Before this thread flamed the point being argued was that we should have maintained the rotational system; the counter to this is that we get the best person for the job. My understanding is that there were 3 candidates and the PM choose who he thought was best having met them. So the 'best man' is merely the subjective opinion of the PM. To paraphrase a previous CDS 'being in the CCF at Eton does not make him a military expert' At least rotation would remove this political input.

I am very happy to be able to report to all you ex-RN chaps with huge and very obvious chips on your shoulders that the vast majority of my currently-serving Royal Navy colleagues do not share your naive, bitter, blinkered views about the other services. By posting your personal, self-opinionated, ill-informed bile in public you do little more than discredit your former Service.

Since you guys left, things have moved on. Maybe you should too.

Mach

Trying to sell the idea that political appointees are the way ahead for the military does your intelligence no service.

We all know that politicians want yes men.

At least a rotation gives us some hope of the occasional spine.


p.s. You are wrong about what the RN believes. We all think light blue are wet!:ok:

Hangarshuffle,

ACM Peach was the Chief of Joint Operations during the Libya campaign. That means that he was responsible for the conduct of the campaign in pursuit of the military strategic objectives set for it, not for the decision to launch the campaign in the first place. As the military campaign was entirely successful in reaching its own limited objectives, Peach deserves none of your inferred criticism. If the Government's wider strategy was inept in failing to anticipate the subsequent political difficulties that is hardly his fault (or, indeed, his problem).

As to your comments regarding the relationship between politicians and the CDS, instead of posting your half-baked cod analysis of some stuff you found using Google, why don't you go to the library and get Lord Richards' autobiography "Taking Command"? You would get some first-hand reporting from a former CDS, not some rubbish on a blog, about how politicians react to the advice they get from the professional head of the services. The response to Richards' recommendations during the development of the Syrian civil war makes enlightening and slightly alarming reading, and would firmly debunk your idea that our CDS's are "yes men".

+1 Easy Street. Well said.:ok:

And to reiterate a point previously made, anyone who thinks Peachy is a yes man couldn't be further wide of the mark!

If the Big Crab is the right person for the job, then thats fine by me.

Enough of this niff-naff and trivia. When does he start his pilot training?

When he was a one star, I recall him telling us that he'd been dragged down to HQ STC for a bollocking. He was made to sit in the outer office for a number of hours before being marched in, bollocked and then sent on his way back to Waddington. I can't recall the reason for the bollocking but it certainly wasn't because he was a yes man.

A first class choice for CDS. The appointment is made by the PM and needs HM's approval it is not a rotational post - any more.

Peachy got it because he impressed the PM in his previous appointments/commands.

He delivers on time on budget no BS or politics.

He is his own man.

I know, and some of you know because you worked for him.

Well he worked for me.

Or indeed why anyone in a military uniform? why not the best recommendation from a fancy really expensive management consultancy!:E

How about the the chap who currently runs google:E:E

FB:)

I suppose the good news is that Admiral Z will now be snapped up by industry and actually paid what he is worth, not a capped wage that for running a large multi-national company!

Mick,
Perhaps so, but "on the other side" there is an increasing gap between what Senior Officers think they're worth and the reality of what Industry is prepared to pay. True, this perception is at its worst at OF5/1* level - I've had to stop giggling when some old colleagues of mine have thought that they're worth £130-150K "because I need to cover school fees, ski trips and a massive mortgage...". Frankly my advice to them is stay put and buy a house while you're still in and young enough to get a decent mortgage...A lot of the ex-mil guys who are doing really well in Industry left as SNCOs and SO2s and have worked themselves up the ladder through ability and hard work, rather than relying on a string of post nominals and an address book as a "pass" to the top echelon.

Back on topic - Peachy is probably the strongest intellect I've ever met. He used to growl for effect as Cmdt AWC when I was on an OEU and we all listened. More recently he seems to have chilled a bit - I even saw him smile at a recent briefing he gave.......

...that wasn't a smile mate; that's simply a twitch that happens when he swallows a razor blade.

I recall that when I left the RAF (early 90s) I worked for a while in career change - remember "Opportunities" newspaper? - I did some individual advice, some times for VSOs. One multi-starred gent firstly got tee'd off that I did not call him sir. We went though a few issues, and then I commented that he did not have a computer terminal on his desk. "No, I have chaps out there (indicating outer office) to do that". He was not impressed with the suggestion that nipping down to the local evening classes and doing a basic IT course might be worthwhile. The classic end to the session was when I asked him what sort of second career he had in mind. "Thought I would quite like to be the Master of an Oxford college" had me almost choking!

