General disatistfaction?

General Dannatt has come in for criticism in some quarters for his promise to be involved with the Tories as adviser and later taking their whip in the Lords.

What has he done?

Without any evidence at all, the government suggested that all his criticisms of military provision previously were from some secret partnership with the Tories. There is a certain sour grapes at the publicity gain to the Tories from the man highly respected even beyond military circles. He has answered this by his statement that he has barely met Cameron, and recently spoken to him only on a fishing holiday shortly before the Tory Conference.

It's alright for the prime minister to make an unwelcome visit to troops overseas for a photo opportunity, and to make announcements from there about troop withdrawals in the middle of the Tories' Conference, but there is no justification for the Tories to gain any publicity.

There may be some criticism from defense contracts and their lobbying firms by the General's insistence on gaining better equipment for troops, buying abroad if necessary. The contractors have a cosy relationship with the government, including Labour members in the Lords, and they would not want this to be disturbed.

Some of the General's former colleagues are said to be concerned. Is his insistence on doing what is best for troops wrong in their eyes? Or is it that he is not so popular with them as he is with the troops and the public?

Should he have kept quiet about his contacts with the Tories, and merely leaked advice? Technically, although retired from his elevated position, he is still a serving soldier until November. After that he is presumably entitled as a private citizen to join any group he wishes?

For the moment he has not yet formally joined the Tories, having only recently come back from holiday. He has said that he will in the future become an adviser and accept a peerage. Is this any more than Lord Mandelson has done?