Why is the minister in charge of this so junior?
July 13th, 2009
Is this how Brown could be vulnerable over Afghanistan?
With Speaker Bercow taking the sword to the House tradition of referring to ‘Honourable Members’ it was interesting to be reminded that in years past MPs who were Barristers were referred to as ‘Learned Members’ and those with military service referred to as ‘Gallant Members’.
Whilst there is no shortage of lawyers in the House of Commons nowadays, the number of MPs with a military background is at an historically low ebb.
Military matters are dangerous ground for most politicians - maintaining the balance between the services with internal and intra-service politics, let alone budgeting for large-scale projects, and all in a political minefield where the slighest mistake or ill-judged decision could cost lives.
It seems almost hard to believe that UK forces have been in Afghanistan for almost 8 years, and even with the recent US surge, the end of the conflict (if ‘end’ is even a plausible outcome) seems nowhere in sight. The discussions about military equipment and the potential renewal of Trident must now be taken in the face of tightened economic circumstances, and whilst still at war our ‘peacetime’ budget will be yet more stretched.
In the face of these challenges, it seems remarkable that not only have we seen 3 Secretaries of State for Defence in the last 12 months, but that the newest incarnation - Bob Ainsworth MP - is the most junior member of the Cabinet (in terms of seniority based on time in the Cabinet) to hold the post in living memory.
I find it difficult to envisage him (or anyone) managing the expectations of the services, the electorate, and the Treasury with such a short period of time in the role, and wonder if losing John Hutton (a story that was lost in the chaos of that election week) might prove the most damaging loss Brown suffered in the Cabinet reshuffle.
For a PM who has put an emphasis on supporting ‘Britishness’, I don’t think any charge could be as damaging to him as the claim that he is neglectful of the Afghan campaign, and yet giving ownership of such massive decisions to a comparative novice in Cabinet could be seen as just that. The message of economic failure has begun to seep into the public consciousness, but we all know how resonant the support for troops can be in the country at large, and it seems odd that Defence and Foreign Affairs are not given as much prominance in British Elections as might be expected.
We already know that the Economy will be one of the biggest battlegrounds at the next election, but I wonder if our continued presence in Afghanistan, our requirement for a Nuclear Deterrant, and the role of Britain in the World might not be stark dividing lines at the next election. I suspect that any failures by the Labour government in this regard might be far more damaging than other complaints that might arise - the question is which party will benefit?
Morus
MessageSpace Advertising
First?
Brown reaps what he sows, the man is a true socialist and hates the army. The man has no courage himself yet seems fine to send young men to their deaths so he can be best mates with Obama.
This Govt just smells of death.
“losing John Hutton (a story that was lost in the chaos of that election week) might prove the most damaging loss Brown suffered in the Cabinet reshuffle.”
I think that some realised the significance of the loss of John Hutton, and it was a major loss. But sadly, not enough in the media or political lobby. Hutton was genuinely passionate about defence, and had a real knowledge of his brief. I just wish that he had been more influential within the Cabinet, and in No10&11 Downing Street. His replacement was yet another sign of how little Gordon Brown values the armed forces, or their current needs.
Great piece, Morus.
There was a post by the Mole some days ago, where he said that Brown ordered a review about Britain’s defence and it will report its findings early next year. According to the Mole, Brown’s idea is to highlight divisions inside the Conservative Party. Anyway here’s the link:
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/50281,news,the-mole-gordon-brown-seeks-to-exploit-tory-divisions-on-trident
What a surprise Brown thinking about himself again rather than what is good for the country.
Rather like his creatures Tim and Gabble who never give any reason to vote for Labour but instead confine themselves to smears about others.
Well written, Morus!
It is astonishing that we have a Minister of Defence so low in seniority at a time when the country is at war!
Not only at war, but not doing very well either, amidst scandals concerning the disgraceful lack of support from the Government to the guys at the sharp end.
Many of us had not picked up on this point. Thanks for pointing it out.
I shouldn’t be surprised. Labour have got previous on this. Remember Des Browne? He was SoS for Scotland as well as SoS for Defence - what an insult to the services that was. “You’re fighting a war, but we can only give you a part-time minister as your chief”
If you are going to pick fights you need to - know who and what you are picking a fight with; what you are actually trying to achieve and you need to put enough people and equipment in to ensure you actually win. Let’s be honest this Govt cannot answer any of those points and the situation is a mess with a bad historical precedence.
An interesting piece but one built on a false premise.
the idea that a Defence Secretary during a war is a significant politician who is key to the war effort is not rooted in fact.
John Notts tenure during the Falklands war was preceded by widespread criticism amongst forces chiefs of budget cuts to the Navy in the run up to the war,indeed he offered his resignation over the withdrawl of HMS Endurance.
The PM at the time, and the Leader of the Opposition made the case passionately for the war and won the case intellectually over critics within their own parties.Indeed it is often forgotten how powerful Michael Foots speech during the emergency debate was in framing the case for a war against the fascist junta in Buenos Aires.
Thatcher of course was a giant in taking on those on her own side who doubted her, and her war aims.
Now we have a situation where the focus on a minor figure like Ainsworth is a product of the lack of leadership and articulation of war aims at the top of all three main parties.Nobody relied on John Nott to galvanise and articulate political objectives, nor should they have.
Brown, Cameron and Clegg have sadly not lived up to their responsibilities in pressing the case for a just war.Watching Obamas articulation of the war aims, its regional and global impact, and its consequences for the countries fighting it makes our present leadership look like pygmies.
The key point that Obama realised, way before he became President, how the war in Afghanistan is tangled up with the future of Pakistan, a major regional nuclear power with whom Bush was prepared to deal and fund no mattter how the unelected government behaved towards its own people, and crucially, its double dealing with the Pakistani Taliban and their counterparts over the border.
At a time when the Pakistani Taliban have overplayed their in Swat valley and by killing moderate Imams in Pakistan, the new American regime has poured troops into Afghanistan to divorce the Afghan Taliban from their opium cash crop and safe havens, the political leadership in the UK is found wanting.
So we have Brown inarticulate and seemingly unable to portray any big picture, Cameron fence sitting, not wanting to put a foot wrong and Clegg happy to snipe from the sidelines with no constructive strategy.
Very depressing.
After the Cold War defence became an unimportant matter to the public in a way it hadn’t been since the 30s. The end of the threat of imminent nuclear war changed perspectives and we all looked forward to the peace dividend. The Gulf War then showed a vastly superior Western military machine to the world and we were all told that we were so far ahead and with our ability to forge alliances, we could stand down large parts of our armed forces and save money. Now, no govt needed to come to office promising huge amounts for the forces.
Move forward to 2001 and after the horrific 9/11 attacks, we need to get the Taleban and the public are largely behind it. We fire off a few Cruise missiles land some troops and the Taleban collapse. Look how marvellous our troops are doing. No worries about equipment levels become part of the public narrative. Then we get the Iraq War and all the controversy. Now defence spending becomes an issue along the dodgy dossier etc… But Afghanistan remains forgotten and the slow slippage becomes lost in the Iraq controversy. Stories come out of troops buying their own equipment, but they are overshadowed by the stop the war arguments. Iraq ends and the govt is suddenly faced with a real problem in Afghanistan. The press return to this war and the stories grow of poor equipment, rising insurgency and the drip-drip-drip of the casualties, but they don’t get to the top of the news cycle. Now we have a sudden increase in the numbers dying and the equipment issue becomes very public. The peace dividend is long forgotten and the military becomes an issue again. John Hutton was a very good Defence Secretary and would have a lot of trust with the troops and the public. You just don’t get that with Bob Ainsworth. It was notable that straight after his appointment the “troops respect him” line was leaked out through “sources”, which was not an auspicious start. This may be the worst decision of the reshuffle considering the weeks we face in terms of losses, when we need the govt reinforcing the need to bring some form of stability. We also need a credible conclusion strategy and we need it quick so that the public will see how we get an end to this.
Looking at the headlines for Sunday and Monday’s papers, this is now a toxic issue for the govt. For the traditional Sun/Mirror/Star/Herald/Record reader they are going to be furious about this when you consider the social profile of many of our soldiers. Considering the large Scottish contingent in our forces, the Black Watch amalgamation etc, this could really harm Labour in its core heartland and may also swing English votes towards the BNP.
Personal moment:
Finally I would like to say how much I admire the strength and courage of the many young men who fight for our country. Having a brother in the forces during the Falklands I am in awe of those who protect our nation’s back. Their courage exceeds mine. For the fallen, I can think of no better words than “Their Name Liveth for Evermore”.
“[T]he most junior member of the Cabinet (in terms of seniority based on time in the Cabinet) to hold the post in living memory.” - George Robinson, 1997-1999, who despite a string of top Shadow Cabinet jobs never held junior ministerial office, unlike Bob Ainsworth.
9 - If you remeber the Falklands you’ll remeber how some on the left were so desperate to discredit Thatcher that they were prepared to use issues of equipment shortages to almost revel in troop deaths.
The deaths amongst the foot patrol blown apart in Afghanistan during on Friday, during a major ground assault shows that there are some prepared to mirror that shameful approach today.
Tim, you’re tired; go to bed.
11 - You’re right, I am and I will.
You post when fully alert?
News to me.
Er, what is your source for ” With Speaker Bercow taking the sword to the House tradition of referring to ‘Honourable Members’ “?
Tim 10. To suggest that anyone on this site “revels” in the death of our brave men is disgraceful.This debate has no relation to party.Our spend on protection equipment and logistics is substantially lower than the Americans in the same theatre of war and would not be accepted for one day by the American people.It is for the Labour party in Parliament to show that they really care about our troops and there is no sign of it, other than the usual meaningless and emotionless announcements - coupled with denials that anything better is needed.
FPT RIP SBS.
The Americanisation of the coverage of soldiers killed probably does not help the government. If you go to war, people will die. Perhaps it is a good thing if it means future Prime Ministers will be less gung ho than Mr Blair, man of faith.
Whether it matters that Bob Ainsworth is a comparative newcomer is not clear. More tellingly, our deeply unimpressive Foreign Secretary has been missing in action, and so for that matter has his shadow.
Probably tim @ 8 has it right regarding our government and also the contrast with President Obama; Hillary Clinton too.
When did they start the practice of mentioning the names of the recently deceased soldiers at each PMQs? It seems arbitrary and odd to me that it is done at that particular time, and not by some other means. It would have been silly if they had done it in July 1916.
This may be an issue which has caught out the Conservatives too. Mr Cameron has asked no recent questions of the Prime Minister, and this might not be the best time to raise the spectre of defence cuts, even if aircraft carriers and nuclear missiles are unlikely to be of use in Helmand.
OT, there was some speculation here a while back that Brown might dissolve parliament to stop his own party from kicking him out. Over here, it looks like Aso did just that:
http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/aso-intends-to-dissolve-lower-house-as-early-as-tuesday
Election on August 30th.
The Daily Mail story pulls no punches
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1199239/Lack-leadership-Brown-killing-soldiers-claims-Army-brass-dead-named.html
“They warned that a ‘lack of leadership’ at the top of government is causing unnecessary deaths.
On the day that six more soldiers killed in Helmand Province were named, one high-ranking Army officer said that soldiers are dying on the front line because the Prime Minister and Chancellor Alistair Darling have refused to pay for the reinforcements and equipment they need.”
“And he bluntly dismissed the Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth as ’simply not up to it’ after he rejected a request by the Army chief, General Sir Richard Dannatt, for 2,000 extra troops.”
The background info on Ainsworth is far from flattering too.
17. The naming of servicemen/womens names is a very recent developement, brought in by New Labour, I suspect to add gravitas to the Government.
It is an infantile measure, but one that the Tories and Lib/Dems seem to to concure with.
In the days in which I served her majesty, (1952-54), it would have been laughed out of court. The Korean War was going in until summer 1953 and other fire-fights in Aden and Cyprus likewise.
Thanks for the article, Morus.
I’ve just read of the death of SBS, and am very sad about it.
Regarding equipment, surely what is needed is a competent junior minister appointed at the start of a government with the backing of the Prime Minister, whose sole responsibility is to review and renew MoD logistics.
Designing a stealth bomber might be hard, and aircraft carriers have long lead times, but much of the kit can be bought off the shelf.
Accommodation too has long been a sore point but in mid-recession, any good Keynesian looking for shovel-ready projects would surely order the immediate refurbishment of all barracks. Sadly, we are all monetarists now.
