The notion of the military covenant, that members of the military and their family are owed fair treatment and proper support, in return for risking their lives at the discretion of policy-makers, is sound and accepted.

Feelings run understandably high when anyone claims that the government has failed to keep their side of this important bargain.

The Conservative party has generally been better than the Labour party at getting its ‘tone’ right when talking to and about the military.

Witness the way that Gordon Brown’s heartfelt admiration for the armed forces was so rarely reciprocated during his time as prime minister.

But David Cameron’s pledge to put the military covenant on the statute book has not been a pledge that has been neatly redeemed in government.

In part this is because, as the Royal United Services Institute points out, the covenant is not just a narrow series of welfare issues currently affecting the services, but is an implicit contract ‘between the nation and the armed forces’.

But proposals on the welfare side fell very short in early proposals relating to the covenant.

At first, the government wanted to limit the statutory commitment to an ‘annual report’ on its success in fulfilling the covenant.

In February the Royal British Legion condemned this as a ‘watering down’ of plans to enhance support to troops.

In discussion over the issue, relations between the Legion and the Ministry of Defence were said to have all but broken down.

But, stung by this criticism, publicly made, the government committed itself to a more specific definition of the covenant in the Armed Services Bill.

And so to announcements made this week.

The elements of the covenant that were announced by defence secretary Liam Fox fall short of embodying completeness of the covenant – after all, the government cannot direct individuals to feel respect for former and serving members of the armed and their families.

That task is down to us as citizens.

But he did set out some commitments on welfare.

The key points of these were free bus passes for seriously wounded veterans, free courses of IVF treatment for men with genital injuries, a 50% rebate on council tax for troops on operations, and a veterans discount card for use in shops and at sports events.

There will also be £3m for extra teachers or tutors for schools with a large number of children from service families.

Councils will be ordered to prioritise soldiers, sailors and airmen for housing.

Job mostly done. But why did the government struggle on this issue?

Well, consider this. In every other area of policy, it has moved to take away or limit legally enforceable rights.

The legal aid consultation paper, as is widely known, mooted the removal of support for challenging official indifference and ineptitude – on the part of the police, councils and negligent doctors.

More recently, the government proposes to take away the legal enforceability of statements of special educational need.

And there are many contexts in which the department for Communities and Local Government proposes to remove long-established obligations on local government to provide services.

The department for Business Innovation and Skills is set to remove key employment rights.

This conviction, that rights are somehow wrong, is one that Liam Fox is quite up front about.

As he told the Commons on Monday: ‘We don’t want to see the chain of command undermined or the military permanently involved in human rights cases in the European courts.��

But he had to add: ‘On the other [hand], we must ensure that the legitimate aspirations of the wider service community, the armed forces charities and the British public for our armed forces are met.’

The Royal British Legion now ‘applauds’ these new concrete commitments made by the government on the covenant.

These rights give a sense of security to current and former members of the armed services and their families.

That sense of security, however, is in the process of being systematically dismantled in other areas of public sector provision. To halt that process, those who oppose the loss of such rights will need to deploy the same clarity and confidence that the Royal British Legion used to make its case.

If they fail, Britain will have the surreal scenario of having a military covenant, but no social contract.