Every day is different, and every day is fascinating. And every day you are reminded of the real importance of the decisions you take.
Life at the MoD is different from any other department. As a minister, you are taking decisions that impact directly on the safety and effectiveness of our armed services and the remarkable work they do protecting our country and our freedom. Lives are, quite literally, at stake, and you must never forget that.
So yes, the burden of responsibility does weigh very heavy on your shoulders – but the quality of the advice I’m receiving from both civil servants and the armed forces themselves is outstanding. I don’t think I have ever met so many intelligent, thoughtful and interesting people as I have in my first three months as a defence minister.
But it’s not an easy time – the ministerial team knows that there’s no point defending a bankrupt country, so we’re determined to make our contribution to reducing the deficit. Our job is more difficult than it should be because the last government promised to spend money they simply did not have. That means hard decisions during the Strategic Defence and Security Review – even harder than they would have been if Labour ministers had not let the budget get out of control.
The most memorable thing so far has been, of course, my first visit to Afghanistan, with my ministerial colleague, Gerald Howarth. It was really humbling to see the professionalism and determination of our armed forces there – and really encouraging to see their high morale and determination to do their job. They know they are making real progress – progress that is not always accurately reported back here in the UK.
One thing I’m finding really difficult – everything is so interesting it’s tempting to get too deeply involved in too many things. For example, I’ve just been to see DSTL – the science and technology part of MoD – and I was fascinated by every presentation I received on their remarkable work. It was really difficult not to keep on asking questions.
There’s a lot to do – especially, in my role, improving the way we acquire defence equipment to make sure we can live within our budget – but I sense in the MoD a real hunger to make the changes we need to make.
( 12 comments ) Tags: DSTL, MoD, SDR, Strategic Defence Review
Comment by anabelle santiago on August 29, 2010 at 11:13 am
Hopefully,Difficult decisions will be sorted out in Peace and Harmony..! Good Luck Always!
Comment by Christine on August 29, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Yes indeed difficult decisions have to be made but, what ever decision you make affects me in my job and I for one do not want to be out of a job because of the Defence Review as I love it! my position is a responsible one and something I never thought possible. So whatever you do make the right decision because otherwise I will be jobless and part of a statistic claiming the dole!! not good is it that one. Good luck!
Comment by Leon on August 29, 2010 at 1:53 pm
I appreciate that it’s a tough job with tough choices but within the forces we’re hearing a great number of rumours about potential manning changes. We’d like a bit of official information on how many jobs are likely to go.
Comment by ken shadbolt on August 30, 2010 at 9:51 am
Your most difficult task is to dream the impossible, i.e. play the if game..Think of the state of the nation before WW2,the cold war ,the invasion of the Falklands and Kuwait for example.Before these events the appeasers,the CND,the unilateral disarmers etc.were trying to place this country in danger.
Don’t be fooled. We must have Trident and both aircraft carriers and the best equipment for our forces.
Comment by john kersley on August 30, 2010 at 7:14 pm
Please do not repeat Labour’s disgraceful behaviour of fighting a war on a peacetime budget. Either fund the war in Afghanistan properly or withdraw.
Comment by John Stevens on August 31, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Anglo French co-operation is the way forward, even extending to the nuclear field and there is more potential for spreading the costs with other EU partners than appreciated by most MOD advisors. Talk to the continentals.
Comment by Glyn Jones on August 31, 2010 at 2:57 pm
There is no difficulty in working out the Defence Review – keep the Gurkhas and get rid of the civil servants – let the military take on the role in the offices, and forget the reduction in troops. I spent 40+ years in uniform and there is no civil servant job that I could not have done in that time, and for less money.
Comment by John Poynton on September 1, 2010 at 11:03 am
…”there’s no point defending a bankrupt country” ??
Freedom, through defence and security, surely comes before prosperity. Please do not do anything we will regret later.
Comment by Paul Matthews on September 4, 2010 at 11:01 pm
While we await this promised defence review, the rumours have been circulating that front line troops will be reduced, equipment will not be purchased but the MOD will be forced to pay for the replacement of trident. If the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have tought us anything, then surely it is, despite the technology era we live in, boots on the ground is still the best way to fight war!!!
There have been numerous reports stating that during the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts the British Army were at full stretch. In the world of conflicts we live in today it is undoubtedly not long before we are once again fighting two wars and therefore cutting front line troops is a totaly outragous idea.
While equipment may be sourced better, just go to one of the many ‘military themed’ shows around the country to see the ex-army surplus being sold off at cheap prices. The army it has to be argued may their equipment last, helicopters that are fifteen years old, nobody has a car that old these days and so do not cut back on new equipment for our soldiers.