17
I think it was started by Tony Blair.
Seems an appropriately reflective article after the news yesterday. The obvious line of attack politically is that the Government took its eye off the ball in Afghanistan with the Iraq misadventure; the Lib Dems are the only party who can push this line though. But you have to wonder if Iraq hadn’t happened, whether we would have realised the extra demands in Afghanistan and provided for them?
It’s also a very New Labour approach to throw money and resources at a problem and hope it will go away. But Afghanistan has its own complex demands, and Obama’s regional approach mahy well pay off better. The real concern is that there seems no possibility of handover, Afghanistan doesn’t seem capable of standing on its own feet at the moment, so no early prospect of withdrawal.
Tim:
“If you remeber the Falklands you’ll remeber how some on the left were so desperate to discredit Thatcher that they were prepared to use issues of equipment shortages to almost revel in troop deaths.
The deaths amongst the foot patrol blown apart in Afghanistan during on Friday, during a major ground assault shows that there are some prepared to mirror that shameful approach today.”
In 1982 many on the left were actively hoping for this country to be defeated.
Those critical of Afghanistan believe we should either fight to win or get out now.
It is a disgrace that after 8 years of war that defence spending is lower in real terms than at the start. The person primarily responsible for this is Brown but the entire Labour party bar a few individuals shares the blame.
I thnk the poll on the Afghan conflict isnt surprising. People need to bear in mind that support for the troops is high and that is somewhat reflected in the figures of support for the conflict. The sting has also been taken from involvement in Iraq.
The morning press, if the Radio 4 press review is anything to go by, stinks for Brown on this issue and by extension the party he leads.
It will seep in.
I’ll be off for a run soon to check out lovely Belfast and the warm ups for the glorious..er 13th of July parade with bands and lodges converging from across the city. Some trouble last night around NI with some ‘catholic’ buildings attacked by loyalists and a protestant family burnt out of their house by nationalists. Today is a good opportunity for dissident republican a bit of a profile to cause trouble on the street.
When was the last time we had a poll?
Bob Ainsworth is one of the worst Ministers that Labour have had.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziTrlKAkn94
This Paxman interview should have stopped his career. It did not and Brown promoted this fool.
I’ve seen various allusions to Gordon Brown having stated at some point in the past that the “military needed to be taken down a peg or two” or some such. Can anyone point me in the direction of a source for where that came from? I assume it was in a book somewhere - can’t imagine it was ever on the record. But it would be interesting to get to the bottom of it, given recent events.
17 Since at least June 2006.
I can well imagine how much such a deeply psychologically flawed individual such as Brown hates the military.
Remember that Brown poured vast amounts of money into his beloved NHS, the symbol of Labour and state socialism, and has failed to see any corresponding return.
Now consider the military which symbolises things Brown hates. It is starved of funding and given impossible tasks but it still performs better than the NHS.
“Why is the minister in charge of this so junior?” - because there are no “senior” ministers who are remotely interested or who could do any better. None of the men have any real military experience and the women in the Cabinet could be used by our Armed Forces for target practice.
The responsible Minister and his entire civil service entourage should be shipped out to the war zone this afternoon and forced to live, eat and sleep under the same conditions as our fighting men.
Ainsworth would, however, require to flip his second home to a tent in the mountains somewhere and claim only for camping gas.
Yes defence has been neglected, but the UOR is trying to remedy this. Armies tend to re-fight the last war, and our forces are highly-mechanised which does not suit the terrain in Helmand.
As for the IEDs that are causing the casualties, does anyone know the sizes of these devices? [It would appear that 2 Rifles were on foot-patrol when ambushed, so heavier armoured-vehicles and helicopters would not have made a major difference.] Remember that in Iraq an IED temporarily damaged an Chally II (and a trooper lost somes toes) so the ultimate armoured machines are vulnerable if the device is big enough.
More worrying is the lawyers sniffing around for quick-ways to make money from the situation. [Sky's second lead story is a case involving allegations from Iraq.] The cash-cow not only undermines our troops but cuts into defence budgets.
So short of getting Paddy Ashdown to run defence from the Lords Gordon Brown is left with minnows. [Don't forget Blair's giant - John Reid - started of the Helmand episode.]
The next election will be crucial, and defence spending may replace international-development as the second sacrosanct budget. Until this happens making a political argument out of the situation is showing contempt for our lads on the front-line.
FPT:
Sad to hear the news about SBS. Sometimes the web is so impersonal you forget that there are real people, real concerns and real experiences that we can learn from, but rarely do.
To answer Morus’s question, because the Labour party holds the armed forces in such disdain. Witness the hopeless underfunding of the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan by one G Brown, and the inadequate resourcing of the same missions by the armchair generals in MoD main building. I’m sure the hopeless procurement department in Abbeywood doesn’t help either.
It’s obvious that soldiers undertaking risky but necessary foot patrol would not be spared attack by the use of armoured vehicles or aerial movement, but more lives would be saved if there were sufficient helicopters to evacuate them once they were wounded.
Troops on other missions would still be alive were the correct equipment available to them for transportation and protection.
I have no doubt, that within seconds creatures such as tim and gabble will be scuttling out from underneath their slimy rocks to rebut these allegations. It’s only to be expected from a panicky government that has finally been caught out over this disgraceful issue.
Having revisited the Bob Ainsworth car-crash with Paxman, so kindly supplied by TC, I was struck by how similar the government justification was to their argument over the spending cuts / growth farago. There the troop withdrawal from Iraq had been brought forward to a time before they actually went.
Re. 29, I agree entirely, and I’m a Labour Party member. I thought Browne was a bad choice at Defence, but Ainsworth is far worse. Hilary Benn or Paul Murphy would have been better choices.
morning all and another day with depressing newspaper headlines.
Poor bob Ainsworth strikes me as the man who was desperate for promotion before the chance to “make it” to cabinet rank was snatched away and Brown, desperate to fill the post, took the first volunteer.
Curious that the one Defence Minister with the qualifications to speak has been nowhere to be seen.
Could it be that Brown would panic that Admiral Lord West if subjected to an in depth interview would go “off message” and land the government right in it?
Clearly Labour badly miss John Hutton, a man who knew his brief, was arguably one of the most likeable cabinet ministers and by announcing his retirement has lost Labour the Barrow seat, which my cousins tell me has swung back to the Tories in sentiment anyway.
I suspect the most devious answer over the weekend by each Government Minister including Lord Drayson was that responding to criticisim of a lack of helicopters to transport troops, each minister said that there has been an 84% increase in helicopter flying time.
Does this in fact mean the existing helicopter squadron is flying on almost twice as many missions and if so, is safety being put at risk and pilot fatigue becoming a serious possibility? After all we had 3 men lost when a helicopter crashed last week which they stressed had not been downed by enemy fire!
Gordon Brown for 10 years plundered the military budget to fund his crazy pet schemes and now 18 year old lads are paying the price.
This is just another reason why we need a general election - To get rid of hugely over-promoted, fifth rate politicians like Ainsworth. I mean, I’m not a fan of Liam Fox particularly, but if its between him and Bob Ainsworth as to who should be defence sec, I think its a no brianer.
38 Easterross, the answer by Drayson is more devious than it first appears; there has been an 84% increase in helicopter flying time over a period which has seen a 100% increase in troop numbers.
I see two distinct questions. Firstly, should “the West”/”the International Community/”The UN” (delete as appropriate) be fighting a war in Afghanistan against the Taliban / Terrorists. Secondly, what role, if any, should British forces play in that conflict.
My answers are, to the first, on balance, yes, I believe it is too early to leave the country, as the domestic security apparatus would be swept aside by the insurgency, and things would most likely end up back where they were pre-invasion. And to the second point, I believe our future role should be much less than it has been up to now. The UK has been taking a disproportionately large role in the conflict, and taking a disproportionately large share of the casualties. So next time troops are rotated out, perhaps their replacements could be from France, or Italy, or Japan.
It isn’t our (UK) war, it is an international war, and I think on balance our armed forces have done their share of the fighting, and it is time they got out of the font line.
UORs are not a substitute for planned defence spending - they are urgent operational requirements to fill a capability gap. Afghanistan has been ongoing since 2001, IED experience dates back through Iraq to Northern Ireland (where helicopters were used extensively). What have our troops been operating with?? A Snatch Land Rover completely unsuitable and a Viking off-road tracked vehicle equally unsuitable. US forces on Op Enduring Freedom have learned some very difficult lessons that the UK would do well to observe.
Need enough troops as well. There is no point staging a major operation if the ground is simply reoccupied once the troops have withdrawn (as in Vietnam where most US offensive operations were successful).
Commentators should not confuse support with the troops with support for the war with confidence in the government. The troops will always be supported, there is general agreement that Afghanistan is a necessary operation, but the government and MoD is viewed as mendacious and cost-cutting, a view that has generally been held for a long time, but has developed further over repeated rounds of cuts since Iraq.
We’re at a tipping point and Afghanistan is soon to become as unpopular as Iraq….unless the government develops a coherent strategy with adequate resources very quickly.
41 The “font line” of course being Times New Roman, rather than San Serif.
“front line”
@36 Do you have a link for the Paxo interview? I don’t remember seeing that…
Other examples of the government’s distaste for the military is their eagerness to take soldiers to court if they actually kill or hurt anyone and their lack of provision for servicemen injured in the course of battle.
38
Of course the Tories never reduce, ‘defence spending’ do they.
The peace dividend is a political slogan popularized by US President George H.W. Bush and UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the early 1990s, purporting to describe the economic benefit of a decrease in defense spending. It is used primarily in discussions relating to the guns versus butter theory. The term was frequently used at the end of the Cold War, when many Western nations significantly cut military spending.
That was justified I’m sure.
I heard an extremely robust rebuttal from the Army’s spokesman on R5 this morning. Didn’t catch his name but Lieut Colonel I think.
It went along the lines of ‘I’ve been in the Army for 20+yrs, never had better or more kit, every commander wants more but we’ve got all we need, absolutely wonderful kit, yes marvellous and lots of it.’
I found it hard to believe him and wondered if I’d mistaken him for a Labour MP. Liam Fox confirmed his ‘catastrophic’ description but sounded a little hesitant IMO.
46 Still using Thatcher as an excuse? That’s very thin coldstone.
Now who have been in charge since 1997?
46 Coldstone, you just don’t ‘get it’, do you? This isn’t about political history, and who cut troop numbers or military spending in the past. This is about soldiers dying for no good reason, other than under resourcing and poor planning NOW. Who cares what happened 30 years ago, when 18 year olds are being cut to ribbons probably as I type this post?
44 here you go - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziTrlKAkn94
The question is why is the Minister so junior. Surely, the answer is it shows what this wretched government’s priorities are Perhaps we should know why so many 18 year old soldiers have been sent to be killed in Afghanistan. Is this place seen as a Basic Training Camp (Boot Camp) as well as a field of battle?
From Paddy Ashdown, who may have a little more military experience than, ‘Mad Dog Cameron, PR and Bar’
Lord Ashdown said that ther was a “massive misunderstanding” over the role of helicopters in Afghanistan, claiming that while more helicopters were needed, they would not have prevented many of the recent troop deaths.
“There is massive misunderstandng at presently particularly with the Conservative party. They say helicopters are the answer,” he said.
“Yes you can use helicopters to move troops from Point A to Point B but you can’t move use helicopters in the circumstances in which they have been killed.”
49
I was making the point a ‘valid one’ that the Tory Party has been pretty keen to cut defence spending in the past, and will be in the future.
52 More helicopters should be made available for the casualty evacuation of those injured whilst on necessary and highly risky foot patrol.
52 Coldstone you are completely misusing Paddy Ashdown’s quote for which you should hang your head in shame.
I watched his interviews on both SKY and the BBC this morning. He said that Liam Fox was quite correct in pointing out that a lack of helicopters is THE major equipment deficientcy but that sadly none of the lads killed the other day would have been saved if we had had more helicopters because they were killed during close fighting.
Please come back and peddle your New Labour rubbish when you can confirm how many of the 180 deaths in Afghanistan were lads killed when their inadequately armoured landrovers were blown up by IEDs.
52 And what does Paddy say is the answer - or is there no problem to resolve?
It beggars belief that Labour MPs and their shills on here are trying to spin and smear their way out of their responsibility for not equipping troops properly and the subsequent deaths that could have been avoided.
