Fox: 'Contract' with armed services is broken

Reacting to Lt Gen Freddie Viggers' admission that the accommodation for service families is of a poor standard the Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox has said:

"There is an unspoken understanding that when we send people out to fight and potentially die in our name, that our part of the bargain is to make sure that they and their families are properly looked after.  If they're not getting the appropriate accommodation, that's up to standards that they believe are adequate, they believe that contract has been broken, and are more likely to leave the armed forces."

Viggers' intervention follows a series of other statements by senior military officers of the huge overstretch problems facing Britain's armed forces (here and here and here).

On this morning's Today programme the Tory leader David Cameron promised to bring forward a 'manifesto' for service families.  "They do so much for us and, frankly, we should do more for them," he said.

2pm update: Tory press statement on manifesto for armed forces families

Comments

[malcolm]

The criticism of the MOD from senior serving Generals is absolutely unprecedented.I'm very ,very sorry that we have so far made so little headway in embarrasing the government on their treatment of our armed forces.

[Klamm]

We should not be surprised at this mess which is on top of the fact that some soldiers are killed because the Government send them into combat without the right equipment (this would be corporate manslaughter if it was in the private sector).

Labour have always been anti-armed forces as they have always been anti-police. It runs through them like letters through the middle of Blackpool Rock.

Those socialists educated at uni in the 70's and 80's were indoctrinated with this.
They are now running much of the country either as Ministers, MP's or civil service decision-makers so it is of no surprise that both the armed forces and police are so poorly treated.

[John Coles]

Well, that's a start by Mr Fox. Perhaps now he'll get off his backside and apply himself to the matters of Snatch Landrovers being used in Iraq & Afghanistan (utterly inadequate protection), the MOD supplying "bad' bullets to our troops in Afghanistan, the reasons why our troops beg and borrow boots from the Americans and Australians, the reasons why equipment (specifically body armour) has arrived late in theatre, the reasons why the Fleet (hollow laughter, it's barely a Flotilla), has no organic air cover (yes, organic - that should catch Mr Cameron's eye), the reasons why there are not enough heavy-lift helicopters in Iraq or Afghanistan - and so on.
There's a job of opposition to be done on the disgraceful state of our national defences and Mr Fox has barely applied himself to it. The Tory party is standing by mute whilst the young men who fight on our behalf are ill-equipped and suffer withdrawal of allowances - it's unbelievable that the TORY party should behave this way.
Still, never mind, eh? - better for the Party to be thought loveable rather than effective.

[James Cleverly]

Defence has been the dog that didn't bark for the last few elections. The Armed forces have bee the public servants that few people come into contact with, their work done in distant lands.

Camera phones and the internet have changed that.

It is essential that we go into the next election with strong policies on defence and the armed forces. Not just on commitments and equipment but on facilities, training and personnel.

We must also ensure that we sort out ballot papers for service personnel overseas, the disenfranchisement of troops on active service is a disgrace.

[Esbonio]

I could not have put it better myself than John Coles did. The Tories should be ashamed of how they have neglected defence since the 90s.

[Simon Newman]

Agree 100% with James Cleverly's points above.

[The Laughing Cavalier]

Three cheers for John Coles' comment which says just what I want to say. The egregious Blair has sent our troops hither, thither and yon to fight for his vainglorious campaigns during the last nine and a half years, all the while under-equipping them, under-paying them and generally treating the Services like dirt. Other men's sons are sent to die while those of NuLabour's plutocracy are safe in the groves of academe or parachuted into high paying jobs amongst the NuLabour nomenclatura.

And what is Fox doing while all this has been carrying on? Your post says "Reacting to ... Liam Fox has said ...". That's just it. Reacting to, not campaigning. Fox should be sacked and replaced by someone prepared to call the government to account.

[Esbonio]

The other day I noted an apparent absence of defence rom the Editor's coverage so today's coverage is welcome. I also suggested someone with military experience might be better as shadow defence minister.

[arthur]

The Tory party, is that the same Tory Party that back in 1981, (John Nott) proposed that virtually the entire surface fleet of the RN be scrapped. That tried to sell off the Invincible to the Australians, that carried out the largest cuts in expenditure between 1986/96 on defence: just checking!

[Esbonio]

Arthur

Well noted Arthur. They also sent the wrong signal to the Argies with HMS Endurance. And they took far too big a peace dividend post fall of Berlin Wall.

[Denis Cooper]

Not only unprecedented, but disgraceful and potentially dangerous, that service chiefs have been forced to speak out about this because the civilian politicians in the official opposition have remained silent. Why? Because it is embarrassing to talk about defence, now that talking about defence means "talking about Europe".

[Yet Another Anon]

Labour have always been anti-armed forces as they have always been anti-police. It runs through them like letters through the middle of Blackpool Rock.
Peacetime spending on the military actually reached it's peak at the end of the 1945-51 Labour government and was cutback by the following Conservative government - Labour introduced National Service, introduced the nuclear deterrent in the UK and at the time of leaving office in 1951 had embarked on major rearmament.

