Government 'needs to clarify rules' on Dannatt's appointment

Lord Razzall writes for ePolitix.com on his concerns about Sir Richard Dannatt's appointment as an adviser to the Conservative party. Skip related content

My question is prompted by the announcement that General Sir Richard Dannatt is becoming an adviser to the Tories and will become a Tory peer if they win the election.

There is both a procedural and a wider issue here. The procedural issue is simple. I understand that the general, although retired as Chief of General Staff (CGS), receives salary from the Army for a further period. There are clear rules about the political involvement of serving officers, and the government needs to clarify how these apply to the Dannatt situation.

The wider issue is more fundamental. It has long been established that Army officers, like civil servants, must be apolitical - and the precedent is that this continues after they leave office. Of course, there have been some exceptions such as Admiral West, parliamentary under-secretary of state at the British Home Office with responsibility for security. But I know of no case where a recently resigned senior officer is on record as opposing the government of the day and joining an opposition party. I have no doubt his predecessors as CGS were privately critical of many aspects of government policy, but they have been careful not to say so publicly.

A further issue is the relationship between a potentially incoming Tory government and the General's successor as CGS. What happens if General Dannatt disagrees with the advice given to the new prime minister by his successor General Richards? To whom does David Cameron listen?