Brown treats the Services shabbily [Archive]

Lyneham Lad

8th Dec 2006, 09:30

Wyler

8th Dec 2006, 09:38

A politicians sole aim is to gain power and there are no votes in the Military. Also, due to the disasters that are Afghanistan and Iraq, it will be a very long time before our politicians call on the military option again. So, we are actually not that relevant to any party at the moment. They would all be much happier if we just faded away quietly.

GPMG

8th Dec 2006, 09:48

The SUN is on the rampage as well today, will probably last untill the next E-list celebrity stubbs their toe.

N.B. No I don't read the Sun, it was on display when I was getting my sausage,bacon and mushroom bap today.

Lyneham Lad

8th Dec 2006, 10:16

GPMG, I see what you mean - I've just looked at The Sun's web site. Pretty punchy stuff and long overdue from any shade of the media.
Armed farces are cut to shreds!
(http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006560779,00.html)
There is a linked article on the RAF's lack of aircraft:-
OVERWORKED Royal Air Force passenger jets have broken down — leaving only ONE to ferry British troops to and from the war zones in Afghanistan and Iraq. (http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2006560789,00.html)
Let us hope that Joe Public actually reads, absorbs and reacts to these stories.

boogie-nicey

8th Dec 2006, 10:30

I'm all for giving Brown, Blair and any other one of these traitors a good bruising. Whether it's the media, comments from significant figurehads or even a physical slap I've got no problem with that at all.

But once again the 'head in the sand' or should I say 'head in big brother/x factor' public are the ones who have allowed the government to get away with it. I don't know who Tony sleeps at night, this is not a simple con man on the loose depriving old lady's of their family silver this is a man who's asking soldiers to risk there lives with next to nothing equipment. It's the armed forces professionalism that has got them this far and the government still can't show an ounce of respect. We see almost daily the BBC airing another one of those "look how hard done by this person is" fly on the documentaries yet I rarely if ever hear what they're doing about the serious business of the fighting men and women. But in that respect I blame the BBC they're desperate to spread their own leftist agenda too. (getting a little off track here, sorry).

PompeySailor

8th Dec 2006, 10:42

Good article in the online Telegraph today by John Keegan:-
Brown treats the Services shabbily
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=2JMNY4LSA2RD5QFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/opinion/2006/12/08/do0802.xml&posted=true&_requestid=53453)
However, I despair at the inability of the so-called political Opposition to really take Blair, Brown and Browne to task over their policies and their facile statements about giving the troops everything they need....... On Newsnight last night, Jeff Randall (a journalist) made a much better fist of supporting the troops than David Davies. Whilst Ruth Kelly..............well, words fail me.

Should Brown become PM :eek: then a bad situation will become a desperate situation. I feel for all of the Armed Forces who are putting their lives on the line. Enough said. :(

Unless Brown's offspring show an interest in the military. Then, as with the Child Benefit and Working Tax Credit improvements once his wife had sprogged, and now the massive injection of cash to the Education pot now his children will be going to school in a few years, plus the additional funding for medical purposes that will become evident at the next Budget, we may see enough for the military to buy more than a couple of tyre chains for Arctic warfare.

JamesA

10th Dec 2006, 08:00

To the English.
Have you noticed how many Scottish MPs are in the present government? And how many are ministers?
How can these people be allowed top 'arrange' England now they have their own assembly? I would have thought this should have precluded them from sitting in Westminster, let alone having such powers. But, I suppose the Vicar needs all the support he can get.

Back to the thread. Many moons ago as a member of Her Majesty's many (there were lots of us in those days). An old chief said to me 'Do you notice that when there is a Labour government in power they always have defence cuts? And the services who always take the brunt are the navy and air force?'
His theory was that the army belonged to the government, but members of the navy and air force swore their allegience to the sovreign. Therefore, we could not be depended upon to support the Labour party, perhaps the Conservatives think the same way, although Maggie did give a fair pay raise once. Maybe he had something, as reading through this forum I see things have only continued to deteriorate from my day.