Before 1945 Labour mostly stood on a platform of there being no need for a standing army, but in government Labour mostly has been not much different from the Conservatives on it, Harold Wilson cut it back a bit, under Jim Callaghan Defence Spending as a proportion of GDP reached it's highest levels since the Korean War, under Margaret Thatcher although the Conservatives talked about maintaining Defence it was halved as a proportion of GDP by the time she left office and then under John Major it was almost halved again, it has continued to fall as a proportion of GDP but actually in recent years the fall has slowed and there have even been the first real terms increases since the late 1970's in Defence Spending - really I have no faith in any of the main 3 political parties in adequately funding Defence spending - Labour and the Liberal Democrats both prioritise social spending over Defence Spending and the Conservative Party has been quite happy to cut Defence spending solely as a means of funding tax cuts. There is virtually no difference between levels of spending as a proportion of GDP in the second half of the 1970's and since if you leave out Defence Spending - except for briefly in the late 1980's, the Conservatives have been happy for Defence Spending to be low so that it wouldn't be noticed that largely social spending continued to remain high and Labour and the Liberal Democrats are happy because continued falls hides the fact that Social Programmes are being expanded.

[Denis Cooper]

Page 20 in the German Presidency's work programme:

http://www.eu2007.de/includes/Downloads/Praesidentschaftsprogramm/EU_Presidency_Programme_final.pdf

"The European Security Strategy was adopted in 2003 against the backdrop of international crises, terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, regional conflicts, failing states and organized crime. The German Presidency will work to establish a more efficient and coherent foreign policy and more intensive cooperation with partners, in line with the Strategy’s provisions. In addition, the Presidency aims to take further steps towards military cooperation with the long-term goal of a common European defence."

Do the Tories officially support that European Security Strategy? Do they officially agree with "the long-term goal of a common European defence."?

[esbonio]

Yet Another Anon may be right about the figures, I do not know, although I do recall that pay fell dramatically in the 70s (it was claimed a fighter pilot got less than a London bus driver) and Callaghan was forced to jack up forces pay just before he went.

But the problem is, the problem is not just limited to dismal levels of expenditure. Our forces are completely overstretched. They have been undermined by political correctness and the HRA. And there is to a large extent a disconnect between the country our forces serve and what it is.

[George Hinton]

Whether either party is pro or anti the armed forces is not particularly relevant here.
We must recall that the rot set in with Maggie, and the many defence reviews, which caused the Falkland's War.
It was a Tory administration that sold off the housing stock to Nomura, brought in business administation systems, from the corporate world, into the forces, that where wholly inappropiate. In the latter case this has resulted in the duff ammo farce, lack of flak jackets, lack of spares for Tanks and aircraft and helicopters, as the forces are no longer allowed to stockpile, thus not being in a position to meet any eventuality.
NuLab have merely compunded all this, by stretching budgets, and in real terms reducing the overall monetary buying value.
BUT, what is really galling, is that despite 3 years of Iraq and Afghan, NuLab have made no real effort to make good the shortfalls in budgets and equipment, but still expect our soldiers to perform miracles to bail them, the politicoe's, out.
I'm glad that Liam Fox is beginning the counter offensive against this mendacious and corrupt government. He needs to widen his attack and has been given plenty of ammunition from the Generals down to the Private Soldiers who are posting on ARSSE.
Go for it Liam, and remember the job of an opposition is to oppose and capitalise on the mistakes of the government, so you've got loads.

[Klamm]

Just Another Anon (10.53)

I take your point about the immediate post-war Labour governments...

However, from the late 70's onwards, the Labour Party has moved from a pro-UK party to one that is anti-everything UK including key state/establishment institutions like the armed forces and the police (see MacPherson Report for evidence).

Labour and the civil service are infested with people who hate the foundation stones of this nation. It was what they were told to think at uni in the 70's and 80's.

This is why the armed forces are so neglected.

[Esbonio]

George Hinton is right. Unfortunately it appears the Tories are incapable of hiting a target at point blank range. Their attitude reminds of the (apocryphal?) tale of the Dutch armed forces in the 80s letting their recruits wear hair nets.

[Esbonio]

It also looks like I cannot spell "hitting"!

[TomTom]

really I have no faith in any of the main 3 political parties in adequately funding Defence spending

Agreed. It would have been better had NATO laid down an Establishment with each NATO country being under obligation to deliver to SHAPE

[James Cleverly]

Cutting defence spending when defence commitments reduce and spending the money elsewhere or cutting taxes is justified.

However I now see young soldiers with 4,5 or even 6 medals. Real ones too, not ones that come with the rations as per other armies in the world. Yet despite this huge increase in commitments defence spending has fallen in real terms.

All political parties cut the forces when there is no war on, that is unfortunate and possibly short sighted, what is unforgivable is cutting the forces when we are in one of the busiest military periods in a generation.

I have been banging on about this on my site for ages, I am glad that the party has caught up.

