The plot against Sir Richard Dannatt

Liz Brown

just when you start to think that Liebore cannot sink any lower...........

Stephen Walpole

Read Dr Norths assessment of General Dannatt in his Defence of the Realm blog.

Big left winger, is our Richard.

Liam Murray

Can I ask a geniune (rather than rhetorical or provocative) question?

The campaign in Afghanistan (which I support) is by no stretch a war of national survival. Consequently the demands it makes on public money must be considered in context of public spending priorities(if a war of national survival as 39/45 this arguably isn't the case).

So while those men & women in harms ways deserve our utmost support and must have the equipment they need why do we automatically accept the judgement of those who deliver that service on what is & isn't needed?

The heads of Education authorities or Health boards make constant demands on the public purse and the default position, certainly on the political right, is scepticism and a serious focus on value for money etc. Certainly in health spending you're still in a position of life & death consequences to those decisions.

I'm just puzzled that for a war which isn't about national survival we still seem to have different rules and norms for taxpayers money spent this way...

John Richardson

".......defense ministers are more interested in protecting their reputations than .... British troops.That assessment is unfair."

By 'reputations' you surly mean careers and pensions.
The very idea !
The assessment is unfair and nasty and unkind.People who say things like that are not nice.They remind me of the people who say that in this Country Education Ministers do not put the children first.Senior Policemen put politics before actual crime fighting.That some Local Councilors do not put local residents first.Or even that ambitious MPs do not put their constituents first.
For shame !
How long must we wait until these unhelpful words are made illegal and those agents of the state can be protected properly ?

Chuck Unsworth

Why is that assessment 'unfair'? By their actions (and inactions) so shall you know them. Already MoD has denied that the smear campaign originates from within its walls - thereby confirming that such a campaign exists. Now who else benefits from this campaign? The only people to benefit are the Ministers.

As always, Cui Bono?

IH

Guido has just named Kevan Jones, one of Browns hitmen as the man behind the smears.

Austin Barry

The preposterous, rodent-like Ainsworth who has all the military bearing of a failed Catering Corps conscript circa 1951 is unlikely to intimidate his ministers or anyone else. Perhaps Brown is sending the Defence Chiefs an unequivocal two-word message by keeping the hapless Bob in place.

Occasional Ostrich

@Liam Murray
August 19th, 2009 3:45pm

Liam, if a war isn't being fought for the survival of even the teeniest aspect of the diverse British nation then we shouldn't be fightin' it.

jon dee

If there is truth in a Labour attempt to smear General Dannatt it could be the final nail in their electoral coffin.

McBridean tactics against this man will surely sicken the public to a level of revulsion which will backfire on the perpetrators.

This would be political yobbery of treacherous proportions, with no thought or consideration given to our brave troops.

This story must be nailed one way or another.

TrevorsDen

"That assessment is unfair" - no it bloody well isn't.

"why do we automatically accept the judgement of those who deliver that service on what is & isn't needed?" --- presumably you mean we must not accept every demand from the military as it could be unreasonable.
Well in the immediate past the military have themselves acquiesced in Ministers demands knowing they have inadequate equipment. This is because they wanted to preserve their pet schemes like jet fighters aircraft carriers and FRES armoured vehicles.
In this instance the ministers should have cut their coat to suit the immediate cloth.
Government indifference has led to delays in bringing the right equipment into theatre.

M Alexander

Liam Murray...Have you had a liquid lunch? What is the point you are trying to make?

Dennis

it is fuelled by the inability of Battlin’ Bob, who told his ministers to stop briefing against defence chiefs last month, to stop these smears.

Perhaps this is because the smearer has a friend and protector who is senior even to Battlin' Bob, and whose interests the smearer believes are being served by these actions.

Could be Damian McBride 2. And more damaging than McBride 1.

Uncle Vanya

All this, if true (allegedly), just proves to Moi, what a bunch of petty minded, vindictive little Toss-pots New Labour is as a government, and its Moronic Ministers. Just go now and save yourselves the great Indignity at the next General Election (Assuming Lord Mendacious and Gordo McDoom allow us one!). Who knows they might try and engineer a 'National Emergency' to try and hold power.

