OK, I shall close the fill-in FOP on Xmas decorations. By now, half of us have seen some and half of us haven't (or have managed to ignore them to the point of not even noticing them) and return to more interesting matters.
--------------------------------------------
Defence Secretary is normally seen as a very senior job, certainly more senior than Transport Secretary, so on the face of it, Philip Hammond was promoted once the totally not-corrupt-at-all Liam Fox resigned in such an honourable and dignified fashion last week. Interestingly, the defence lobbyists seem to have got their knives out for Hammond already, but hey.
Now, as it happens, Philip Hammond was originally pencilled in by the Tories as Treasury Secretary (or 'Chief Secretary to the Treasury' or whatever the exact fancy title is) but was shuffled sideways because they had to give the job to a Lib Dem as part of the Coalition negotiations. The first incumbent David Laws was booted out because of some expense-claim shenanigans and was replaced by another Lib Dem, Danny Alexander.
Despite all this, and having been made Transport Secretary at short notice, Philip Hammond seemed to a) know what he was talking about and b) be enjoying the job. I just can't help liking him and his ve-e-ery dry sense of humour (despite him being an über-Home-Owner-Ist and all, at least he was prepared to go into battle over the HS2 route).
But is it really a promotion? Who really wants the job as Defence Secretary?
I'd far rather be Transport Secretary and really achieve something - raise the speed limit on motorways, turn off the traffic lights, build a few new railway lines, allow a new runway to be built at Gatwick or Luton, cut bus fares, whatever - than be blundering around in the MoD morass, there is no concept of 'value for money' in that department, it's all about massive vanity projects and nothing to do with what really benefits the UK. As Transport Secretary, you can quietly plan out the next few years and work towards a target; as Defence Secretary you are pushed and pulled every which way, and by and large, you usually end up resigning and being hated by all and sundry.
So that's this week's Fun Online Poll: "Which job would you prefer... Minister for Defence or Minister for Transport?"
Vote here or use the widget in the sidebar.
Monday, 17 October 2011
Fun Online Polls: Xmas decorations & Philip Hammond
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Neither thanks MW, I would like that of Home Secretary so I could kick out all the undesirables, etc and thus do my colleague, the Minister of Housing a favour, thus solving his immediate problem. Then he could do something about bringing in LVT and have nowt to distract him/her!
Of course the fact that both transport and defense are presentely constrained by Brussels is another matter, but once I have got us out of the EU, as PM, the I can 'control' those idiots too!
That saves you the effort of another poll......?
WfW,
Thing is, you can't kick out the undesirables because you'll have a gang of Shami Chakribati's taking you to court and because you didn't wrap them in cotton wool then you'll have to let them stay.
Mark's right about transport, I think - it's not seen as politically important like home office or health, but you can't make much of a difference very quickly (look at how much Lansley's reforms are being wrapped up in red tape).
Personally, I'd take DCMS. Before you can make a real change in the character of this country, you have to remove the BBC as a provider of statist propaganda. And then I'd shut the department down because government should have zero involvement in culture, media or sport.
JT: Problem is with transport - it is controlled by TEN-T (EU) and as is HS2 - go read.......!
As to Chakribati - isn't that another form of Edwina, or a side-dish?
Personally, I would shut down 'government' - its not needed!
WFW, for sure, under current rules, both jobs are hemmed in by EU nonsense. Clearly 'leaving the EU' is item one to be dealt with (goes without saying), but having left, what would you rather do?
JT, hence and why you are minister in my Bloggers Cabinet for taking over, and then shutting down, nonsense like DCMS. If you do your job properly, you'll be back on the back benches by the end of the week.
Eh? Neither transport nor defence are areas where the EU has much impact, beyond bunging money for road projects in rural Scotland and Cornwall. While various idealistic nutters make noises about an EU army, it's never going to happen.
Seriously, I can't think of any significant EU impacts here. The procurement rules mean that you have to have a transparent bidding process and award contracts on the basis of what you asked people to bid for, but anyone who doesn't approve of that shouldn't be allowed within a million miles of any procurement process ever.
(the fact that the Spanish can build hundreds of miles of HSR for a few quid over a couple of years, and that the Germans can drive at whatever goddamn speed they like, are good indicators of the fact that the bureaucratic stupidity in UK transport is *not* concentrated at EU level...)
Almost with you there John b but I reckon the difference you highlight in France and Germany are there because the French and Germans are better at playing the EU game that the British are.
In France & Germany...
Choose what suits, ignore what doesn't, pay lip service when required but never forget at the end of the day the nation comes first. Here the government, which I regard as aliens, have to show the EU leadership they are good little Europeans so they implement everything. The difference being is the French and German peoples are still able to project fear into the hearts of their politicians we the British, Scotch, English, Welsh, Irish peoples aren't.
As to the question. I'll answer with another question
If planning a military coup and hoping to make it stick, what is more important guns or roads?
Sorry that should have said Spanish and Germans, obviously although...
"massive vanity projects"
like HS2?
Post a Comment