And before one of them tries to smear me I spent 2 years in Afghanistan between 2001 and 2003 during 15 years in the Forces so I have got a vague idea.
My partner is forcing me to watch GMTV. What a load of rubbish this is. Bimbo Eastenders characters claiming “Shakespeare is still relevant today”. He is??
52 Coldstone, would you views and posts be different if your own children were serving in Afghanistan?
46. So then if you are correct and the Tories were wrong why has Labour done f*ck all to put it right?
I’ll tell you why because as bad as the Tories were, incredibly this government is even worse. Useless, lying, hypocritcal numpties almost to a man.
53 Coldstone my cousin was a defence minister in Margaret Thatcher’s government. We cut defence spending when the pressures on our armed forces were less severe. We did not do it when our PM had recklessly entered 2 wars in order to please a barmy US President.
The Falklands was sovereign British territory invaded by a foreign and previously allied power. The battlegroup sent down was sufficient to complete the task.
After 8 years in Afghanistan we still do not know what the aim of this non-war is. Paddy Ashdown was superb this morning.
I also hope that when Sir Richard Dannet retires shortly he lets Brown have it with both barrels. David Cameron also needs to appoint one of the recently retired generals like Sir Richard or Sir Mike Jackson as a Shadow Minister of State for Defence so that Liam Fox can have the best possible advice available in the run-up to the GE and immediately afterwards when the task facing him will be enormous.
Let’s not forget Kabul 1879.
57 Welcome, tatty. If you have any input on how equipment failures and lack of vehicles/helicopters have impacted the way Afghanistan is being fought by Britush troops, that would add far more light than has been shone on the matter here so far.
Do you believe the political charges against this Govt. have validity?
52. Dear old Paddy can as usual be relied on to support Labour in all circumstances.
45 Desperate Dan
Unfortunately I agree with you. The government is so anti the British armed forces, that it bends over backwards to punish those who destroy the enemy. There is a fifth column of traitors who actually support the Taliban, and they are not in Afghanistan, but right here in the UK.
Coldstones remarks just show the massive insensitivity that the Labour apparatchik machine have towards our troops.
Bob Ainsworth is an “ex Marxist” whose credentials to do the job as defence secretary run at about 0.1pct.
Dannett needs total support not just mealy mouthed words from GB and his cronies.
It was very telling on Saturday night and Sunday morning that Gabble and his followers tried time and again to deflect criticism on this subject by bringing up the phone hacking story.
This showed them up for what they are,people who only care about power and not the individuals defending us.
60
Fully supported by the Conservative Party, I seem to remember.
If your cousin was a defence minister, was he the one responsible for closing all the military hospitals, or better still ordering the SA80, which didn’t work, and the present government had to spend millions on to put right?
Can anyone imagine Winston Churchill standing up in the Autumn of 1940 and telling an appreciative nation that we needn’t worry about the Germans because he had spent an extra £200 million on defence!!
The very fact that Brown talks in terms of budget numbers just shows he is not fit to be a PM let alone a PM in what is essentially wartime. If the generals ask, they should get as soon as can be arranged. I am certain that if the government had the will to equip our troops properly, we could buy second hand helicopters from the Germans, French, Canadians etc.
As I said on Friday, close down every social work department in the country and use the money to pay for our armed forces. We don’t need most of the useless t0ssers who cal themselves social workers but we desperately need all those brave young men and women putting their lives on the line for pay which is less than the expense accounts of many social work directors.
Easteross @ 60 How did your defence minister cousin recommend Sir John Nott should have answered Robin Day’s question about naval cuts?
60 Agreed re a serious recent military man or two on board.
I’ve been trying to recall how many new places our troops have been deployed since 97…
Bosnia
Sierra Leone
Iraq
Afghanistan
I’m sure that’s not all of them.
Do we have a comparison between the current defense spending in Afganisatn compared with the ‘civil’ surveillance programmes activated by this goverment?
It would be interesting to know how much we are spending to protect our troops compared with how much we are spending to ‘control’ our civilian population.
65. I think that’s right Easterross - this kind of deadly serious business really exposes our current crop of political leaders for the pathetic mediocrities they are.
Unfit even to run a local discussion group, let alone be responsible for the lives of thousands of servicemen.
65 Or perhaps we could send a Brigade of Social Workers to Helmand, ably supported by the Politically Correct Corps and the Royal Risk Assessors. Let’s see the Taliban fight a war when they haven’t prepared a risk assessment report - and obtained planning permission - each time they want to place a roadside bomb…
68: “Do we have a comparison between the current defense spending in Afganistan compared with the ‘civil’ surveillance programmes activated by this goverment? It would be interesting to know how much we are spending to protect our troops compared with how much we are spending to ‘control’ our civilian population.”
Nothing more to add.
I’m equally sure that the likes of coldstone think it fully justified.
64 Coldstone stop trying to deflect blame by talking events of almost 30 years ago. We all know that we had too many almost empty military hospitals which were costing far too much to keep open.
what defence minister orders kit KNOWING it is not going to work? None, not even your lot. Don’t get me started. As someone who was an IRA target at least twice I have absolutely no time for Nu Labour types like you. If you admitted Labour has messed things up we could agree and move on to discuss how the mistakes can be corrected but you lot refuse, like your PM, to admit you have made and are making mistakes and our young troops are dying as a result.
The other evening you insulted Christina D. For months I have listened on the phone to Christina as she talked about her fears for her brother and other friends who were out there on the front line in Afghanistan. I remember one particular conversation when she narrated that her brother had told of some lads his battalion had lost. Real people losing loved ones, not your bl00dy Prime Minister spouting statistics.
I am off to do some work before my blood boils over with rage!
test
65
That’s this Winston Churchill is it?
The Ten Year Rule was a British government guideline, first adopted in August 1919, that the armed forces should draft their estimates “on the assumption that the British Empire would not be engaged in any great war during the next ten years”.[1]
In 1928 Churchill, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, successfully urged the Cabinet to make the rule self-perpetuating and hence it was in force unless specifically countermanded. In 1931 the Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald wanted to abolish the Ten Year Rule because he thought it unjustified based on the international situation. This was bitterly opposed by the Foreign Secretary Arthur Henderson who succeeded in keeping the rule.[2]
There were cuts in defence spending as a result of this rule, with defence spending going down from £766 million in 1919–20, to £189 million in 1921–22, to £102 million in 1932.[3] In April 1931 the First Sea Lord, Sir Frederick Field, claimed in a report to the Committee of Imperial Defence that the Royal Navy had declined not only in relative strength compared to other Great Powers but “owing to the operation of the “ten-year-decision” and the clamant need for economy, our absolute strength also has… been so diminished as to render the fleet incapable, in the event of war, of efficiently affording protection to our trade”. Field also claimed that the navy was below the standard required for keeping open Britain’s sea communications during wartime and that if the navy moved to the East to protect the Empire there would not be enough ships to protect the British Isles and its trade from attack and that no port in the entire British Empire was “adequately defended”.[4]
The Ten Year Rule was abandoned by the Cabinet on March 23, 1932 but this was countered with: “…this must not be taken to justify an expanding expenditure by the Defence Services without regard to the very serious financial and economic situation” which the country was in.[5][6]
The same Winston Churchill who tried to force Dowding to send Spitfires to France, and also falsified the record, claiming Dowding had told him 25, (not 52) squadrons were all that was required to defend the UK.
69 It should be a condition of appointment to the post, that any Defence Minister without previous military experience should be obliged to spend some time at an active military position. A week staying within one of the forward operating bases should be long enough. There’s no need for extra security, provided there are no leaks to the media. No PA’s, and no PR. They’d certainly return to office with an idea of the task in hand and the problems faced on a daily basis by the brave souls out there.
47. I heard the interview - the officer also kept saying they were getting on with the job which of course is a phrase heard rather often closer to home.
It set me wondering if that is how Brown views his position and profile, he’s in a war and using what weapons he can to fight the enemy - might explain the lack of vision and his focus more on battlefield day-to-day survival.
OT
I love this story, this senior officer in the PC brigade has been booted out for after “stepping over the mark” with a female researcher, ie badgering the totty, - twat.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/showbiz/article-23718720-details/Hardeep+Singh+Kohli+suspended+from+One+Show+after+%27overstepping%27+mark/article.do
67 Plato, I recall it being said Tony Blair had taken the country into 5 wars.
66 John L, it would not be for a Minister to tell his Secretary of State how to answer the media. If the Argentinians hadn’t wanted to risk us sinking the Belgrano they shouldn’t have invaded our territory in the first place.
I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that the Taleban should be given 28 days notice to come down from the mountains and surrender failing which we would just bomb the mountains into a new shape. If they want to sacrifice their wives and children then sadly so be it. This war could easily cost us several thousand dead. We should also buy up all the poppy harvest and sell them to the major drug companies. Deny the Taleban their income.
70 Mark, I would take all the teenage knife wielding thugs out of our prisons and send then to Afghanistan and make them walk in front of our military vehicles. A few of them being blown up would be no loss to the country.
Whether we send more helicopters, more men or even more aid to Afghanistan matters not a jot, in terms of victory. To the average Afghan, foreign fighters are defending a corrupt regime in Kabul & doing deals with local warlords. Allied forces are killing innocent Afghans & in next door Pakistan, American drones are doing the same to innocent Pakistani’s.
How do we expect to win hearts and minds with such inept leadership?
By being there we demonstrate only what we cannot do, and in the process, we lose our bravest young men, who die believing they are serving Queen and country. If after 8 years we have so far failed, then how long do we give it? If we cannot even win over the hearts and minds of the political elites in Berlin, Paris & Rome what chance Afghanistan?
78 - Easterross Didn’t it used to be an option for judges to offer a tour of service in the armed forces as opposed to a jail term?
Easterross! not in need of a holiday are you? Somwhere quiet, Kabul perhaps.
77 ‘We should also buy up all the poppy harvest and sell them to the major drug companies.’
It’s baffling as to why that hasn’t happened already. It would cut off the supply to the streets, certainly win over the ‘hearts and minds’ of the farmers (provided the Government didn’t stitch them up), and provide much needed opiates for pain management within the health services.
78 Unfortunately, I suspect they would just end up doing drug deals with the Taliban…
78. That was the traditional approach of course…
77 — Robin Day’s question was not why we sunk the Belgrano but why we should prefer the word of a “here today, gone tomorrow” politician over an admiral on the matter of cuts to the Royal Navy.
85. Goodness John, what an interesting and relevant issue you raise.
82 I would instigate “The Scheme”, where we buy the poppy harvest at a pre-agreed price for the next three or five years. The poppy fields in The Scheme would be marked on a map. Anyone who tries to cheat, grows extra crops, does side-deals with the Taliban, then we get all Genghis Khan on their ass - sow their fields with salt, so not a thing will grow for generations. Kill their entire village - towns if necessary - as a viable productve unit. Word would soon get round.
Buy their hearts and put their balls in a vice - that is how you deal with Afghanistan.
87.Brilliant! we make a few land owners rich, and radicalize still further those in abject poverty.
46, actually decreasing Defence spending after the Cold War had finished sounds bloody sensible. Not increasing Defence spending before and during two elective wars is unutterably stupid.
52, Lib Dem in agreeing with Labour/disagreeing with Tories shocker.
76, Hardeep Singh Humourless has only been suspended, in marked contrast to the white daughter of a rightwing PM who said one word off-air that some disliked.
13 - JohnLoony - widely reported in the media: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6638189.ece for example
How about –
“Nuke ‘em. It’s the only way to be sure.”
(Bonus points if you can tell me which movie that’s from.)
Wondeful piece by Redwood on the divorce laws.
http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/07/13/the-future-of-marriage/
Couldn’t be the same John Redwood could it?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1437258/Redwood-leaves-his-wife-for-former-model-Nikki-Page.html
90 Aliens. You forgot to mention ‘orbit’.
88
Ah, erm…
When the cold war ended, one thing was guaranteed - instability.
There was no peace dividend - the Conservatives got it wrong.
91 Good grief. Two events, SIX years apart.
Harman now bigoted not just against whites and men, but also southerners:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1199103/By-eck-Now-equal-rights-Northerners-Harriet-Harman-wants-stop-Southerners-like-lording-regions.html
98, it wasn’t Thatcher or Major who took us into two elective wars without adequate funding.
