First analogy argues that ministers are trying to create a US-style presidential "administration", without the checks & balances of the US system. According to this argument it raises “serious constitutional questions as it establishes No. 10, not Parliament or the Cabinet, as the source of executive authority, vests power in figures who can't be questioned by MPs, & creates an administration that cannot remove the PM, as the Cabinet did in 1990” thus according to such argument it must be challenged.

“This is the next step in the presidentialisation of UK politics: a US-style "Administration," staffed by prime ministerial appointees from outside Parliament, whose authority flows directly from the PM, rather than from Parlt or the civil service. It has serious implications.

The transfer of power to prime ministerial appointees establishes No. 10, not Parlt or the Cabinet, as the source of executive authority. It vests power in figures who can't be questioned by MPs; & creates an administration that cannot remove the PM, as the Cabinet did in 1990

The UK is moving to a presidential-style executive, with none of the checks and balances of an actual presidency: no separation of powers; no serious Congressional approval process; and no powerful Congressional-style committees before which Cummings, Frost & co can be grilled

Asked about the rise of political appointees, Gavin Williamson told @BBCr4today: "That's what you see in the US". It was a telling response: this govt wants the powers of the US Presidency, with none of the safeguards of the American system or its checks on Executive power.

Let's not forget that a US president is directly elected. In Britain, a PM (like Johnson) can assume all the powers of the premiership by a vote of party activists. So vesting power in the Executive, while breaking parliamentary oversight, raises serious democratic questions.

If we want a more presidential system - and there's a case for that - we need to build the democratic safeguards of a presidency. Without them, every change simply concentrates power in No. 10, removes constraints on govt and weakens Parliament, the civil service & the courts.

Cummings tells us that "a hard rain is coming" for government. If we're not careful, that rain will wash away every constraint upon Downing Street, while feeding the flood tide of executive power. That, of course, is the idea. And that is why it must be challenged. “-Robert Saunders

Second analogy argues that ministers are trying to replicate the overthrow of the Fourth Republic in France.

“I don't quibble with the general thrust of this (previous analysis), but I do wonder if an alternative analytical perspective would be the transition from the Fourth to the Fifth Republic in France.

Recent governments and Parliaments are presented very much in the style of the Fourth Republic - divided and factionalised, unable to make decisions, out of step with the will of the people.

And so a system is needed with a single leader at its heart who can express the true sentiment of the nation without being bogged down by bureaucracy or legislative squabbling.

The chronology is different - De Gaulle came into power then used the referendum to enshrine his position, Johnson/Cummings are using a previous referendum to justify their shift in power.

But it follows the same general path in asserting that a single strong leader should be at the heart of the system with existing bodies reorganised to serve their needs.

And this builds on a trend from the last two decades of British politics where people have been told that the solution to their (local) problems is having a strong leader without many constraints on their power.