The Laughing Cavalier

With or without McBride Brown can only fight from the gutter. This behaviour is beyond shameful.

John F

Our toops are needed back in Blighty,, to take down these cowardly Zanulabour thugs who supposedly run our country.
I for one would give every support to the forces if they carried out this action.

Leaders and Warriors like General Dannat are worth more than all the Zanulabour scum put together and, although I,m a civilian, I would be proud to take up arms and fight alongside these guys against the Zanulabour thugs.

Liam Murray

Apologies if my point wasn't clear.

I'm asking why, for those on the right, demands for more resource for the military are considered beyond question whereas similar demands from other professionals (e.g. for hospitals, schools etc.) and treated with scepticism and can be legitimately challenged by ministers, journalists etc

Olaf Rye

Unlike those in schools and hospitals, soldiers are being killed because of inadequate equipment. The implication that men in the ranks must have a political agenda, because this is the way our civil servants think, shows how little the public understands the military. The duty of General Dannatt is to represent his troops and acquire the equipment and other resources necessary to achieve their strategic objective and to keep as many of the men in the field alive whilst doing this. No other part of the British establishment is asked to put their lives on the line and do the ugly business of killing. To treat them like overpaid civil servants by telling them to make do is ridiculous and scandalous. Either equip them properly, or terminate the mission. Soldiers are quite different from the civil service and the public and until the idiotic politicians and commentators can appreciate this (which they will not, given so few have been in uniform), the military will suffer. Look at how nicely the civil service is taken care of, and how dreadful the support for the military is in this country. It is a wonder that our men remain in the ranks to serve this sort of venal, corrupt, and ignorant dinner-party crowd.

The Laughing Cavalier

Kevan Jones, Brownite lickspittle and enthusiastic trougher.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/kevan_jones/north_durham

Hysteria

Liam

"is by no stretch a war of national survival"

very debatable - so lets posit a pull-out of NATO and especially US/UK forces (not to downplay the Canadians, Danes and others who are alos losing their young men)

Let's assume that a failed state would lead to renewed safe-haven for AQ. Even without the potential for Pakistan to fail, this seems to me to represent the basis of an existential threat.

jon dee

re post @ 4.39pm

Following your update and Guido's report regarding smear minister Kevan Jones, I hope the full force of the media will now pursue this disgusting episode.

If Jones is guilty, others will be involved. He has neither the courage or intelligence to act alone.

Roger Daley

This government is lower than a snakes belly.

I'm sickened by its constant dirty tricks and duplicitous gov.speak.

Barman at The Red Lion, Whitehall

We get a few MoD 'Spad' types in here from time to time - easy to spot as thay cannot hold their drink and quickly start talking too loudly. As such, my regulars are only too aware of the current Administration's view of our Armed Forces. Vindictive briefing against a 'soldier's soldier' and a good man is totally to be expected. I recall one of these 'tired and emotional' individuals saying recently "Things were so much easier when we had [Mike] Jackson in charge!"

'Nuff said...

Jeremy

David Blackburn:

"There is a growing sense that defence ministers are more interested in protecting their reputations than they are in providing the best possible support for British troops."

The fact that this degraded bunch of scheming apparatchiks are vain enough to think they have reputations that are worth defending in the first place is a source of some amusement.

Secondly, the fact they have been caught seeking to puff-up their so-called "reputations" by degrading that of Sir Richard Dannatt also counts against them.

"...the inability of Battlin’ Bob...to stop these smears."

If Ainsworth cannot even command the respect of his subordinates, then it doesn't say much for his ability as Secretary of State for Defence, does it?

George Laird

Dear All

Labour smear campaign, allegedly a Government Minister involved.

Sanctioned by Gordon Brown?

Someone should ask.

And someone should ask what role Gordon Brown had in blocking Dannett's promotion.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

David Ossitt

Liam Murray
August 19th, 2009 5:43pm

Apologies if my point wasn't clear.

