New Defence Secretary
 

I may be doing Gavin Williamson a disservice, but is he really the right man for the job? Look up his history.

Sharpie,

Looking back over the Sec Defs since I joined in 1970 there have been a few good men and a whole heap of plonkers. Those that spring to mind: Carrington - carried the can for Falklands unpreparedness; "Sleepy" Fred Mulley - embarrassment; Pym - Sec Def for a while then sacked as FM; Nott - offered to resign over how the Falklands campaign was going - but told to stay where he was by MT; Hesletine - resigned over Westland Affair; "Buff" Hoon - enough said; Hutton - lasted 6 months then resigned politics altogether; Ainsworth - named as one of the highest spenders in Allowances Scandal; Fox - not bad but then let his best man and friend into defence meetings and had to resign; Hammond - over promoted and with high ideas of further promotion.

So, do we give the guy some room to show himself, and Spiderman is a cool nickname!

Judging the book entirely by its cover, he looks an unctuous little git.

Is that not part of the job spec?

OK, so if we don't like this new fellow, who then? By the standards presently being demanded its hard to see how ANY politician from any party will measure up.

Heaven forfend that it should be someone with military experience! :ugh:

Too hard to read how it will go at this stage. On the one hand, he is clearly no pushover and is an operator. He will also want to make an impression and is high tempo. On the other, he appears to have got up the nose of some of the men in grey suits, there being some disapproval swirling about how he came into the job, including his part in that. As has been said, guess we have to give him a chance and keep everything crossed...

Penny Mourdaunt, Mark Lancaster, Tobias Ellwood?

They all know quite a bit about Defence....but, no, let's have someone who probably gave himself the job and knows very little about the portfolio.

:D

Tom Tugendhat
Hard to disagree with his credentials

Caution warning on this one....gained from working experience.

TT has also been rather too close to VSOs in his military service, so would be influenced through the old boy network? Also, it would be hard to imagine that his policies would anything other than pongo-centric...

Anyway, thanks to the stupid plebiscite last year and Mother Mayday's daft idea to hold a general election earlier this year, I can't see the government staying in power for much longer, particularly if the Labour mob can bin Comrade Corbychev...

BEagle,

pongo-centric...FFS...get over it!

And anybody who served in the RAF of the last ~10 years didn't serve in, according to you, the 'real' RAF, so they don't count either.


When you look around and see something wrong with everybody, maybe the real problem is you...?

Hmmm. What is more important is that the Pollies get a grip on UK Defence policy. It seems to me that we have a dichotomy of political opinion that varies between making War with anyone we disagree with and, withdrawing from any conflict. The result is a terrible mish-mash of hollowed-out capabilities because the UK cannot afford real "war-with-anyone" armed forces strength. IMO, part of the responsibility of the government is to have a clearly defined policy on defence that is fully funded and would definitely be able to achieve the stated policy. The Service Chiefs should provide the specialist knowledge to achieve the Government policy. Unfortunately, the last 50 years or so seem to have been a bunfight between the Services as the funds have shrunk and the Government has asked for capabilites that we cannot afford, against a Defence policy that is ill-defined. :*

The way the current government are performing I suspect that before long Nia Griffith will be the first female to hold the post.
We'll have something to moan about then!

we don't expect the Home Secretary to be an ex-copper, the Minister of Health an ex-doctor or nurse etc etc so why should the MoD be run by an ex-military man?

And if he was the matelots would complain if he wsn't one of them, likewise the RAF & Army...............

If he has any sense he'll have extracted a few promises re funding before he took the job.................

With respect to Beags our generation saw a major shift on how defence budgets worked.'
When we joined. the respective Chiefs of Staffs submitted their requirements estimates to government for negotiation and settlement .'
Then,it changed. Basically Government said "This is what we've got ,sort it out among yourselves as to how it will be spent".$
The door was then open to those currying political favour.

"The RAF ? Stretched ,but not over-stretched Minister."

The new guy was described yesterday by a female MP (Tory) as "A self-serving c**t."

From a polllie. Ironic eh?

Really? I have heard worse in the NAFF 1

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...f1ae05ff6eb789

Intersting quotes

Text from senior Tory MP about Gavin Williamson: "He's out of the ****storm. Knifed Fallon and pinched his job. It's way above his ability."

