The overwhelming opinion was that the Armed Forces were under unprecedented and unacceptable strain and that if Britain wished to continue playing a significant role on the world stage in the next two decades the Government would have to spend more on defence and security.

There were suggestions among the specialists canvassed that the expenditure of 2.2 per cent of the country’s gross domestic product on defence should rise to at least 4 per cent.

The Prime Minister clearly took on board the criticisms raised by those the Downing Street staff consulted. He was told that the constant reports of cutbacks, mothballing and delays in equipment were having a damaging effect on the Services overall when they were expected to make the greatest sacrifices fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr Blair’s promise to the Armed Forces to give them more money, however, was as much a plea to Gordon Brown, the Chancellor and effective prime minister-designate, as it was an admission that past cuts may have gone too far.

Although Mr Brown has sanctioned modest rises in defence spending in the past ten years, the extra cash has not kept up with the pace and scale of the military operations that have tied up more than 100,000 servicemen and women in Iraq alone since March 2003. Mr Blair’s speech in Plymouth was a warning to Mr Brown that defence needs to be put near the top of his agenda when he moves into No 10.

Does the speech in Plymouth mean that Mr Blair is a sudden convert to the Armed Forces’ cause? Not really. He has frequently expressed his admiration and commitment to the Services but, for the first time, he has been forced to listen to all the complaints and to conclude that defence needs to be given even more political priority than during his term of office.

Times Recommends

• Anne Darwin's performance of a lifetime
• Renaissance for canals as new boaters come aboard
• Case study: forced to marry a cousin at 17