It can also ensure that the best man does NOT get the job, because it is the Army/RN/RAF's turn.

Well the current system means that the politicians can pick the biggest yes man each time.....

You don't think that any of the top guys could do the job?

It used to go in rotation until 1985 when Admiral Fieldhouse was chosen to be CDS. Sir Keith Williamson would have been CDS if Margaret Thatcher had not been impressed with Admiral Fieldhouse as the 4* commander for Op Corporate and chose to break the rotation tradition.

It does make sense to rotate.

Nobody at the top is going to be cr@p, and despite what is said about peoples purple-ness, at the end of the day humans are tribal. Consciously or unconsciously, they will have bias.

Any one service having too much time in charge will have consequences.

Somebody needs a hug!

:rolleyes:

Maybe, if you say so. But there have been plenty you wouldn't want to be CDS. Or CAS.

As for tribalism, some more than others. I'm struggling to recall any acts of favouritism shown by recent CDSs.

If the RN really is/are "put out" then tough. Deal with it. The future of the Armed Forces and getting "it" right is far more important. As for rotating, thank God that's over. It would be a bit like rotating Government between the parties, just to make it "fair". Or insisting that 50% of board members have to be women, regardless of their suitability.

Get over it.

Why would you want to abandon the 'best man for the job' principle just because the job is the top one? As for the suggestion that the current nominee might be the biggest yes-man at his level, those who know him will also know of his reputation for saying no! If the politicians like him, it is probably because he is credible, honest, and won't just tell them what they want to hear.

Why would you want to abandon the 'best man for the job' principle just because the job is the top one? As for the suggestion that the current nominee might be the biggest yes-man at his level, those who know him will also know of his reputation for saying no! If the politicians like him, it is probably because he is credible, honest, and won't just tell them what they want to hear.

With you there, Fortissimo. A "yes man" he is not.

Whats in his "in " tray?
 

What are the biggest challenges he faces?
What does he bring in that others lack?
I can imagine him being about a million miles away from the average joe in a uniform.
And at the end of the day its not like he is say, head of a large corporation who can bring in a real change of direction (for better or worse and be held accountable to boot).
The politicians and the treasury have the real power, same as ever.
So a "yes" man he will be . I'll be impressed the day one of them ever resigns and walks away as a protest against some of the utter **** that's been dropped on their own men and women in the last 20 odd years.
He's just another suit now biding his time in a chair before he goes to the Lords or some other institute, just like most of the rest before him.

That chip is showing again HS. Stu Peach is about as far from 'another suit' as you can get. He is an extraordinary man who has achieved extraordinary things.

My only surprise is the unusually ballsy move of the PM to select him as CDS; till now he seems to have preferred more politically astute yes men.

Sir Stu is politically astute as well, but that doesn't equate to being a yes man. I hosted him recently - an enlightening experience.

Congratulation to Peachey ! :ok:

Was OC IX when it became IX(B), only met him twice as he was the boss in the time between my tours in Bruggen, we passed like ships in the night as it were. Was a difficult time then as there were some incidents with Tonkas and he banged out of a jet too ( :rolleyes: I think).

Second time was at a Hanger Bash at Marham for the Sqn 95th he was El Presidente of the of the IX(B) Sqn Association and gave a very rousing speech.

Very nice man but you could see he didn't suffer fools gladly so hopefully there can be a bit of sense passed up and down the ladder.


Ra Ra - up the Bats !

He was my first flight commander in 1989 and I can certainly confirm that he doesn't suffer fools gladly. Or at all.

Well he takes over at a time when there is a serious morale problem in some parts of the RAF, from my personal pov I will assess his tenure by what he does to improve this (admittedly a different score card than most will judge him by).

4ever,

RAF morale is more a job for CAS, CinC, AOC and local commanders. He will get his fingers into pies if he feels the need, but I would expect him to have the odd word in various shell-likes if feels things aren't being done properly.

Hangarshuffle,

Once again you are writing rubbish about a man and a post you clearly know nothing about. But if your bitter delusions fit your model of the world and give you comfort, then go with them.

As for being impressed by top people resigning, we've been through this before. I am more impressed by those that stick it out and fight for what they feel is right. The Armed Forces are not democracies where petulant teenagers can throw all their toys out of the cot because they didn't get their own way. Rest assured, Sir Stu will be a fighter, where required. You can also rest assured that he won't feel the need to explain his actions to the likes of you or I.

They're appointed by political process. Previous CDS have sat and watched over the last 20 years of what?...look at the utter mess its in.
I hope he is as good as you are all bigging up=truly needs to be.
1. Morale.
2. Pay and conditions.


If he can raise either of the above he will get respect throughout the military-if not, just another talking head sat within the establishment.

