• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Does the treasury support the Army?

#1
An interesting snippet of a story has come to light:

Chris Mullins Political Diary

An interesting "free exchange of ideas" occurred which I think justifies the disconsolate feelings of Gordon Brown being shoed in as PM.

And he tells of the occasion he saw heavyweight Tory MP Nicholas Soames pinning Tony Blair against a locker in a corridor in the Commons as they engaged in a ‘good-humoured’ exchange of views.

‘Suddenly Soames slammed his fist into the locker a foot or so from the PM’s head,’ writes Mr Mullin.

‘“What were you talking about?” I inquired when I saw [Soames] later. He replied, “I was telling him he must love the Army. He does, but the Treasury doesn’t.”’
Soames has always amused me with his Un PC approach to matters of which these are classics:

According to the book Women in Parliament published in 2005, Soames has been named as the 'most sexist' MP, with several female MPs stating that he has made vulgar comments. One says they retaliated by shouting "click" at him — a reference to a claim that having sex with him was "like having a wardrobe fall on you with the key still in".

It has frequently been alleged that Soames makes repeated cupping gestures with his hands, suggestive of female breasts, when women are trying to speak in parliament, to sexually harass and distract them from performing politically. He is also alleged to have attempted to harass Director of Communications Alastair Campbell by phoning him and saying "you sex god, you Adonis, you the greatest of all great men." Unknown to Soames, he was actually speaking to Campbell's young son.

Soames often heckles "Old Labour" MPs such as John Prescott during Prime Minister's Question Time. He has been accused of class snobbery, due to reports that he made a habit of regularly addressing Prescott with the phrase "Mine's a gin and tonic, Giovanni, and would you ask my friend what he's having", a reference to Prescott's former employment as a ship's steward.
After this latest little revelation the bunter of politics has certainly gone up in my estimation.
 
#3
Good on him. We have a sort of similar fellow in our parliament, Hone Harawira. He is a bit of a radical and he certainly has the PC brigade looking a bit sheepish and watching their Ps and Qs.
I am watching out for the fireworks.
 
#4
In answer to the thread title no and it never has, there were people complaining about it back in the 1600's.

I am told that the best bit of advice that Maggie recieved concerning the Falklands War that She had to bar the Treasury from all meetings and any input as they would always be a negative influence. They were just told to shut and pay.

As we are now at War again hopefully the next Govt will take the same attitude.
 
#5
It doesn't matter if the Treasury does, Brown does, and that is key.

He's just ordered the Treasury to give an extra £70 million from it's reserves to helping the fight in Afghanistan.

End of thread
 
#9
sarge_massage_my_passage said:
It doesn't matter if the Treasury does, Brown does, and that is key.

He's just ordered the Treasury to give an extra £70 million from it's reserves to helping the fight in Afghanistan.

End of thread
That's the AFG problems solved then!

Is Gordon your big mate then?
 
#10
And Jack straw gets to spend £170,000 of Tax payers money on art work for his office. (Telgraph on line) Given the current climate these clowns need to think long and hard about how they spend our money or get out of office and hand over the rains of power to some one who does.
 
#11
rickshaw-major said:
sarge_massage_my_passage said:
It doesn't matter if the Treasury does, Brown does, and that is key.

He's just ordered the Treasury to give an extra £70 million from it's reserves to helping the fight in Afghanistan.

End of thread
That's the AFG problems solved then!

Is Gordon your big mate then?
Stand still the front rank.

This isn't a thread on, "How to solve the problems in Afghan".

This is a thread on, "Does the treasury support the Army?"

At no point did I instigate that this £70 million will help/end/hurt the British interest in Afghan. I've answered the initial question posed; just to reiterate: it doesn't matter if a civil servant in the Treasury dept supports the British Army, the PM holds the purse strings so he's the one who's support matters.

And I'm not a Labour supporter, so certainly not my, "Big Mate".
 
#12
sarge_massage_my_passage said:
rickshaw-major said:
sarge_massage_my_passage said:
It doesn't matter if the Treasury does, Brown does, and that is key.

He's just ordered the Treasury to give an extra £70 million from it's reserves to helping the fight in Afghanistan.

End of thread
That's the AFG problems solved then!

Is Gordon your big mate then?
Stand still the front rank.

This isn't a thread on, "How to solve the problems in Afghan".

This is a thread on, "Does the treasury support the Army?"

At no point did I instigate that this £70 million will help/end/hurt the British interest in Afghan. I've answered the initial question posed; just to reiterate: it doesn't matter if a civil servant in the Treasury dept supports the British Army, the PM holds the purse strings so he's the one who's support matters.

And I'm not a Labour supporter, so certainly not my, "Big Mate".
The Treasury - plural/collective?

Answer - No!
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#14
From years of experience in MOD Finance the answer is - no.

GB may be now grudgingly OK'ing a minimum needed - but do not forget that he was the one who - personally - reduced and limited funding over the last many years of Wars - and he still does it, as he runs HMT, not badger-head Darling.