82 - Because the hard Left would start protesting that it was a ‘War for Opium’, plundering a country’s natural resources, and exercising Imperial control.
It’s risible that in the middle of a supposedly essential, existential war we should also find the time to tell farmers off for growing opium.
85 John L I remember the interview well and Sir John storming out. I asked him about it some time later but his response is not printable. He was a Secretary of State who took responsibility for his actions.
I have no issue with sending knife wielding thugs to Afghanistan but then I would erect a gallows on Hyde Park and string up around 100 of them in one go. That would soon put paid to the explosion of knife crime in this country. Before Coldstone accuses me of being like the Taleban, I don’t believe in amputating limbs or stoning adulterers but I can think of a few Nu Labour politicians and their apologists I would happily see stoned, preferably with rotten eggs and tomatoes while placed in the stocks.
This thread is becoming too loony to contribute to…
87 I think we should buy their crops and start to reform the drugs legislation which is logic free right now.
HMG reasoning on Afghanistan seems to change with the wind - I’ve heard the rationale for us being there = getting rid of the Taliban/better human rights for women/western style democracy/protecting Pakistan’s position/7-7/Alky Ada training camps/UK drugs all produced there - have I missed anything?
It’s like Iraq/ID cards - use any convenient excuse to justify it.
88 Okay - so you want to institgate a programme of land reforms, wealth redistribution and whole-scale social change now as well? With a few thousand soldiers?
My plan at least acknowledges the reality of what is going on in country. You may not like the set-up, but what else do you do? Let 37 million Afghans come live here in the UK, where they can all live in “abject poverty”?
67-Robin Cook’s illegal war in Kosovo.
95 - Alien?
Except I think it’s “Nuke ‘em from orbit..it’s the only way to be sure”
109 - Actually AlienS
100. MD
It all sounds reminiscent of Dr Who. The Daleks went around saying ‘Exterminate, Exterminate, Exterminate’.
‘Harman’s Daleks’ go around saying ‘Discriminate, Discriminate, Discriminate’.
It’s nothing more than cheap (and rather tranparent) dog whistle politics aimed at shoring up Labour’s northern vote by trying to create resentment against those ’soft southerners’.
It just shows what sad little minds this Government have……
Perhaps they will come up with a plan to relocate London?
Hmmm all this, ‘opium’ stuff from the Libertarian brigade, makes you wonder if Dave’s visits to Afghanistan are to top up the, ’stash’
Incidentally, the Armed Forces don’t do Libertarianism, they do, ‘When I say goeth, goeth, when I say cometh, cometh: big time.
Yes, ‘Aliens’ (sorry for misquoting, I love the movie) — incidentally, something of an allegory for American involvement in Vietnam.
103 Opium - and the profits from its sale - is a significant factor in Afghanistan. It is crass to ignore it, being as much of a feature of the war as the mountain terrain. Much as some might like to level the mountains(!), you are fighting a losing battle on that even if you tried (they keep being formed as India is still slamming into central Asia!). But opium production can be monitored by satellites and ground observation - and a pragmatic commercial solution put in place to neutralise it as a means by which the Taliban obtian their funding.
Trade the Taliban out of existence.
Vile smear even by your tim-esque standards, coldstone.
Tell us, had you been an American 90 years ago, would you have supported Prohibition?
There seems to be a woeful lack of knowledge, let alone understanding, about what has been happening in Afghanistan over the past three or four years. I have often wondered why there have been so few newspaper articles reporting on what the troops have been doing and experiencing (has this dearth been brought about, at least in part, by a deliberate MOD policy to keep journalists away from the front-line?). However, books are now appearing on the shelves giving detailed accounts of the experiences of British troops on the ground.
From reading these it is clear that we have been extremely fortunate in the number of casualties our people have taken. Given the scale and type of fighting that has been going on it is amaziing that many more have not been killed or maimed. In part this has been due to the incredible professionalism of the troops, but luck has also played a major part. For example, in Apache Dawn the author describes an action in which a foot patrol narrowly avoided being blown up by a massive IED in similar circumstances, and in the same area, as that which claimed five lives on Friday. Perhaps the recent spike in casualties is simply down to the law of averages swinging back into balance.
However, the issue of kit remains and HMG’s record and current activity on this front is dire and Brown must bear personal responsibility for it (it was he after all that slashed the helicopter budget by a third and that decision is directly responsible for the lack of these priceless assets now). HMG is also incoherent on this matter. In Saturday’s Times we had the Chancellor saying that front-line troops would get whatever they needed (remember Blair saying the same?), and in the same article reports of the treasury cancelling planned programmes because, now that the Yanks were in Helmand in numbers, our troops could call on the US Forces for what they needed. We must also remember that a few years ago Brown said the MOD was the same as any other department and must bid for money for defence of the Realm alongside the competing demands for funding such things as Regional Development Agencies, the Arts Council, ID cards etc. etc.
The Conservative Party’s position is, in my view no better. Cuts in public spending are inevitable. We know that. So what will a future Cameron government do about defence spending? The answer seems to be to cut it, whilst at the same time continuing to give billions to other countries.
Another quick example, I read this morning we, the tapayer, currently give £800m a year in aid to India. This is the same India that has a space programme (we cancelled ours because we couldn’t afford it), nuclear weapons (we are talking about scrapping ours because we can’t afford them), has a far larger navy than our own and has just placed an order for a new arcraft carrier (we are talking about cutting ours because we can’t afford them) and, oh, their navy maintains a seaborn air to air capabilty using Sea Harriers whereas, because we couldn’t afford it, we scrapped ours, meaning that the Royal Navy should now be properly be called the Royal Coastal Defence Force. Nor shoudl we forget that, as our own Nick Palmer told us, we also give millions in aid to China - China, FFS!
So Cameron’s plan is to continue to give money we haven’t got, to subsdise programs abroad whilst at the same time failing to provide our own Forces the resources they need now and in the future. I am looking forward to watching him try to justify that one.
111 I wonder how the move to Salford will change the mindset of the Beebers?
If Harperson takes over from Gordon - just imagine her first manifesto
And furthermore, stop f*cking saying “Libertarian brigade” about anyone who disagrees with you.
It’s as wrong and as irritating as American rightists calling everybody without the collected works of Ann Coulter on their bookshelves a “socialist”.
107. I would let Afghans decide their own fate. I’m afraid much as I would like Afghanistan to become a model of freedom, tolerance and democracy it isn’t going to happen.
If the choice is between a corrupt administration in place only because, and only so long as the US Army is there & one which although in the short term would wish us harm, but whose ability to inflict it is greatly exaggerated, I would choose the latter reality and get out.
After a cooling period we could then make clear that any threat to our security in terms of terrorist training camps and the like would be met with severe consequences, both for members of the ruling regime & in terms of aeriel bombardment of those camps.
Imperfect, but less costly in blood & treasure.
116 Good post HurstLlama, particularly the last point.
@51 Thanks for the link Plato
No-one has yet explained why it is British troops still doing the fighting, rather than those of our allies. I know we are greatly outnumbered by the US, and other countries such as Canada have been doing their bit, but surely it is time for others to take up the burden?
This is not withdrawal, this is rotation. In three of four years time, it would be the UK’s turn again.
116 I think the Cameron tactic is to keep those who aren’t natural Tories on board.
I thought it was a bizarre policy when I first heard it but guess it’s small beer in the grand scheme of things in exchange for avoiding yet another ‘evil Tories’ front opening up.
I personally think that we have made a big mistake when we went into Afghanistan and as I pointed out on my blog a couple of days ago this governments strategy for the war on terror is wrong.
http://www.irfanahmed.org/2009/07/we-are-throwing-away-lives-in-war.html
I am surprised that no-one has yet mentioned it, so here goes….
The Government have lost £10.9 billion on it’s investment in the Scottish banks!!! Just think what kit HMAF’s could have bought with that!
Let’s hit the corrupt Jockanese b@stards (and English quislings) on their obvious failures. However the Army is getting the kit* - belatedly - despite lacking in a coherent political leadership…!
* The Dutch are still waiting for their NFH-90’s, so helicopters seem to be a problem at the moment. [Source: DefenceTalk.com]
116. Hurst Llama - correct, the committment to maintain overseas aid is ridiculous. I understand why it was initially made - to placate soggy centre middle class voters, but in the current economic environment it has become wholly redundant.
And of course taking a longer view it is indefensible to spend billions lining the pockets of foreign politicians and bureaucrats, fat-cat middlemen and corrupt contractors (both in the UK and abroad). And thus on entrenching poverty…
I can see the political ramificatins of say, India joining the coalition, but as a gesture to defeat terrorism (they have more to lose than we do) would it not be good of them to return the £200 million we give them in aid each year to fund their nuclear/space programs.
OT on a lighter note - Waugh has just tweeted that Westminster has been evacuated due to fire alert - one lady stood outside with hair in curlers caught mid-hairstyling.
118
As a Libertarian, why are you telling me what I should and shouldn’t say?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but haven’t the supposed aims of the Afghan mission changed in the past few years?
First it was to deny safe havens and training camps for Bin Laden’s lot - known and accepted as an international threat, so arguably a valid mission.
Then it became ‘counter the Taliban’, an internal Afghan matter and not really approved of by the UN Charter, despite the political contortions of those at the top.
Now what’s been pushed is ‘democracy’ and improving the lot of the ‘umble peasants, particularly women and children. Not a job for the army IMO. What they need are social workers, and by coincidence we have lots of those that could be shipped over.
130. Yes - and the mission creep has coincided with the increasing difficulty of the campaign.
This isn’t a new phenomenon though - think of the way British governments spun both WWI and WWII to the troops and the public…
not sure if this link will work:
http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.2519541.0.Labour_WAGs_see_Brown_as_mafia_boss.php
Lead story last week BBC/Guardian…what % of the UK population would know the name Andy Coulson?
130 “What they need are social workers, and by coincidence we have lots of those that could be shipped over.”
They can have those from Leicestershire Adult Services who’ve determined that my 88 year old mother, who desperately wants to go into residential care but can’t afford to pay for herself, can survive, imprisoned in her council bungalow, immobile, deaf, blind and unable to wash herself or prepare meals, with four day care visits a day.
130 I said the same at 106.
I have no idea why we are there, gaining and losing the same bits of mountainside and losing youngsters in the process.
The argument about nuclear weapons falling into the hands of Alky Ada is laughable. Pakistan has an army of over a 1m and 160m citizens.
132, outrageous comparison. Don Corleone was a competent and efficient man who operated outside the law but did have his own sort of morality.
Don Brownino is an incompetent and inefficient man who operates inside the law but does have his own sort of immorality.
135. And if the mission is now supposedly about shoring up Pakistan we entering into a committment we are not remotely equipped for either in physical, financial or political terms.
OT I watched ‘In the Loop’ last night and thought is was just as unfunny as it’s earlier incarnation.
I don’t get The Office either - what am I missing?
I expect PM to make statement on G8 summit at 330, it will save him reading out the long list of the glorious dead at PMQs on Wednesday.
Good performance by Liam Fox on BBC News just now, all very calm, measured and balanced. In those respects he was a long way ahead of a lot of the posts this morning!
One theme he did touch upon, which will resonate with a number of today’s posters, was the duty of our allies to provide more support. It’s hard to disagee with that. They would speak with much greater authority if they were putting in the same kind of support for the US which we are.
Apart from that, he was rather supportive of the general thrust of Government policy and pleased to note the increased level of public support.
First time I’ve heard Fox in a non-adversial environment. He was quietly impressive.
128 Plato. “Waugh has just tweeted that Westminster has been evacuated due to fire alert - one lady stood outside with hair in curlers caught mid-hairstyling.”
Michael Fabricant ??
I should think some people are confusing support for the war with support for the troops who have to fight it.
140, I quite like Fox. I don’t think he’s cut out for the absolute top job, but hopefully he might make a decent Defence Secretary.
In any case, it’s hard to think of anyone worse than Bob Ainsworth the Tories might give the job to.
116 I think that that pledge has been completely overtaken by events, and I would be surprised if it lasted. Like you, I can’t understand the rationale behind giving aid to countries with nuclear weapons programmes.
Just looking at some of the comments further upthread, yes it was right to cut defence spending after the Cold War, however the Options for Change review was not linked to any review of commitments but was simply a Treasury driven program of cuts. At the time many former military men were warning that there would the Armed Forces would be overstrained in the coming years and how right they’ve been proved to be! Since the fall of the Berlin Wall the MoD has simply been a branch office of the Treasury.
#62 On the Falklands, that war would probably never have happened if Denis Healey hadn’t cancelled the Royal Navy’s CVA-01 large carrier program in February 1966, try and imagine the 1980’s without the “Falklands Factor!” Even if Argentina still had invaded, the task force would have had airborne radar cover and Phantom interceptors to deal with the Exocet threat so it would have been over with fewer British casualties. I would be the last person to belittle our Armed Forces but in the Falklands we got incredibly lucky. Argentina did not use the strategic advantages it had more effectively and in the end, the superior quality and tactics of the RN’s Sea Harrier pilots, and Casper Weinberger ensuring that Britain got the latest version of the Sidewinder missile, the AIM-9L, was enough to make up the capability gap.
That £11Bn Gordo wasted on HBOS would come in handy for buying equipment for the troops
140 PtP. I wonder how Fox would handle Conservative defence cuts ??
135. Nunn-Lugar has been far more effective at securing nuclear materials from the likes of Al Qaeda than anything the Afghanistan campaign will ever achieve.
The Pakistanis have every reason to secure their nuclear weapons and materials, even if they aren’t concerned about militant Islamists they are concerned about Indian espionage and military action. From what I’ve read on the subject there’s no evidence that Pakistan is lackadaisical. Their nuclear weapons are their Crown Jewels and they treat them as such.
I don’t consider that Labour are motivated by disdain for the armed forces (apart from a fringe of the party) but very few of them have any experience of military life - which I think leads them to make unrealistic demands of them. The judiciary, I think, are much the same.
125. What a stupid little sh*t you are
147 Well, maybe that was his angle when he stressed the need for more support from other ‘allies’.
I see according to the PM if you do not support the War you are unpatriotic. When a Government flies the flag you know they in trouble.Poll this morning has 42% not supporting the war, are they all unpatriotic?
148 glw. “Their nuclear weapons are their Crown Jewels and they treat them as such.”
That depends on whether you reference “Crown Jewels” as highly prized and protected royal baubles or highly prized and somewhat less protected wedding tackle !! …. the mind boggles !!
151. Perhaps we could lease our unemployed to the Dutch army - they could then join in on combat missions. The income stream could pay down our national debt. Failing that invade Belgium ?
154. It would certainly improve the Dutch army’s fighting capacity.
152, any quotes?
I thought Fabricant’s hair was positioned on his head every morning by a small crane…
#150, by malcolmg July 13th, 2009 at 11:02 am
As incisive as ever. Please check-out the order-of-battle for Operation Herrick [Wiki-it] and spare me the contribution - one-in-six infantry battalions - that Scotland provide HMAF.
Having checked the ORBAT of the Regiment of Scotland 4 are light-infantry (and only one is mechanised-armour). However I do not blame the soldiers, but the politicians. [A co-conspirator - an Aussie server with 1 Royal Irish - bemoans that the regiment are not allowed to do the real fighting.]
So explain why we can add another £2000 per-head of Scottish population subsidy to the UK debt in order to fund the failed Scottish finance system, yet send English battalions into the front-line ill-prepared and ill-equipped? I have associates - formerly of the Argylls - who would be interested in you reply.
Alternatively Malcolm you could turn a blind-eye. It’s very Scottish yous-know…!
The Bias BBC at work again,
As part of a practice known as “tithing”, all of the main political parties expect their representatives to make contributions to party funds.
For example, Liberal Democrat councillors are expected to donate 10% of their council pay to the party or face being dropped. Labour also imposes a compulsory levy on its representatives……..
The Conservatives say they have banned tithing…however Michael Crick (known mega lefty and Tory hater), says Tory councilors had told him that there was a moral pressure to contribute to the party.
So two parties impose a set compulsory levy and the other gives you the guilt trip if you don’t make some sort of donation (but isn’t compulsory). That isn’t “all main parties” then is it, as reported!
151 PtP. Not too sure how much you could trim from a $60B budget by replacing some of ours with the Regimente Italaliano Reverso Tanko !
To balance the budget some very unpleasant and necessary decisions are going to have to be made. A thought to bear in mind for a few years down the line when the pips are not just squeeking but operatically at top ‘A’ chunder !!
I’m not a Libertarian, you f*ckwit.
SNP want to ban non-indigenous sports like cricket from their tartan tvs.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6689828.ece
Pathetic - especially as Scotland were at the last World Cup and 20-20 world championships.
More proof if needed that without Salmond the SNP would be nowhere.
150. 161. Lots of thoughtful posts today…
145 - I don’t think it belittles the British armed forces at all to say that the defining feature of the Falklands war was that it was one on paper that Britain should have lost. It has since suited a range of commentators to portray the outcome as a forgone conclusion but throughout the conflict the odds were stacked heavily against the British forces recovering the islands before the South Atlantic winter forced an abandonment of the campaign. Small variations in the conduct of the campaign could well have resulted in vastly different outcomes. Even in the light of all the information now available the British campaign remains an extraordinary triumph over natural and man-made obstacles; a magnificent feat of arms.
162. Link doesn’t work old chap.
I agree with your main point though - Salmond really is a head and shoulders above the rather motley crew he leads, in which the loon quotient is uncomfortably high. Perhaps he can be persuaded to defect?
162/165.
Try here
http://tinyurl.com/mubswm
159, Crick’s a moron who oozes slime like an infected wound. [Added to the list].
I just thought it was very decent of Fabricant to give a permanent home to Cousin Itt….
For the connoisseur of syrups: (note it even appears to have a built-in Boris Dishevellment Function!)
http://www.michael.fabricant.mp.co.uk/gallery.ihtml
116.
A very well-argued piece. My current estimation of the minimum number of likely deaths of Britain’s finest which will take place over the mean estimate time for ‘containment’ of Taliban to a point where Afghan forces could 95% ‘guarantee’ no Al-Quaeda training bases in their hills (they’ll just shift to Somalia or Pakistan) would be approx 2-3 thousand with roughly eight times this in terms of major maimings and god-knows hom much PTSD. These types of estimates have been familiar in military circles for some time: it is just that our honest and largely-depoliticised military have not blown the gaffe. Both Government and ‘official opposition’ have been happy to keep the lid on this truth for years since they like to out-do each other in terms of gung-ho ‘mop up the towelheads’ mentality. Nick Clegg’s quite mild and measured criticism last week was treated initially as though someone had f@rted nastily with little volume in an embassy reception. Yet, all of a sudden, it’s a public school dorm f@rting loudness contest.
The elephant in the room is the pretend ‘democracy’ of the Karzai government. It is suddenly dawning on quite a few western politicians and commentators that importing and imposing a kind of democracy (even one where the results aren’t determined by racist electoral registers and politicised courts) does not actually crete a genuine democratic structure and/or respect for government from the population. Afghan culture is largely-based upon autonomous local units, some of which have more liberalism and enlightenment than others (on a scale from ‘none’ to ‘not much’). Central ‘national’ government is only tolerated when it makes minimal demands and does so in a way perceived as beneficial to the local tribe. The ‘border’ with Pakistan is not even recognised, let alone respected.
Karzai’s corrupt thugs do not gain any greater credibility in the streets of Afghan provincial towns just because they are under a notionally ‘democratic’ umbrella. British troops do not gain too much love on the ground when they are seen, besides building the odd road, well or hospital, to be defending (or attacking for) the corrupt crew from Kabul (or points further north) who rip off the local people. As in VietNam, a superficially-successful military ’surge’ is by no means guaranteed to reduce the recruitment to the Taleban, many of whom feel they are effectively the ‘French Resistance’ to a Vichy Kabul puppet regime for outsiders. As far as the local ‘freedom fighters’ are concerned, it does not matter much whether these cultural aliens trying to ‘call the shots’ in their neighbourhood are Russians, Indians, Chineses or Anglo-Americans.
Religion is what makes the terrorist in Afghanistan more of a a problem than just mere money and power. It is the crucible for all the other elements in the complicated Afghan scenario, the one that is the game changer from it being just Tribal warfare, as was the case for the British in the 19th and early 20th Century and the Russians in the 70′’s and 80’s, into a truly Global war where the mostly Christian West meets the Fanatical Jihadist. Now instead of just local men fighting against us we have a truly Global foe, who have a huge base of fanatics to draw on, many eagerly willing to give their lives for the cause. So whilst we may kill 20 or 50 of their forces for each one of ours, they will always have more to come and join them, this is why we will never really win militarily, all we can do is expect to win temporary reprieves until they restock their supply of fighters and come back to attack and disrupt again.
The only way to defeat this foe is a “Hearts and Minds” type of conflict, based upon a true understanding of the local situation, politics and internal conflicts, what we used to call Intelligence. This is something that has been singularly missing in Afghanistan and indeed Iraq, our Intelligence has been poor and as a result our decisions on who to back and what tactics to follow have been wrong. This is what General Templer said in Malaya in 1952:
The war must be fought so that those who are responsible for the victory are the civilians and the police with only the military as a supporting role. Until we have won the local people over we will not win the war, only when they are helping to drive out their foreign invaders can they, and us, contemplate winning.
test
160 I expect he will follow the time honored tradition of blaming the previous Government!
Thanks Jack for your perceptive and restrained observation on budget realities, military or otherwise. Your prize will be on its way shortly - a copy of Great Italian War Heroes. You can put it next to your edition of Legends of Scottish Goalkeeping.
164 Indeed Tony. The least one can say is that it was a very close run thing.
171 wage slave - yes, we drew the first one
Just checked the average temperatures for the next 4 Grand Prixs.
Hungary, Europe (Valencia) and Italy are all warm-hot. Belgium, (before Italy, after Valencia) is cooler and may be rainy.
That should hand the advantage back to Brawn.
174 Some well pissed-off Aussies around the office today.
Splendid!
O/T
I’m sitting at my desk admiring through the window a clear blue summer sky. I ponder that HOC recess is almost here, 10 weeks holiday for our politicians (not that the lazy buggers have done much or achieved anything in the last 12 months).
It’s been ages without a poll and and at least 2 weeks without a new plot to oust Brownstuff. What are us political anorak’s going to do all summer, without government misdemeanours, u turns and endless cockups?
I doub’t that we will see Lord Snakelson on any Yaught’s this summer with Babyface George ? Perhaps Snakey will go Brazilian instead of Corfu this year…who know’s and who cares, as long as it a one way trip.
Brownstuff has been told by one of his ex ministers to take a month off, to recharge his batteries, and come back reinvigorated. In code that really means “f4cking leave us alone for a month and go somewhere without any means of communication you waste of space”. Chernobyl is nice this time of year, perhaps he could invite Tim and Gabble along for the ride. One thing for certain I expect we will see plenty of photo’s of his trophy wife in at least 3 or 4 outfits each day.
As for Mr Cameron he should cancel his holiday and start making a few bold policy decisions instead of dithering over everything that he annouces (I’m starting to go off him, he had better wise up or I will have to have a word with him again) . He would be wise to bring the rest of his party out of hiding to show the public that there are “more than one of us you know”.
Happy Holidays.
172 PtP. Thanks. Might one go for the trilogy with :
Peter The Punters Successful Racing Tips.
174. Ponting’s whining about time wasting was pathetic.
176, you should whistle the Great Escape theme.
Reminds me of when we had German exchange students. The school said farewell with a little concert by the orchestra… playing the Great Escape
177, you’ll have brilliant articles by me about F1 to read
177 “we will see plenty of photo’s of his trophy wife”
Is that Trophy as in Bitter?
The British rationale for the war is surely that Mr Blair was keen to support President Bush in 2001.
Various wags remarked that the Royal Navy was spending £1 million a time buying cruise missiles from the Americans in order to fire at American-designated targets.
The point is that because the case was not properly made at the start, in order for the government to defend the war, it is first necessary to devise a better reason for fighting it. They could do worse than watch President Obama on youtube.
119, without democracy, the Afghans are hardly choosing their own fate.
179, he whined like a bitch when we won in 2005 as well. I hope we win. I don’t give a damn about cricket, or the Ashes, but to see that smug arsehead silenced would be very good.
178 “Peter The Punters Successful Racing Tips.” A slim volume indeed, Jack!
Have a good week.
11 - @ tim.
