12 Comments

• Simon 11th Dec '09 - 2:42pm

  Paddy was spot on last night.

• David 11th Dec '09 - 4:25pm

  I think Ashdown made a fool of himself here.
  Any body that has been in the forces knows you get 4 weeks leave before you leave to sort out just what you are going to do once you have left the forces.
  I spent my 4 weeks looking for work, having interviews etc, and as Sir Richard Dannatt is trying to tell him he had spoken to Cameron in that 4 week period. He goes on to say he accepted the job, but did not start it till after that 4 week period, because as Ashdown said he was still getting paid the Queens shilling.
  Sir Richard Dannatt did nothing wrong here, and Paddy who should know better should say sorry to him.

• David 11th Dec '09 - 5:20pm

  Former Lib Dem leader Lord Ashdown told BBC Question Time the appointment had broken the convention that the military should be independent of politics…

  Looking up on Google Paddy while still in the services had also spoken to somebody about a job.

  While in the Special Boat Section.
  One day I got a rather mysterious call from someone who asked me to lunch at an out-of-the-way but rather good Chinese restaurant. He said he was a member of the Foreign Office, and that they were looking for people like me who had had what he described as “wide experience in some difficult circumstances” and could speak Chinese. Would I be interested in joining?
  I knew perfectly what was going on. This was not the Foreign Office proper; if this led anywhere it would end with my being asked to go abroad, not to lie for my country (as the Elizabethan Sir Henry Wotton defined the diplomat’s role) but to spy for it. I went along with the game, expressing wide-eyed surprise, and, dissimulating enthusiastically, said that I had always wanted to “work for the Foreign Office”. This strange lunch set in motion a train of events that would change my life completely.

• crewegwyn 11th Dec '09 - 7:47pm

  Surely the difference is that Paddy was looking for future employment. Sir Richard was taking up a party political role. Pretty obvious distinction.

  I thought it was a good point by Paddy, but I was surprised by how vehement he was in his attack. Some history between the two?

• David 11th Dec '09 - 9:27pm

  Paddy was NOT looking for employment, and as he states “One day I got a rather mysterious call from someone”
  So he was not on 4 weeks leave to find work like “Sir Richard Dannatt” was.
  Like you I could not make out why he reacted like he did?

  I think you should read this,
  http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_extracts/article6077218.ece

  You can skip the bits below !!!!!
  Private maths lessons were arranged for me with the wife of a local businessman, I naturally fell hopelessly in love with her, despite what must have been at least a 15-year difference in our ages.
  After about 10 minutes of this torture, she instructed me to get a book from the bookshelf. Now there was no disguising my embarrassment and nothing to hide it with. And this time she did not pretend not to notice, but to my horror asked me whether I was embarrassed by it. I stammered that I was and, in a flame of blushes, apologised. She replied that it was nothing to be embarrassed about, unbuttoned her blouse and, gently taking my hand, placed it on her naked breast.

  You will have to read the rest !!!

• Hywel 11th Dec '09 - 11:32pm

  It’s all got a bit R18 in here 🙂

  Though thanks to that link I now know what steps to take when wading through leech infested waters which I imagine will be invaluable.

  On topic, there is a world of difference between being recruited from the special forces to be a spy cultural attache to being recruited as a senior advisor to the leader of the opposition.

• jiggles 12th Dec '09 - 8:57am

  David

  Being recruited by the intelligence services and continuing to serve the Queen but in a different role is a lot different from being recruited to advise the Conservatives and to make the Government look bad (as if they need help in that department).

  I thought Paddy’s point was a very fair one- that in doing what he did Sir Richard Dannatt put another serve strain on the relationship between the Government and the forces- i.e. the government felt they could trust senior military figures less. This makes communication harder and could ultimately make the job of troops on the ground more difficult- I don’t care how much you disagree with the Government you don’t run that risk.

  Furthermore, he was still serving when it came out, meaning that he was still in his role (on leave or not) when his name was used in a party political way by the Conservatives opening up the forces to being just another piece of politics rather than above partisan squabbles.

• Geoffrey Payne 12th Dec '09 - 9:36am

  Ashdown has a valid point but in the overall scheme of things there are far more important matters to attend to as far as Afghanistan is concerned.
  I am tempted to say that the Tories are welcome to have him, but if they do win the next general election I hope they pay more attention to their current PPC in Penrith, Rory Stewart, who seems to be the only person who talks sense on this issue. Our policy should be on getting our troops out of those parts of Afghanistan where they are doing more harm than good, which is most of it.

