how this thing works'."
For the record I agree with CDS's comments wholeheartedly, just not the platform he used. I fully support the decision to acquire and maintain a deterrent. I do not support Nuclear disarmament. But this would be a political decision based on best advice. CDS's thoughts and advice are for him to give to the politicians to help them understand the gravity, reponsibility and cost. He should not cast aspersions on the integrity, maturity and responsibility of the politicians in public. That way is dangerous. I recall the military rumblings over Wilson, not good.
Last edited by beardy; 11th Nov 2015 at 12:21.
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Essex
Age: 65
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
beardy
I'm with you all the way on this one.
But I grow weary of trying to get people to understand that it isn't the CDS's place to go on national television and answer a specific question relating to the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition's previously expressed distaste of a nuclear deterrent.
It is not a case of Corbyn bad, CDS therefore good because he has got up and contradicted the basis of Corbyn's position.
It should be a case of Corbyn bad, other politicians (including some on his own shadow front bench) good with the CDS adopting the position of shutting TFU.
I'm with you all the way on this one.
But I grow weary of trying to get people to understand that it isn't the CDS's place to go on national television and answer a specific question relating to the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition's previously expressed distaste of a nuclear deterrent.
It is not a case of Corbyn bad, CDS therefore good because he has got up and contradicted the basis of Corbyn's position.
It should be a case of Corbyn bad, other politicians (including some on his own shadow front bench) good with the CDS adopting the position of shutting TFU.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Well, Lincolnshire
Age: 69
Posts: 1,101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beardy .. I still think you are completely wrong, CDS had a DUTY to speak out IMHO. Try looking at it this way, a tad extreme but hopefully makes the point ...
A political leader makes the decision to deploy British troops to a war zone - that is a political decision that CDS must obey - however, if that politician then publicly announces that those same troops cannot take any ammunition with them in case they are tempted to use their weapons, then he is putting the troops in "harms way" by limiting the military use of the weapons provided and I would expect CDS to speak out to protect his troops.
The political decision to own nuclear weapons has been made, and until that decision is reversed - which I agree is outside the remit of CDS - then the statement that they will not be used potentially puts UK PLC in harms way, and CDS is right to speak about the matter when asked.
A political leader makes the decision to deploy British troops to a war zone - that is a political decision that CDS must obey - however, if that politician then publicly announces that those same troops cannot take any ammunition with them in case they are tempted to use their weapons, then he is putting the troops in "harms way" by limiting the military use of the weapons provided and I would expect CDS to speak out to protect his troops.
The political decision to own nuclear weapons has been made, and until that decision is reversed - which I agree is outside the remit of CDS - then the statement that they will not be used potentially puts UK PLC in harms way, and CDS is right to speak about the matter when asked.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Beardy, CDS didn't use the Marr programme as a platform, Marr did that.
CDS had two choices. Answer, as he did, or obfuscate for which he would have been pilloried.
An invitation to go on the show in full uniform was right and proper on this particular Sunday. Corbyn' s position had been made clear weeks before. Of course we don't know if CDS was sandbagged of prewarned.
CDS had two choices. Answer, as he did, or obfuscate for which he would have been pilloried.
An invitation to go on the show in full uniform was right and proper on this particular Sunday. Corbyn' s position had been made clear weeks before. Of course we don't know if CDS was sandbagged of prewarned.
Last edited by Pontius Navigator; 11th Nov 2015 at 14:05.
PN:-
Absolutely agree. We've now grown to accept that our National Broadcaster has a political agenda all of its own, despite being funded by a tax levied on all its licence payers, irrespective of their individual beliefs.
I suspect that their agenda is to undermine Corbyn at every opportunity, and to encourage the Labour Party to unseat him as leader in favour of one that it considers is more electable. The Marr interview was merely one manifestation of that agenda, and any effect it might have on CDS's future, good or bad, is immaterial to it.
That is the elephant in the room, the BBC's constant interference in the national political debate, rather than any professional facts produced by CDS.
CDS didn't use the Maar programme as a platform, Marr did that.
I suspect that their agenda is to undermine Corbyn at every opportunity, and to encourage the Labour Party to unseat him as leader in favour of one that it considers is more electable. The Marr interview was merely one manifestation of that agenda, and any effect it might have on CDS's future, good or bad, is immaterial to it.
