What happened to General Sir Richard Dannatt?
Remember the Conservative conference last autumn when the former Army chief was announced, amid much fanfare and also in David Cameron's speech, as the surprise new member of the Conservative team.
And the story was that Sir Richard would probably be given a seat in the Lords and a ministerial job in a new Cameron government.
Old defence hands quickly intervened however, and said it would be unwise to make Sir Richard a defence minister, and that he would be seen by the other services, the Navy and the RAF, as too pro-Army.
There were also questions about the propriety of Sir Richard moving so quickly into party politics having only just stepped down as Chief of the General Staff. He was also seen as a bit of a loose cannon.
So what happened to Sir Richard? It seems the idea was quietly dropped. And if anyone asks, then the need to make room for 20 Lib Dems will be cited as ample excuse for his disappointment.
I'm Michael Crick, and I'm Newsnight's political editor. My guiding rule is that in any story there's usually something the politicians would prefer the world not to know. My job is to find that out. Follow me on
Comment number 1.
At 17th May 2010, MaggieL wrote:88% of Conservatives approve of the coalition. 77% of LibDems aprove of the coalition. 66% of the population at large approve of the coalition. 98% of LibDems at yesterday's conference approve of the coalition. The sad fact is that you and you fellow ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ journalists, with your endless carping from the sidelines and never ending search for marginalised malcontents, demonstrate daily that you just aren't plugged into the zeitgeist and haven't been for some time now.
The only other interpretation of your views is that you hope to manipulate public opinion by means of your counterintuitive interpretation of events. We've got a glimmer of hope after years of despair that most of the country has grabbed with both hands and I don't believe you can take it away by the application of malicious innuendo.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 17th May 2010, stevie wrote:Dannett has had second thoughts...Damnit
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 17th May 2010, barriesingleton wrote:MEDIA IS JUST PART OF THE GAME (#1)
But your use of 'counter intuitive' caught my attention.
My view is that Westminster does not draw integrity to it, and demands of any arriving, that what little they might have be submerged, if the individual is to prosper under its ethos.
Neither Nick nor Dave has ever denounced Westminster to its face - they have had plenty of opportunity. Forget policies, it is PERSONALITIES that rule the day. Were it not so, we would not be mired in a Tommy-fool war, and at the corrupt 'heart of Europe'.
My intuition tells me it is the Nick-n-Dave EUPHORIA that is counter intuitive. Reality will be very different under Westminster-creature leadership.
Tony was the sunlit future once. We all know how that ended - we are IN IT!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 18th May 2010, JunkkMale wrote:1. At 11:21am on 17 May 2010, MaggieL wrote:
'...endless carping from the sidelines and never ending search for marginalised malcontents,'
One does wonder. And, Eric Morley-like, from what can get 'enhanced' in the edit suite after the 'reporter' has had their go, to what gets 'selected' in the first place:
It doesn't seem to be news, much less objective. Or rare.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)