Good luck to you all and come home on your own legs.

sikeano

10th Dec 2006, 09:19

The worst thing you can do is leave your chums behind enemy lines to save your sorry ass And on the same par you can do is send an force to war as freindly target without ammo:=
Remember we got to win the hearts and minds of iraqis and afghans so how do we do it,
Easy says the Pm in waiting let us send our forces unarmed the locals will have a easy target to shoot at:D
Jokes apart
The joe public is more intrested in Xfactor or all those poxy reality shows even pudsey managed to raise money for some kids in africa The deaths of men and women in iraq and afghanisthan has become just a number nobody is bothered apart from the families of the lost ones
And one thing is guarnteed change of govt will not bring any new ammo to the forces
But a rise in logistics will certainly change the strength of our forces
enough of my rant, Back to my sheeps :ok:

BossEyed

10th Dec 2006, 10:47

The media seem to be waking up to this en masse now. Minette Marrin has a piece in the Sunday Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,24391-2496276,00.html) today:

It would be nice to think that this [requiring berieved families to pay for records - BE] was an unusual error — a bureaucratic blip — and that the armed forces and their families are normally treated with the respect and gratitude they deserve. Not so. In fact the way that servicemen and women are treated is almost an object lesson in how to mismanage and demoralise what was once one of the greatest military forces in the world. This has been obvious for a long time but we seem to have reached some sort of tipping point.

Her final paragraph:

This is not just wrong. It is decadent. For if we lack the will to defend ourselves, or rather to defend those who are there to defend us and to fight for us, then we are simply rolling over to display the soft underbelly of decadence to the world’s predators and scavengers. Those who think that our armed forces don’t matter will soon discover that other people’s do.

Dan Gerous

10th Dec 2006, 11:22

[quote=JamesA;3011591]To the English.
Have you noticed how many Scottish MPs are in the present government? And how many are ministers?
How can these people be allowed top 'arrange' England now they have their own assembly? I would have thought this should have precluded them from sitting in Westminster, let alone having such powers. But, I suppose the Vicar needs all the support he can get.

And for years we in Scotland have been shaffted by English MP's. Sorry about the thread creep, but I am fed up with this argument. If we can't have Scottish cabinet members in the UK government, then it would be fair to assume that we cannot have English, Welsh, Irish cabinet members dictating policy to the UK either. If you think devolution is such a good idea then vote for it yourself, and you will get your "other" layer of government, for all it is worth.

JamesA

10th Dec 2006, 11:47

Dan Gerous,
I agree with you. The difference here is that in days gone by when England shafted someone she sent the troops with the kit to do the job, just refer to your history. Your haggis scoffer wants the British military to be the few who can do the impossible with bu99er all.
As an ex-serviceman, if they have to sort some politician's ego trip, I say give the military the best money can buy at least to defend themselves. Not hide behind it's a great advertisement for the British arms industry. Because if they haven't got the best - who is going to buy from Britain?

Saintsman

10th Dec 2006, 12:31

It's the armed forces professionalism that has got them this far .

Maybe that's part of the problem. Why spend money when the troops are so professional that they will get the job done anyway?

The only time it'll change is when we are given a few bloody noses and made to look bad. The Sun will certainly pick up on something like that.

Unfortunately it'll cost lives, but then Bliar doesn't really worry about that does he?

teeteringhead

11th Dec 2006, 10:44

If we can't have Scottish cabinet members in the UK government, then it would be fair to assume that we cannot have English, Welsh, Irish cabinet members dictating policy to the UK either...yer missing the point Dan.

My (our) concern is those areas in which English MPs (or Cabinet Ministers) cannot vote as those areas have been devolved.

Examples: I live in Shropshire, my sister-in-law lives in Motherwell, my mate lives in Cardiff. The (Westminster) MPs for Cardiff and Motherwell can and do vote on (inter alia) education and health in Shropshire. My Shropshire MP cannot vote on education or health in Cardiff or Motherwell. Simple solution would seem to be to not let Scotch, Welsh or Norn Iron MPs vote on those matters which were devolved .... it's called a level playing field...

Oh, but then Bliar's majority vanishes...... so the Scotchmen can vote for Uni tuition charges in England, while their devolved mates vote not to have them in Jockistan... the Westminster Taffia vote for prescription charges in England, when they (mostly) avoid them in the so-called Principality....

It's called the "West Lothian Question" and was first identified and named by top porridge-wog (Sir) Tam Dalyell (of the Binns)......

boogie-nicey

13th Dec 2006, 13:42

Gordon Brown's just an embarasement to the nation.... and he can take that stupid grin with him.