That is the elephant in the room, the BBC's constant interference in the national political debate, rather than any professional facts produced by CDS.
Chug .. totally agree ....
The BBC no longer even try and "report" the news as it happens .. they spend most of their time (and budget) trying to "make" the news in their own light.
The BBC no longer even try and "report" the news as it happens .. they spend most of their time (and budget) trying to "make" the news in their own light.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Penzance, Cornwall UK
Age: 84
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with OmegaV6. Luckily a number of foreign news channels (some in the English language) are available to those with freesat, as well as any number of sites a click or two away on the computer.
Luckily a number of foreign news channels (some in the English language) are available to those with freesat, as well as any number of sites a click or two away on the computer.
Fox News?
CCTV?
Press TV?
Spare me!
Oddly, despite all the BBC-bashing that goes on in this country, it is still the source of news most trusted by those outside of it.
http://www.globescan.com/news_archiv...t_country.html
Here Are The Most- And Least-Trusted News Outlets In America - Business Insider
BBC and The Economist top the list of outlets that are trusted by every ideological group
You (and the rest of the world) will miss it when the Tories have their way, and it's gone.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Odiham
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And your point about the reputation of the General Staff is wrong - the reputation of the TELIC / HERRICK generation of staffs has rightly taken a blow, which will no doubt become a hammer blow on publication of the Chilcot Report, but the current chiefs are well thought-of.
As for the 2%; political showboating for an international audience, it's all smoke and mirrors unless you have inside info that the security budget and military pensions won't be included in the 2%.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
To save you looking:
Least - while BuzzFeed and The Rush Limbaugh Show are at the bottom.
Actually the WSJ is trusted by every group.
Interestingly the BBC is only 50-50 amongst Conservatives.
Least - while BuzzFeed and The Rush Limbaugh Show are at the bottom.
Actually the WSJ is trusted by every group.
Interestingly the BBC is only 50-50 amongst Conservatives.
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Belfast
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember reading the obituary of Sir Michael Beetham in the Telegraph. In it was a short paragraph about when he was CAS:
He inherited the appointment at a difficult time and at a relatively young age. Recognising the seriously impaired morale of the service following the heavy cuts his predecessors had been compelled to accept, he set about restoring some stability and improving the terms of service of RAF personnel.
Along with his fellow Chiefs, he had to address the severe problems of service pay, which were seriously hindering recruitment and causing an exodus of skilled people. The need for the military to meet the demands of the fireman’s strike at the end of 1977 brought the issue into the public domain. By the middle of April 1978, the Labour Government had not addressed the matter, so the four Chiefs released details to the national press.
The story was covered in considerable detail and it attracted much public support but it earned the Chiefs a very sharp public reprimand from the Prime Minister. Within a few weeks the Armed Forces Pay Review Board recommended a significant pay increase. On his first visit to an RAF station after this result, Beetham earned a spontaneous round of applause.
Is there any difference in what the current CDS has done currently than what Sir Michael and his fellow chiefs did then? I believe not, some may say otherwise.
He inherited the appointment at a difficult time and at a relatively young age. Recognising the seriously impaired morale of the service following the heavy cuts his predecessors had been compelled to accept, he set about restoring some stability and improving the terms of service of RAF personnel.
Along with his fellow Chiefs, he had to address the severe problems of service pay, which were seriously hindering recruitment and causing an exodus of skilled people. The need for the military to meet the demands of the fireman’s strike at the end of 1977 brought the issue into the public domain. By the middle of April 1978, the Labour Government had not addressed the matter, so the four Chiefs released details to the national press.
The story was covered in considerable detail and it attracted much public support but it earned the Chiefs a very sharp public reprimand from the Prime Minister. Within a few weeks the Armed Forces Pay Review Board recommended a significant pay increase. On his first visit to an RAF station after this result, Beetham earned a spontaneous round of applause.
Is there any difference in what the current CDS has done currently than what Sir Michael and his fellow chiefs did then? I believe not, some may say otherwise.
Last edited by GroundStart; 11th Nov 2015 at 17:32. Reason: Spelling