A Foreign Secretaryand this applies also to a prospective Foreign Secretaryis always faced with this cruel dilemma. Nothing he can say can do very much good, and almost anything he may say may do a great deal of harm. Anything he says that is not obvious is dangerous; whatever is not trite is risky. He is forever poised between the cliche and the indiscretion.

After long experience of politics, I have never found that there is any inhibition caused by ignorance as regards criticism.

A Foreign Secretaryand this applies also to a prospective Foreign Secretaryis always faced with this cruel dilemma. Nothing he can say can do very much good, and almost anything he may say may do a great deal of harm. Anything he says that is not obvious is dangerous; whatever is not trite is risky. He is forever poised between the cliche and the indiscretion.

Revolt by all means, but only on one issue at a time. To do more would be to confuse the whips.

It isn't those who always addressing each other as comrade who necessarily show the most brotherly feelings.

90% of what we did the Press didn't know about, and 90% of what they did know about they got wrong.

One nanny said, "Feed a cold"; she was a neo-Keynesian. Another nanny said, "Starve a cold"; she was a monetarist.