Andrew Marr show BBC1 Now

Pararegtom

LE
Book Reviewer
#1
Gen Jackson on BBC1. slaggintg off govt, Bloody good stuff
 
#2
Pity he was not so forthright with his views when he was serving! When this very point was just put to him, he quite easily swerved it.
 
#3
He's obviously doing it for publicity. If he cared that much he'd have made his feelings known whilst serving.

He did save a Para battalion though so well done Jacko. :)
 
#4
GrumpyGit said:
Pity he was not so forthright with his views when he was serving! When this very point was just put to him, he quite easily swerved it.
Jackson is not being critical of the government and thank god too.

You do NOT pick a fight with the democratically elected government no matter how emotional you feel about the issues. Dannatt in my opinion was well within the line, not beyond it, but the CGS has a responsibility to make the Army's case via Whitehall not the AM show.

This is Britain for heaven's sake, I think Labour are as disgraceful as the next man but I don't want the military to take on the government, that is why the CDS had to step in and rebuke Dannatt publicly to rebalance the escalating constitutional issue.
 
#6
At least Steph Flowers asked a couple of real questions, unlike that New Labour flunky Marr
 
#7
#8
TheKing said:
GrumpyGit said:
Pity he was not so forthright with his views when he was serving! When this very point was just put to him, he quite easily swerved it.
Jackson is not being critical of the government and thank god too.

You do NOT pick a fight with the democratically elected government no matter how emotional you feel about the issues. Dannatt in my opinion was well within the line, not beyond it, but the CGS has a responsibility to make the Army's case via Whitehall not the AM show.

This is Britain for heaven's sake, I think Labour are as disgraceful as the next man but I don't want the military to take on the government, that is why the CDS had to step in and rebuke Dannatt publicly to rebalance the escalating constitutional issue.
Is that not the point of democracy?

Regardless of your position all members outside the government should be critical of the governments actions, particularly if those actions are damaging that sector.
 
#9
No it is not the point of democracy. Public scrutiny is conducted by public bodies, parliamentary select committees, the electorate, not members of the civil service, Crown employees, armed forces etc.

Teachers, nurses etc and trade unionists aren't crown employees. When you effectively have the defenders of the constitution (armed forces) disrupting the democratically-elected Executive, then you have a constitutional crisis and we become an unstable power; no better than Zimbabwe.

Military chiefs should NOT remain reticent, but publicly they are there to uphold the policies of the incumbent government elected by 'us' the people, the CGS and the CDS have a lot of influence and he knows it behind the cameras, so that is why this was seen as an anti-Labour outburst not a genuine concern for troops. He was right in my view sure, but you really need to be careful on this.
 
#11
harareboy99 said:
We have a government unfit to govern. We are already unstable.

Personally id be happy if the reverend did a Raoul Salan.
Who are we to judge the 'fitness' of the government as gospel? Clearly the British people deemed Labour the choice of their politics in 2005, and as such those working for the government ought to respect that. The outcome of the next election, overdue by convention by 3 months sure, will bring us a new era of politics where we can judge the present government.
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
#12
There's a difference between challenging Govt policy (i.e. whether we should or should not be engaged in such and such a place) and drawing attention to difficulties in loyally following Govt policy because of being under-resourced, with the risk of failure or of having to be bailed out by the US (and hence Govt embarrassment) if that continues.

We were in the same mess in 1945 with the British Pacific Fleet, which managed to do most of the job but only just, and which had to rely on US help in all manner of ways.
 
#13
'a new era of politics'

a tory party with a rich history of defence cuts.

Who are we?

Apparently the only people left who care about the security of the realm?

As for who the British people vote for, the British 'people' dont know their arrsehole from their elbow.

They are to busy watching hollyoaks.
 
#14
Men are dying because of the indifference to the military on the part of Labour and more specifically Brown, but the military should never go public on it. As Jock said, the army will always want more, and we may know it needs more, but use a bit of common sense in the approach to pressuring the govt.

Folk in the military should know how sensitive the relationship between the Army and the Labour Party is. The Army has the potential to hugely embarras Labour, to shave off a couple of opinion poll points and shake it's 'competency' esteem, but it will ALWAYS be an unwise war to wage.

Politics has a long memory, and in 9/10 years when the Labour Party crush Cameron and co, they will remember it was the Army that damaged them last time in office and what goes around comes around.

Make recommendations, pull a few strings (MPs, media, Tory HQ etc) but don't go public against the government.
 
#15
TheKing said:
Who are we to judge the 'fitness' of the government as gospel?
What?

Are you saying that there are no bounds to criticise the Govt of the day? We have EVERY right to call the Govt when it is doing wrong, acting wrong and fouling everything wrong?

As you quite rightly pointed out, this IS the UK, and we have a long history of taking the Govt of the day to task.

To do anything else is meek and cowardly.
 
#16
"Make recommendations, pull a few strings (MPs, media, Tory HQ etc) but don't go public against the government"

And what if (as has now happened) you as the CGS have tried all avenues open to you to try to get the best for your army, you still fail to get through to the politicians you need more. There are only certain ways to get your message across. That is what the press is for.

A retired General has no such bars to his opinion being heard, except the administration of the day could affect his pension. What they have done to Dannatt is disgraceful, he should be the incoming CDS, as per the rotation between the services. At the very least he has proven himself as trying to get the equipment and manpower he required, but was thwarted by General G Brown.

Let them speak out, it is not "unconstitutional" - we are losing good men as a result of the penny pinching mentality of Brown and his chums, the Generals are right to tell us the story as it is. That is what democracy is about.
 
#17
POD is now history as are the ministers of his time who had impact on our armed forces. We have to get the relationship right between Jock Syrup and the man with the Adolf moustache. I think the new bloke is shaping up nicely - so long as his pronouncements are not a wah. Actions speak louder etc etc
 
#18
TheKing said:
Men are dying because of the indifference to the military on the part of Labour and more specifically Brown, but the military should never go public on it.
Or put another way, "tough sh*t, keep losing blokes unecessarily and shut up".

use a bit of common sense in the approach to pressuring the govt.
If they fundamentally refuse to listen to the advice and warnings of the General Staff, then what 'common sense' approach do you suggest?
 
B

Bottleosmoke

Guest
#19
Fallschirmjager said:
He's obviously doing it for publicity. If he cared that much he'd have made his feelings known whilst serving.

He did save a Para battalion though so well done Jacko. :)
I have no opinion on this, I would just like to say welcome back to Fallschirmjager's proper avatar.
 
#20
Who said the government wasn't listening, where did Dannatt get his "2,000" extra troops figures from? Did he personally work out what was needed to win the war on MS Excel?

No he was briefed. As are MOD officials and Gordon Brown, so the person the electorate instals as the governing party, the decision-makers, decides which course of action to take. Yes that decision can be judged and must be scrutinised, but the Forces are expected to get on with it.

I know Dannatt cares about the army, and we all know his 2,000 figure was right and just, but these things are arbitrary, for example, I think there should be 8,000 more troops, that's my opinion. If I ask the PM to give me 8,000 troops and he says feck off, then I need to work with what I have and tell him HE is costing young lives. If the PM can sleep with that, then f*uck him.

That's democracy, that's all im saying.

How often is the government praised on here? Exactly, we'll never be happy but let's respect democracy.
 

Similar threads

Top