Stu Peach's appointment as CDS has been on the cards since he was appointed from a cast of thousands as the first Commander of Joint Forces Command. Although I would have preferred to see someone wearing dark blue (or even lovat) occupying the post, particularly to oversee the exploitation of the RN's formidable range of new capabilities in a joint environment, I don't believe I'm the only 'simple sailor' who thinks we could have done a lot worse...

...and he can smile. :)

http://i1188.photobucket.com/albums/...tu%20Peach.jpg

If that's what the politicians think they've got, they are in for a bit of a shock.

+1 for East Street

I don't know the guy,I've never met him and I have been out of the business for years.
Having said that, he was drawn to my attention several years ago as being . allegedly , the subject of attempts to block his ascent by certain senior unnamed others in the RAF Int. Community.

If so , then he has my sympathy and also my admiration for triumphing.

Time might ( possibly ) tell.
In any event I wish him well.

CDS Appointment
 

Sir Peach automatically got offered the post after his closest rival, Chuck Norris, gracefully stepped aside knowing he couldn't compete......:ok:

Interesting new take on this appointment from The Times, apparently Barron was the MoDs choice but was overuled by the PM. Barron was offered VCDS but declined and resigned. Article in full for those who are interested:

A Royal Marine is expected to be given the No 2 job in the armed forces as part of a reorganisation of the top echelons that will also establish new heads for the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy, The Times can reveal.
Lieutenant-General Gordon Messenger, a decorated Afghan veteran, is the surprise choice for vice-chief of the defence staff after David Cameron derailed the Ministry of Defence’s succession plans by overruling its recommendation for the top job, chief of the defence staff, senior defence sources said.
Air Marshal Sir Stephen Hillier, a highly respected pilot, is expected to become the chief of the air staff, and Vice-Admiral Sir Philip Jones is set to be the next first sea lord.
The appointments, due to be confirmed as early as today, come after the prime minister last week selected Air Chief Marshal Sir Stuart Peach, the vice-chief, as the next head of the military rather than General Sir Richard Barrons, who had been preferred by the MoD’s senior appointments committee, a senior source said.
It is highly unusual for a prime minister to overrule the committee. The move, seen by some as political meddling, has left several senior officers very unhappy, the source added.
It also created a dilemma over who would fill the other top posts because Air Chief Marshal Peach had been expected to remain in his job. One insider described the subsequent jostling for power between the army, air force and navy as like “Game of Thrones inside the Ministry of Defence . . . you either win or die”.
At first General Barrons, head of joint forces command, another four-star post, was offered the job of vice-chief, but he turned it down and handed in his notice, sources said.
General Messenger was considered for the vice-chief job along with Lieutenant-General Sir Christopher Deverell, head of army equipment. General Messenger looks set to have won the contest and will rise to the position of four-star officer at the early age of 53. It will also make him the first Royal Marine to reach such a high rank in almost 40 years. The last four-star Marine served in 1977.

Yea, but what do the MOD know about military leadership?

I think a PSW politician is the man to choose these things...

The last four-star Marine served in 1977.

Rather later than that, according to the attached biography of General Sir Peter John Frederick Whiteley

Jack

Come on! Rotation is finished. Best man got the job. RN will get a go if the right man is available. Why not see if this guy is good enough?

How do you justify that statement?

He is not the man that the MOD recommended.

He is a politicians choice.
That is not a universally recognised stamp of quality in military bosses.....

This thread would give the impression that the RAF finds him a universally popular choice and a generally all round good bloke.

I don't know the man, but I currently work with 95% ex RAF.

A little bit of asking the RAF/Army guys got these responses.

RAF chap 1:- "Tw@t. Typical F3 angry nav"

RAF chap 2:- "Quite clever, utter @~~t"

(personally, I find that latter response quite heartening since that is exactly what I do want running the military)

Army chap "Used to work with him and Admiral Z at different times when I was in PJHQ. Admiral Z is a lovely bloke, used to make me drink with him. Completely barking like Melchett off Blackadder. Mad as a fish. New CDS however is an awful arrogant ill-mannered human being"

The Army chap also had some very interesting info re the behind the scenes manoeuvring and why it has turned out like it has which I await with interest to see what the future holds. He thinks that the Marine might be being prepared for the top job.

He thinks that the Marine might be being prepared for the top job.

Moi aussi!:ok:

Jack

Tourist,

I wouldn't rely on the opinion of your first RAF mate - Stu Peach never flew in F3s (except if he ever had a pax ride!)

Fair enough! It's possible I misheard the type. He seemed quite confident of his assessment though.