LFFC

15th Dec 2006, 21:16

Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/12/15/do1503.xml)

....For it becomes increasingly clear that having embarked on expensive adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Prime Minister forfeited control over paying for the cost of them. Our Forces engaged in these enterprises have been ill-served.

As John Keegan observed on this page last week, there is an anti-military clique in the Treasury which regards spending on the Armed Forces as a diversion of funds from the social budget. Mr Brown has tolerated this and the Prime Minister is unable to redirect him.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/12/15/pubrown.jpg

.... and he's going to be the next PM? :ouch:

buoy15

16th Dec 2006, 16:20

Today in 1647 Oliver Cromwell banned Christmas

In 1653 he banned Parliament and declared himself as Lord Protector because he was getting really fed up with corrupt institutions, both royal and political, and was then obliged to sort out Charles 1

He established what we think today as a democracy

I wonder what action he would take now about recent events?
Pension fund theft - stealth taxes - illegal wars - honours for cash - whitewash reports - sacrificing the rule of law for? well, anything that's appropriate

He would be very angry if not mad, but would certainly get the perpertrators.

Oh what joy to be a peasant and pay the congestion charge to have a front view stand at the scaffold in Whitehall

Chugalug2

16th Dec 2006, 17:11

Today in 1647 Oliver Cromwell banned Christmas
In 1653 he banned Parliament and declared himself as Lord Protector because he was getting really fed up with corrupt institutions, both royal and political, and was then obliged to sort out Charles 1
He established what we think today as a democracy

You may well say that buoy, the only comment I would make is that he had a Standing Army, we don't. Along with the other Armed Forces, the Army is effectively 'renewed' every year by Parliament to protect us from a latter day 'Lord Protector', and his own very special kind of "democracy" :ok:

buoy15

17th Dec 2006, 15:44

Chugalug
Yeh! Yeh! - "renewing - reviewing - lessons learned - changes taking place - should not have happened - a unique situation - overwhelming odds - unforseen - support is forthcoming - did not anticipate - as much armour as they need - blah blah blah and spin!"

Are you telling me that Bliar has not got a standing Army?

I follow Parliamentry procedures and cannot see where the Army in particular, and the Armed Forces in general, are renewed every year?

Is this another of one of those situations where this Government supports a "latter day Lord Protector principle" to serve their needs, whilst attempting to abolish the position of Lord Chancellor and the "Principle of Law" after 1000 years of history and democracy, to bring this country into the 21st century using bribes and blackmail for economic contracts and advantage

I think the Director of the SFO has more to say!!

As Churchill said " Democracy is not the best form of government, but it's the best we have"

I think Cromwell would have agreed with him

Uncle Ginsters

17th Dec 2006, 19:51

The joe public is more intrested in Xfactor or all those poxy reality shows even pudsey managed to raise money for some kids in africa The deaths of men and women in iraq and afghanisthan has become just a number nobody is bothered apart from the families of the lost ones

How about "I'm a Celebrity (or MP?) Get Me Out Of Here - Helmand Edition"

Then see what Joe Public thinks?:ugh: :ugh:

Chugalug2

17th Dec 2006, 23:40

Chugalug
Are you telling me that Bliar has not got a standing Army?
I follow Parliamentry procedures and cannot see where the Army in particular, and the Armed Forces in general, are renewed every year?

Its an old chestnut, buoy. In the old days each service had a separate bill passed every year, ie in the case of the RAF it became the Air Force Act 19xx etc. If it wasn't enacted then theoretically the RAF would cease to exist and similarly for the other services. Now I believe it is all consolidated in the Armed Services Act 2006, etc, which has just been passed, so the pay is good for another year (JPA withstanding)! I think that's about it but no doubt the constitutional experts will correct me. Hence my point that the Army (and the others) is not a standing one, but renewed annually, not by the government but by the will of parliament. Am important distinction, for I share your aversion to Bliar and his cronies. I'm afraid I can't share your undiluted enthusiasm for OC though. He might have accomplished a lot for us, the principle achievement being to keep us out of the Revolutionary fervour exported later from France across Europe. We were able to say no thanks, already got (or had) one! None the less he took power and held it by armed force. Hence all the checks and balances today, of which The Armed Forces Act is an arcane example.

cockneyrock

18th Dec 2006, 07:48

Just noticed this little Christmas Present from MOD:

No jumps for Paras as MoD cuts £1bn (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/17/nparas17.xml)

Hope Gordon now realises that we are not even going to train our troops properly now!!