Here is a thought,... Many of the present top brass are products of the 70's/80's and the hyper-aggressive fast jet culture of the time. The ones who weren't so aggressive (but good) seem few and far between.:hmm: Is it coincidence that these "me first" people are now at the top and, that the whole fabric of the RAF seems to be in tatters in their wake?:uhoh:

OAP

Well he jolly well ought, I for one would like an explanation for any radical changes made!!!:E

By the way, any Senior officers who have flagged up their intent to resign in the past appear to have been occupying the 1st Sea Lord post. Sir David Luce threatened to resign over the cancellation of the then new Carriers. I also understand that Sir Nigel Essenhigh went early because of the plan to retire rather than upgrade the Sea Harrier.

FB:)

Courtney, agreed it should be a job for the RAF SLT however in my humble opinion they've been so hell bent on protecting/acquiring kit through the SDSR process that they've taken their eyes off the manpower issues the RAF has. I may appear to be a bit bitter about this and I can assure you it is with good reason: My pay stands to be cut in 3 years by £2,000 if protection is not extended, my rent on my Quarter is due to double, my pension is now far less than promised and my NI payments are due to go up by £32 a month. My trade's future direction is uncertain and from anecdotal evidence pvrs are soaring. Good news is very sparce at the moment!

I'm struggling to recall any acts demonstrating Spine from any recent CDSs.

To not resign over the gutting of the armed forces over the last couple of decades means that none of them have an ounce of respect from me.

You might say that it is better to work from within, but the evidence suggest that that is not the case.

A succession of CDSs resigning would have an effect.

I'm not a believer in apolitical military leaders when it comes to the actual survival of the military.

Tourist,

As we discussed some time ago, the Government will not be held to ransom by VSOs (or the heads of any organisation or department) resigning on points of principle. Their response would simply be that he felt he had to go due to irreconcilable differences of opinion. And then they'd get another one. The top team spend a lot of time providing evidence, rather than opinion or personal wishes, to the politicians and explaining what is required to achieve the Government's desired effect. That effort within a sound and professional relationship has far more effect than simply walking out.

You have moved on from tribalism, which was your point that I was replying to.

I suspect your perception of your VSOs not respecting you because they haven't all resigned is a tiny bit precious.

Well, I realised that there is little point in arguing whether various people were truly purple with a bunch or RAF when the new guy and many of the last guys were light blue.

It's a bit like standing at the wrong end when a ref makes a bad decision. Not many around you tend to see a problem.


I have no interest in whether VSOs respect me. What I do have interest in is whether they fight our corner or whether they bend over and let the military take it negative lube.

Post resignation post K complaints earn no respect fro me.


If you imagine a CDS resignation over an issue would hold no fear from our current crop of politicians then I think you underestimate how scared they are of public opinion.

Tourist.

Your argument seems to have transcended its original point, and by that I mean the repetitive succession of "light blue", as you like to point out, and has now morphed into VSO resignations out of principle as a means of showing spine. [note: last two CDS' were Army btw]

I'm sorry but Sir Stuart hasn't even taken the job yet and you are pontificating about him resigning over the perceived p*ss-poor state of the Armed Forces?!!

Are you for real or a Union boy? Nobody's taking your jobs. My speculative guess, as shared by many, is that the top job went to the best man, as many have intimated.

Seriously, tell me who stole your lunch money and I'll try and do something about it mate.

Or just get over yourself precious.

I attended a lecture where a VSO was asked why he had not resigned after his minister had given him a public rebuke.

He said that to have done so would have been a 'one day wonder'. Better to stay and work gradually to achieve the result desired if at all possible. To have 'run away' would have been the betrayal and staying and trying to sort out the issues was more important.

Perhaps years' later, the VSO is widely respected by those who know him, whilst the politician is generally reviled and thought to have misused his position for personal gain.

As was said by another who was close to the event, the VSO had nothing to lose or gain financially by staying but his self respect would have been tarnished had he left.

O-D

It's funny that everybody on here is happy to agree that pretty much all politicians are w@nkers, yet when they chose another light blue suit for CDS, "it's because he is the best man for the job"

We all agree that politicians are only interested in one thing, themselves, so how does that equate to choosing the best man to run the forces?

Given the chance, the politician will always choose the CDS that does as he is told.

There is more to the top job thN being a yes man.



Old Duffer.

Weak excuse.
If staying and fighting from the inside worked, the military would not be in the parlous state it is today.

Wow, you Navy guys really are cut up about this, aren't you? Your bitterness shines through magnificently and I am happy to bathe in it.

