Obviously at different times!

I had the impression he was supposed to be a career diplomat as well - there was a line about him being High Commissioner to both Pakistan and India for example.

2025 will be a political shootout. Which leader has most to fear? This country may not be big enough for both Nigel Farage and Kemi Badenoch — but danger still lurks around every corner for Keir Starmer

If you are still looking, it is this article:
www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/...
Although unclear if the "plan" was supposed to come from the civil service or from elsewhere in the Labour Party.

I also find it hard to reconcile Kruger's desire to restore cabinet government with the Farage & Yusuf position that the cabinet will be appointed from outside figures, not from MPs.

Surely a coincidence these would have little political authority and pose no challenge to the party leader.

I always enjoy the Gerald Ford quote about Watergate "...a government of laws and not of men" - it's a great quote, but so fundamentally self-deluding!

As someone who lives and works in Uzbekistan you must say where it was! I will add it to the list of weird and wonderful stories about the place.

You and Lord Salisbury! Our first (and only) Marxist prime minister...

I can't tell if this is an invitation to debate or a challenge to a duel.

Problem is the Tory party's main lesson from Thatcher is to adopt the certainty - not the work ethic.

Very fair. I was thinking more in terms of reforming the state than electoral politics. And I think Peel's record as a practical reformer is at least as good as Gladstone's (But I am more familiar with the details of Peel's career than Gladstone's there.)

The correct answer is of course Sir Robert Peel!

Yes, good points - I think there are counterpoints to them which I find persuasive. But as my view is "gold plated bullshit" it doesn't sound like you are up for a discussion on this one so I will leave it there!

Ah I see. I think over the last 200-odd years 1 and 2 probably are right! Or at least I agree more than I disagree with them.

I don't think this is about Corbyn or Johnson though. Henry Fairlie was writing in the 1950s that the constitution would break down if MPs didn't have the key choice in PM.

What view and what description? This sounds interesting but I'm not sure what you mean.

The standard Tory position on constitutional reform has always been 'is this in my interests or not'. In this respect, he is very much in lne with the last 200 years...

Especially when you consider erosion of those salaries by inflation. I think I saw something recently that if the PM's salary had kept up with inflation since 2008 it would now be roughly double at about £300,000?

She has a very impressive career. I don't know what her economic views are. Could you make a guess at how she may end up advising the PM economically?

Another reason the Fraser Nelson view that 'Farage is a bulwark against the far-right' is frankly baffling.

Is it wistful thinking to comment even with an subject as minor and esoteric as this there is a clarity and incisiveness that we wouldn't expect to find in politics today...?

What level do you think you have to be at a minimum for it to be seriously useful?

Wasn't this how cabinet government used to work? Officials led by CO worked up proposals with input from all departments into cabinet papers. I think there were about 200 papers a year put to cabinet under Attlee, which had dropped off entirely by Blair. When was this replaced by write rounds