Flying Pay next?

boogie-nicey

18th Dec 2006, 09:52

It's enough to make you sick, just give me a couple of minutes with this sh1t head Brown and I'd love to 'express my point of view'. My blood is boiling everytime they pull this kind of stunt, what next, cut back on rifles?
The true enemy is that New Labour regime in power at the moment, sh00t every one of those deceitful little sh1ts.:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Not_a_boffin

18th Dec 2006, 10:15

While agreeing with you about Fat Gordon and his bunch of grasping acolytes, there is another (less obvious) source of the pain. The MoD centre organisation has become conditioned to the use of a process (DPAs, SAG scenarios etc) which almost inevitably results in force structure cuts (although they disguise it as cost-effective capability). Almost every single assumption used in town (and this goes back many years) assumes that as there is no discernable major power threat to the UK, we can do more and more in coalitions and therefore reduce our "unaffordable" systems / forces, which is actually CS-speak for hold the defence budget constant, reduce in real terms.....

Although the RR threat is acknowledged it is somehow overlooked / ignored along the lines of "oh we'll have plenty of warning to/regenerate / reconstitute etc". Unfortunately, the decisions being made now across all three services (and industry for that matter) are based on these assumptions and contrary to CS perceptions are irrevocable.

I know these sorts of assumptions have precedent (5:5:3 ratio of the Washington treaty etc), but I don't believe there was ever the implicit assumption that defence expenditure could continue to decline without correction.

This is not intended as a slight on the CS guys actually supporting the front-line - it's the ones in town doing the Treasury's bidding we need to worry about.

Chugalug2

18th Dec 2006, 10:36

Although the RR threat is acknowledged it is somehow overlooked / ignored along the lines of "oh we'll have plenty of warning to/regenerate / reconstitute etc". Unfortunately, the decisions being made now across all three services (and industry for that matter) are based on these assumptions and contrary to CS perceptions are irrevocable.
I know these sorts of assumptions have precedent (5:5:3 ratio of the Washington treaty etc), but I don't believe there was ever the implicit assumption that defence expenditure could continue to decline without correction.

Excellent point Nab! If it wasn't for the likes of Mitchell, Watson-Watt and Dowding the infamous ten year plan would have done for us. As it was it scuppered our defences in the Far East. You will never have plenty of time, because the timing is set by the aggressor. He will be spouting peace up to the last minute, and you'd better be ready or else!

wokkameister

1st May 2007, 21:23

I too am appalled at the treatment of the forces as a whole. Life at Odius is on a shoestring at present. We have to get high level approval for approaches to civvy airfields because we can't afford the landing fees. Leaning is biting, and the tempo unrelenting. But amongst all of this, when we pack our smart black holdalls and depart for a flight at BZZ that may or may not leave that week, we must pack hope.
Hope that change is on it's way. Hope that we are reaching the depths, from which the only way is up. Hope that as a team, we can carry each other through what are essentially, pretty crappy times.
Hop has carried the British Forces through black times before. The Battle of Britain and the evacuation of Dunkirk being prime examples.
Look after your crew, mates, or even the person that hands you a new pair of socks. Until things get better, we only have each other.

Melchett01

1st May 2007, 21:51

Until things get better, we only have each other

I wish you were right Wokka. Over here, it seems there are far too many who have gone to the dark side already and, having seen it before at previous Joint units I have served on, there is no going back.

Now every question, every plan to do something that 10-15 years ago would have been regarded as sensible and in the best interests of the front line, any suggestion that might make life a little bit better for all concerned is greeted with an automatic response of 'No, we're not going to help because of x,y & z sh!t excuse', an initial half hearted appearance of helping out in the hope that if things are made TFD we will go away and in either case, always accompanied with the all important question 'who is paying?'

Far far too many people have lost sight about what the armed forces are all about - and it isn't budgets. Maybe I should say that a bit louder for all those of you out there who have forgotten that, whose first response to anything is 'it's not coming out of my budget'. I'd love to get you all in a room and re-educate you, but it would be a waste of time -too many of you are lost causes whose military ethos has been replaced with accountant speak. Shame on you.

Wokka, I applaude your sentiment, but I'm afraid you're too late. We're being nobbled from the inside out by too many of our own kind.

MReyn24050

1st May 2007, 22:05

LFFC wrote:-
"You can see the plot now. New Labour do really badly on Thursday, Blair resigns to let Brown in very soon."

On the other hand if the results are really bad on Thursday Blair could say it is a result of the country not wanting Brown and therefore he has decided to stay on as PM.

ZH875

1st May 2007, 22:20

And the forces haven't got enough rounds to shoot them both :*

Hilife

2nd May 2007, 06:21

Old red eyes will hand Brown a poisoned chalice on Friday morning and I can’t help but think that he will be grinning whilst he does it.

LFFC

20th Jun 2007, 12:15

Here's another interesting clip in today's Torygraph:

Lord Guthrie, the former chief of the defence staff, almost resigned over Gordon Brown's attempts to slash the budgets of the army, navy and air force.

In an interview for Channel 4's The Rise and Fall of Tony Blair, to be broadcast on Saturday, the general - who oversaw the conflict in Kosovo - raises concerns about the next Prime Minister's commitment to the armed forces.

Lord Guthrie reveals his "horror" at the way in which the Chancellor tried to sabotage the Ministry of Defence's funding plan at the last minute shortly before publication of the strategic defence review in 1998.

When he protested to Tony Blair he was told to put his case directly to Mr Brown, because he would find it too "difficult".

Guess that tells us more about what to expect in the future. :ooh:

Flatus Veteranus

20th Jun 2007, 13:56

The most significant word in Lord Guthrie's piece is "almost" (resigned). I, like most people during a full career, "almost" resigned ,say, 1,000 times. Its easy.

LFFC

22nd Nov 2007, 18:54

Looks like another ex-chief has spoken out at last. BBC News - 22 Nov 07 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7108354.stm)

Al R

23rd Nov 2007, 05:38

Not so fast. It seems the feckless 5 were wrong.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7108650.stm

Mr Twigg insisted that current defence chiefs did not share the concerns of their predecessors. He said: "I talk to our chiefs of staff - I was with them yesterday - and they are very clear that the confidence is not broken, that the morale is good and we are very committed to improving things further."

Phew.

The Helpful Stacker

23rd Nov 2007, 06:45

Seems like the chiefs of staff must have the same "la, la,la, not listening" problem as their political lords and masters.

Chicken Leg

23rd Nov 2007, 10:16

Mr Twigg insisted that current defence chiefs did not share the concerns of their predecessors

Come on Al! Did you expect Twiggy to admit that the current incumbants agree? I think that current CGS has raised his concerns on a number of occasions albeit in a slightly more subtle way. After all, he is still in post.

Good on the '5'. If nothing else it helps to raise awareness of just how badly morale and conditions currently are.

Al R

23rd Nov 2007, 19:47

I listened to Des on the radiogram this morning, waffling about his job share scheme. He was forced to admit that he spends all his work time on defence, and looks after Plopland at weekends and in the evenings instead of having a familiy, social and consituency life.

I was stunned that a) he could be allowed to say something which sounded so foolish and made him look such a desperate twonk, and b) that he and that other Broone could ever think this (concept) was an acceptable state of affairs.

Twigg is a complete and utter tool. A political bag carrier.

WhiteOvies

23rd Nov 2007, 19:54

Wasn't it Boyce who stood up next to Hoon at a press conference and made him look like the idiot he is? Don't remember him lasting long after that but standing by to be corrected!

Siggie

23rd Nov 2007, 20:30

'Morale 'high'
"I will put my record in relation to both commitment and delivery up against anyone's," said Mr Browne.
"This is not an issue that has ever been raised with me by any serving soldier." '
Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr Browne has indicated that no serving soldier (I guess Airmen/Airwomen or Sailors don't count) has ever complained to him about underspending, low morale etc etc.
In order to make it easier for you to rectify this situation here's a page for you to send your complaints to;
w ww.number10.gov.uk/output/page821.asp

Siggie

23rd Nov 2007, 20:52

My mistake, Des Browne's email address should be;
House of Commons: [email protected]

Al R

23rd Nov 2007, 21:01

Siggie.

Ref that 'e-mail the PM' blah' in the link you posted, if you 'select a subject from the drop down menu' to pigeon hole your area of concern, then Defence isn't even on there. :ugh:

Say no more.

