Michael Green aka Grant Shapps, is now Defence Minister
Discussion
A man who used to sell "get rich" pyramid schemes on the Internet using false identities and continued to do this as an MP and then lied about it when questioned is now in charge of the nation's defence. What could go wrong? After all, he has done such a great job in his other Government roles. What's that, five Cabinet roles in one year?
https://news.sky.com/story/grant-shapps-expected-t...
https://news.sky.com/story/grant-shapps-expected-t...
He's not on charge of defence. We have many senior Generals with vast experience in charge of defence.
Shapps is there to hold the tiller for the next few months. Not to move the tiller, just hold it. He'll get told what to do, say etc by people far more knowledgeable, yes he's a liability but as he will get a leash shorter than a toddlers shoelace, he won't cause any problems.
Remember this is all because Wallace had a tantrum because he didn't get the NATO DG job.
Shapps is there to hold the tiller for the next few months. Not to move the tiller, just hold it. He'll get told what to do, say etc by people far more knowledgeable, yes he's a liability but as he will get a leash shorter than a toddlers shoelace, he won't cause any problems.
Remember this is all because Wallace had a tantrum because he didn't get the NATO DG job.
pablo said:
He's not on charge of defence. We have many senior Generals with vast experience in charge of defence.
Shapps is there to hold the tiller for the next few months. Not to move the tiller, just hold it. He'll get told what to do, say etc by people far more knowledgeable, yes he's a liability but as he will get a leash shorter than a toddlers shoelace, he won't cause any problems.
Remember this is all because Wallace had a tantrum because he didn't get the NATO DG job.
So the Secretary for state for defence isn’t actually in charge of defence? Someone should probably tell the MoD, the armed forces and the government as they all seem to be under the impression that is the chain of command.Shapps is there to hold the tiller for the next few months. Not to move the tiller, just hold it. He'll get told what to do, say etc by people far more knowledgeable, yes he's a liability but as he will get a leash shorter than a toddlers shoelace, he won't cause any problems.
Remember this is all because Wallace had a tantrum because he didn't get the NATO DG job.
Electro1980 said:
pablo said:
He's not on charge of defence. We have many senior Generals with vast experience in charge of defence.
Shapps is there to hold the tiller for the next few months. Not to move the tiller, just hold it. He'll get told what to do, say etc by people far more knowledgeable, yes he's a liability but as he will get a leash shorter than a toddlers shoelace, he won't cause any problems.
Remember this is all because Wallace had a tantrum because he didn't get the NATO DG job.
So the Secretary for state for defence isn’t actually in charge of defence? Someone should probably tell the MoD, the armed forces and the government as they all seem to be under the impression that is the chain of command.Shapps is there to hold the tiller for the next few months. Not to move the tiller, just hold it. He'll get told what to do, say etc by people far more knowledgeable, yes he's a liability but as he will get a leash shorter than a toddlers shoelace, he won't cause any problems.
Remember this is all because Wallace had a tantrum because he didn't get the NATO DG job.
pablo said:
In simple terms, the SofS is there to implement the policies and direction as dictated by the Front Line Commands. There are good guides as to "how defence works" on the gov.uk website
uh.. I think you might it's the other way round tbh..... the Secretary of state along with cabinet et al determined the policies and direction and the officials/military implement them..... redback911 said:
A man who used to sell "get rich" pyramid schemes on the Internet using false identities and continued to do this as an MP and then lied about it when questioned is now in charge of the nation's defence. What could go wrong? After all, he has done such a great job in his other Government roles. What's that, five Cabinet roles in one year?
https://news.sky.com/story/grant-shapps-expected-t...
In fairness that shows a level of initiative and intelligence that we could do with more of amongst our politicians. And integrity too - the fact he used false names suggests he even knew it was wrong.https://news.sky.com/story/grant-shapps-expected-t...
isaldiri said:
uh.. I think you might it's the other way round tbh..... the Secretary of state along with cabinet et al determined the policies and direction and the officials/military implement them.....