[Yet Another Anon]

Cutting defence spending when defence commitments reduce and spending the money elsewhere or cutting taxes is justified.
Future threats are frequently difficult to see and skilled military personnel and equipment can't be magicked up overnight - the deterrent to a Soviet attack was always primarily the ability to strike back with nuclear weapons - there was never any way that UK conventional forces could have held back a Soviet attack and they had the advantage over the USA of having a land link with continental Europe.

Conventional forces were always primarily really useful mainly for conflicts with non-nuclear states, in 1991 talk was all about peace dividends and what happened? Iraq marched into Kuwait and Al Qaeda started attacking states around the world, in 1982 there was the issue of the Falklands, if the Iran-Iraq war had ended earlier it is possible that Iraq could have invaded Kuwait years earlier - all this stuff about peace dividends was just rhetoric to justify cuts, Leonid Brezhnev was still very much in office at the time of the 1981 Defence Review and relations with the USSR didn't change much before 1985 by which time there had already been substantial cuts, in the USA & France on the other hand spending on Defence has been far more consistent since 1945 than in the UK.

[Al Lockwood]

I whole heartedly agree with the comments of John Coles - it is about time that the party shouted clearly from the rooftops that the servicemen in this country are treated abysmally, highlighting solutions. Before we start getting overconfident though about the state of the Service accommodation let us not forget who sold it off - thank you Michael Portillo - to an investment bank that have creamed the profit of the desirable accommodation and left the servicemen with the unmodernised, unsocial and often isolated housing. We have seen the same happen to another MOD jewel with Quintiq and now the whole of the Military Training system is to be sold off to yet another consortium, who will cherry pick the best and ditch the rest, leaving the servicemen and the country poorer both in terms of capability and surge requirements. Military capability cannot be generated overnight! This government needs castigating not only for getting our forces into 2 conflicts unprepared, ill equipped and badly supported but also for the legality of the Iraq conflict itself. In the meantime, the Army leadership seems to be enjoying their engagement with the press – good on them – their troops will be supporting them and be proud to hear their leaders putting the concerns of Tommy to the fore. However, speaking as an ex-serviceman I am concerned that both the other Services, both in similar straits financially and operationally, are mute in their criticism of government funding and procurement – and in particular where is CDS? Liam your defence team has not supported you as they should, you are fighting off the back foot all the time, the ammunition has been supplied go on the attack and see off this corrupt administration with its lack of ethics and with a defence procurement process that is inflexible and cannot respond to the needs in the timescale required. Could you imagine the outcry if the National Health Service or Education was neglected in this manner?

[James Cleverly]

YAA,

You are spot on about the time it takes to scale force strengths to fit treat levels. But please remember that the Falklands was an optional commitment, as was Kuwait, as was the Balkans, as was Kosovo, as was Sierra Leone, as was Afghanistan, as was Iraq.

I don't want to get into the right or wrongs of these deployments but none were wars of national survival. I am perhaps more of a hawk than many because I feel that we have a moral obligation not to stand on the sidelines and watch evil be done when we have the ability to do something about it.

The point that I am making is that if we decide to get involved in military interventions we should arm, equip and support our armed forces accordingly. Or we could become like the Swiss and have a force for national defence only.

Either is a legitimate position but our current half-way-house position is untenable.

[Simon Chapman]

It's a little harsh to suggest Liam has only just woken up to this. Googling "Liam Fox army equipment" produces 16,400 entries on issues of kit & overstretch, with stacks of recent activity, interviews dating back to January 2006, and urgent questions in the house last summer - all in a year when the party leadership has been relentlessly focussing on non-traditional Tory issues, and sidelining areas like Defence.

With the new grit in the blue-green machine it is to be hoped we will see and hear a lot more this year, with Defence back as a mainstream priority for the party.

[Valedictoryan]

"Defence has been the dog that didn't bark for the last few elections."

and

"Still, never mind, eh? - better for the Party to be thought loveable rather than effective."

One of Blair's legacies is a growing feeling that we do more attack than defence. Beyond the hawks and jingoists there are few with an appetite to increase "defence" spending. However, there's always an argument that what we do spend should be better directed.

[Esbonio]

The Tories have failed and continue to fail to effectively fulfil their opposition role. When Labour came into power the Tories may have been shocked, weakened, and divided but that was no excuse to sit on their hands. Since Cameron's leadership this failure to oppose has changed from an act of ommission to an apparently even worse one of commission. By failing to even go through the motions of opposition the Tories have completely let Labour off the hook and permited an appalling shift in the cente of gravity of the body politic which may prove impossible to reverse and explains how Labour continues to get away with policies and acts of omission which would have been unthinkable a decade ago.

[Yet Another Anon]

We have seen the same happen to another MOD jewel with Quintiq
It's still 63% state owned, what was farmed off into the company from DERA was non-military commercial spinoff bits - whether it should have been sold or not is another matter but what it is doing is civilian R&D probably more suited to being supervised by the dti or a Department of Science & Technology, the military is for defending the country and it's vital it focuses on that rather than getting mixed up in non-military commercial ventures.