Fallon timeline: Gavin Williamson tells PM that Fallon might have to go. Fallon goes. Williamson gets his job

One minister tells me ‘She is so weak she has let Williamson appoint himself-this is appalling’

There are times when offered a job that it would be better to advise that another would be more experienced & suited to the role.

Another minister:" Gavin is an appalling appointment. He's never stepped foot in a dept + now he's running one of the most important"

Minister tells me: "She's gone mad. It's real 'end of days' stuff. He's [Williamson] a real slimeball, w/ his own leadership team in place"

Are we going to see the RAF reform 127 Sqn to get into this chaps good books?

Tom Tugendhat "After attending St Paul's School, London, he studied Theology at the University of Bristol."

A direct line to God might help, because the Tories will need a miracle to extradite themselves from this mess.

I think it is better that the SofS is not ex-military. HH's point is well-made and 2 of the services would always feel themselves to be on the back foot..

Any comparison with the US is invalid. Because UK ministers typically need to serve as MPs first, most of the UK ex-mil who have made it to ministerial office left the services as mid-rankers, largely tactical in experience and without the breadth of joint perspective of a 4* like Mattis (who can be appointed without needing to establish a political career). Also, each of the US services has its own minister and civil servants to fight its corner in any disagreements. By contrast, the UK MoD is effectively a single 'joint' ministry, so it is vital that its ministers are as objective as possible. Single-service 'baggage' is unlikely to be helpful in that regard.

All that said, there must have been a better candidate, surely?

However unlike many in Parliament he did work in the real world before becoming an MP.

There are always some willimg to mouth off anyone appointed to any post there. It is in the nature of the game played out.

I agree that appointing a former Army Lt Col would have been a disaster. Not sure the Generals would enjoy being ordered about by him either.

https://s1.postimg.org/72pn6vp6kf/Sc...t_14.51.56.png

The bad news - he knows nothing about Defence. The next few months are going to be hardwork. Then again, that would be no change you might say.

The good news - it's never a bad thing to have a boss who's close to the PM.

The second bit of bad news - we don't know how long the PM will be PM.

He will do well if he can write the hymn sheet and make everyone follow it. My expectation is, he will force a major review of Defence policy and it will mean cuts of things we don't need to do with expenditure pegged at 2%. At the same time, I think he will also get rid of the 1% cap, maybe next summer. :D

OAP

But surely launching a 'Major Defence Review' is the obvious first step on taking up office? This proves you are a "Person of Action", and establishes your credentials for the future.

Subsequently, the Government falls (63.8% probability) or the incumbent is re-shuffled by the incumbent PM (83.2 % prob).

* Percentages extracted from PoliticsForKids.com ;)

The cap is already history as far as policy is concerned, there's too much momentum now not to get rid of it.

But to say it's pay rises all round isn't a given. Fallon himself, at a recent Defence Town Hall I sat in on, said there is no cash for a rise above 1%. If it's 1%+ all round, then there need to be cuts elsewhere; more likely is 1%+ for certain areas and less for others. I don't see that changing regardless of who is running the place.

Thinking further, I did like the line he gave in a speech, paraphrasing "I don't believe in stick but you can get a lot done with a sharpened carrot".

Looks like he has a sense of humour.

He'll need one.

So will the currently-serving members of HM Forces, and the pensioners.

Don't deprecate or trivialise Theology as a degree subject. Perhaps if it were "rebranded" as "Wisdom" it would be more contemporary.

Melchy, my view is based on the political situation. Generally, there are few votes in Defence spending (until it gets too late!) and, at the present time, increasing spending on other domestic issues is becoming important to maintain enough popular support for the Tories. Therefore, I judge that Defence spending will take a hit in the near future. Spreadsheet Phil will bank on that (but not say) in his calculations for the Budget. The Defence cuts will have to be limited to keep to about 2% GNP. As far as the 1% Public pay limit, I see that falling to the wayside in stages.
Opposition to Defence spending cuts from the Service chiefs will be tempered by the (political) Defence review and, the hard fact that, if the VSOs don't like it, they would be dealing with far worse cuts if Corbyn and co get enough popular support. :oh: Just the way I see it. ;)

For centuries the imposition of superstition was branded as "wisdom", on pain of death preceded by ghastly torture for anyone who questioned the crappy dogma that was handed down from a pulpit.

