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.

Disgraceful !

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.

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.

Between HM The Queen and you blokes at the sharp end, you have the most inept government it has been my misfortune to observe.

Shame on the lot of them.

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?

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...

I hope he remains more highly principalled than that:

His voice outside Government would be independent and impartial.

Archimedes - and don't forget Wellington himself; Prime Minister for over 2 years from 1828.

Great Guy !!
 

He is an ex AAC pilot - so watch out "crabair" time for a tasking review !!
:=:= Only jesting :D:D

Hmmm,

I wonder if he'll nominate The Tower of London as his second home? :E

What!! He was a corporal? Well done, sir!

Foldie:ok:

Lower hanger, you and Vecvec should chat - not scared the 'pongo' will see the real agenda ergo - a problem (to many noise on - noise off ac!) are you?

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 !

Appointing to a defence post someone who has experience of defence. What a novel idea.

You prefer Ainsworth and Brown? :bored:

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.

Could have been Torps:}
CS

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!

Dannat working for the Tories..... Thats not news....he's been working for them for years

Superb!

In this country the vast majority of our politicians are lawyers with hardly any of them having military experience and in my view that makes their character and motivations questionable....

I would welcome anyone into a government who has had to prove their character and integrity through military service - just like Dannat has.

BW

Any kick in the teeth to the current disgrace of a government is more than welcome!

I just hope he fires a few more Salvos!

No thats not my point. As he's being appointed to advise a (future) Tory government on defense :

a. Isn't that what MOD are for ??

b. If he is so concerned about the governments lack of defense knowledge why doesn't he offer to advise the govermment now and not wait until mid 2010 Surely his concern for the troops shouldn't be predicated by a peerage and a wait of some 9 months ??

It'll be interesting to revisit this thread in a few years time, when Dannat has slashed the RAF.

Er, they didn't listen to him when he was running the Army so.....:ugh:

I say good luck to him and I hope Cameron takes his advice/observations on board:ok:

And the RN!

Gen D, in my experience, is far from purple minded. The only winners will be the Army. And the SH force (provided they transfer to the Army!). Remember, Joint is spelt A-R-M-Y!:E

Lower Hangar,

On the side of the Atlantic where we speak the Queen's English we talk about defence - not defense!

JN - you're right that the precedent isn't direct, but the point I was making is that the initial bleating we were hearing suggesting that senior officers never, never, ever get involved in politics and that this is some sort of disgrace without the slightest parallel was somewhat off-beam (I would slightly dispute your portrayal of Kitchener, but that's a matter of interpretation).

I agree, though - the problem Sir Richard faces is that if he is to accept the offer which appears to have been put to him, his motives for criticising the government's policy will undoubtedly be put down to personal ambition, rather than genuiune concern for the troops in a series of off-the record briefings from the usual spin-meisters in London.

Had he waited for some time before accepting this offer, then things might be different, but he is now in serious danger of having his term as CGS being portrayed less favourably than he deserves.

Not so much an own goal at the moment and more a case of some sloppy tactical thinking in front of goal which might lead to an unfortunate outcome.

Another view on recent events:

Defence of the Realm

Defence of the Realm

A betrayal of office

Defence of the Realm,

an 'interesting' website. Bit like the Sunday Star but without the editorial control and a little bit more sensationalist.

Wrathmonk. We seem to share the same suspicion. His shade of purple does, indeed, have a significant red tint.

But I thought all very senior officers were Tory politicians in the making?:confused:

I understand (from the Ch 4 evening news ) that on the MOD Main 5th floor , the Army & Navy Chiefs were livid and Jock Stirrup had his head in his hands

I agree with earlier posts - it wll all end in tears !

What makes anyone think that he will act with anything other than self interest? And I don't mean 'army' interest. He is not a soldier any more, he's a politician. When in power, any ideas he may have today, about being overstretched etc, will quickly revert to 'stretched, but not overstretched'. That's Bob Ainsworth's line, more or less, isn't it?

CG

Lower Hanger:

Considering some of the occupants of floor 5 and Stirrup have led us to this point... maybe thats what is needed.

The whole organisation needs shaking out from top to bottom and has done for years.

Though I have always voted for them in Westminster elections, and though my political heroes are old school 'one nation' Tories like Gilmour, Pym and Heseltine, and though I view them as being less loathsome than the present lot, the wellbeing of today's Tory party does not really affect or worry me over much.

So I note as an interested observer - rather than as a concerned stakeholder, that this is actually the worst possible outcome for the Tories.

Had Dannatt continued to snipe from the sidelines without Party affiliation, he'd have been a powerful, credible and influential force working in the interests of Servicemen, and holding Governments and Politicians to account. He would have tended to be 'anti-Labour' by dint of the fact that it was Labour who committed us to Afghanistan, and because it was Labour who supplied the forces fighting there.

Had Dannatt accepted the Labour whip, any attacks he made against the Tories would have been entirely undermined, and he's have had the same credibility as any other Labour politician. His recruitment would have been something that the Tories could have roundly condemned and attacked Labour for.

Instead, by 'recruiting' him, they've undermined one of the key things that made him credible and powerful - his status as an apparently non-partisan, non politically biased expert. And that's why it's a colossal own goal.

There are only 2 reasons why Dannatt took the Tory shilling:

-He was not selected for CDS and his vanity demanded a peerage (Like West) - good Christian philosophy!

- He wants to ensure the survival of the Army through the next Defence Review; the RN and RAF should worry deeply.

As an ex Head of Service does he not remain on the Active List and thus receive full military pay?

Dannatt should hang his head in shame!

If Dannat is a going to be a military advisor now, what will his role be when the Tories take the next election?

Military advisors to the government is surely the role of CDS, CGS, CAS and the First Sea Lord. Does this mean that these roles will go?

Will Dannat be able to see beyond the green army and look at improving roles like AT in orderto get the green army to where they need to be and back again?

Pretty sure that he's on half-pay, rather than a pension, but the rules may have changed. I think it was the case that 4*s retired on half-pay, while 3*s took a pension which was higher than the 4*s half-pay!