But please remember that the Falklands was an optional commitment, as was Kuwait, as was the Balkans, as was Kosovo, as was Sierra Leone, as was Afghanistan, as was Iraq
The Falklands was occupied and is a British Territory, accept the loss of that and other British Territories would have been next, besides which the islanders didn't want to be part of Argentina. In the case of Kuwait a debtor of Kuwait (Iraq) had invaded them to avoid paying back money they had borrowed and to seize one of the largest oil reserves in the world - hardly acceptable behaviour.

In the Balkans and in Kosovia Serbia and ethnic Serbs were busily carrying out genocide and behaving as if they could turn the area that had been Yugoslavia into a sort of Greater Serbia. Sierra Leone largely has problems as a result of exploitation by Diamond Smugglers largely from other parts of the world, the UK has strong links with the country and there was a danger anyway of the chaos spreading beyond it's borders, with regard to Afghanistan - an Afghanistan based terrorist organisation who the taliban refused to kick out had carried out an attack on the USA in which many UK citizens also died. The Baathists in Iraq were conducting genocide, destabilising the region and destroying the environment and finances of Iraq - something had to be done about them. Most military action can be described as voluntary, however inaction can lead to the neccessity of much more substantial action later.

[TomTom]

One of Blair's legacies is a growing feeling that we do more attack than defence.

That's why the Conservative Party loathed Churchill so much and so many opposed him as PM in May 1940..........

It is the Lord Salisbury tendency in the Tory Party - to let things slide until there is no option but a major war as in 1914.

Hopefully these Tories will be kept away from major issues lest they sell the country down the river as so often before. I prefer a well-funded military with sharp spears and trained to fight...............

Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.

[James Cleverly]

YAA,

You are right about the importance of all those deployments, the point that I am making is that all of them were optional.

If we chose to deploy to these places we need to be willing to pay.

[HF]

Editor

When I read many of the comments above I yearn for a "members only" comment area.

How can many of the comments above be attributed to Conservatives? Blaming Thatcher, Major, Fox :-o

[Derek Buxton]

Agree with John Coles, except to ask why has defence only just now been raised. The BBC and the MSM don't talk about such things naturally but the message has been all over the internet for months. Where has everybody been? Is there even anyone out there? Oops, sorry, forgot Cameron doesn't do defence. First duty of any government is "defence of the Realm" against the outside world.

[arthur]

Every party loves the Armed Forces, when they are in opposition!
Of the three armed forces, only one now has a clearly defined role, the Army. Afghanistan/Iraq has been good for the Army, it has given the Army political clout. It is now the Air Force and Navy whose roles should be examined. For instance, watching on the TV an anti-submarine frigate on operation in the North Sea, checking the nets of trawlers. Millions of pounds worth of frigate, highly trained crew etc, doing a job,a coastguard cutter could be doing for a fraction of the cost. The reason, obvious, no submarines to chase, they are all rotting away in Murmansk. An airforce which still has 'battle flights' sitting in bunkers waiting to intercept bombers, that will never arrive. The main purpose of the Airforce/Navy in the future will be to transport, support and supply the Army. Its time to get on with creating a 21st century armed forces.

[Al Lockwood]

Well Arthur, I guess you would be asking questions if the so called 'Battle Flight' of the Royal Air Force wasn't there when a hijacked airliner flew into Westminster! The integrity of the UK's airspace is the duty of the RAF in peacetime and has never been needed more than at the present time.

As regards the rest of the RAF let us not forget who flies the majority of the helicopters on operations, who provides the Command and Control, the strategic reconnaissance, the air transport in and out of hostile areas and the tactical air transport in theatre? Then look at the assets available, in particular the age of the aircraft before you start pressing for Army priority for funding. As regards the Navy undertaking fishery protection with frigates, this has always been so and should be, some of our European fishermen need to be shown a bit of steel at times to make them comply with the law.

Let us not however get off the thread, the UK Armed Forces have been forced by this government into a succession of operations underfunded and under equipped. I have personally watched MOD requests for urgent funding, required for operations, languish in the this Chancellors in-tray because of the lack of political will to provide.

[arthur]

well al.
What good a Tornado/Typhoon is doing sitting up in Leuchars when a 747 ends up on top of Westminster, I don't know. As for the helicopters etc, RAF Odiham should be handed to the Army along with all its Chinooks etc. Close support should go back to the Army. The Nimrods should go to the Navy. Don't forget the RAF was created as an independent force in 1918, not to support the Army/Navy but not to! Something its managed to do brilliantly!

[TomTom]

The reason, obvious, no submarines to chase, they are all rotting away in Murmansk. An airforce which still has 'battle flights' sitting in bunkers waiting to intercept bombers, that will never arrive.

Who was it dreamed up The Ten Year Rule ?