Fox on TV today was quite measured (see 140) and pointed out two key failings of this govt. They cut the helicopter budget some years ago - £1.5 billion. They have done little to rectify this despite the growing need. He also pointed out that our so called allies could be filling the helicopter gap but are not. This is a failing of foreign policy and Milliband stands condemned. These are all fair comments.
I heard an interview with Brown on TV yesterday but did not see him it was a voice over radio interview I believe. Macavity at it again.
The MoD are as culpable as the govt in not providing the correct mine protected vehicles and paying too much for the ones we have got. They and the govt were too concerned with the £16billion FRES programme of vehicles and are no use in Afghanistan. They are or were part of the proposed grand EU Army. FRES looks to have been junked but we are now feeling the effects of wasted time and money.
No one is happy to see our troops dead, Mr Tim. But I and those like me who know how badly prepared we are were warning of tragic incidents, like the one which killed 5 soldiers, some time ago. I am really only grateful that it was not far worse. The injection of large numbers of US troops will hopefully help in future as they will make more helicopter gunship support available.
Lets not forget we and the US are engaged in an important offensive - the important point is that we win it.
181. Troughy ?
183. The absolute highlight of the 2005 series for me, was when Ponting was run out by our sub fielder, leading the scoreboard to read:
Ponting run out (Pratt).
186 The pint that claims for a quart!
183. We will have to improve enormously to have a chance of winning, our bowling attack just doesn’t look up to the job of taking 20 Aussie wickets.
Is Ponting the most obnoxious Aussie captain of all time? A good candidate, certainly…
189 - he’s just angry that he resembles a chimp that someone only had time to shave half of.
187, mwahahaha! Take that, puny colonials!
[Yes, I'm well aware we'll probably lose the series, alas].
164 and 173. I’m not belittling them at all, my point is that Argentina had all the strategic advantages and didn’t take full use of them. I have noticed that some Thatcher haters on other boards have started claiming “British troops were superior to the Argentines so there was no risk for Thatcher in going to war.” Rubbish! We did have better men but you have to take them 8,000 miles from home and keep them supplied, and thanks to Healey, the capability to provide organic air support had been lost. It was incredibly close run, I think had the war gone on a few more days then Admiral Woodward would have had to recommend to Whitehall that the operation be abandoned as many of the ships were wearing out. Had the Falklands operation failed then Thatcher and the Tories would have been toast, that’s what wrankles so many on the Left. Perhaps they should be blaming Healey, as if CVA-01 had gone ahead then the likelihood is that there wouldn’t have been a war!!
192. But Labour would still have lost in 1983 even without a war, albeit perhaps less heavily. And would still have been stuffed out of sight in 1987 as well.
It’s convenient for many Labour supporters to think otherwise, to believe that people really did want the east European style policies of the 1983 manifesto, but it’s a fantasy.
165 - Quite agree. It does seem as though there is a vociferous rump within the SNP who will only be happy when
- the radio stations will play only The Pretenders, Runrig and Capercaillie
- Burns alone will be admitted to have any literary standing
- cookery programmes are based entirely around mince
- all signs are bilingual (Gaelic and Doric)
In terms of the cricket, I wonder what Sandra White’s large number of constituents of Asian decent make of her comments?
George Orwell once wrote: “And it’s not a matter of whether the war is not real or if it is. Victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia but to keep the very structure of society intact.”
8 Tim. Stunning a post with some thought behind it. Yes it doesn’t matter sometimes who the Secretary of State for Defence and his minions are as they are there more to ensure that Party Policy is being followed but a good one can make a huge difference if they have the time, knowledge and dedication to ensuring the Armed Frces get the best deal possible. Unfortunately this government hasn’t the people to make this happen and even when it does they move them on or lose then before they can become truly effective.
However just now they have exceeded themselves, at a time of greatest need, we a have SoS for Defence rated as now 21 out of 23 Ministers, a man who has pitiful influence or skills and who is backed by others such as David Crausby who recently asked the vital question What recent assessment he has made of the merits of replacing bearskin caps worn by the Guards Regiments with caps made from synthetic material. and Bill Rammell who comes with the ability to ask questions in Parliament about the Millennium Dome, Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, Social Exclusion (Transport), Booked Hospital Admissions, Active Citizenship but not defence.
But the real problem is Gordon Brown who has no interest in defence apart from how he can spend as little on it as possible.
As mentioned before Stephen Grey had this to say on Brown’s role.
193. Absolutely, without the Falklands Factor it’s most likely that 1983 would have had a similar result to 1979 or even 1992, Labour were unelectable and the Alliance weren’t taken seriously, watching the 1983 GE re-run last year the consensus among the commentators that night was that the Alliance had run a poor campaign.
The big question is what would have happened in the years after 1983, would a Thatcher with a small majority have had the political strength to face down the miners and push through the privatization of BT and British Gas and the other reforms?
181
“Trophy” as in - “I AM GOING TO USE HER, WHEREVER POSSIBLE TO GET MY POPULARITY OUT OF THE EXTREME MINUS ZONE”
184 PtP. ““Peter The Punters Successful Racing Tips.” A slim volume indeed, Jack!”
Sadly so …. if one you would emulate your mighty autobiographical tome :
“Ballgowns I Have Known” …. or indeed my very own :
“A Guide For Ladies To Underworld Of The Kilt”
BTW are you away for the rest of the week ??
181 - Trophy, notorious for being flat, lifeless, and as boring as hell … ah, I see …
170: fitaloon @ 11:25
All good points. I think there is an issue in that the uncommitted locals (probably 90% of them) will not take sides all the time they are unsure of the long term commitment of western forces. They are quite right not to do so because looking at history will show them that the west has a habit of buggering off leaving their “friends” in the lurch whenever it has suited them. In addition there is a recent example, and I don’t have my books to hand to name the town, where the local elders worked with the Brits to drive out the Taliban. Then the British army pulled out, because it didn’t have the troops to hold the ground, and the Taliban promptly moved back in and publicly and gruesomely murdered the town elders.
Examples are legion of cases where our troops have cleared an area of the Taliban only to leave again. The current Panther’s Claw operation seems to be fighting over the same area as past ones and Sanguin, where the five died on Friday, is a town we have been fighting in and around since 2006.
I don’t see how we can win hearts and minds if we keep leaving the Taliban in control of areas after the fight, and from all accounts the Afghan National Army and the Afghan Police are institutionally corrupt and hated by all.
Templar knew he couldn’t win by using more and more troops but his strategy wasn’t to let the insurgents back into villages either.
What won the Falklands War was not any huge differences in equipment between the two sides, it was the quality of men using it.
192. Not out with yer Sash? I thought you country folk were all involved.
194. At some point, Salmond will have to cut the lunatic fringe adrift. An SNP shorn of loons and settling for extensive devolution could, like e.g. the Catalan Nationalists, be in office almost permanently.
One which insists on pushing a deeply divisive constitutional and cultural agenda will at some point risk implosion.
194. Chrissie Hynde doesn’t sound too Scottish to me…
Correction TO 195: the Pretenders are blameless - The Proclaimers is what I meant.
116/201.
Well-argued pieces. My current estimation of the minimum number of likely deaths of Britain’s finest which will take place over the mean estimate time for ‘containment’ of Taleban to a point where Afghan forces could 95% ‘gu@rantee’ no Al Quaeda training bases in their hills (they’ll just shift to Somalia or Pakistan) would be approx 2-3 thousand with roughly eight times this in terms of major maimings and god-knows hom much Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. These types of estimates have been familiar in military circles for some time: it is just that our honest and largely-depoliticised military have not blown the gaffe in the media. Both Government and ‘official opposition’ have been happy to keep the lid on this truth for years since they like to out-do each other in terms of gung-ho ‘mop up the t0welheads’ mentality. Nick Clegg’s quite mild and measured criticism last week was treated initially as though someone had f@rted nastily with little volume in an embassy reception. Yet, all of a sudden, it’s a public school dorm f@rting loudness contest.
The elephant in the room is the pretend ‘democracy’ of the Karzai government. It is suddenly dawning on quite a few western politicians and commentators that importing and imposing a kind of democracy (even one where the results aren’t determined by racist electoral registers and politicised courts) does not actually crete a genuine democratic structure and/or respect for government from the population. Afghan culture is largely-based upon autonomous local units, some of which have more liberalism and enlightenment than others (on a scale from ‘none’ to ‘not much’). Central ‘national’ government is only tolerated when it makes minimal demands and does so in a way perceived as beneficial to the local tribe. The ‘border’ with Pakistan is not even known or recognised, let alone respected.
Karzai’s corrupt thugs do not gain any greater credibility in the streets of Afghan provincial towns just because they are under a notionally ‘democratic’ umbrella. British troops do not gain too much lurve on the ground when they are seen, besides building the odd road, well or hospital, to be defending (or attacking for) the corrupt crew from Kabul (or points further north) who rip off the local people. As in VietNam, a superficially-successful military ’surge’ is by no means guar@nted to reduce the recruitment to the Taleban, many of whom (together with theier extended families) consider that they are the ‘French Resistance’ to a Vichy Kabul puppet regime for outsiders. As far as the local ‘freedom fighters’ are concerned, it does not matter much whether these cultural aliens trying to ‘call the $hots’ in their neighbourhood are Russians, Indians, Chineses or Anglo-Americans.
193 If the British had failed to regain the Falklands and had to return home in ignomony, then Thatcher would have been humilaited and the Alliance would have scored a massive increase in the number of seats it took at the General Election, IMHO. Probably a hung Parliament, so the Lefties could well have got their wish of Thatcher being ousted. As to who would have become PM in 1983? Interesting one…
116.
A very well-argued piece. My current estimation of the minimum number of likely deaths of Britain’s finest which will take place over the mean estimate time for ‘containment’ of Taleban to a point where Afghan forces could 95% ‘gu@rantee’ no Al Quaeda training bases in their hills (they’ll just shift to Som@lia or Pakistan) would be approx 2-3 thousand with roughly eight times this in terms of major maimings and god-knows hom much Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. These types of estimates have been familiar in military circles for some time: it is just that our honest and largely-depoliticised military have not blown the gaffe in the media. Both Government and ‘official opposition’ have been happy to keep the lid on this truth for years since they like to out-do each other in terms of gung-ho ‘mop up the t0welheads’ mentality. Nick Clegg’s quite mild and measured criticism last week was treated initially as though someone had f@rted nastily with little volume in an embassy reception. Yet, all of a sudden, it’s a public school dorm f@rting loudness contest.
The elephant in the room is the pretend ‘democracy’ of the Karzai government. It is suddenly dawning on quite a few western politicians and commentators that importing and imposing a kind of democracy (even one where the results aren’t determined by racist electoral registers and politicised courts) does not actually crete a genuine democratic structure and/or respect for government from the population. Afghan culture is largely-based upon autonomous local units, some of which have more liberalism and enlightenment than others (on a scale from ‘none’ to ‘not much’). Central ‘national’ government is only tolerated when it makes minimal demands and does so in a way perceived as beneficial to the local tribe. The ‘border’ with Pakistan is not even known or recognised, let alone respected.
Karzai’s corrupt thugs do not gain any greater credibility in the streets of Afghan provincial towns just because they are under a notionally ‘democratic’ umbrella. British troops do not gain too much lurve on the ground when they are seen, besides building the odd road, well or hospital, to be defending (or attacking for) the corrupt crew from Kabul (or points further north) who rip off the local people. As in VietNam, a superficially-successful military ’surge’ is by no means guar@nted to reduce the recruitment to the Taleban, many of whom (together with theier extended families) consider that they are the ‘French Resistance’ to a Vichy Kabul puppet regime for outsiders. As far as the local ‘freedom fighters’ are concerned, it does not matter much whether these cultural aliens trying to ‘call the $hots’ in their neighbourhood are Russians, Indians, Chineses or Anglo-Americans.
199 Very occasionally I have to work, Jack.
I’ll still be lurking from time to time though, so none of your lip, eh?
202. Nah, too busy trying to get my wedding sorted out!!!
There’s always next year!!
As was pointed out by someone in the previous thread. To honour SBS why don’t PBers not get money together and donate it to a charity. Its a good idea and I like it.
We could get a fruit tree planted in his memory or something along those lines?
What do you think?
200. Trophy was a fake, artificial beer, wasn’t it?
200.
Not forgetting it was advertised by Whitbread as ‘Big Head’!
Coldstone - your anti Churchill tirade is pathetic.
