The Royal British Legion has recently launched a campaign to support ex-service personnel. My grandfather is a long-serving member of the British Legion, having seen action in a Bomber crew in World War II. Like many, he lost family and friends in that terrible conflict and hence, I have always had personal reasons for supporting the Legion. Their present campaign, however, appears to have been launched in response to the recent increased demands placed upon British Armed Forces.

At present, Britain has significant forces in Afghanistan, Iraq and Northern Ireland, as well as smaller commitments elsewhere. David Cameron is presently in the province of Helmand in Afghanistan. He is there to rightly show the Conservative Opposition’s full backing for that on-going campaign to support the democratically-elected government in Kabul, and to wage war on al-Qeeda forces based on the Pakistani border. He is also there to highlight the importance of proper government funding for our Armed Forces.

According to a recent Commons Public Accounts Committee report, there is presently an overall shortfall of Armed Forces personnel of 5,850 (3.2 per cent of full strength). Shockingly, military recruitment drives have been cut back by pressure to downsize or reduce funding. The report cited an example of the Army cancelling some infantry training courses during 2004-05, and consequently deferring recruits, in order to stay within budget constraints. During the past decade, the Government has cut the strength of the Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary from 142 to 110 ships. The frigate and destroyer fleet has been dramatically reduced from 35 to 25. Furthermore, the Government has withdrawn the Royal Navy’s Sea Harriers from service in early 2006, despite its replacement, the Joint Strike Fighter, not being expected in service until 2014. These are hardly the actions of a government that places proper funding of the Armed Forces as a top priority. Indeed, it hardly augurs well for the defence of the Realm.

The British Legion is right to highlight that the government has broken a covenant that I believe all Britons believe in: if British service personnel are asked to put their lives at risk they should not only expect proper equipment in the field but also proper care when they come home. It is a sad indictment of government policy that a charitable organisation has felt the need to highlight short-comings in the care of ex-servicemen and women.

The original decision by the Labour government to commit forces to support the NATO-led operation in Afghanistan was the right one. Where they have been found wanting, however, is in the proper support of our Armed Forces since then. I have written previously on the need for the British government to properly fund the army, navy and airforce, if it is to continue actively engaging them in global conflicts. When is our new Prime Minister going to authorise increased defence expenditure? It is easy to talk tough in the US about intervening in Darfur etc… It appears much harder for him to commit government funds to pay for commitment. The sooner Mr Brown’s ‘honeymooning’ is over the better off our armed personnel will be. The Nation’s covenant with the Armed Forces deserves much more respect.

Over ten years I have watched energy policy go from being a relatively quiet backwater to something taking on a strategic importance that could be as crucial to our country’s future as defence. – Tony Blair

In today’s Times, the Prime Minister argues the case for a new energy plan. It is a persuasive case. What is clear is that Britain’s future energy security has become a major issue. Indeed, I believe that energy security has become the single most important strategic challenge for the British government. Get it wrong, and we can all kiss goodbye to long-term prosperity and influence in the world.

Putting the debate on climate change to one side, for me the key question is how Britain can move towards energy independence. If one looks at a table of ownership of known oil reserves, only one country in the top ten is a stable democracy – Canada. Gas reserve ownership is little better, with only the USA featuring. Clearly, Britain needs to start now to make plans for more energy independence as The Middle East and the former Soviet Union are hardly showing signs of imminent stable democracy. In particular, Russia has recently shown an intent to use energy supply as an instrument to bully its neighbours (and the rest of the world). Britain needs to build immunity to such intimidatory tactics.

Building nuclear power station should be part of our plan for energy independence. In contrast to hydrococarbons, uranium supplies come predominantly from stable democracies that are close friends of Britain. Canada is the world’s leading uranium producer, accounting for a third of global production and 15% of global reserves. Australia is the next largest producer, with one quarter of global production and 27% of global reserves. Our relationships with both countries are strong. We once lead the way in nuclear energy technology and hence I see no reason why we cannot do so again.

It is a tough decision to commission more nuclear power stations. Hard choices are what being in government is all about. There are undeniably issues regards cost and the disposal of nuclear waste. I believe, however, that these understandable concerns are more than outweighed by the strategic benefits of ‘owning’ our own power supplies. Clearly, we must concentrate on renewable energy resources and furthermore, address the amount of energy that each Briton uses. However, to rely on those two approaches alone would still leave Britain exposed to the vagaries of global politics. I would rather have nuclear power stations than ‘go cap in hand’ to despots and autocrats.

Dealing with dictators has become more difficult in recent times. In the past, democratic governments could go to war more easily, secure in the knowledge that they had public support, safe in the knowledge that distressing imagery from ‘the front’ would not make it on to screens back home. With the advent of 24-hour news media, those images of warfare are now spread quickly around the globe, often eliciting a negative response from the viewing public.

Recently, the BBC ran a series of programmes on BBC Parliament illustrating how the media’s coverage of war has changed in just the last 25 years. During the Falklands Conflict, British journalists were embedded with our forces and technically unable to broadcast live from the Islands. Furthermore, the MOD censored the footage and reports that did make it back to Britain, often causing a significant delay in the reporting of incidents. For example, footage of the May 4th attack on HMS Sheffield was not shown until over fortnight after the Exocet was launched against it. I could not imagine that type of delay being acceptable today.