The same person presumably who thought the Royal Navy too big in 1935 and who did not think it worth discussing Defence in the 1935 Election...............well it is good that someone was replacing bi-planes with monoplanes...............and would have been wonderful to have put better armour-plating on the Hood

[Arthur]

Of course rather than put armour plating on the Hood, it might have been better to have realised the day of the Battleship was over and concentrated on more viable warships. The past is always interesting to dig up, (I do it all the time) but we must look at the situation today.
I could point out, that during the whole of the second world war, the RAF never managed to sink a single German/Italian/Japanese capital ship (while that ship was operational) the Tirpitz was a PR job, a hulk which never recovered from the Xcraft attack, it's one big chance the Channel Dash it totally screwed up!
There was no RAF version of Taranto!

[George Hinton]

The RAF should be delegated a transport role, which they do very well, with aging and crap aircraft, so a large spend is needed there.
The Navy can take over the fighter role, as with carriers they will have reach and this will enable force projection. Recall that it was Sea Harriers that provided cover in the Falkland's and Sierra Leone.
The RAF's chopper fleet can be handed to the Army.
The Navy can then select a dual role aircraft that can deploy on carriers and can be shore based, such as the F18 Hornet, or a newer aircraft. These can be bought off the shelf from the Yanks, who know how to build multi-role carrier aircraft.
We should bear in mind that a lot of the early disasters in WW2 resulted because the Navy only recovered its Fleet Air Arm in the late 1930's from the RAF, which had starved it of money and resource. The result was that the Navy went to war equipped with the Swordfish, Sea Gladiator, Skua and Fulmar all totally useless if not obsolete when compared with the Luftwaffe.
Littoral parol needs armed vessels and we have no Coast Guard, such as the Americans, and certainly cannot rely on our continental enemies.....i.e. Brussels.
For our service personnel we must do much better and provide them with decent housing and accomodation, on a par with that provided by local authorities. If that costs money then sobeit.
Defence cannot be done on the cheap, and money spent is a forward investment, even if we do not go to war, or have to fight an asymetric counter-insurgency.

[George Hinton]

Arthur...
The Fleet Air Arm did however sink a German Light Cruiser in the Norwegian campaign.
The Fleet Air Arm did substantial damage to the Italian Navy in the attack on Taranto
The Fleet Air Arm did damage Bismark that resulted in her destruction by the Fleet.

I rest my case for the Navy.

[arthur]

I think we are getting on the right track there George!

[Arthur]

Yes the FAA did!
The Konigsberg (off Bergen) was sunk by a Blackburn Skua by dive bombing, which the RAF refused to entertain. The Navy were obviously cock-a-hoop, it was going to be number one item on the 9 0'clock news, the RAF who were coming under criticism for not having dive bombers, had it pulled from the broadcast.

[George Hinton]

The majority of the attacks in the "Channel Dash" were carried out by the Fleet Air Arm using Swordfish torpedo bombers and coastal forces MTB's.

[arthur]

Operation Ceberus
11 feb 1942

The German force sailed at 2245hrs The admiralty was not alerted until the three ships had passed Boulogne in broad daylight. By then it was much to late to mount a co-ordinated attack. Only MTB's some torpedo bombers and six destroyers were available (the home fleet could not be risked) For C-in-C Bomber Command had wihout telling the Admiralty stood down over half the bombers allotted to the operation and the remainder were on four hours notice instead of the required two. Piecemeal attacks were mounted a complete flight of six torpedo bombers was destroyed....

[Deputy Editor]

"Defence has been the dog that didn't bark for the last few elections. The Armed forces have bee the public servants that few people come into contact with, their work done in distant lands."

James' point is an important one. I know from discussing these things with him that he agrees with me that one simple way of bringing the forces into mainstream consciousness more is to allow them to wear their uniform in public whenever they need to.

It seems very wrong to me, for example, that school cadets often have to get changed at school (I didn't though) into their combats because of a supposed threat from the IRA. It's a needless erosion of the very freedom that the forces are paid to defend.

I'm hazy on the exact rules on this, and on international comparisons, but I think I'll look into it in more depth when I get time and perhaps submit it as a 100policies proposal.

[Yet Another Anon]

Defence has been the dog that didn't bark for the last few elections. The Armed forces have bee the public servants that few people come into contact with, their work done in distant lands.
I don't recall Defence having been part of the General Election campaign since 1987 with the exception of 2005 focusing a bit negatively on the War in Iraq at some points.

[Esbonio]

I understand both the Royal Navy and the Army covet the RAF's role and perhaps with reason. I also understand the Army may have reason to feel jealous of how the RAF looks after its people. However fun as it may be slagging one service off is not perhaps the best way to fight wars.

[malcolm]

HF, I try to be loyal to the Conservative party at all times if I can but their/our record on defence issues in the modern era is patchy at best. John Nott was a disaster and it Argentinas great mistake that thjat they did not risk a Falklands invasion a year or two later.If they had, they would have won.Period.
Tom Kings' 'options for change' imagined that the USSR was the only enemy and although well planned went far too deep. It resulted in the Army only being able to take on one medium sized overseas commitment at a time. Now we have two and the Army patently cannot cope.
Liam Fox has been presented with a series of open goals as Defence Minister and for whatever reason has not taken any of them. John Nott masy have been a poor Defence Secretary but Hoon and Browne have both been far worse and Fox could and should have kicked their heads in.If he cannot raise his game substantially within the next few months he should be replaced.

