Last week, another highly intelligent article by Benedict Brogan fingered defence and the Welfare State as the policy issues most likely to torpedo the Coalition.

There are so many issues like this one that highlight just how oil and water the Coalition is in the light of Party histories. I tend to agree with Mr Brogan, but I’m not sure about his assumption that everything will simply revert to type once the current arrangement is holed. First off, it may be years before it is; and second, an awful lot will have changed by then to make both voters and politicians rethink what the heck is going on in the world.

In a typically rumbustious piece, Jeff Randall wrote a few days back on the truly ghastly line-up facing the Labour Party in the race to be Leader of the growing pack – if the LibDem defections are to be believed. But what he missed – and The Slog has been on the case of – is the reality of an Opposition about to either lurch furtively to the Far Left, or engage in a veritable Gettysburg of civil war battle for supremacy. If the more Stateist Far Left wins, new LibDem adherents will be less than happy. If civil war breaks out, the Lord alone knows what will emerge.

I realise that there have been several false dawns about ‘realignment’, but this is not just any old occasion – and I’m not talking solely of alignment. Trident is a Tory Right obsession for which there is no logical basis: none of us like to talk about it, but the inner circle has known for years that the portability of nuclear weapons ensures any attack on anyone with a reasonable arsenal would result in them being destroyed too. Drawing a discreet veil over that, however, the expense simply isn’t justified. Tebbers may want to fantasise about Britain’s defence ‘role’ but the fact is we don’t have a nuclear one any more. The real need now is top-quality field supplies to ‘defend’ ourselves against creeping terrorism.

By contrast, the Welfare State is more of a LibDem sacred cow. I’m told by people who should know that Nick Clegg in private realises the writing’s on the wall for old-Labour mass welfare. And I’m also told by others that he’s revelling in his new importance, and may have almost completely forgotten which Party he’s leading. This is a view held by Simon Hughes and Vince Cable, but given that Party’s current level of support, they know not what to do about it.

The LibDems have gone to Labour in droves, and its Parliamentary Party is badly split. Meanhile, the Tory Right have reached for their usual security blankets…but there are no such things any more. The question I raise now is, how will all that pan out in the light of a society about to be challenged by change more than at any time since 1940?

Most of the mainstream media have more or less accepted now that the road ahead will have to be hacked through uncharted jungle. The coming Crash – and the social upheaval certain to accompany it – could very easily wipe out both the defenders of the Welfare State and the Defence hawks at a stroke. LibDem Fluffies and Right wing dinosaurs don’t fare well when doses of reality are being handed out.

Oddly enough, what Cameron’s on about with his Big Society is precisely what most right-headed people want: more community spirit to marginalise the anti-socials; and more responsibility being handed back to individuals and their families. But as a strategy, it suffers from three problems.

The first is its clever-clever brand name, which offers a thought too complex for the post-1980 generation to grasp. Like it or not, to many it says ‘big’ and ‘society’ – but they feel alienated from both.

The second is that it genuinely is a Big idea, but there would be an enormous amount of groundwork required in terms of educational, medical, social, financial and generally cultural behaviour changes to make it stick. The Coalition’s legislation so far is well-meaning, but muddled by an odd mixture of old polemics and New Clegg.

And the third, I’m afraid, is Dave himself. The huge sense of relief I feel about the Tory leadership from Cameron all the way to Oliver Letwin is that they are real-life people who appear to be decent and open to ideas. This is the diametric opposite of the aura (or was it odour?) given off by everyone from Blair to Jowell. So it’s a good start – but it’s not the Right Stuff (as in apposite, not politics) we need to rebuild Britain’s social and trading gestalt.

David Cameron’s likeable personality and genuine family-orientation in private are admirable features for a dedicated public figure, but he looks and sounds woefully inexperienced and out of his depth when faced with complex issues. I also continue to insist – and on this I go back to 2006 – that he is badly briefed by both his political and civil service advisors. Four years of largely awful PMQs performances (and the Turkey gaffe) should be enough to persuade anyone that Cameron lacks something vital when left on his own.

I believe this ‘thing’ is command.

Command of the detail, command of his Party, a sound Command HQ, and commanding real respect are all features that the Prime Minister doesn’t have right now. He might grow into the respect thing – but if so, he needs better mentors. He can bluff command of the detail – but if so, he needs Premier Division briefing staff, as opposed to the lightweights around him now. And to increase the command of his Party, he needs both events – and another election.

This may have already dawned on David Cameron. What I suspect hasn’t entirely is just how quickly those tipping-point events will rush ahead once the phoney-recovery is over. After the next election, he could well find himself in a stronger position – but facing an Opposition that has changed beyond all recognition.