Should Hammond Stay or Go?

#1
I wanted to get this ball rolling to save time later. Once the Foxy Liam "I'm too sexy for my Jermyn street shirt" based schadenfreude fades, I think it's a question we will need to ask.

I'll give you a hint, our erstwhile, hand picked, new boss cut his teeth running the treasury coffee swindles.......having learned the high art of penny pinching there he was appointed chief pension vampire, some of you may have noted that your pensions and terms of service have been****ed about with from that quarter lately......not much hope to be found there then....!

Hammond arse kissers, please feel free to shoot this thread down, but be prepared for some ridicule later!
 
#2
Well at least we can recycle a TLA as he is TCH as well :)
 
#5
I got all excited when I thought they'd appointed James Hammond instead of another useless politician. Clarkson would be an even better choice.
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#11
...for the hard of hearing , in The Eye's time honoured manner:

- -

Top Gear's pint-sized tame yam-yam grebo, Richard Hammond................Her Majesty's Secretary of State for War, the Rt Hon Philip Hammond MP, BA(Oxon)
 
#12
...for the hard of hearing , in the Eye's time honoured manner;

Top Gear's pint-sized grebo, Richard Hammond....................................Her Majesty's Secretary of State for War, the Rt Hon Philip Hammond
As a slight thread drift, given the propensity for our Prime Ministers of late to involve us in far away conflicts, would it not be better to revert to the name of War Department instead of Ministry of Defence? All in the name of open government and all that.
 

Wordsmith

LE
Book Reviewer
#13
He's shown himself as quietly competent in his previous job - so may well prove so in this one.

As to lack of military experience, he's got professional advisors AKA the Service Chiefs. It should be the case that the Secretary of State for Defence should be presented with a series of professionally evaluated alternatives to choose between. No minister is better than the advice he/she is given.

If Hammond feels he is getting bad advice, then he can ask for more alternatives. If he does not have confidence in the advice he is being given, then he must change his advisors - which would result in the resignation of one or more of the Service Chiefs.

As to the 'bean counting' accusation - maybe we need a minister who can get the maximum benefit from the existing budget. After the utter fcuk-up the previous administration made of the defence budget, I would be very surprised if there were not efficiency savings a competent administrator could identify. More efficient use of resources = more boots on the ground for the same money.

Politicians are not in power to win popularity contests - they are in power to make the best possible use of the available resources. Maybe Hammond should be given the benefit of the doubt until his performance in office can be assessed?

Wordsmith
 
#14
As a slight thread drift, given the propensity for our Prime Ministers of late to involve us in far away conflicts, would it not be better to revert to the name of War Department instead of Ministry of Defence? All in the name of open government and all that.
War Office only ran the Army, Admiralty ran the Navy and Air Ministry ran the RAF.

Therefore, the number of civil servants would treble overnight if your suggestion were implemented.
 
#17
Politicians are not in power to win popularity contests - they are in power to make the best possible use of the available resources. Wordsmith
Needed to snip this out so I could have a really good laugh at just how touchingly niave and trusting even the most cynical can be at times. :)
 
#18
Just clicked on the Wiki link that Bushmill's posted:

Philip Hammond was criticised in 2009 when it emerged during the MP expenses row that he claimed just £8 short of the maximum allowance for a second home in London from 2007 to 2008 even though he lived in the commuter belt town of Woking. As a result of the criticism Mr Hammond told his local paper that he would pay back any profit he makes on the future sale of his second home to the public purse.[SUP][7]




[/SUP]
 

A2_Matelot

LE
Book Reviewer
#19
As to the 'bean counting' accusation - maybe we need a minister who can get the maximum benefit from the existing budget. After the utter fcuk-up the previous administration made of the defence budget, I would be very surprised if there were not efficiency savings a competent administrator could identify. More efficient use of resources = more boots on the ground for the same money.
More efficient resources = more boots on the grounds......so simplistic and utterly never going to happen, you may see more boots on the ground only because we've ripped them off people as they passed through the door marked "career exit", or sadly as too many don't need both boots anymore as we've been committed by politicians to an increasingly pointless overseas excursion!

We will be more efficient if the Treasury cease messing about with mechanisms that limit spending except to the precious few elements which meet a strict criteria (current ops) and then suddenly rescinding that when its too late to spend the money in year, which means we don't get to buy the kit/fund future programmes we did need and the money simply goes back to the Treasury who then lament that poor old MoD can't get its act together. The Treasury and their bizzare rules are the real problem.

Politicians are not in power to win popularity contests - they are in power to make the best possible use of the available resources.
WHAT planet do you live on, from my perspective politicians are in power because they want the train set to be theirs. They are the largest bunch of egotistical, self effacing chimps on the planet who all seem to follow the "do as I say not as I do" mantra.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top