[malcolm]

Looking at some of the the comments above I really don't see the point of getting into the mutinae of inter-service rivalry.In most operations overseas they are interdependant and arguments over which is the most valuable tend to be fruitless.

[Esbonio]

Malcolm
I entirely agree with your comments 16.12 and 16.17.

[Tory Loyalist]

Good points Malcolm. As I've observed. before you're certainly a cut above the average Cameroonie. You're just going to have to learn to kick that habit.

I like Fox, but this "soundbite"(no doubt instantly demanded by the Cameron publicity machine) amounts to utter hypocrisy.

It was the Tories who started selling off married quarters in vast quantities and the fact that Blair and Co have eagerly followed their lead is no excuse.

Last night the TV showed us some loose tiles in a kitchen and a few other apparent signs of minor lack of maintenance.

The idea that the married quarters themselves are inferior is nonsense. Most of the 1960s system-built concrete or timber-framed units which might have been so described are now demolished or privately owned.

Still, it's yet another convenient bandwagon for Cardhouse to jump on.

[SimonNewman]

"James' point is an important one. I know from discussing these things with him that he agrees with me that one simple way of bringing the forces into mainstream consciousness more is to allow them to wear their uniform in public whenever they need to."

I agree with the Deputy Editor - soldiers shouldn't have to hide their identity like something shameful. The IRA threat is gone and the likely Marxist-Islamist threat only amounts to verbal abuse, as yet.

[Yet Another Anon]

Maybe there should be military minimum grade criteria for selecting Defence Ministers and subject to approval by the House of Commons the Defence Ministers could be from people not in parliament but allowed to address parliament - this would allow a government still to appoint military or ex-military officers from more of their own philosophical viewpoint generally while help improve quality in decision making.

Maybe the Defence Secretary would have to be at least a General or ex-General or equivalent and other Defence ministers from at least officer ranks.

[Simon Chapman]

Malcolm,

Only last month, Liam Fox forced an apology to the House of Commons from Des Browne, for misleading the house (“unintentionally”) over army pay & allowances. Getting New Labour to apologise for anything (unless it took place at least 200 years ago) deserves recognition. You are not being your usual fair-minded self.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1971215,00.html
http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=134128

[James Cleverly]

I don't think that we should go down the road of limiting who can be Sec. State for Defence in terms of having to have military experience.

Soldiers do strategy and tactics, politicians do policy. They are not the same thing. I would just like to see someone who doesn't hate the armed forces and who isn't incompetent.

I don't believe Des Browne fits either of these criteria.

BTW I got in a bit of trouble a while back for using an ungentlemanly word to describe Mr Browne.

[Esbonio]

James

Whilst it might not be appropriate to limit the role to someone with millitary experience, it would I think make sense to have someone with military experience, empathy and understanding of the forces.

I have to say that for over a decade the Conservatives failed to give the impression of being instinctively concerned about the forces.

[Scotty]

"Soldiers do strategy and tactics, politicians do policy. They are not the same thing. I would just like to see someone who doesn't hate the armed forces and who isn't incompetent.
I believe that Des Browne was Gordon Brown's choice for the MOD and as such his role seems to be that of an accountant. He seems to have been to trying and limit MOD spending and to identify and implement cuts where possible. The long-term damage of this type management when our forces are heavily involved in foreign deployments is there to see in some of the comments from various generals. While some might question the right of the generals to speak out against this government others might read it as the final warning about the seriousness of the situation.

"BTW I got in a bit of trouble a while back for using an ungentlemanly word to describe Mr Browne." James, I can think of a few choice words regarding the performance of Des Browne at the last Defence questions in 2006!

[Scotty]

Excuse spelling mistakes, always happens when I try to post quickly without checking!

[John Coles]

James Cleverly wrote:
""Cutting defence spending when defence commitments reduce and spending the money elsewhere or cutting taxes is justified.""

It is not. It never is. Si vis pacem, para bellum. And do so today and every day. Tories understand this.

Mr Cleverly then continued:
""However I now see young soldiers with 4,5 or even 6 medals. Real ones too, not ones that come with the rations as per other armies in the world.""

Apart from the utter vacuity of this unlikely observation, it seems that a new criterion for defence spending is now a medal count.

He then capped that observation with supreme fatuity, writing:
""But please remember that the Falklands was an optional commitment, as was Kuwait, as was the Balkans, as was Kosovo, as was Sierra Leone, as was Afghanistan, as was Iraq.""

Running away or doing nothing has always been an option. As a nation we have tended not to do that and I hope that continues to be the case.

Pity - a good thread brought low by half-baked drivel and not improved by Mr Cleverly referring to the Armed Forces as "public servants". They are not. They are Her Majesty's Forces.