We still fight religious wars militarily: currently an Abrahamic religion is in the cross-hairs --- not for the first time!

We "send a strong message" by immolating them, not at the stake but at the push of a button, with missiles which have biblical names such as Hellfire and Brimstone.

The Church of England has been described as the Tory party at prayer. This Minister of Defence has been appointed for his beliefs, not for his ministerial experience.

Gawd help us all!

Imagine if you will, a new broom sweeping clean.

He could cancel the F35 order and buy a less capable, but more suitable, and far cheaper aircraft.

How good would that be... imagine the MOD actually gearing up for this war and the next, instead of the one before last?

For anyone rushing to type a list of reasons why we need Typhoons and F35s to see off the Soviet Hordes, I refer you to my comments on the Nimrod while under threat, and all of those on here who said we couldn't do without LRMPA, Mil SAR all over the UK, our own tanker fleet etc. etc.

We are at war with nobody as much as we are at war with white van man, where the van is white, but maybe not the man.

Not only do the great unwashed not care about Russian Bombers 200 miles east of Aberdeen at 410 heading west, they really, really do care about a guy beheading passengers on the East Coast mainline trains.

I for one, think they are right to be more worried about the real threats.

Perhaps Nuclear Weapons are the answer to terrorists, perhaps not. They certainly seem to be the answer to raising the share price of the people selling them.

Why don't the Irish have nuclear attack subs and Typhoons and aircraft carriers? Why do the Swedish Navy not have nuclear subs, capable of melting rocks? Could it be that they have decided to spend their money on emptying the bins every week instead?

The new guy really has got a huge selection of expensive things that he could cut. Without causing the UK public any real harm.

Airpolice,

I'm not an expert on where HMG wants us to go next (expect the unexpected) but you don't just need F35 to go to war with Russia. Anything from Syria upwards would warrant F35 if you actually want some kind of freedom of mvr. In ten years time that kind of tech will be trickling to a lot of other places around the world and I'd rather have an F35 looking over my shoulder than a Gripen or souped up F15/18. (Be nice to have some Growlers along for the ride as well though, admittedly).

Buggah! You've done bust the code.

Yup. A dogfighter was a really useful tool when aerial dogfighting was a mode of warfare. Not any more, but it used to be.

Similarly, an ability to joust with lances on horseback was a really worthwhile technology to indulge, once upon a time. Not any more, but it used to be.

How useful is an F-35 against a nutter who drives a van along a crowded pavement?

What use would any of that style of equipment be if a Francoist government decided to walk across the runway in Gib and militarily take control of the place 'back' to the rest of Spain?

Can we rely on the F&CO to signal to Mod that such an invasion is forthcoming?

Will they do so in sufficient time to allow MoD to charter SS Canberra and Herald of Free Enterprise and a few other collections of ferrous oxide to go down there with a brass band and a coupla hundred squaddies to sort out the swarthies?

Is the gumment Chief Whip up to the task?

pba, it's sticking our nose into Syria that got people killed in London. People were already dying in Syria, "we" are not helping (us) there any more than "we" helped in Libya.

HM's next G might well have a better agenda, with more focus on protecting our own people.

Let the Russians assist Syria to do what they will to the region. The US will resolve it, if it becomes a real danger.

Guns and ammo?

Now you are stretching the plonker's budget.

Blaircraft carriers don't pay for themselves y'know. Then there's the berthing fees for the long black things to go alongside at King's Bay. And stuff.

You really can't have it all, y'know.

and to be blunt - why do we need Gib. if we're not going to fight wars in the Med & N Africa?

It's the fantasy promoted to the electorate that we always "punch above our weight". Why can't we simply punch at our weight? We're no longer the 19th century colossus that stood astride the world, painting it pink wherever we trod.
Dean Acheson's observation that "Great Britain has lost an Empire and has not yet found a role" is as true today as it was in 1962 when he said it.
As a starting point, it would be helpful if our Lords & Masters could decide what our weight should be. Now would be a good time to do it as we separate from European institutions and aspire to a different world role.