Churchill only became PM on 10 may 1940 and given the unfolding disaster he was quite justified in asking for more fighters. He had the wit to see the sense in Dowding’s argument.
Trying to blame Churchill in 1928 (err were was German rearmament then?) for lack of defence spending in 1936 is pathetic.
And @ Tim in ‘8′ - your argument is shot down in flames. Knott offered is resignation over the actual capture of the Falklands. It was not accepted as he was needed to co-ordinate the war. It was Carrington who resigned (and was accepted) due to the loss of prestige and the errors of the FO who were responsibe for the Endurance being withdrawn
@35 - the size of the bombs are quite large 200lbs and more. But usually these are ‘fertiliser’ bombs and not the equivalent of the same size of TNT.
The point is vehicles are available which if hit even by large bombs and effectively destroyed can still protect their crews (its their design as much as armour thickness). We have been very lax in providing them. The use of the ‘Viking’ is a disgrace. Given the type of war we are fighting - the use of these vehicles is essential. They will take hits but protect their crews.
194. I have been on record on this forum as saying:
“TMS = Tedious Match Special
”
Any way: Five days and no result? Who on earth came up with that “sport”? Why not play two whole innings at least?
209.
“too busy trying to get my wedding sorted out!!!”
Make sure you invite George Smith MP (aka IDS). He could give you tips on how to make your marriage last.
“When you are accused by the respected wives of Conservative MPs of taking large amounts of state money for doing SFA make sure you have a thick skinned (headed?) hubby who will swear black is white that you work your socks off…..”
201 . Yes this is the problem of saying we are winning the war because we have taken some more area, in this case temporarily for the elections. Only if you hold it permanently and stop contact between civilians and the terrorists can you hope to win the “hearts and minds”.
In Malaya this was achieved by a number of measures, in a country that was probably even more difficult to control than Afghanistan, however they were very restrictive on the local population and this is a huge issue with the Afghans. The only way to make this happen is by getting much more into the Intelligence based war and getting to know the local power structures and how they can be enlisted to bring the Afghans onside. Until this done we will not win the peace that we want, we may win a few battles. This has to be a long-term, but we have already wasted much of the past 8 years.
214.
Gordo is hoping to re-create the First Test in the coming Gneral Election. If he can scrape a hung parliament (draw?) at the last minute, he will proclaim it as a great victory.
215. Thanks for the advice mate!
214 re test matches.
England once had to agree a draw with South Africa after ten days because their ship was due to sail.
Oh dear.
“The people are to be given a direct say in how Britain’s aid budget is spent under a Tory government as part of an “X-Factor-style” competition allowing them to vote for their favourite overseas project.”
“Aid experts accused the party of “populist gimmickry” over the policy last night, raising concerns that it would lead to some projects having their funding withdrawn, and discriminate against projects championed by smaller aid groups. The new initiative will be unveiled by David Cameron today as part of the launch of the party’s aid policy.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/let-voters-decide-aid-projects-say-tories-1743360.html
192- I was agreeing with you; I don’t think making that point belittles the armed forces. CVA-01 wasn’t the only major equipment deficiency the Royal Navy suffered from either- the first ten Type 42 air defence destroyers were built so short and narrow that they not had the worst sea-keeping qualities and least functional operations area of any post-war Royal Navy warship. Weight had been shaved to the point where they could not even mount Sea Wolf without sacrificing the ship’s boats or a major rebuild. All this for the saving of only one per cent of the total cost. Sea Wolf actually performed very well but only the Type 22s were fitted with it. This led to the farce of anti-submarine frigates having to escort the Type 42s- which were supposed to provide air defence- to protect them from air attack!
The loss of Sheffield and Coventry were the direct result of this penny pinching; and it was only by sheer good luck that a third ship of the class did not join the list on 12 May.
I don’t know whether the presence of the CVA-01 would have dissuaded the Argentine Junta or not- beyond their own problems at home pushing them towards the war, Britain was not viewed highly in the world at the time. Many people didn’t believe Britain would have the resolve to sent a task force in the event of a war. But I agree that it would have made a major difference either way- at the least the presence of a sizeable air wing would have allowed the British to establish air superiority over the Falklands rather than the historical strategy of engaging in a war of attrition in San Carlos Water were multi-million pound warships were exchanged for obsolete Argentine jets.
220. I hope one of the options is a Uk based project - it will win by a canter.
213. Just wondering: How much use would the Endurance have been against the 6″ guns of USS Phoenix (aka. General Belgrano) - not to mention A-4 Skyhawks and Super Etendards?
(Historic note - the war provided me with some of my earliest TV memories and I was shocked by the Sir Galahad incident even as a 6 year old)
217 Gordon is on for an innings defeat, mate…
He’ll barely have enough players left to make a team for the next Test.
224. After the next GE, Labour may be stripped of their test match status.
196 - My posts on Friday also had thought behind them.
It was those who sought to blame the deaths of a foot patrol on equipment shortages, before they even knew the circumstances, who were the emptyheads.
As for the relative defence teams, neither impress me much.
I just hope Fox doesn’t strive to hit the low point he reached during the MMR debate in seeking to use the troops deaths for party political advantage.
220 Hmm. Well it may get people more interested in what we get out of this aid/the issues, but sounds a bit silly to me.
220 I’m thinking funding India’s space race may not have the X factor… Although, if Malawi decided it wanted to go for a big piece of space artillery - and invite international useage…
Will we be able to bet on the winner?
tim + Gabble = I’m off!
Milipede in the DT, not sure I believe him!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/5816072/Afghanistan-David-Miliband-claims-war-to-make-us-safer-in-UK.html
229. Tibble ?
220 - A policy Chris Morris could have written.
“And tonight on Cameron Aid Direct you get the chance to vote for cute little children versus HIV positive prostitutes, stay with us to see which way the voting will go”
228. Why not? India has a decent launch site a few degrees north of the equator, Sriharikota. The UK has no launch sites of its own.
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Sriharikota,+Nellore,+Andhra+Pradesh,+India&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&hl=en&cd=1&geocode=FSqx0QAdnufHBA&split=0&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=6.881357,14.941406&z=10
217, 224,225
The wooly way that Cameron is carrying on I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Brown Numpty still in 10 Downing Street after the next GE.
When is Cameron going to make a bloody decision and announce something that is a Policy rather than a soundbite ?
234 I think he’ll say bugger all until the conference.
I think it can be said that the Vulvan(sic) MP and his former candidate for Tory leader have differing views on divorce.
“If you’ve put up with boring old Tories for years, always be willing to turn over a new Page (that’s a Conservative candidate for London Mayorality with dropped ‘Nicci’ s) ;-)”
The Daily Mail had an exquisite turn of reporting the MP for Wakingem, Goring and Rodgering:
“Last night the MP’s exwife Gail said: ‘I haven’t had contact with him for years. We have two children but they don’t have contact with him either…. He made his bed and can lie in it with
whoever he chooses.’”
221. One of the reasons why Wilson and Healey wanted to kill CVA-01 was to change Britain’s foreign policy away from the wider world, especially the Commonwealth to a more Euro-centric one. Had they gone ahead with the carriers and with their escorts, you’re right about the Type 42’s, they were a cost driven compromise that was severely lacking in many respects, then Britain’s standing in the World would have been a lot different, Argentina would have known that Britain had the capability to regain the Falklands and the will to use it. Even if they still invaded then the additional capability provided by large carriers would have closed off many of the threats that the Task Force was vulnerable to.
223. I was 7 in 1982 and like you it gave me some of my most vivid early memories, like the Sir Galahad and HMS Sheffield. The thing that really stuck out for me were the RN’s Sea Harriers taking off up the ski jump ramp and coming back into land like a helicopter, to me they just seemed like the most amazing thing ever built!
234.
“When is Cameron going to make a bloody decision and announce something that is a Policy rather than a soundbite ?”
Is this forum really the appropriate place for theoretical discussions regarding the end of space-time?
235 - Quangoes last week and now this.
Camerons on a diet of word salad until the Autumn.
234 - are you having one of your strange flirtations with Labour again, Wayne?
232
Tim that is a disgusting thing to say, you should be ashamed of yourself… but then again you have no shame.
232.
“cute little children versus HIV positive prostitutes”
The decision will be made live on TV. We put “cute little children” on one mat, “HIV positive prostitutes” on another, and watch to see which the most Tory MPs jump on.
Wayne - the last thing that Cameron should do is announce policy and the longer he can go on being silent the better his election chances are. If he sets out a proposal then Labour will either nick it or rubbish it.
And who votes on policy anyway? Politics is 90% personalities and policy is merely a device to differentiate yourself from your opponent.
242. We know which one Gordo would be on. The opposite one to Robin Cook btw.
237. The irony re. HMSs Sheffield and Coventry is that Argentina also had some Type 42s:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_Santísima_Trinidad_(1974)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_Hércules
“Cameron unveils MyAid [!!!] plan to let public vote on development priorities”
“The Tories would establish a £40m MyAid fund and a website with details of 10 ongoing DfID-funded projects. People would be able to vote for the most deserving and the money would be allocated in proportion to the way the votes were cast.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jul/13/cameron-myaid-development
232 The worst thing to be said against it is that it is such a shamelessly populist notion that if it had the slightest chance of working, Brown would already have tried it…
Oh wait - American X-Factor and mosquito nets:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYw02R61hVs
AND LOOK - an early outing of THE GORDO SMILE-AND-WEAVE-AND-BOB-AND-SMILE ROUTINE!!!
224.
“He’ll barely have enough Players left ”
Gordo’s seldom caught short without his ancient fags.
243. I don’t think its 90% about personalities per se, but general direction of travel is certainly much more important than the details of policies. And the top team of a party is crucial in shaping perceptions of direction of travel.
241: MTF: “Tim that is a disgusting thing to say…”
It’s your party’s policy!
Cameron = Coulson
244.
About time too
From bbc website
Calls for fresh Dr Kelly inquiry
Dr Kelly was a weapons inspector in Iraq
Campaigning doctors have called for a formal inquest into the death of government scientist Dr David Kelly.
They have produced a report arguing an earlier finding of suicide was flawed.
Dr Kelly’s body was found six years ago near his Oxfordshire home after he was exposed as the source of a BBC story on the grounds for going to war in Iraq.
Instead of a coroner’s inquest, then Prime Minister Tony Blair asked Lord Hutton to conduct an investigation, which found Dr Kelly killed himself.
Lord Hutton’s inquiry found the 59-year-old died from blood loss after slashing his wrist with a blunt gardening knife.
But according to the team of 13 specialist medics calling for a new inquiry, the cut was “highly unlikely” to have caused enough bleeding to kill Dr Kelly.
The previous examinations into Dr Kelly’s death were “flawed”, said retired consultant in orthopaedic and trauma surgery, David Halpin.
246 - I don’t know why you’re attacking this. Labour - entirely trusting of the public that they are - should think this is brilliant. Or can it be that you just don’t like it because it might show people don’t share Labour’s priorities?
Fascinating view of Gordo
In television interviews he was out of his depth in a shallow pool. He was limited in his ability to explain and defend his positions, and sometimes in knowing them.
He was utterly unconcerned by all this and seemed in fact rather proud of it: It was evidence of his authenticity. He experienced criticism as both partisan and cruel because he could see no truth in any of it. He wasn’t thoughtful enough to know he wasn’t thoughtful enough.
His presentation up to the end has been scattered, illogical, manipulative and self-referential to the point of self-reverence. “I’m not wired that way,” “I’m not a quitter,” “I’m standing up for our values.” I’m, I’m, I’m.
Or not…
http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2009/07/peggy-noonan-has-written-a-superb-honestcolumnon-who-sarah-palin-is-and-whyit-matters—-in-television-interviews-she-was.html
250
Equally disgusting comment from another smearbot.
241 - Your parties Aid Think Tank
http://www.impquiz.co.uk/images/pudsey.jpg
235.
Every week that goes by I hear more and more people say ” can’t stand Brown / Labour but what about the others ? Don’t like Cameron either ? Whats he stand for ? ”
Labour are polling at historically low levels and you would have thought that the tory’s would be surging ahead, but they aren’t. I must admit that its worrying. If Cameron and his party haven’t convinced the electorate now, its leaving it very very late if they think they can after the conferance season.