I'm asking why, for those on the right, demands for more resource for the military are considered beyond question.

Oh you have made it abundantly clear; your "for those on the right" made it crystal clear.

You asked previously "why do we automatically acceptthe judgement of those who deliver that service on what is & isn't needed?" because they are the ones who have the skills and the knowledge to make a true assessment.

Or would you rather it was that cretin Bob Ainsworth?

Mike

Take a look at his wiki entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevan_Jones

At one stage today his photo was replaced by a lemon!

jon dee

Curiouser and curiouser.

So the BBC comes to the aid of Kevan Jones quoting a source saying " there is no campaign by Labour ministers to tarnish General Dannatt's reputation".

However it has established that Labour peer Lord Foulkes is involved in examining General Dannatt's expenses and would like early answers. Wonder what brought him into the situation?

With a war going on I would have thought the General would have enough on his plate without having to spend time on Foulkes.

Who knows what's going on, despite what the BBC says?

Michael Hindson

This Goverment lost me on the day i learned that soldiers were coming back from Iraq & given quarters infested with rats.....worse than the Tory's sending out P45's to soldiers who were serving in the Balkans.

Our political class are scum....we are a joke of a country, a laughing stock to the rest of the world.

I really do not understand how anyone can serve these corrupt, usless people.

If the military had a shred of self regard or even a little bit of backbone, they would all resign.

I do not know why they bother to follow the orders of a group of people who clearly hate everything they stand for & in that i refer to both the Tory's & the shower of shit's now in power.

Nicholas

Liam Murray. Because none of those other professionals are expected to routinely run the risk of being killed every time they go to work.

Would you compromise on the safety equipment issued to Fire services (the closest comparable profession in terms of routine risk if not scale) because the town they were serving was "not very important"?

I think you are a chump, and from the wording of your question, a leftist chump to boot. However your mind-boggling ignorance and callousness makes you supremely qualified to direct government policy and give advice to the ghastly fascists in this, the most deplorable political regime that has ever tainted Westminster.

Lance Grundy

From Kevan Jones' wiki entry...

..."he was Chairman of the Development Committee, and an elected political and legal officer of the GMB Union."

An "officer" perhaps. But a gentleman? Unlikely.

Liam Murray

David (7.31pm) & Nicholas (10.00pm) - thanks for the comments.

David - you say "they are the ones who have the skills and the knowledge to make a true assessment" and I broadly agree. I have similar faith in those who run hospitals and schools - the professionals who actually do the job. I suspect, however, that you don't and that's the thrust of my question and you still haven't answered it. And no, I wouldn't trust Ainsworth but that's a tangential point.

Nicholas - not sure your logic holds up against fire fighters, the service you quote in your second paragraph. Like David you've had a bit of a pop but conveniently ducked the question - not every penny of military spend is about saving lives, it's still public money and should be subject to the same scrutiny as all other public spending. So until someone can offer a convincing explanation otherwise I can only conclude this is a silly, tribal reaction on the part of some Conservatives because it involves a dispute between Labour ministers and the military, infantile 'them and us' stuff.

And that disappoints me particularly because contrary to the suggestion you both made I'm not a leftie - I just want a bit more thought & reason from my colleagues on the right....

Rainer Unsinn

If push comes to shove, I'll stand alongside Sir Richard Dannatt.

David Ossitt

Nicholas.

Here Here!

Jeremy

@Liam Murray

Post dated: August 19th, 2009 5:43pm

The reply to your point is contained within Olaf Rye's post immediately below your own.

Hysteria

Michael

they are not serving the government - they are serving the country - a massive difference to what drives them and makes them NOT resign.

Jeremy

jon dee:

"...Labour peer Lord Foulkes is involved..."

Oh, that...*ahem!*...paragon of virtue. He has something of a history, doesn't he?