This change in the way the media handles warfare has been widely welcomed. Commentators have argued that seeing the realities of war on our screens makes us all less inclined to support the use of force. That may very well be true. My concern is, however, that whether we like it or not, the world remains an unstable place, and as the pictures above highlight, there are still countries around the globe controlled by aggressive and violent dictators. What with the spread of nuclear technology and the apparent acceptability of state-financed terrorism (e.g. Hezbollah and Iran), the democracies of the world need to be on guard to defend freedoms that we all now take for granted.

But it is not just the defence of our freedoms, and indeed, the freedom of all peoples, which will require Britain and its fellow democratic countries to resort to force throughout the next century. It is also the defence of human rights, and the prevention of crimes against humanity, that should concern us all. What if the very media that provides daily reports of the loss of civilian life in Iraq, also brought us regular footage of barbarity in the Sudan and Zimbabwe, and detailed coverage of the recent famine in North Korea? Would there be a call for military intervention to save African and Korean lives? And if not, why not?

For being inconsistent on these matters elicits derision from the developing world. Displaying such double standards does nothing for our moral standing in the world. The situations in Zimbabwe and Darfur are an international disgrace, a shame on all of our houses. We should not be weak in the face of these issues, for it only serves to provoke further transgressions against humanity. Britain and its Allies should be prepared to intervene to protect any innocent life. And if it came to it, we should also be prepared to accept the awful face of the realities of war on our TV screens, if the ends justify the means. It would be a sad irony of the 21st century if the modern media’s detailed coverage of warfare inadvertently ended up costing more lives.

The sorry spectacle of a British serviceman and woman selling “their stories” to the highest bidder leaves a bitter taste. One can, and should, have sympathy for their recent ordeal. They are, however, members of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces, and consequently, should behave in a way that respects the traditions of the army, air force and navy. The front-page of The Sun today is cheap, and certainly does not help Britain maintain the moral high ground in the eyes of the world.

One must remember that the former captives are professional soldiers, not volunteers, whose training and salaries have been, and are, paid for by the taxpayer. No one made them choose their profession, a job that I am sure they knew had inherent risks. To be profiteering from active service in the defence of this country is wrong. Where have the military values of personal discipline, honour and tradition gone?

Some commentators are suggesting that the captives’ disclosures are all part of the media war with the Iranian regime. I hope not. Those in the MOD who decided to allow the former captives to talk to the media should be subjected to heavy criticism. Not only for bringing our proud armed forces into disrepute, but for also portraying Britain in such a poor light. Until today, I am sure that most people around the world believed our story, and respected our servicemen for the manner in which they had behaved under significant duress.

The Defence Secretary, Des Browne, not a man of impressive stature, should be asked which member(s) of the government authorised this media approach. New Labour has a long track-record of media manipulation. Getting the ‘right’ story out ‘front and centre’ has always appeared more important to this government than protecting the hard-fought, outstanding, international reputation of our armed forces. Shame on those involved in this decision who thought that British soldiers selling ther stories to the tabloids was an appropriate way for them to behave.

It would appear that this Labour government is happy to continue damaging our international reputation. The unfortunate headlines from today’s papers will have undermined our standing in the whole Iran affair. We must, I feel, endeavour to maintain a prinicipled stand against the Iranian regime. For it is the regime that is the problem, not the Iranian people. It will be ideas and principles that will win over the quiet majority in Iran, not weapons and media manipulation.

In the next week or two this House, the nation and the Right Honourable Lady herself will learn of what metal she is made – Enoch Powell

Following on from yesterday’s post, today marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Emergency Debate on the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands. The BBC Parliament channel repeated the three hour debate last Sunday evening. For those of us who are never happier than when wearing our political anoraks, it made for an interesting evening’s viewing.

The debate took place unusually on a Saturday morning. Unsurprisingly, it was very well attended by both sides of the House. Listening to the contributions reminded me of the importance of Parliament. It was undeniably a time of confusion and anger, and the Commons served to allow those concerned Members to vent their disgust at the invasion, their frustration about apparent government inaction in the weeks preceding, and most importantly, to express the views of the nation at large.

There were many distinguished speeches from the floor. The debate was begun by the Prime Minister, to which Michael Foot responded admirably – Foot had been an ardent supporter of those in the 1930s who had called for the end of the appeasement of Hitler. Memorably, Enoch Powell, then an Ulster Unionist, cleverly challenged Mrs Thatcher on her apparent pleasure at receiving her newly bestowed sobriquet, ‘The Iron Lady’ (quote above), in the light of events likely to follow. Edward du Cann, the then MP for Taunton, in response to Michael Foot’s speech, summed up the general feeling of the House most eloquently:

There are times in the affairs of our nation when the House should speak with a single, united voice. This is just such a time. The Leader of the Opposition spoke for us all. He did this nation a service when, in clear and unmistakable terms, he condemned what he called this brutal aggression and when he affirmed the rights of the Falkland Islanders to decide their own destiny.

Listening to the debate reminded me of the importance of Parliament during times of national distress. In the light of recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, Kenneth Clarke was right to recently call for the House of Commons to be formally included in the decision-making process of this country going to war. On April 3rd 1982, the Commons successfully and strongly debated the events preceding the invasion at the same time as offering its full support for the government’s decision to send a task force to the South Atlantic. Future legislation regards the role of Parliament at such times should recall that historically, the elected representatives of this country, of whatever political colour, have displayed admirable qualities when determining the use of our armed forces in the defence of this nation. We would do well to remember that.