Bernard Ingham: This coalition’s ambition is not matched by its ability

I am fed up to the gills with the hypocrisy that surrounds this issue and David Cameron’s tour of the Middle East, with arms manufacturers in tow. It is perfectly reasonable to dissociate yourself from the weapons trade but it is entirely unreasonable then to castigate the Government for failing to secure jobs while other nations take them.

Nor am I impressed with the visceral criticism of the coalition for its “tardy” efforts to get British nationals out of Libya. So far, it has done a pretty good job, even rescuing many from beleaguered desert compounds. Hasty operations driven by panic are never the safest.

Having said all that, our Con-Dem government seems to have lost whatever touch it had and is guaranteed to make a hash of whatever it turns its hand to.

This is a curious fate for a coalition led by two who have been dismissed as “just PR chappies”. Cameron and Nick Clegg are not exactly a good advert for public relations these days.

If it goes on like this, the Government will be soon be in no condition to lead us to the promised land of national solvency.

So what’s gone wrong?

Perhaps we ought to ask whether anything was ever right? A peacetime coalition, let alone one as inexperienced as this, will always have its doctrinal troubles. Vincent Cable epitomises this. Uneasy lies his head on the irritable pillow of collective responsibility.

The impressive Cameron-Clegg honeymoon of last summer has come under the pressure of ambition and events and plain straightforward disagreement as, for example, over electoral reform. In truth, working together was never going to be easy.

Looking at it from my experience of the government machine, it seems to be a classic case of trying to do too much too quickly and not thinking politically enough.

Let me explain. Weaning the nation off Brown/Balls bribery using taxpayers’ money to create a client state, leading to a £150bn budget deficit and £1 trillion of national debt, is a job and a half for any responsible government.

All that and the aftermath of a global financial crisis would test any administration.

But that is not just what the Con-Dems are about. While inevitably cutting resources, they are also moving on a broad front, in the face of public sector union resistance, to galvanise State education and the NHS and end the wholesale corruption of the welfare state to concentrate help where it is most needed. It is a vast programme that requires massive attention to detail and assiduous salesmanship.

The coalition is handicapped at every turn by the EU, a deeply entrenched political correctness in the public service and a Civil Service that may not yet have recovered its confidence after being treated with contempt by Labour. The machine is probably harder to change than ever.

In short, I doubt whether the coalition’s ambition is matched by its ability. It is notoriously difficult to get things right in government. It is all the more so in a rush. Don’t forget, the coalition has produced its reform movement in less time than it takes to make a baby.

Cameron undoubtedly has a silver tongue but, unlike the indefatigable Margaret Thatcher, is not a chief executive. He needs a high-powered sniffer dog with a nose for trouble.

Otherwise the coalition will waffle, like Wedgie, to its doom.