Personally, I couldn't give a toss what colour uniform he wears, I happen to know him and work with him regularly and couldn't be more delighted by his selection. Although there are a couple of Browns and Darks around at the moment, none with Peachy's breadth of experience or understanding of the other two services. So the good news is, the other services will end up being very happy with him too - the general feeling in the Big Building this week is one of approval.

Funny how the further down the food chain you are or the more removed from the Services, the more expert you are in the business of the higher echelons.

I'm pretty certain your rancid attitude and sweeping generalisations of VSOs aren't shared by the serving RN at large Tourist. When it comes down to it I suspect your comments are really a bit of a personal rant at the 'have's' by a 'have not'.

Once again I invite you to get over that little ego of yours. You clearly have absolutely no idea about the way things work at the higher Pol-Mil levels.

Very true Courtney

I think it is very telling that everyone serving who has ever met ACM Peach is united in agreeing that he is the perfect man for the job. He is bloody good, ideal for the challenges we face and just the sort of man who will happily not just challenge sacred cows, but probably eat them raw for breakfast :E

""If the politicians like him, it is probably because he is credible, honest, and won't just tell them what they want to hear""

If ever there were reasons for politicians NOT to like him.......:eek::ok:

In fairness, I don't believe that anyone would put their "service loyalties" above the security of the nation. Not in this day and age anyway. That said, the RAf did get rid of the Harrier........:P

Interesting point.

I would certainly say that yes, as a scrote, I know exactly what I want from the higher echelons.

I want them to put their subordinates before their career.
I want them to put getting the right equipment before the directorship post career.

I used to spend quite a lot of time dealing with VVSOs because of the job I did.

Some impressed me, some did not. Some were altogether too excited about their own importance and intelligence and believed that management speak is a good proxy for intelligence.
It isn't.

Army were mostly very polite and human, though Dannet's bag carrier was a prize tw@t.

Navy seemed pleasant enough.
RAF VSOs wouldn't even shake my hand in general much less talk to me.


It does not matter if I have been a senior officer any more than it matters if a rugby fan can coach.
You still know when the manager should be fired, and this millennium has been an abortion.

Senior officer were we?

I'm most terribly sorry, I underestimated you. Bitter AND chippy.

And as for,

Ah! I think I see the real issue now. You don't like the RAF or VSOs. Well done, that man! :D:D:D:D:D

Mach

The current crop of VSOs have just lost 2 wars in succession against stone-age countries.

That makes them failures.



They are not to be respected, they should be vilified, either for their inability to come up with a plan, or their inability to persuade politicians to not go to war if indeed there was no viable plan.

That is their job.

Winners get respect, not losers.

I'm sure you would have been much better at the job. Shame you didn't hang around long
enough.

You seem you have done a 180 on your opinion two days ago,

Compared with today,

Henman failed, it doesn't mean he was cr@p. It just means he wasn't good enough.

In the words of the great philosopher

"Losers do their best, winners go home and @#'# the prom queen"

The last few are losers.
Many died for nothing and the blood is at least partly on their hands. Those are the perks of command.



No, I wouldn't be better at the job, not my thing, politics. I like flying.

CDS earns less than a good plumber or average builder.
 

Very true. The problem (if it is a problem) with many on this site is the real world. CDS is nothing. Osborne and Cameron laugh about them.....Senior Officers are nothing but hot air to them. All the politicians laugh about them.
Our politicians are in an exclusive club, constantly voted in but never catching out. They are rich, they are educated... they are incredibly arrogant.
A little new crab is nothing to them.
Has CDS a twitter account? Does he tweet.? Do people know his name? What does he bring to them? To make them richer? Happier?
He brings in to them nothing..at all.
The military are presently bringing to the nation only failure, tears and tales of woe. Tales of charity, injury. Defeat.
Yes I long for the happy times to return, but they are gone.

Doesnt look that good on google.
 

I got to 14 pages of hits on google about Peach before I got to 4th division websites about him.... it thinned out at about 10 pages.
Is it true he led the "allies" air campaign against Libya? Is it fair to point out.. y'know... did he think that through? I mean to where we are now, with Libya?
Is he Cameron's "Yes " man?
Like often, I get on this site looking for the hard, no bull**** truth. From hard faced professional airman, and Lord there are a few on here who tell me like it is... or as they see it.
But he is looking like a Conservative party shoe in. A yes man. At least on a quick hit on the internet.
Zero faith in our current crop of SO regardless of colour.
Sorry if I've offended people lately. Don't mean to - just my age and cynicism.
I'll be watching the news for Peach.

No - you get the best person for the job regardless of the colour of their uniform - anything else would be a disgrace - HH

Quite right, although some of the posts give the impression that this thread is becoming like the Academy Awards argument in more ways than one.:=

Jack