Live political players have driven four revolutions in the organisation of Britain since the war. We need a fifth, but none of the main parties appear to appreciate what is necessary. The first great postwar change was economic, and was undertaken by Clement Atlee's Labour government. They nationalised great swathes of the economy, and created the NHS and welfare state. This, along with other policies, became known as 'the postwar consensus'. It would remain broadly unchanged for 35 years. The second great shift was social. It was led by Harold Wilson's Labour government, but was driven by Roy Jenkins and Antony Crosland. Both men wanted Britain to become a more open, liberal society. Both had written books, influenced by Karl Popper, suggesting a policy suite to get there. Rather than having the government take politically unpopular steps, they achieved their aims through Private Members Bills—to legalise homosexually, outlaw the death penalty, introduce no fault divorce and legalise abortion [—this feels familiar.] This created the liberal society we know today, although other changes, such as policing and education, also had a great impact. The third change was economic. Margaret Thatcher was in some ways the flip side of Jenkins. He liberalised society; she wanted to liberalise the economy. He was influenced by Popper; she by Friedreich Hayek. Thatcher identified the trade unions as the main blockage, and she crushed them after years of preparation. Her neoliberal economic consensus largely survives today. The fourth great change was social. The Blairites wanted to finish Jenkins's job, to finally create a society without physical or social borders. But more, they wanted to fix it so that it couldn't be changed back—so that future governments would be forced to govern as Blairites, too. They achieved this through opening the borders to mass migration, and through clever legislation, most infamously the Human Rights Act of 1998 and the Equality Act of 2010. Economic, Social, Economic, Social. The next change must break that pattern; it must be neither economic nor social. Instead, Britain must now transform the way it is administered. Britain is one of the worst governed counties in the developed world, and is worse governed than some developing countries. Incompetence is everywhere. We must rediscover administrative and managerial excellence and increase state capacity. This does not mean expanding the state, but it does mean accepting the state had a place to do some things and do them well. To this end, we must reform the entire system (or system of systems). Thus is a predicate for successful economic reform, for improving education, for changing our disastrous foreign policy, for reforming policing and criminal justice, for transport and infrastructure, for housing and all the rest. But to do this would need careful planning. Atlee, Jenkins-Crosland, Thatcher and the Blairites had all been thinking about how to achieve their goals for at least a decade before they were handed the chance to achieve them. Even once in power, and having identified the trade unions as the main bulwark against her policies, Margaret Thatcher prepared for four years before finally taking on the miners. Beyond serious thought about meticulous planning, such a project would also require a full cabinet of high quality ministers with strong management skills, led by a prime minister unafraid to delegate. It could not be achieved by a single 'strong-charismatic' leader operating on his own and treating his cabinet as a vestige demanded by tradition. It certainly could not be done by a golf club yahoo who cannot stand anybody outshining him and thinks successful major reform requires only willpower and a desire to show the Civil Service who's boss. If your political party isn't doing serious thinking; if it shows no sign of being able, or wanting, to assemble a cabinet of world class ministers, it cannot achieve the necessary.