'Loyalty Not Helicopters Required'.

Former Labour Minister, Lord Foulkes, has suggested that what the Army chiefs need is more loyalty rather than resources and their utterances about the matter amounted to disloyalty.

Just to be clear about what the idiot said, "[Sir Jock Stirrup and General Sir Richard Danatt] threaten to undermine our effort in Afghanistan and give succour to the enemy". He suggested to peers that the two should be reminded of the "importance of loyalty particularly when we are engaged in a very difficult war where victory is essential for the future safety of this country".

Some might suggest that the two most senior Armed Forces Chiefs were showing loyalty to their troops, 18 of who have died in July so far alone. Some might suggest that the two most Senior Armed Forces Chiefs might know a little more about running armies and fighting wars than armchair heroes like Lord Foulkes. Some might suggest that Lord Foulkes' comments were reminiscent of the politicians who ran the First World War out of Downing Street rather that experiencing the appalling conditions of the front lines for themselves.

Some might suggest that Lord Foulkes could not give a damn about the 190 troops that have died in Afghanistan because the war is not about life or death or our future safety but about politics to him.

I must admit that Rt. Hon. Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (a name to conjure with to be sure) has all the ht credentials to be a top level idiot. On his website, because he is hip and up to date on all matters technical, he sagely points out that peers are not elected (how else would Alan Sugar become one, let's face it), but he goes on to say, "Although we are not elected, there is no reason why we should not, and every reason why we should, be accountable."

In that vain, it was Foulkes who valiantly tried to distance the establishment from Fred Goodwin at the height of RBS crisis by writing nasty letters to the FSA on behalf of 3 of the former Non-Executive Directors of RBS who had allegedly been threatened after asking questions about the bank's financial situation. Lord Foulkes is certainly a loyal Labour MP and so deserved of his peerage granted in 2005.

In his long career in politics, because that was his calling, it is notable that he has not spent a single day serving in any of the Armed Forces. Nowadays he has the jolliest of jobs as a backbench sniper for Gordon Brown and is a loyal pseudo-Scot as he was born in Oswestry before being called to that most political of lands - better still he is President of the Caribbean Council which means his regular 'holidays' on those lovely Islands are all fully paid for by mugs like us. And boy does he love the area as he is on Boards for something to do with the Dominican Republic and a Cuba Initiative. He's well looked after when it comes to getting suntans, as he is on the Virgins Island Group, Tobago, Central America and Belize. Very nice and comfy.

But, as with most MPs and peers, he has 'other interests'. In January he hit the headlines in The Times as he is paid £36,000 to introduce the law firm Eversheds to select committee Chairmen in the Lords and Commons and he shows great loyalty to Eversheds in doing so.

And when it comes to expenses, Lord Foulkes is a high quality operator. In 2008, Foulkes had been criticised for his expenses claims, which included around £45,000 over a period of two years for overnight subsistence to stay in a flat he had inherited. Between April 2007 and March 2008, Foulkes claimed £54,527 in expenses from the House of Lords. Which is interesting in itself, as on 25 June this year he asked the question to the House to forecast how much revenue was being lost to HMRC by people 'evading tax' in places like the Channel Islands.

Clearly, while Lord Foulkes has a strong sense of loyalty, he has little in the way of scruples.

Of course, some may suggest that as he has not ever been shot at by a member of the Taliban or stood beside a person killed by a roadside bomb or done nothing more than read a few books on the military that he has no idea what he is talking about by asking commanders to show 'loyalty'. Indeed, who is he asking them to be loyal to? Gordon Brown? Parliament? The Queen? Us?

Another Labour Lord sees it differently - Lord Malloch Brown said yesterday, "When you have these modern operations and insurgent strikes what you need, above all else, is mobility." As he stepped down from office, like so many Labourites, he has suddenly found his conscience and spoke the truth.

The British Government is letting down our Armed Forces in Afghanistan and it is the Government who is disloyal to our troops, not their commanders. Foulkes can use his own name to get lost.

Led By Sheep

The real British Lions are fighting in Afghanistan. In this month alone, 16 soldiers have died there bringing the total to 185 since the start of a conflict that we have all forgotten why we are fighting in.

Yesterday, Sir Jock Stirrup was at Downing Street refuting the PM's insistence that enough was being done to equip our fighting men while the Head of The Army, General Sir Richard Danatt said, as he stepped down, that we simply did not have enough resources deployed in Afghanistan. It is a tough time for Brown, who in his tenure as PM and Chancellor has overseen the systematic cutbacks in our Armed Forces at a time when we have endeavoured to fight more wars.

Meanwhile, Peter Mandelson was out 'shopping' for the Armed Forces and saying that they will get the equipment needed. I suspect he is quite good at shopping.

Action Not Reaction

The fact of the matter is that the situation has been allowed to get this serious and desperate that it has taken 16 lives this month alone and the two most senior Forces Chiefs to break rank and openly criticise the Government in order to get a reaction out of the Government. Had it not been for 16 men dying in July, life in Helmand for our Forces would have gone on as usual. Now the New Labour 'spin machine' worked so sweetly by Mandelson tries to make it look as if a) they give a damn and b) are doing something about it.

It's a far cry from the huddled bodies and massive fees paid to investment bankers in order to get answers on the bank bail outs. Money was no object then and ministers were ready to do all night sittings to save the necks of people who had screwed us so royally. All the regulators, executives and Non-Executives are still in their jobs bar a miserly few and £11.5m in investment bank fees and £26.8m in legal fees was paid to the very people complicit in the disaster.

It's like paying the Taliban to get advice on how to get more helicopters. Frankly, they probably have more idea than our Government does.

What appalls everyday people is that we question why the soldiers are in Helmand and what they are fighting for anyway. But that does not mean that we think any the less of our Armed Forces - they are led by sheep at the very top, who know nothing of how to equip an Army and stand by the men they so quickly send into danger.

In their crisp suits and serious faces they make it a 'priority' to do something only when the two most senior Army Chiefs break the political law by standing up and denouncing them. And the Opposition are no better, seizing on it only for political gain. There does not seem to be an honest person amongst them or any that actually gives a flying whatever for the 16 men who died this month and the 185 families that have been affected by the decisions of gutless people so far.

Politics is all about politicians feathering their own nests in the good times and saving their own necks in the bad. This year has been an 'Annus Horriblus' for modern politics and it is time we were served by honest people who backed up what they say with real commitments and action.

Our Armed Forces deserve far better than this and they deserve not to die for no reason or for the lack of the right equipment. It is utterly shameful that we have let them down so pathetically.