Gavin Williamson sacked

Your statement of 'why do you think having a military background would be any use' clearly shows you have no understanding of the job role. If you have no experience of the regular armed forces then how do you expect them to have any understanding of their policies and decisions on personnel.

So does that mean you can't be the minister for disabilities unless you are disabled or the minister for agriculture unless you have been a farmer?

The point is i've seen the outcomes and effects of some of the decisions and policies put in place and it shows they have no real idea what they are doing!!

That is describing nearly every cabinet member. They don't care about what their policies actually do for the people under them.

Amen to that 🤙

Back to your original post, it would help if the occupants of those posts had experience of either farming or working with disabled people. Likewise for the armed forces minister, they would then have some understanding of how their policies affect day to day life. Sadly as is the way of life we usually have imbeciles with their heads in cloud 9 in these positions

Typically it is the civil servants and special advisors that guide the MPs on their policies. Rarely do the MPs actually fully understand what really goes in their own departments.

A perfect example would be when Rudd was forced to step down after she had no idea what was going on in the Home Office with regards to removal targets.

According to Wikipedia, Penny Mordaunt is a Royal Navy Reservist and comes from a military family. While I don't necessarily think it's mandatory that a Secretary of State for Defence should have served in the UK armed forces, I certainly think it's highly desirable. Only time will tell if she's up to the job.

Of course she isnt, she's a politician. although my cynicism aside, why do you think having a military background would be of much use? After all this is a political role, not one that requires any knowledge of the armed forces (as aptly demonstrated for decades). I mean how exactly does shooting a few tribesman make you competent to be a minister of the crown? Especially a weekend warrior.

I'm very much a believer that knowledge is power and it's always better to know it yourself rather than having to rely purely on your advisory team. Of course, part of being intelligent is also admitting what you don't know and therefore finding someone that does to help.

Personally I'd say the primary role for Sec State for Defence is to fight for more funding for the armed forces (or at least not let capabilities be cut), to inform the cabinet on capability of the armed forces to proactively prepare for, or reactively take action in, a crisis and to also be the duty holder for certain types of risk. They won't be planning military strategy or anything but they need to ensure that the individuals/teams that do have all the resources available to them.
All of this will be easier if the Sec State has either operated in these environments before or has enough understanding of those environments to ask educated questions.

Your last point is a rather cheap shot that betrays how little you know about the armed forces.

£17,000 bonus for being sacked.

As someone who doesn't believe in rewarding failure, I could never vote Conservative.

£17,000 bonus for being sacked.

As someone who doesn't believe in rewarding failure, I could never vote Conservative.

Most Tories are feeling pretty sorry for him, £17K is basically a couple of meals out in the City plus taxis home.

You need to eat at cheaper places

£17,000 bonus for being sacked.

As someone who doesn't believe in rewarding failure, I could never vote Conservative.

I was referencing the typical city type, not a little mouse in Bethnal Green living off vegan meals such as myself.

Aren't you a public schoolgirl??

Apologies if not (not that there is anything wrong with that, except it is a bit rich you putting on the poor little vegan socialist act, if you are).

Most Tories are feeling pretty sorry for him, £17K is basically a couple of meals out in the City plus taxis home.

Yet you have as your persona arguably the biggest failure (considering he was so ridiculously gifted, intellectually and as a political leader) of the twentieth century.

I suppose it isn't irony, and you genuinely admire one of history's greatest underachievers?

Talk about failure, if so!