To consider cutting the defence budget and then demanding the MOD pay for trident is disgusting. I was lead to belive that Trident is for our national security and do the home office not look after national security? While I fully believe in keeping Trident, the home office is where the bill should be and not with the MOD.
To consider cutting the MOD budget without cutting the aid budget. It is the wrong way around. Our armed forces provide a lot of the support we give to developing countries and they have been badly let down by the Department for Internation Development not least in Afghanistan. THe amred forces are the best people for providing security training in unstable countries or providing reconstruction in disaster hit countries.
Instead of cutting the MOD budget we should be increasing it dramatically. Allow many of the people being made reduntant or young people looking for jobs to have a chance. Transfering more hospitals to MOD hospitals as they provide a much better service. Using Army engineers to help with national construction rather than hiring rip off firms. Using army soldiers to boost policing numbers.
An increase in the Army budget could allow greater decreases in other budgets and bring much improvement to the country and the world, enhancing the concervatives and the UKs reputation.
Comment by J Cunningham on September 14, 2010 at 9:53 am
For a while I had not been sure about the on going problem of the Afghan campaign. Since beginning to study it further reading widely, read some moving tributes to lost comrades and seeing the progress in adversity of the Soldiers and their commitment – notably in Dispatches – Fighting the Taleban – it as become clear that there is only to continue to move forward and to support the Afghan people in their efforts to establish a stable country. This is being done admirably by our troops on considerably lower budget than some of the Allies and we should continue to support this push – not least for the selfish reason of denial for the Taleban and Al Qaeda to have a place they can regroup and plan… so please think carefully before any budget is changed for the troops – a pull back now is the easiest political move for the short termist view.. but I firmly believe will prove far more expensive – financially and morally.
Comment by John Harper on September 20, 2010 at 10:45 pm
I think Britain has to really think about her defence priorities as there is no point spending a fortune on trident if it is compromised by the RAF having no maritime patrol aircraft and the Navy being cut so far that we cannot conduct anti submarine patrols.
The first question is do we need three armed services. The RAF could be absorbed into the Navy and Army.
We then need to to think out our priorities.
If Trident is so important then we either fund the back up needed e.g. 4 boats with 12 missiles, plus 2 squadrons of SSN’s, and a flotila of anti submarine frigates and a couple of squadrons of MR aircraft. If it is of lessor importance we establish a joint force with the French.
We then need to sort out what we want the armed forces to do, missons that come to mind are home defence, counter terrorism, international aid releif, keeping trade lanes open, power projection.
To my mind it would be better to have two services The Army and Navy. The Army would have home defence as its prime role, with subsidiary roles such as disaster releif, replacing fire brigade etc. It should be reduced to around 60,000 regulars, 10,000 airmen, and a reserve force of 70,000. The army should transfer the SAS, Rifles, Parachute Regt, as part of building up the Royal Marines into an elite 30,000 man intervention force. By law only the marines would engage in overseas wars.
The Navy would be expanded regaining its position as Britain’s first line of defence, having the strategic deterent, the elite force of troops deployable by air or sea. These elite forces would provide the armed response to terrorism and terror threats. The navy would step up its anti drugs patrols, anti piracy work, and in the short term would be able to deploy a full carrier group, in the long term this should rise to two carrier groups. The Navy would have 30,000 Marines, 45,000 sailors and 20,000 Airmen.
The aim is to ensure our Navy can protect our vital interests such as trade, our oil installations in the UK and S Atlantic, and be able to make small scale but decisive cutting edge interventions in support of our allies. As well as undertaking anti terror duties.
In the short term we also need to think out of the box. Could we defer the purchase of F-35′s by ten years and convert our order to conventional aircraft. As a short term replacement we could keep 90 tornados in service and purchase 60 cheaper rafeles from France. To off set to cost of the aircraft we should persude France to purchase our second carrier, ordering a third carrier for latter delivery i.e. six years after Queen Elizabeth is commissioned when she will need a refit. The French Aircraft is superior to any Carrier aircraft except the F35, & with the new Meteor missile would be a match for all aircraft except the Typhoon and Raptor. Our new F35′S could when delivered from 2020 replace the Tornados, and then the Rafeles.
Clearly reorganising the forces while the Afghan commitment is underway is a recipe for disaster, so much of the realignment needs to take place once we are freer so to do. However equipment purchases could take place in line with a future realignment.
Comment by Mrs Rena McCarthy on October 6, 2010 at 10:56 pm
Having just watched the TV documentary “Secret Iraq”, which had me squirming with shame and embarrassment, it’s obvious that any of the top layer of brass who had anything to do with the Iraq and Basra “think tank”/planning debacle should be first in line for dismissal.
Yours Sincerely,
R. McCarthy