There are no, or very few, votes in defence, compared to splashing money at PFI schools and hospital projects, I'm afraid. Always been that way, always will be.
 
#15
rickshaw-major said:
sarge_massage_my_passage said:
rickshaw-major said:
sarge_massage_my_passage said:
It doesn't matter if the Treasury does, Brown does, and that is key.

He's just ordered the Treasury to give an extra £70 million from it's reserves to helping the fight in Afghanistan.

End of thread
That's the AFG problems solved then!

Is Gordon your big mate then?
Stand still the front rank.

This isn't a thread on, "How to solve the problems in Afghan".

This is a thread on, "Does the treasury support the Army?"

At no point did I instigate that this £70 million will help/end/hurt the British interest in Afghan. I've answered the initial question posed; just to reiterate: it doesn't matter if a civil servant in the Treasury dept supports the British Army, the PM holds the purse strings so he's the one who's support matters.

And I'm not a Labour supporter, so certainly not my, "Big Mate".
The Treasury - plural/collective?

Answer - No!
It's irrelevant what the Treasury dept think, wether that be a high ranking civil servant or a Minister, their Boss, the Prime Minister, controls the Treasury...therefore the Treasury doesn't have a brain to think, it just does what it's told to do.

So, again, does the Treasury support the Army? it doesn't matter, because it's Boss does.

armchair_jihad said:
sarge_massage_my_passage said:
I'm not a Labour supporter.
Oh yes you are, have you read your first post on this thread?
What? So judging from a couple of sentences you've decided who I am in favour of?

It's FACT that Brown controls the Treasury, it's FACT that Brown has ordered an extra £70 million, how do FACTS determine my political preference? At no point did I say something along the lines of, "Brown is great because he's done this and this and this, Cameron wouldn't have a clue etc etc".
 
#16
From years of experience in MOD Finance the answer is - no.

GB may be now grudgingly OK'ing a minimum needed - but do not forget that he was the one who - personally - reduced and limited funding over the last many years of Wars - and he still does it, as he runs HMT, not badger-head Darling.
Of course he's "grudgingly OK'ing", he knows Cameron will come in and take all the glory ;) ,and anyway, to not do and leave the Army with less funding would be a PR toilet flush. But don't you feel that until the UK has exploited it's gains in Afghan (full gains, such as fuel pipelines, industry projects for UK companies, an ally in a turbulent region) he'll always "OK" the funding anyway, regardless of sceptics/lack of favour. (?)
 
#17
sarge_massage_my_passage said:
It's FACT that Brown controls the Treasury, it's FACT that Brown has ordered an extra £70 million,
OK I will give you the benifit of the doubt, you are probably not aware that this 70 million is a loan not a grant, and will be clawed back with a lot of other funds from the Treasury's emergancy funds should Labour win the next election.

I think it was the 'End of Thread' comment at the bottom of your post that I really took objection to, attempting to close down debate like that is a very New Labour sort of thing to do.
 
#18
sarge_massage_my_passage said:
It's FACT that Brown controls the Treasury, it's FACT that Brown has ordered an extra £70 million, how do FACTS determine my political preference? At no point did I say something along the lines of, "Brown is great because he's done this and this and this, Cameron wouldn't have a clue etc etc".
£70 million is like throwing a begger tuppence and then walking away smugly thinking you've done him a favour.

Your posts seemed to support the notion that Cyclops has been rather generous. He hasn't!

Now where's that £70 million going? Not building cranes in his constituency, is it?
 
#19
armchair_jihad said:
sarge_massage_my_passage said:
It's FACT that Brown controls the Treasury, it's FACT that Brown has ordered an extra £70 million,
OK I will give you the benifit of the doubt, you are probably not aware that this 70 million is a loan not a grant, and will be clawed back with a lot of other funds from the Treasury's emergancy funds should Labour win the next election.

I think it was the 'End of Thread' comment at the bottom of your post that I really took objection to, attempting to close down debate like that is a very New Labour sort of thing to do.
Agreed, I apologise, it's Sunday morning and I've been up with 2 hyperactive children since 0545

whitecity said:
sarge_massage_my_passage said:
It's FACT that Brown controls the Treasury, it's FACT that Brown has ordered an extra £70 million, how do FACTS determine my political preference? At no point did I say something along the lines of, "Brown is great because he's done this and this and this, Cameron wouldn't have a clue etc etc".
£70 million is like throwing a begger tuppence and then walking away smugly thinking you've done him a favour.

Your posts seemed to support the notion that Cyclops has been rather generous. He hasn't!

Now where's that £70 million going? Not building cranes in his constituency, is it?
Agreed it's not much, let's take it back shall we? I'm sure we'll do much better without it...(?) I'm back out their in 2010, I'll tell you if I've seen evidence of good spending.
 
#20
I think traditionaly why the treasury doesnt support the MoD because it has seen the MoD of being profligate and extremely wasteful even in comparison to other departments. They have a point although I am pretty soon thats less the case now but old habits die hard
 

Latest Threads