Peter Rhodes on exotic manure, the power of Sir Humphreys and Labour's two-year challenge

A couple of readers take this column to task this week for dwelling on old American TV comedies instead of the “really important” issues. And yet still they read it.

My philosophy, such as it is, is that every column should contain at least one item you won't find in any other publication. There is surprisingly little competition for stories about alpaca poo.

And on to the serious stuff. You may recall a few days ago I took a swipe at politicians who clamour for change, when the nation might actually prefer, in the words of Jane Austen, stasis and stability. If nothing else, this extraordinary week in politics has shown that significant change is virtually impossible. Liz Truss laments that she tried to move too far and too fast with her agenda for “growth, growth, growth” but the truth is she was trying to break a cosy consensus on how nations should be governed which, across most of the Western world, means large governments and high taxes, overseen by legions of Sir Humphreys and their minions who despise change.

Rattle that cosy little cage and you discover the world is against you, and your enemies suddenly include the City, the EU, the president of the United States, the National Trust, the 1922 Committee, the House of Lords and half your own Cabinet, not to mention the Opposition, the SNP and probably Gary Lineker.

And so the men in grey suits effectively stripped Truss of the premiership and presented her with a budget-thingy which looks surprisingly like Labour's manifesto. Before long the Lab/Con status quo will have resumed with two very similar social-democratic parties snarling at each other and pretending to be different but fooling nobody.

Which means the next General Election, probably in 2024, will be decided not on policies but on personalities. And all Labour needs to do to win it is to hold together, avoid in-fighting and shun the temptation to eat itself alive. What could possibly go wrong?