Cameron is seen as being more honest, but he also needs to be bold and in some respects a bit radical. Otherwise people will see there being not much differance netween the two parties and will just vote for one of the fringe parties. We are in that situation at present and unless Cameron makes a concrete decision on the Lisbon Treaty Referendum and stops talking about cuts and the age of austerity his party will be seen as irrellivant.
Crikey Lord Owen just called for Ainsworth to be replaced by by some one like Lord Robinson on BBC News 24!
247.
“THE GORDO SMILE-AND-WEAVE”
Did he pich that from Berlusconi at the weekend? Something to trade with Chamereon in the event of a well-and-truly-hung Parliament?
On a vaguely-related topic, I noticed this weekend that the unique hair colour adopted by Brillo and John Prescott is also shared by Liam Donaldson, Chief Medical Officer. Could we not arrange a bonfire of the vanities? We could use Fabricant tinder.
252 - The conspiracy theorists over David Kelly are largely organised by David Halpin.
This David Halpin
http://dhalpin.infoaction.org.uk/
Liberal Democrat has new Norwich North Poster:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_zpMKqKFHmEg/SlqOK_g6lXI/AAAAAAAAAtw/2R9zImpRI_E/s1600-h/LDLYINGHERE.jpg
250,brown = mcbride = smear = gabble = tim -we could go on chaps
Guido flicked through the Guardian, discovering that they are doing a Tim with the NotW story. Mainly stamping their feet, pouting their lips, and screaming “It’s a big story, dammit! Someone pay attention to me!”
http://order-order.com/2009/07/13/guardian-get-over-it/
261,LOL,brilliant
258.
“Lord Owen just called for Ainsworth to be replaced”
Brain-fungus disses face-fungus.
Couldn’t we send Owen as a peace keeping mission to Uigeristan? His uniform would be a large red cross painted on his tunic and another one on his helmet.
265. I have never seen his Helmet, have you
No doubt you will tell me now you used to polish it! 
261.
Would that be flat on their backs waiting to be shafted by the Greens?
Or are you just suggesting that the LDs are borrowing Chamereon’s clothes (the ones Bliar donated to the Oxfam shop)?
Yes it will hurt Brown.
What is worse though is the way that the pointless ritual designed by Blair to show that he cared, whereby Brown will refer this Wednesday to each of the eight (and please God it’s only eight) servicemen by name and also their regiments, and then the first questioner will also refer to it, and then Cameron and Clegg will repeat Brown’s formula almost exactly, now takes up so much time of what is supposed to be questions to the Prime Minister.
I’d reckon that it’s possible this could take up to 5 minutes (17% of the allotted time) this week.
267. No the LD have always been a rag tag band of political gypsies! (Non-PC i know!
)……….
266.
We service types always spit first and, being from the officer class, leave others to polish!
I always had Owen down as a self-polisher along the Bliar-Chamereon continuum.
Anyone else see the Daily Politics? Neil ripped Rammell (armed forces minister, apparently) to shreds.
243.
Mike, see also my comment at 235, To some extent I agree with what you are saying about policy announcemants. However the problem the Tory’s have at the moment is that the electorate aren’t enamoured with Cameron, he’s just announcing soundbites and attacking the government. The party can’t hope to get elected on the “personality” of one man. It’s got to be about what the party is going to bring to the table as an improvemant to what we have now.(whats in it for us)?
270.wage slave I did not think that was possible until i saw a film called *shortbus*! Urghhhh!
Certainly not my cup of tea!
268.
“this could take up to 5 minutes (17% of the allotted time) this week.
“What makes me think that you will set off some of the knee-jerk conspiraacy-theorists on here?
271 Morris Dancer
He deserved it.
The Conservative wasn’t much better. I understand stone-walling on most things. But not on this.
They should make a firm commitment that they will provide the troops, helicopters, and vehicles required to do the job. If necessary they can fund it by cancelling Eurofighter tranche 3, or an aircraft carrier.
Geoff Hoon was also probably less experienced than Bob Ainsworth having not held a cabinet post before succeeding Robertson in 1999.
275, only saw part of the Tory chap but he was pretty feeble. However, he did benefit from not having been in Government and thus not being responsible for the mess.
276, ah yes, the glorious Hoon who apparently never thought to ask whether WMD referred to battlefield munitions. If I believed in Hell that arsehead would have a one-way ticket on the Satanic Express.
273.
“i saw a film called *shortbus*! ”
Is that a euphamism for a Labour old bike? We obviously have to find you a job soon, you are clearly spending far too much time secreted alone with Jaqui Smith’s hubby.
240.
Absolutely not, I’m passionate about my party thats all and want them to win on a landslide not a whim.
276 and we all know how popular Hoon is
271. Morris Dancer
So he should, i think scandalous that the troops are being sent to war without the right gear. It is a cop out! Just think of the MPs who have claimed thousands on expenses or paid for useless communication allowance advertising that could have been spent on equipment (Many marginal seats this is likely to be an utter waste anyway!). If it saved one life it would be worth it but because the spinless cabinet ministers do not have their necks on the line and only care about their careers nothing is done.
“Top Tory Donor Ashcroft Faces Tax Challenge”
“Liberal Democrat justice spokesman David Howarth said: “Now Tory donors will have to pay their dues to the country before they pay their subs to the Conservatives.
“David Cameron must now explain whether he will hold Lord Ashcroft to his promise on paying UK taxes, or stop accepting his millions.”"
http://tinyurl.com/logz3v
271.
“Neil ripped Rammell (armed forces minister, apparently) to shreds.”
Then we should send Brillo to Helmand? I’ve just remembered the only previous place I’ve seen that colour hair - it was on a geriatric Pathan. Brillo could slap on a Burqa and go about un-noticed in a quest to find dusky ones to ‘come over’.
SO - come next May, we have the prospect of inflation rising, interest rates climbing, house prices again falling, repossessions rising, unemployment bursting through three million, those with a job not able to retire but working until they drop, huge public sector cuts, a manufacturing base that will struggle to make a pizza, a debt that will take decades to pay down, a once great banking sector reduced to begging with an empty cup and a dog on a string, a flu epidimeic for which we were ill-prepared, a war without end or purpose killing hundreds of our finest, sent out armed with slingshots and wicker shields, a European Constitution which will lead to our Parliament being a vestigial nubbin of democracy.
Oh, and we will discover that Dr. Kelly was killed by the state.
No wonder Gabble and Tim want to talk about Coulson and Cameron rather than try and do the impossible - defend Labour’s record and argue why they should have five more years…
278. wage slave
Horrible film - only watched it once!
I don’t know why you’re all surprised to suddenly discover how useless Bob Ainsworth is to our forces. Since his appointment I’ve blogged about it and I know another blogger who has highlighted his uselessness several times too.
http://tiny.cc/ckYZ1
http://diack.co.uk/fitaloon/2009/07/bob-ainsworth-you-cannot-just-go-and-buy-a-chinook/
282, *cough*Brown*cough*
282 and the LDs can pay all those creditors whilst they are on
276. Yes and what a great minister Hoon turned out to be.
On Tory Policy.
Mike makes some sense when he claims that Cameron shouldn’t burden himself with too much yet, but the least he can do is stop what he actually does announce from falling apart within the hours.
Over the last couple of weeks we’ve had Education funding confusion, IHT and Married Couples confusion the Quango idiocy and today we’ve got “I’m a Leper Get Me Out of Here”
The only firm announcement seems to be the defenstration of OFCOM as Murdoch and Coulson no doubt requested.
290 nicely makes my point in 284…
282.
“Lord Ashcroft’s donations to Conservatives … are made through his British-based company, Bearwood …..”
Obviously not a place where you’d find large Brown deposits being made?
290.
ouch…
226 Tim no thought was in your comments on Friday night apart from an attempt to smear a poster who was making some thoughtful comments.
275. Cancel Tranche 3.
290. tim: “Over the last couple of weeks we’ve had Education funding confusion, IHT and Married Couples confusion…”
Cameron to rebrand his IHT policy as MyLie.
282. Gabble
Interesting, I think Michael Brown was Nom Dom IIRC and his money was stolen that ended up being accepted and spent by the LD. LD still have not repaid the £2.4M so i think this picture sums up the LD comment!
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_zpMKqKFHmEg/SlqOK_g6lXI/AAAAAAAAAtw/2R9zImpRI_E/s1600-h/LDLYINGHERE.jpg
As for Labour I wonder if they realise Lord Paul and other non-Doms will affect them too! Yes Lord Paul said he would finance the bottled election! The one that Brown chickened! Maybe he picked up the bill for £1.2M!
You can part a fool from his money once..
Any excuse for Gord to duck out of this weeks PMQ’s
From 24 dash.com
Earlier today, it was disclosed that the swine flu virus sweeping the country had reached Downing Street.
It is understood that Gordon Brown’s adviser on climate change, Michael Jacobs, has been infected.
It is thought that he may have contracted the virus during a recent visit to Mexico where the global outbreak originated.
He is not thought to have had any direct contact with the Prime Minister since developing the symptoms two weeks ago.
Nevertheless, Mr Jacobs was required to stay away from last week’s G8 summit in L’Aquila, in Italy, for fear that he could spread the infection to other delegations. Instead, he followed the negotiations by telephone.
A No 10 spokesman said last night: “There has been extensive preparation in Downing Street and across the Civil Service to minimise the spread of swine flu.
“The Cabinet Office has issued guidance to personnel managers in all departments and comprehensive information is available to civil servants on how to deal with suspected cases.”
290.
Do you think Chamereon would be prepared to dump Ashcroft and slip himself instead into Murdoch’s ample (overseas) pockets?
“Lucre in the SKY…..”
296. That would be a silly name Gabble, everyone would assume it referred to Gordon Brown.
297 - now that that Indian guy has given Labour £4 million and doesn’t look like he’ll be giving them anymore, this amendment is fine with them.
292. “Obviously not a place where you’d find large Brown deposits being made?”
Your not talking about Mark Oatens glass coffee table are you?
296
pointless debating with someone who can post something as imbecilic as that
300. David, Yes no doubt!
298.
Be careful thats libelous ground
297.
“I think Michael Brown was Nom Dom IIRC ”
I think Michael Brown was a gay Tory MP who couldn’t stand his party’s hypocricy and scummythought?
Perhaps we could agree there are far too many Browns?
271 See 196 the man is a another backbencher promoted out of his expertise(?) and ability.
Cameron to rebrand his IHT policy as MyLie - and still massacre Brown…
307 - MyAupair, MyTrustFund, MyMainHome, MyCleaner.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1199168/Millionaire-Tory-MP-claimed-77-000for-second-home-whilst-living-rent-free-parent.html
O/T.
I missed this yesterday on the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8146584.stm
“Labour women attack ‘laddish’ PM ”
“Senior female Labour MPs have hit out at Gordon Brown …Caroline Flint, who resigned saying Mr Brown treated women as “window dressing”, said female ministers were “picked out” for hostile briefings.”
Whereas under John ‘thumping majority’ Prescott there were more (’brotherly?) de-briefings.
301.
“Mark Oatens glass coffee”
The ceiling to promotion for decent Tory women?
308 Most of those domains have already been taken by Labour MP’s.
Gordon Brown himself has MyCleaner (although his brother claims to own half…)
Only 6 years after received…
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/07/07/329346/picture-rafs-first-chinook-hc3-flies-after-reversion.html
11 - Conflating equipment issues on the Falklands considering the loss of the supply ship with troops having to buy their own boots is wrong. The reality is we have a govt that has tried to spread the military around with too little funding. That is a charge that sticks.
308.
Given that the London house was (via a Trust) owned by Djingly-Djanglies daddy, a ‘textile magnate’, I presume that the Polish au pair was well-carpeted? Given that the state paid her so amply for waving a feather duster at weekends, I imagine that her nannying duties in London were compensated purely by Turkish Delight?
311.
“MyCleaner”
Pb.com’s new dieting site?
312.
“we have a govt that has tried to spread the military around with too little funding. ”
Twas ever thus. Everry PM since Asquith has had an imperial sense of personal and national self-importance and a corporal’s pay packet. No Opposition leader has ever dared to question this on any kind of sustained basis.
tim - What a surprise. You think Kelly’s death was suicide. All I’ll say is that things have not been properly investigated.
What is this tim etc obsession with Ashcroft? He/his companies have
only donated £71k so far this year. Last year at this stage it was £771k.
The real truth is that Ashcroft/Bearwood money is of little significance.