Hmm, this is the MOD that has destroyed an airworthiness system, tried to blame the MoK pilots, attempted to procure the Nimrod AEW3 and MRA4 and, who's most recent track record is to prove its inability to manage a fleet of air cadet gliders.

Why would any sensible politician accede to the MOD's advice?

Oh, and Tourist, I have served on the same sqn as Peachy and utterly refute your ex-RAF mates denigration of him.

I am with Courtney Mil: the best man for the job.

Tourist

If you're still serving you should PVR immediately in disgust. That'll show them.;)

After all, that's what many on the 'shop floor' demand our VSOs should do when they don't get what they want.....

Love it!:D

Politicians are better than MOD at choosing military men!

Ah, no!

The job of a CDS is to advise the Prime Minister.
The previous guys either put across bad plans for the wars or failed to dissuade ministers from employing bad plans.

Either way, it is not disgust they should resign in, but shame!
They have failed to do their primary task.

We know this because we lost.
Twice!
There is never an excuse for losing a war of our own choosing....

I, by contrast, do my task with an average amount of success, thus no impetus to resign whatsoever:ok:

Tourist,
I also served with him and I do think him to be the best man for the job. I also disagree with your ex-RAF chaps' comments: he's not quite clever, he's very clever. Apart from that, they're totally spot on!

Tourist, you seemed a little cynical about:

"Politicians are better than MOD at choosing military men!"

You do know who/what MOD is?

Chiefs of the Defence Staff are appointed on the recommendation of the Secretary of State for Defence to the Prime Minister

Tourist,

Your straw poll of EX-RAF mates is not representative of CURRENT mates, RAF or otherwise. I'm sure you will hear and beleive what you choose to hear and your obvious bitterness that it's not a RN guy will continue. All I can tell you is that the vast majority of currently serving "chaps" are delighted with the selection and seem, mysteriously, not to share the opinion of your cynical, retired has-beens that have lost touch with today's military - no offence intended to those retired "chaps" that post here with considerable knowledge.

MT,

Matthew 13:5/6

And no offence taken.

Perhaps the current chaps were not exposed to the new man when he was at Wg Cdr/ Gp Capt level.

My understanding is that the MoD Senior Appointments Committee which consists of the Chiefs and various other VSOs recommends 3 candidates to the SoS and the PM then chooses. The MoD has been briefing that the military's preferred choice was Gen Barron but the PM preferred ACM Peach.
I don't know any of them, I'm sure they are all equally good but it is a political appointment. Had the PM chosen someone else I'm sure others would say he was the best man over Peach. I think (?) this is the point Tourist is making which has been lost in an inter service slanging match.

Chinny, you are pretty much right, as is London Eye. The submissions go up, through the Secretary to the PM. The process this time was not as cut and dried as you may have "heard" and whilst there was some unofficial briefing, it did not necessarily reflect what was going on. What you may not be aware of is the balls of the PM in picking the man most likely to give the polis the biggest headache on behalf of the Armed Forces. A very interesting choice and not without its reasons.

As for tribalism, be a little careful about whom you level that accusation at.

Tourist should be able to speak for himself although he's a long time out of the Forces, so I doubt his familiarity with the process or the personalities involved.

However it happened I hope the appointment is a success.

As for being careful, it's the Internet no one is careful on the Internet as some of the above posts show but it's not me flaming. Tourist I'm sure will be along in the fullness of time to comment on my assumptions about his opinions.

I love the fact that Ex RAF who agree with you are "chaps that post here with considerable knowledge" and ones that disagree are cynical retired has-beens, and yes, as intimated a few posts back, these are guys that knew him as he climbed the slippery pole, not those who he now waves down upon from above. Where do you think one should go to judge character?

Incidentally, where do you get the impression I am a long time out of the forces?

I have never met the new CDS, but it is obvious from the responses on here that the general trend if not the detail of my advisors is fairly accurate.

Chinny is basically correct. I don't think that it is a position that should be chosen by the PM, and I do think that rotation keeps the worst aspects of tribalism at bay.
The RN will always think their guy is the most suitable, the RAF their guy etc etc.

Personally I believe that tribalism is a good thing in the main, and helps to give something to strive for. Militaries which have gone single service have found it not very satisfying, and while jointery is always sold as fantastic by higher ups, it is often painful as operators for all concerned seemingly often ending up lowest common denominator rather than highest.
A good example is the RN and RM. Totally separate, fiercely tribal, but work fantastically well together

The simple fact is that after x years in a service, you are going to be institutionalised to some degree.
No RN Admiral is ever going to suggest that we should get rid of carriers.
No RAF Air Marshall is ever going to think that the Army are the best people to operate Apache etc etc.

Too much time with any one service at the top will inevitably cause bias at the political level.