Peter McD

Let it come! The Smear campaign against "The Reverend" has already been holed below the waterline by the red, yellow and blue press. Only the Grauniad and the somewhat bruised BBC continue to cross their fingers with increasing anxiety as the British population is pondering what in the end is a fairly simple conundrum in terms of which side to espouse -

a) A government which has consistently lied to them about its conduct in affairs of state, as well as in its own back yard - expenses, flipping, &c. - and which is trying to get that same British public to believe that they have some kind of moral ascendancy over Sir Richard Dannatt and his superb Army?

b) HM Forces' track record, and evidence of quality leadership.

Liam Murray

Thanks Jeremy - Olaf may have replied but certainly hasn't answered the question. His comment amounts to a cry of 'but they're different' with very little to substantiate that.

All's that offered to support that difference - as others have offered too - is the fact that our armed services 'put their lives on the line' at our request. This is true of course but:

(1) not every penny of spend has a direct bearing on safety and

(2) there are other areas where we spend taxpayer money in which life & death outcomes are a reality (NHS).

Just as the left seem to have a pavlovian response to any criticism of the NHS the right seem to regard any criticism or difference of opinion with the military as unpatriotic or heresy - it's a knee-jerk, tribal response that I've yet to see any reasoned defence of.

Nicholas

Liam Murray: I am not a Conservative although perhaps a conservative but most definitely an anti-socialist.

You wrote: " . . why do we automatically accept the judgement of those who deliver that service on what is & isn't needed?" If not them then who? Who is qualified and experienced to decide? A politician? The Treasury? You?

Your challenge resonates as that of the typical accountants I have encountered throughout my life but who in the last 40 years have risen to ascendancy in most organisations and institutions. They demand logic and eschew trust but we are asked to trust them to decide where moneys should go rather than the qualified and experienced professionals who need it and/or to play games and jump through silly hoops in order to justify the funding.

Do you honestly believe that in the last 12 years public spending has been subject to any kind of responsible or reasonable scrutiny? At the heart of your question is not just how effective military spending should be achieved but all public spending. Since the empirical evidence is that the Army is not adequately equipped or resourced for the war they have been deployed to fight by the New Labour government and that government has been responsible for setting priorities in public spending it follows that whatever scrutiny has been brought to bear has fallen short in delivering value for money. Or are you suggesting that merely not spending delivers value for money? Or, that in a search for "priorities" a war committed to, probably the greatest endeavour of risk a government can undertake, may be put low on the list because it is not about "national survival". In terms of outcomes how can you know what constitutes value for money? If the use of a certain type of armoured vehicle at the cost of x only militates the risk of death by y and the cost of death is z or because a company is going to be wiped out anyway there is no point provisioning it at all - are those viable and humane approaches to conducting war? That may be logical but with a callousness worthy of Stalin. And should a war not being fought for national survival not still be fought to be won? If not surely the "value for money" lies in not going to war in the first place?

Plenty of money has been thrown at the NHS, billions, presumably based on priorities decided by someone, but the life & death outcomes are still shockingly bad.

I think you may be confusing a contempt for New Labour's style of government with a "knee-jerk, tribal response" in defence of the military. Most commentators are responding to yet another example of this government's inherent malice and your question may therefore be something of a red-herring.

David Ossitt

Liam Murray
"I have similar faith in those who run hospitals and schools - the professionals who actually do the job. I suspect, however, that you don't"

Why would you suspect that I do not? I do.

But there will always be limits to budgets; and I think that it should be the professionals who should decide how their own share of the budget is spent, not the politicians.

jon dee

Jeremy @ 12.31 am.

Yes indeed, it makes you shiver does'nt it ?

That Gordon's friend, a man for all reasons,bon viveur and supporter of the public purse should be mentioned in the same breath as General Dannatt is shameful.

As the story picks up who else will arise from the fetid trench?

R.L.I.

A "war of national survival" ? Oh yes it is. Its a lynch pin in the whole shaky, toxic Middle East, Islam fundamentalist brew. It will eventually be abandoned.

The Falklands? Was an essential point not made in pursuing that war?