• David 12th Dec '09 - 9:46am

  Jiggles
  Furthermore, he was still serving when it came out, meaning that he was still in his role (on leave or not) when his name was used in a party political way by the Conservatives opening up the forces to being just another piece of politics rather than above partisan squabbles.

  He was still in the Services, BUT he was no longer holding the job/position that he had been holding, and was on leave. He said he accepted the job on offer, and would take it up when he would leave the services in a few weeks time.
  It was not clear just when it was released to when he was taking up the job, and who released it.
  If it came from Conservatives I expect they saw no harm saying that he would be joining them as an advisor, because as he said he was no longer holding any position in the Army.

  Remember the question on Question Time was “was it right for the Labour Party to smear Sir Richard Dannatt ”
  The Labour Party have a history of doing this to their own, let alone some body like Sir Richard Dannatt, and it led into this question of “was it right to say he was joining the Conservatives while still in the forces”
  It turned out that he did not release this information, so all Sir Richard Dannatt, had done was have a job interview (in the 4 weeks leave period), and accepted it, and to start when he left the services.
  If you see any blame here for this news being released before he left the services, then it was down to the Conservatives , and nothing to do with Sir Richard Dannatt.

  In answer to your statement above,
  meaning that he was still in his role (on leave or not) when his name was used

  He states he was not in his role once he started his leave.

• David 12th Dec '09 - 10:57am

  Sorry to keep posting on this, but I have read the dates of when Dannatt handed over his position in the Forces, and when it was announced that Sir Richard Dannatt would be joining the Conservative Party.

  This is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dannatt
  It shows Dannatt handed over his appointment as Chief of the General Staff at midday on 28 August 2009, which was the last Friday in August.
  The story of him joining the Tory party was first broken on 7th October , the day before David Cameron announced it on the 8th of October .
  So he was not the Chief of the General Staff in September, and it was not announced until he had left services at the end of September.
  Game set and match Paddy, you were wrong.

  He assumed the appointment of Chief of the General Staff in August 2006, replacing General Sir Mike Jackson. Dannatt handed over his appointment as Chief of the General Staff at midday on 28 August 2009 to General Sir David Richards.[2][3]
  Role as Conservative Defence adviser
  On the 7 October 2009, the story broke that General Sir Richard is expected to take an advisory role in the Shadow Defence team for the Conservatives in the House of Lords. Sir Richard, when interviewed, said that he would consider a post as a junior Defence Minister in a future Conservative government.[21] David Cameron, the Conservative Leader also stated that he’d spoken with Sir Richard and that the public would “have to wait and see” whether General Sir Richard would be a Minister in his future government; [22] although it was announced that Sir Richard will be joining the Conservative opposition as a peer in the Lords’; which David Cameron announced in his Leader’s Address on the last day of the Conservative Party Conference Thursday 8th October 2009. [23]

• Mark Valladares 12th Dec '09 - 12:19pm

  David,

  Whilst you may be sorry that you keep on posting here, I’m even sorrier that you’re a bit of a fraud, vieux chap. Sir Richard’s last day of service was actually 22 November (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8407190.stm), thus he was still a serving officer on the day that it was announced that he would be a Conservative advisor and would be, in due course, taking the Conservative whip in the Lords. Being on leave does not an excuse make.

  Your attempts to blur matters further by quoting from Paddy’s autobiography make your offence all the worse. Spinning like a professional might well be very impressive to your friends, but it doesn’t impress me.

  I tend to the view as, it appears, does Sir Richard, that the behaviour of the Conservatives in announcing his appointment prior to the end of his service, was ‘unfortunate’. Indeed, it indicates that they still don’t understand how public service works, especially the ethics and morality of it. Not surprising, really, given that they don’t like the idea of public service much.

• David 12th Dec '09 - 12:54pm

  Sorry Mark that you want to get personal, but the point is Sir Richard did nothing wrong, because he did point out he never helped the Tory party until he had left the services about two weeks ago. You are correct in pointing out that he left in Nov.
  I am not sure what you mean that “I am a bit of a fraud, vieux chap”?, and I do not see it as a blur it by quoating Paddy, as it was Paddy that made the statement.
  I also wish to point out that I did not post on here to impress any friends.
  We do agree on one thing that it was as both he, and you said that the announcement by the Tory party tends to blur things. I expect in their defence that they though that Sir Richard had left the services at the end of September.