You're taking it to literally. I'm sure the Government would like to think they set military strategy and direction but I can assure you that they do not. They will be told what is possible with the equipment and resources available at present and based on future prediction which will be turned into strategy. Shapps et al are not sat around now thinking "in 2050 we need autonomous aircraft and new littoral strike capability...." sure there are lots of people involved, advisors, Industry, strategic Command and other nations, but the Government are not formulating UK defence capability requirements for the futureThe SofS needs to be told what the policies and direction are, he is told by the FLC, based on their Knowledge of global affairs and warfare, what the most likely requirements are. You make it sound like the Government know what the military want without asking!
he himself hasn't got a clue what the future operating strategy of the armed forces is. He was transport secretary recently, do you honestly think he had sufficient knowledge to dictate the UK transport strategy then jump straight into defence and determine the UK defence strategy?!?!
The army, navy and air force determine their future capability requirements . He hasn't got a clue what capabilities are required in the future. He gets told what the armed forces needs by the front line Command. He finds the budget, the civil service implement it.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 31st August 16:55
pablo said:
You're taking it to literally. I'm sure the Government would like to think they set military strategy and direction but I can assure you that they do not. They will be told what is possible with the equipment and resources available at present and based on future prediction which will be turned into strategy.
The SofS needs to be told what the policies and direction are, he hasn't got a clue what the future operating strategy of the armed forces is. He was transport secretary recently, do you honestly think he had sufficient knowledge to dictate the UK transport strategy then jump straight into defence and determine the UK defence strategy?!?!
The army, navy and air force determine their future capability requirements . He hasn't got a clue what capabilities are required in the future. He gets told what the armed forces needs by the front line Command. He finds the budget, the civil service implement it.
You are essentially saying the secretary of state for defence is a puppet acting as he's told by the military. I fairly strongly disagree that will be the case. The politicians determine broadly what they want to achieve (force projection, making sure the UK remains seen as a 'credible' military power etcetc) and the military come up with what they think is needed for it or what the politicians should be considering.The SofS needs to be told what the policies and direction are, he hasn't got a clue what the future operating strategy of the armed forces is. He was transport secretary recently, do you honestly think he had sufficient knowledge to dictate the UK transport strategy then jump straight into defence and determine the UK defence strategy?!?!
The army, navy and air force determine their future capability requirements . He hasn't got a clue what capabilities are required in the future. He gets told what the armed forces needs by the front line Command. He finds the budget, the civil service implement it.
It's the military that has to find ways to implement whatever grandiose idiocy the politicians come up with with whatever budget they can get. If the military had their way and it was all at their beck and call, they would be spending vastly more on vanity pet projects than they already are with far more grand plans for world domination.
P.S and you've also used 'future capability requirements per above rather than what you stated earlier that 'the SofS is there to implement the policies and direction as dictated by the Front Line Commands'. There is a pretty big difference between the 2.
Edited by isaldiri on Thursday 31st August 17:01
It says a lot about the integrity and quality of this government that a charlatan like Shapps is in the “top tier” and that they can bung him in charge of what is one of the most important cabinet posts that there is as a direct replacement for the only guy in said cabinet who had and decency and honour. It beggars belief.
And I see on PH posters often parrot the line that “well it’s still better than Labour being in power”. How in the name of Jesus Tittyf
king Christ can Labour possibly be worse? It’s like arguing about which st sandwich tastes worse.
And I see on PH posters often parrot the line that “well it’s still better than Labour being in power”. How in the name of Jesus Tittyf
king Christ can Labour possibly be worse? It’s like arguing about which st sandwich tastes worse. pablo said:
He hasn't got a clue what capabilities are required in the future. He gets told what the armed forces needs by the front line Command. He finds the budget, the civil service implement it.
Either you’re being wilfully obtuse or you really don’t understand how senior management works anywhere. Once you get above a certain level or an organisation gets above quite a small size that’s what senior managers do. That doesn’t mean they are not in charge and just do what they are told. Do you think the CEO of Microsoft decides how many data centres are needed for Azure to meet growth targets or the Chairman of BMW dictates the purchase of a new assembly line at Cowley?Dog Star said:
And I see on PH posters often parrot the line that “well it’s still better than Labour being in power”. How in the name of Jesus Tittyfking Christ can Labour possibly be worse? It’s like arguing about which st sandwich tastes worse.
I expect you might find out soon enough.king Christ can Labour possibly be worse? It’s like arguing about which st sandwich tastes worse. Looking forward to the comedy threads with Labour in the title moaning about the same old s
t.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff