Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by jonwilly, Oct 29, 2006.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Blur Promoted him CDS.
Couldnt risk it all by criticising the Govt when he was CDS though could he? Wouldnt want to risk all of those perks that come with being enobled. Didnt wish to risk those non-executive company positions. Sorry just being cynical but I think he is just jumping on the bandwagon. Why has it taken him so long to speak out?
Aye there's not many like thee and me whould cut our nose off just to spite the face.
Certainly interesting if he is as close to Blair as the article makes out.
I agree with some of the cynicism expressed in earlier posts. I suspect that Lord Guthrie was 'taken in' by the Bliar 'I'm just an honest guy' approach. At a tangent, I find it interesting that both Bliar and Bush are now admitting to errors in the handling of Iraq - could this be due to the wholly honest and accurate views expressed by General Dannatt? Hindsight is so very helpful, but surely those two nincompoops could have foreseen some of the problems ahead. Without doubt Bliar and Bush are the two worst leaders of GB and USA in my lifetime (I'm 65).
I was most interested by what Guthrie said about recruitment and retention. The PVR rate is something to keep an eye on. Also, when the current generation have made it to their pension point, say in 5 years a huge motivator to do the final stretch will have been withdrawn, ie, will the guys at 6/7 yrs cut and run. Recruitment, particularly into RAF is not great. Is Guthrie warning of a manning crisis?
The exceptional quality of Dannatt should not be forgotten. He was ahead of everything and everyone. A brave move but an essential one. I am glad that the old boys are finding a voice. I want to hear from Jackson and Boyce, when they decide to speak, it will be very interesting.
Wilson & Heath in UK run close second to Blair and Tricky Dicky would have to follow Georgei boy.
As an aside, when anyone these days mentions the 'peace dividend' I wish to ask, where? Has anyone seen it? If anyone knows of sound articles that track the 'guns v. butter' spending analysis please share it.
Or, simply any links that track defence spending since the 80s?
I think the peace dividend was that time over Christmas when the Berlin Wall was brought down and the BBC could not be bothered to send anyone to cover it. The armed forces have been the only organisation willing to take the difficult decisions to actually cut spending. Anyone find any other evidence of another publically owned asset that has been cut in this way? The Americans have increased defence spending recently, neither Blair, Br00n or windmill boy have recognised the need-yet. But I believe that day is not far away.
Recruiting into the RAF isn't the issue at the moment - I'm not sure if it's bad at all, but I standby to be told I'm wrong. Beacuse the run-down to 41 000 from 55 000 has been done at full-tilt, almost all trades and branches have had their initial training targets reduced, irrespective of whether they are already in manning deficit or not. Consequently, some trades that work really hard/deploy a lot (apparently some do in the RAF, believe it or not) are undermanned and others that don't work so hard/don't deploy a lot are overmanned.
Separate names with a comma.