Rigga,
There was no “huge Governmental change in 1997 where all top ministers had no experience of the military” at all.
There was a change of Government in 1997 sure, but no huge change in military experience in the cabinet or amongst Government ministers. What you got in 1997 was what you had had for several previous decades, i.e.; most ministers were career politicians, lawyers, barristers, journalists etc. The only manifest change in the make up of MP’s, as opposed to ministers, following 1997 was the preponderance of ex Trade Union officials as opposed to retired businessmen on the back benches.
Your change of attitude from defence orientation to business orientation did also not magically appear in 1997! I think you are right by the way, but it had started way before 1997, you only have to look at things like Options for Change, the Defence Costs Review, Front Line First, the Defence Costs Study to see the way things were going in the early 90’s. This was when agencies were introduced, contractorisation and civilianization were speeded up massively and non deployable and non front line posts contracted and leaned. That is Thatcher doctrine through and through.
Whilst disagreeing about the origins of this “defence is a business” affair I do have to strongly agree with you that it IS a nonsense and even though it was not a Labour invention they have continued with it with a passion that must delight the likes of Thatcher and Portillo and make the likes of Healey weep.
The rot started with Options for change and the peace dividend in 1990, that was when defence expenditure was reduced massively and sustained capability deemed unnecessary. Labour have increased defence expenditure steadily over the years but from too low a base. Add to that their rank incompetence in management of almost any sophisticated major expenditure and you have the situation we are in now.
I can’t see Cameron making one iota of difference if elected, which is a crying shame.