[Scotty]

"Apart from the utter vacuity of this unlikely observation, it seems that a new criterion for defence spending is now a medal count."
Unlike you John, James Cleverly's insightful comments show clearly his knowledge of the problems facing the common soldier.
As someone who has just been talking to a relative who is fast becoming one of the most decorated in his regiment and was involved in a discussion on this very subject I found James's point very pertinent. I think that James is pointing out just how many foreign deployments the young soldier is experiencing under this government and how defence spending has not reflected this.

[John Coles]

Hardly an insight, Scotty, overstretch and repetetive deployment have long been recognised as a real problem brought about by underspend.
There was a time when medal-counting was not a British occupation.

[Simon Newman]

John Coles:
"not improved by Mr Cleverly referring to the Armed Forces as "public servants". They are not. They are Her Majesty's Forces."

I don't agree with JC's comments above, but this raises an interesting point - to what extent (if any) do the armed forces owe a duty to the people - the public? The loyalty oath I took when I was in the TA for a couple of years pledged allegiance to the Queen, her ministers, & her heirs and successors. I'm of the view that pledging allegiance to the Queen primarily means the Queen in her constitutional capacity, embodying the nation and the constitution; so it would not extend to a future monarch or prime minister who (say) tried to impose sharia. The literal wording is not conditional in that way though; where the US soldier pledges to uphold the Constitution, the British soldier pledges loyalty to a person. This also means that per the oath, any attempt to abolish the monarchy would release the military from their allegiance to the government.

[Scotty]

"There was a time when medal-counting was not a British occupation." When young soldiers today are breaking all previous records on individual medal counts, it does warrant some recognition and simple observing the fact does not make it a British occupation.
It is also the greatest example of just how much British military foreign deployments have increased in the last 10 years.
Are we not even allowed to recognise the incredible job that our soldiers do which is most poignantly displayed by the medals on their uniform?

[esbonio]

Simon

I may be wrong but I do not think members of the armed services are "public servants" but civil servants are.

[esbonio]

Simon

Maybe I am wrong although "servant of the crown" may be more correct?

[Valedictoryan]

and not improved by Mr Cleverly referring to the Armed Forces as "public servants".

John Coles, James Cleverly is well qualified to comment.

The reality of our military is that they serve and protect the public interest. Oaths aside, I don't think it's a bad idea for our armed forces to think of themselves as being public servants rather than servants at the whim of a monarch.

[Major James Cleverly RA(V)]

John,

Thank you for your comments. If you don't think that defence spending needs to be adjusted with the level of threat would you propose that we maintain the Army at 1945 levels?

I mentioned medals because when I joined the Army most soldiers had one if any at all. The fact that young soldiers now have so many indicates how busy the Army has become.

You completely miss my point about the deployments over the last decades. None was about stopping enemy soldiers crossing the channel; as such it was a governmental choice to deploy rather than a necessity. In such cases the government have a duty to fund the deployments that they commit us to.

If you had looked at my site you would have seen that I do know a fair bit about the Army. My Latin is pretty shit but here is a saying for you. "Time spent in recce is seldom wasted".

[Yet Another Anon]

Pity - a good thread brought low by half-baked drivel and not improved by Mr Cleverly referring to the Armed Forces as "public servants". They are not. They are Her Majesty's Forces.
Everything in the Public Sector technically is Her Majesty's something or other - so arguing over whether to call them Public Servants or Crown Servants really amounts to semantics and no more - my father was a Postman, the Post Office recognises the monarch as being the ultimate civil authority above it. The same is true of the Civil Service.

[Yet Another Anon]

This also means that per the oath, any attempt to abolish the monarchy would release the military from their allegiance to the government.
The oath is to the crown, as such the monarchy could be replaced by another system and Heads of State can be changed, but the oath still applies so long as the crown exists - the crown is an abstract construct not a person or group of persons, it is from what all authority in the UK stems and the monarch reigns by the authority of the crown.

[ToMTom]

The loyalty oath I took when I was in the TA for a couple of years pledged allegiance to the Queen, her ministers, & her heirs and successors.

That's very nice but the 1955 Army Act gives Parliament something of a say in matters

[John Coles]

A little desperate, Mr Cleverly, when you call upon a reserve rank to justify your woeful intervention in this debate.
I choose not to trump you.

[Capt. Rodney Splurge ACF (Retd) Dip.HND]

Good to see that my comrade Cleverley has decided to "come out" and impress everybody with the full glittering galaxy of his ranks and honours.

Personally I have long believed that only serving and retired officers, especially the elite that belong to the ACF and the TA should be permitted to vote or to represent their country in parliament or anywhere else for that matter.

I am proud to wear cook and even sleep in the Queen's uniform.

God save Her Majesty!

