We screwed up on the Gurkhas – but don’t forget the difference we’ve made up to now

By James Mills

What stunned me the most about this issue was the number of people whose status on my Facebook mini feed has declared support for the Gurkhas. People diametrically opposed politically supported this cause. Those who have a penchant for the armed forces, like myself, and those who are complete pacifists all expressed jubilation for the Gurkhas. What they see the issue to be about is not one of immigration but rather the expectation of a country’s duty to its troops. The public see the Gurkhas not as Nepalese volunteers but as British soldiers. And so we should.

At the most fundamental level this is an immigration issue. This is about dealing with those Gurkhas who served before 1997, because those since then have already been granted the right to remain here in this country under the Labour government. The 36,000 who this does not apply to are those who served prior to this date – some reside in this country and many in their homeland of Nepal. Hence why the government planned a staged immigration policy, prioritizing those who they felt deserved to be dealt with as expediently as possible.

The problem for the government is that this is not a matter merely of immigration anymore, but of expectations concerning the public perception towards the military covenant. The problem when it comes to the military covenant is that it is very subjective, as it is an unspoken law, and it means different things to different people. The army literally defines it as a “common bond of identity, loyalty and responsibility” and the general public now takes it as an expectation that if an individual volunteers to serve his or her country they are to be prized above all others.

But here’s the nub of the problem: how do you deal with an expectation? I believed Gordon Brown when he said that he was “determined” to honour the contribution made by the Gurkhas, and that the government is held back by financial restraints. But unfortunately when you are managing expectations the one thing you must never do is let the perception come across that you won’t deliver them.

Look at Arsene Wenger’s response to losing last night:

“The positive is that we are only one nil down…and we can reverse it…next Tuesday you will see a different Arsenal team”.

That’s the kind of response Gordon should have used:

“Money is tight but we will have the situation resolved by…in the mean time we will fast track those we can afford, prioritizing those with distinguished military records”.

Maybe that was what he meant but that’s not what he conveyed. This was emphasised by the decision to leave it till the eleventh hour to show a concession. The whole thing looked rather limp.

Anyone who has followed the trials and tribulations of the Gurkhas, as I have, knows that this Labour Government has a proud record. It was a Labour government that has stood by the regiment the most the negative press which Labour has been getting on this is frankly a disgrace. The Gurkhas have better pensions under Labour and those who served under this government now have full citizenship after four years’ service. One must remember that it is under Labour that the Gurkhas have faired a dam sight better than they did under the Tories and all those Tory Trolls who leave comments on these pages: can you honestly disagree with that?

The real target of anyone who is fearful for the Gurkhas’ wellbeing should focus their anger towards the Conservatives who left it to a Labour government to end this absurd dichotomy. The Gurkhas have more to fear from a Cameron cutting Conservative government, especially as he has not even committed himself to “ring-fencing” defence beyond an election next year. How many Tories honestly believe that a Cameron government wouldn’t see this as one of those “tough choices”?

And don’t be fooled because the Tories are voting against the government. It is nothing more than them looking for political point scoring. Yesterday’s photo opportunity can quickly become tomorrow’s change of mind.

But those of you who still think Labour is against the Gurkhas, take the example of the misplaced lobbying by certain sections of the press in January for the protection of the Gurkhas. The fear then was that a Labour government would disband the Gurkha regiments if the 140,000 veterans who served before 1997 were granted equal rights. Such a fear was of course illogical, especially if one takes into consideration the expected £3 billion a year to accommodate these professional and elite soldiers is obvious to everyone to be a worthy expense when one considers the greater cost of replacing the 3,500 currently serving in a British army that is at full stretch.

What was John Hutton’s response when he was asked if the Government planned to disband the Gurkhas? He responded, “No – that is a complete load of old b******s.” That should be the kind of response given to anyone who says this government is not on the side of the Gurkhas.

Related posts:

1. Losing the vote on the Gurkhas may mean our decline is inexorable
2. Want to make a real difference? Forget faith schools, go after the grammars
3. Don’t forget the victories – for defending them will be at the heart of the battle to come
4. On Inauguration Day, don’t forget Cameron supported McCain
5. As Cameron cosies up to Obama, let’s not forget who he really wanted to win