The verdict? Just a very sloppy bunch

There is almost

always a precedent

for great swings and

lurches in governments'

fortunes.

But

however far one goes back in

British history, the rate at

which this Government is

coming apart at the seams is

wholly without parallel.

It will figure in every textbook

about politics, inviting the degree

students to describe and — more

challengingly — to explain the

collapse of Labour's fortunes.

I had thought that the first months

of Harold Wilson's 1964 administration

was the roughest period in the

past 50 years.

We had one emergency

budget after another as Chancellor

Jim Callaghan sought to stave off

the collapse of the pound,

constantly making things worse

through ineptitude.

But that was only economics and the

period was, by the standard of recent

weeks, almost one of idyllic calm.

The thoughtful student might

argue that governments are now

victims of advances and reforms

(though the sheer suddenness of

events still remains a curiosity).

Fifty years ago, the customs

and revenue department

could not have provided

another department with all

those details about income and

benefits with a few CDs.

It would

have needed a fleet of lorries with

documents which would have

needed an army of civil servants to

copy. It would not have happened.

The Northern Rock crisis, assisted

by all those new-fangled financial

instruments, would not have been

encouraged, or indeed allowed, by

the conservative forces of the Bank

of England. The Governor's famous

eyebrows would have seen to that.

In earlier times, contributing to

political parties was a free-and-easy,

unregulated activity involving more

modest donations.

Parties then did not have huge

headquarters and massive advertising

budgets.

Scroll down for more...

In any case, local constituencies

raised considerable

sums themselves from voluntary

activities.

But we have had reforms

and the alleged advantage of large

party machines.

It is ironic, though

some would say quite normal, for

politicians to find themselves so

hoist with their own petards, as

they wriggle with the regulations

they once embraced so piously.

These are explanations of a sort.

But they do not explain the confusion

or the cover-ups — and as

history shows, it is the cover-ups

which really start the rot.

Nixon's

fall is the ultimate example.

Perhaps we should look to the

military for some guidance on competence

issues.

A good general, after

an inspection of a regiment or even a

division, knows its quality. He can

spot bad or incompetent officers, he

detects sloppiness and poor morale.

One British general took a quick

look at a sample of French soldiers in

1940, during the phoney war, and

warned his superiors to expect defeat.

An inspection of today's administration

would provoke an inspecting

general to a harsh verdict — "very

sloppy bunch" — poor commanders,

bad staff work, poor regimental

officers, very average NCOs, the whole

lot too casual for words.

But should we be surprised? We

have ministers supposed to run vast

departments who have never

managed anything in their previous

lives — being a lawyer or college

lecturer does not count. (The same

could be said of some Tories.)

The

penalty for departmental incompetence

is rarely the sack. Down the

scale are civil servants with good

salaries, almost impregnable job security

and enviable pension prospects.

Our inspecting general would

ascribe the cover-ups and the

incompetence to what the army

calls LMF and too few OLQs —

Lack of Morale Fibre and an

absence of Officer-Like Qualities.

• We thought that Tony Blair's chief

foreign policy adviser in the run-up to

the Iraq invasion was the mandarin

Sir David Manning. But from the TV

programmes The Blair Years we

gather that the Prime Minister was

taking advice from an even more

illustrious source, the Almighty.

Blair still maintains, despite the

ghastly results, his original decision

was right. He offers no apology. How

could he if his decision stemmed

from divine guidance?

Thank God I'm an atheist...

In the area of Heavenly

inspiration, it is worth

puzzling over the oddity that two

great statues dominate the

entrance to the Palace of

Westminster: Oliver Cromwell and

King Richard I, the "Lionheart".

Cromwell actually closed down

Parliament. King Richard only

spent a few months of his reign in

England. Both claimed divine

guidance.

When not fighting for

English territories in France, the

King devoted himself to the Third

Crusade at the instigation of the

Pope. In both cases he committed

acts of butchery and rapine.

Cromwell only left England to crush

the rebellion in Ireland, which he

did with savagery — but supposedly

in God's name.

Various popes, presumably with

the shortest line of all to God, have

also become bywords for

treachery and brutality.

The trouble with politicians of all

sorts who kneel and seek divine

guidance is that they are not really

seeking instruction.

What they

want is to be told — or convince

themselves they have been told —

that decisions made for reasons of

state are blessed by Heaven.

I thank God I am an atheist.