[Simon Newman]

01:07:
"The oath is to the crown, as such the monarchy could be replaced by another system and Heads of State can be changed, but the oath still applies"

That's not how I remember the wording - albeit it was over 8 years ago so I might have misremembered, but I'm pretty sure it was specifically to the monarch, not 'the Crown', hence the 'and her heirs & successors' bit.
I guess maybe being an Ulsterman my attitude to these things is a bit different from most folks. :)

[ToMTom]

I guess maybe being an Ulsterman

Then you might hunt back to the Dutch King William of Orange who was presented with the British Army at Torbay by one John Churchill.

I pose the thought that the Oath dericves from The Act of Settlement which laid down the Succession from those descendants of the Electress Sophia of Hanover and that this is the source of The Oath..............

then again, possibly not.

[James Cleverly]

John,

I used my rank only to remind you that I do know what I am talking about on this issue.

Your comments were were personal in nature which I feel is unnecessary in what meant to be an adult discussion forum. Rather than playing the man how about playing the ball.

If you read what I wrote properly you will see that I was not advocating that we should not have deployed to the Falklands, Bosnia, Kosovo etc. I made the point that having decided to do so the armed forces need to be properly funded.

Governments can choose not to get involved in situations like this, (not my favoured course of action) or they can chose to. If money needs to be saved or spent elsewhere then they government should not be committing troops to these deployments. If it is felt that we need to intervene, then the funding should follow.

As I have said on my blog, when it comes to international military intervention "You can either do it or not do it but you can't half do it".

[Esbonio]

Whilst we digress on the nature of the oath, it seems according to the news that the Royal Navy may be reduced to little more than a coastal protection force.

[Simon Newman]

Kudos to James Cleverly for his patient and dignified response to the abusive posters above.

"If you read what I wrote properly you will see that I was not advocating that we should not have deployed to the Falklands, Bosnia, Kosovo etc."

I do think there's a big difference between a situation where British territory has been invaded (Falklands), and genuine 'wars of choice' such as Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq & Sierra Leone, which may be characterised as 'humanitarian interventions', 'pre-emptive action', 'defending our broader interests' or 'wars of aggression', but are clearly not simple self-defence in the manner of the Falklands War. A state that 'chooses' not to defend its own territory is in trouble and will prompt further aggression - eg if I were the ruler of Spain and I saw Britain acquiesce in the Argentine invasion of the Falklands, I'd reckon I could take Gibraltar, likewise. Conversely, a state that sends its troops all over the world on a whim is likely making trouble for itself.

[Esbonio]

Simon, I entirely agree with your comment regarding James Cleverly who is self-evidently a honourable man.

I also concur with your comments about the nature of choice and the effect od failure to defend yourself.

[malcolm]

I would also like to add my tuppence worth in defence of James Cleverly.The ignorant response of John Coles does him no credit at all. Perhaps he did not realise that soldiers were awarded medals for serving on campaign and not just for bravery etc. The fact that our troops are busier than they have been for decades is an arguable fact.

[Esbonio]

James is quite right.

Because my father served during WW2 his medals were very conspicuous whenever he wore his dress uniform during his later service during the long Cold War years when few campaign medals were awarded. I was frankly shocked (but also made proud) when I first started to notice how many campaign medals (and decorations) young service men and women now wear in testament to Blair's wars.

[Tory Loyalist]

Everybody knows that Mr Cleverley is in the TA. He seems to mention it almost every time he posts.

Not sure whether this will help him obtain a safe seat. These days being an official of "Stonewall" probably carries more clout with CCHQ

My uncle, a professional soldier, reckoned you could always tell ex-"Terriers", "Yeoboys" etc by their insistence on using military ranks in civilian life. He was right too.

When I worked in London years ago I nearly joined the HAC. I was given a de-luxe tour of Armoury House and royally regaled with drinks in the bar.

There I got talking to some officer who informed me that he had once been something in the Young Conservatives but switched to the HAC after having a nervous breakdown.

I never did join.

[malcolm]

Lucky HAC, eh Tory Loyalist? It's embarrasing enough having you as a member of the Conservative Party.

[Tory Loyalist]

Oh dear Malcolm. Playing the man not the ball again, are we?

Naughty, naughty. Slap on wrist.

But I'm glad you've finally decided to acknowledge my status as a brother Tory.

[John Coles]

It is quite remarkable, Tory Loyalist, how these sensitive supporters of Mr Cleverly quickly resort to abuse. Young Malcolm seems to have a particularly depressing turn of phrase.
I think you make a telling point - all too often these threads are exploited to improve the prospect of joining the 'A' List.
I don't think that either one of us will beinvited to a TA function in the near future. Regards to your sensible Pongo uncle.

[James Cleverly]

TL, JC,

I will let you know when the next Regimental Guest Night is on and you are welcome to come.

James

[Adrian Peirson]

Interesting Links, the Public are not aware of..

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865
http://thewestminsternews.co.uk/
http://www.betteroffout.co.uk/sup01.htm
http://www.betteroffout.co.uk
http://www.brugesgroup.com/
www.eutruth.org.uk
http://www.european-referendum.org.uk/101-reasons.html
http://www.britsattheirbest.com/freedom/f_your_own_choice.htm
Note how none of this has ever appeared in the Press or on the News.