Have been thinking about Cain/Cummings, and it strikes me that there's something deeper at work here. Every single No 10 administration in recent years has had huge problems/divisions. (1/?)

For example: Blair v Brown, Brown v everyone, Hilton v Coulson, Cameron v Clegg, Nick and Fi v everyone, Gavin v Robbie, and now the Vote Leave feud.

In fact it's much rarer to think of periods when Downing Street was actually a happy ship - early Cameron second term? Mid-2013? Blair first term? Major first term?

Was thinking about this both because I'm re-reading @DPMcBride's 'Power Trip' and looking back at coverage of the Cameron era - which everyone is now saying was so much better than now, but at the time...

It may be that this happens in other countries too. But my working theory is that we've always had a relatively weak centre of government vs the departments, with few rigid structures a la France or US and much less £££ for staff/systems/amenities, not least for PM him/herself

The result is that each PM reshapes the central machine around them, meaning that it always tends to reflect their strengths and their flaws. (They also inevitably try to correct for what they see as their predecessor's flaws, but often go too far in other direction)

Each of the particular rows I mention was v different, and rooted in the personalities involved. But when there's always a problem with personalities, it suggests there's something deeper than just HR...

The other obvious point is that it is always insanely high-pressure, even when there's not a once-in-a-century pandemic, and burns people up incredibly fast.

Basically, Downing Street tends to function as a court rather than a branch of govt, and that's sort of built in...