The ‘medal famine’ referred to in this Thread, did not begin to be reversed until GW1 in 1990/1.The very significant deployments of all services meant a plethora of Gulf medals. The arrival of a Labour Government coincided (approximately) with a more interventionist policy on the world stage and generated not just British campaign medals but significant numbers from other agencies.Despite serious cuts in defence resources, one would be unwise to believe that there is/will be any less appetite amongst our political masters – of any colour – to rattle sabres if there are thought to be votes in it.
Returning to the theme of a ‘service medal’ to recognise commitment, perhaps Sir John Holmes asked the wrong people.I believe that, in part, the rise in ‘bling’: that is the unofficial commemorative medals’ market, is fed by the general discontent that former service personnel have at how their service is not valued.
It is said that the problem with extending the LS&GCM to include officers is; ‘what about the officer who does not meet the good conduct part of the gong’?The counter argument to that is; ‘if an officer’s conduct falls short of that expected, he should not be in the service anyway’.
It follows that an LS&GCM, awarded at – say – the 15 year point to all ranks would recognise commitment over a sustained period.If there is an ‘unease’ about the conduct element, then a new medal called – say – ‘The Armed Forces Service Medal’ could be substituted instead.The very long and exemplary service of non-commissioned personnel can still be rewarded and recognised by the Meritorious Service Medal, as at present.
Old Duffer