Africa? Look at it now. A tragedy that it was abandoned. And Rhodesia? A "war of national survival"? It was for us that lived there and fought the war. Abandoned in the most shameful manner? The only beneficiaries were the few thugs who took power and trashed the continent?

Sadly, since WW2 the pyramid has been inverted. The drek at the bottom now sits at the top, makes the rules. Its had a wonderful time indulging itself, borrowing money, embracing all that's soft and easy. Take a hard look at the result in economics terms. Its inevitable that the West faces radical decline.

So you might as well exit Afghanistan now. Let the big problem come to a head before you're weaker and they're stronger.

Hereford

Hindson: If the military had a shred of self regard or even a little bit of backbone, they would all resign.

Clearly you have never served in the military. Otherwise you would not ask that question.

And it is beneath requiring an answer.

Olaf Rye

Liam,

The NHS does indeed deal with life-and-death situations, but there staff is not under fire and ordered into situations that might see them killed. The police and the fire-brigade also face the danger of death, but none of them are ordered into vicious conflicts. Moreover, as I stated above, none of these people have the unenviable duty to kill (apart from some elements of the police force). This makes the military very different indeed: the men are ordered forward with clear knowledge that a contact with the enemy is likely. This sets them apart from everyone in civilian life and especially the civil service, which does not seek out conflict and is ordered to kill or be killed.

The government chose to send these men to war and as I have said before, they should be equipped properly to succeed or their mission terminated. War leaves men scared in a way that the no one in civilian life quite appreciates. This sets them apart and makes them different.

John B Sheffield

Of course nu labour or Mandelson is upset that someone is willing to tell the Truth, it seems since public opinion has been so strong against the government and some ministers, they have been trying to control comment in their favour from those on the ground in Afghanistan.

Owen

Eric Joyce MP (Labour, Falkirk)is said to be the only MP whose expenses now top £1million. Please may we have an FoI on that, please.

A firm pair of breasts

It was I that replaced Kevan's picture with that of a lemon.

Michael Hindson

To Hysteria @ 12:26 am &
Hereford @ 10:55 am

Successive Government's have, in my view, broken the covenant with the people who serve.

We spend approx. 2.5% of GDP on defence. Bulgaria spends more.
Our government, meanwhile, skimps on equipment, food & training.
By equipment, i'm not only talking about helicopters or heavily armoured vehicles but things like night vision goggles, batteries for them, ammunition even (that is compatible with their weapons)!

Recently, the MoD completed a huge £2.3 Billion overhaul of it's headquarters. Somehow they were able to get away with paying £1000 each for comfy chairs while soldiers on the front line are denied kit, support & serious political backing for what they are doing.

I suppose the point i am trying to make is that i do not see that either of the main political party's actually give a damm about the Army, Navy or Raf.

Our young people are currently fighting a war half way around the world & most of the population of the UK are concerned with Jordan & Peter Andre, or Kerry Katona.....

I question the sense of the top brass in fighting a war (which Gov. Minister's don't dare call a war) when the majority of the population don't give it a second thought.

Yes i can understand that most of the troops out there think that they are, either directly or indirectly, helping to protect their loved one's, relatives & the wider population of the UK.

For myself, i really would like to see the guys who command, put their troops first & say "NO! You Do Not Support Us, We Will Not Risk Any More Live's For A Cause That You Do Not Care About!"

I do not have the words to express my hatred & contempt for this & previous Government's.

Littlenan

If we cannot afford to equip our soldiers properly, we should not be fighting this or any other war where we are not threatened with immediate invasion.

This government is a disgrace to Great Britain. They do not care a jot about anybody else's comfort or wellbeing so long as there is enough money in the pot to enable THEM to enjoy lavish expense accounts, good salaries and gold-plated pensions.

For a government which actually had people planning on making up total lies about the Conservatives, nothing would surprise me - accept to find these Labour politicians are models of probity.

Pongo

It is fortunate that Military personnel pledge their allegienc to the Queen and country and NOT to the government. I for one would NOT pledge my allegienc to any government as corrupt and self serving as the British Government no matter what colour they may be.