There is a fascinating little vignette in the Sunday Times's profile of Frank Field.
Mr Field was famously made a minister by Tony Blair and asked to look into radical welfare reform. But he was given a junior role to Harriet Harman, and emerged unsuccessful. In the Sunday Times Mr Field lays into Gordon Brown for the failure:
'He blames the then chancellor and now prime minister for kneecapping his welfare reforms. Blair, having asked Field “to think the unthinkable”, failed to back him against opposition from Blair’s jealous satrap. Blair at that stage, Field says, should have sacked Brown, not just for Field’s sake but to give Blair the opportunity and space to be an uninhibited PM. As Field tells it, Brown was a consistent roadblock, failing to produce alternatives to Field’s plans or even to participate in cabinet committee meetings. The result, as Field says Brown intended, was at best inertia and at worst “general chaos”.'
The reason that I found this particularly interesting is that it backs up something I have believed for many years; Lyndon Johnson's maxim about J Edgar Hoover - "It's probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in" - is a bad guide for leaders.
Of course by demoting or completely firing Brown, Blair would have incurred his wrath. But didn't he incur it anyway? Gordon Brown caused Tony Blair and his reformist ministers no end of difficulty. There is no guarantee that people will act in a loyal fashion if they are given a good job. Instead, they may find it easier to build up a power base and gain credibility from their enhanced status.
Moreover, a minister who has been banished to the backbenches for disloyalty is seen in that light by everyone else. Perhaps they can still build a coalition of the disaffected, but if that coalition has a realistic chance of usurping the incumbent regime then the game is probably up anyway. You may as well surround yourself with the people you want, and do everything you can before your political capital runs out.
If Blair really agreed to give Brown his head on domestic policy, he made a monumental mistake. I believe that Blair would have defeated Brown in a straight fight for the leadership. Yet even if I'm wrong, in Blair's shoes I would rather have risked a loss than allow myself to be a neutered prime minister.
I have felt the same when observing how certain Conservative leaders handled disloyal Shadow Cabinet members. On each occasion, I think they would have been better off sacking them than placating them. It's just as easy to pick up a phone and brief against your leader when you are on the front bench than when you are off it. Yet it's more newsworthy if you're on the front bench.
David Cameron really does seem to be blessed with a tremendously supportive team. Kenneth Clarke has clearly been brought back because of what he can offer, not because his frank and fearless approach has been disloyal. I disagree with Mr Clarke about a lot, but he is admirably candid and open.
However, if someone steps out of line, David Cameron should sack them and publicly brief against them. The only way to stand up to bullies is to confront them, and so it is with those who are not onside.
Instead of being consumed by paranoia and agonising about whether he can trust his ministers, Prime Minister Cameron should back his supporters to the hilt, seek to win new ones - and treat those who work against his efforts ruthlessly.