Roland Pulfrew

23rd Nov 2007, 22:03

My mistake, Des Browne's email address should be;
House of Commons:

Would that get Swiss Des in his Scottish Office, his MOD Office or just as an MP somewhere in parliament?

PPRuNe Pop

24th Nov 2007, 13:10

If those of you who can suffer the Mail today I strongly recommend reading Max Hasting's article on the subject at hand.

I think it says nearly all of what we all want to say to GB and DB, especially him, as he thinks he's done so much, "much more than any other Defence Secretary" who I am sure says how good he is in the mirror, and then believes it. Simple eh?

They live in a world far removed from this planet and its time to stop the politics and get down to the real stuff.

hoodie

24th Nov 2007, 13:58

The Mail article Pop refers to is here (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists.html?in_article_id=496118&in_page_id=1772&in_author_id=464&in_check=N).

Compressorstall

26th Nov 2007, 20:48

Until recently, Defence hasn't featured on GB or even Des Browne's radar. Why? It costs lots of money and is unlikely to raise the reading age of our children and it has been unpopular.
Neither of the above has served in uniform and whilst they like the power trip, the 'pawns' they play with are of no interest. However, these are people our population look up to and whilst waiting for Mrs CS to come out of the gym at the weekend, I picked up a copy of the Daily Mail on Saturday to find an article on page 19 where Mums in the Leatherhead Leisure Centre heckled injured servicemen to the point where they left the swimming pool. The Mums didn't like it that the injured servicemen hadn't paid and that they scared their children. Perhaps if our own Government expended some effort supporting our personnel we wouldn't have the people upon whom we rely for support heckling those who have risked and given so much.
I really love the job I do because I work with like-minded motivated individuals who are always prepared to go the extra mile because of the people we are, not for some bonus or the chance of celebrity. Gordon Brown may be going all dewy-eyed over his book of people who inspired him, but a whole bunch of equally notable people are serving every day in far away places doing remarkable things for no recognition, knowing they will come home to crap accommodation, unserviceable equipment and families who are expected to out up with constant uncertainty.
Our Government has been given the chance by some senior bods to stand up and accept it has made some errors, get the cheque book out and be seen to do something positive. They aren't brave enough to stand beside us doing the job we do, so they should do the next best thing and provide the financial and moral support to allow us to do our jobs. The key lesson is that you shouldn't start a war unless you expect to win it. So, Gordon Brown the message is man up or move aside and give us a Defnce Secretary who's full-time.

DaveyBoy

26th Nov 2007, 21:53

The Lords Hansard for the full almost-4-hour debate is now online if anyone finds the time or inclination to browse through the entire thing. Some interesting points from the former CDSs, eg how the much-touted figure of a 1.5% increase in defence spending could be looked upon as as a reduction when the cost of replacing Trident is taken out and the inflation in the cost of equipment considered.

It begins half way down http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/71122-0002.htm at 11.38am, when Baroness Park of Monmouth rises to speak, and finishes 10 pages later.

Roland Pulfrew

26th Nov 2007, 23:36

Ex-defence secretary joins army funds row

By Lewis Carter
Last Updated: 6:44am GMT 26/11/2007

A former defence secretary intervened in the military funding row yesterday, calling for an extra £25 billion to be spent on the Armed Forces.

The plea from Lord Robertson, one of Gordon Brown's former Cabinet allies, came as figures show officers are quitting the Army in record numbers, blaming cost-cutting and family separation.

Speaking on BBC Scotland's Politics Show, Lord Robertson, defence secretary from 1997 to 1999, said military spending should increase from 2.3 per cent to three per cent of the country's GDP - a £25 billion rise. The demand comes as figures released by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) show that 1,344 officers have left the Army in the past six months, double the rate of the previous 12 months.

Capt Will Richards, 31, said yesterday: "We are overstretched and quite clearly underfunded. The incentive to stay in is no longer there."

Mark Pritchard, the secretary of the Conservative Defence Committee, said: "Soldiers are not being given the contact time with their families which they were promised."

A spokesman for the MoD said: "The UK's Defence budget is the second-highest in the world in real terms. The recent Comprehensive Spending Review settlement means an additional £7.7 billion for defence by 2011."

Surprised that this hasn't been linked. From yesterday's Daily Telegraph. Certainly didn't make the BBC News. I would love to meet some of these MOD spokesmen. I thought civil servants were supposed to be impartial!!