The Complete Yes Minister (44 page)

That was a great help!

I asked what the purpose would be of this hypothetical triumph. He told me that Sir Arnold indicated that the PM would be unable to move me downwards if I had a triumph before the reshuffle.

That’s obvious. What’s even more worrying is the implication that there was no possibility of the PM moving me upwards.

I mentioned this. Humphrey replied that, alas! one must be a realist. I don’t think he realised just how insulting he was being.

I told Humphrey I’d take Brussels, and brought the meeting to a close. I decided I’d call Brussels tonight and accept the post, and thus avoid the humiliation of being demoted in the Cabinet by pre-empting the PM.

I told Humphrey he could go, and instructed Bernard to bring me details of the European Word Processing standardisation plans, to which I would now be fully committed.

Then Humphrey had an idea.

He stood up, excitedly.

‘Wait a minute,’ he said, ‘I have an idea. Supposing you were to ignore the EEC and publish your
own
plan for word-processing equipment, and place huge contracts with British manufacturers, immediately, today, tomorrow, well
before Monday
, thus ensuring more jobs in Britain, more investment, more export orders . . .’

He looked at me.

I tried to readjust my thoughts. Weren’t we back at square one? This is what I’d been about to do before we got the directive from Brussels a couple of weeks ago. And Humphrey had told me that we had to comply with a Brussels directive.

‘It’s not a directive,’ he now explained. ‘It hasn’t been ratified by the Conference. It’s a request.’

I wondered, aloud, if we could really stab our partners in the back, and spit in their faces.

Bernard intervened. ‘You can’t stab anyone in the back while you spit in their face.’ I suppose he was trying to be helpful.

The more I thought about it, the more I realised that Humphrey’s scheme had a touch of real genius about it. Defying Brussels would be very popular in the country. It would be a big story. And it would prove that I had elbows.

I told Humphrey that it was a good idea.

‘You’ll do it?’ he asked.

I didn’t want to be rushed. ‘Let me think about it,’ I said. ‘After all, it would mean giving up . . .’ I didn’t know how to put it.

‘The trough?’ he offered.

‘No, that’s
not
what I meant,’ I replied coldly, though actually it was what I meant.

He knew it was anyway, because he said: ‘When it comes to it, Minister, one must put one’s country first.’

On the whole, I suppose I agree with that.

My repudiation of the EEC request had indeed proved to be a big story. A triumph, in fact. Especially as I accompanied it with a rather jingoistic anti-Brussels speech. The popular press loved it, but I’m afraid that I’ve irrevocably burned my boats – I don’t think I’ll be offered a Commissionership again in a hurry.

Let’s hope it does the trick.

The reshuffle was announced today. Fred was indeed kicked upstairs, Basil Corbett went to Employment, and I stayed where I am – at the DAA.

Humphrey popped in first thing, and told me how delighted he was that I was staying.

‘I know I probably shouldn’t say this, but I personally would have been deeply sorry to lose you.’ He told me that he meant it most sincerely.

‘Yes,’ I said benignly, ‘we’ve grown quite fond of each other really, haven’t we, like a terrorist and a hostage.’

He nodded.

‘Which of you is the terrorist?’ asked Bernard.

‘He is,’ Humphrey and I said in unison, each pointing at the other.

Then we all laughed.

‘By the way,’ I asked, ‘who would have had my job if I’d gone to Brussels?’

‘I’ve no idea,’ said Humphrey.

But Bernard said: ‘Didn’t you tell me it was to be Basil Corbett, Sir Humphrey?’

A bucket of cold water had been thrown over our temporary spirit of bonhomie. Humphrey looked more embarrassed than I’ve ever seen him. No wonder he would have been so sorry to lose me.

I looked at him for confirmation.

‘Basil Corbett?’ I asked.

‘Yes Minister,’ said Sir Humphrey. And he blushed.

¹
A left-wing politician prominent in the 1970s and the early 1980s, a peer’s son educated at Westminster and Oxford, chiefly remembered for his lisp, his staring eyes, and his earnest attempts to disguise his privileged background by drinking mugs of tea in workers’ co-operatives.

²
In conversation with the Editors.

³
Basil Corbett.

⁴
Hacker’s driver.

13

The Quality of Life

[
Early in September Sir Humphrey Appleby started negotiations with the merchant bank of which Sir Desmond Glazebrook was the Chairman. Sir Desmond had been appointed Chairman of the Co-Partnership Commission in March by Hacker, at Appleby’s instigation, in order to get them both off the hook of the Solihull Report scandal (see here)
.

In September Sir Humphrey was negotiating for a seat on the board of the bank when he retired three or four years hence. Sir Humphrey Appleby still had not received his G, nor had he sewn up a suitable retirement position for himself. Recent encounters with Sir Arnold Robinson (see Chapter 10) suggested that, although it was not impossible that he would become the next Secretary of the Cabinet, he was probably not the front-runner. He was known to be anti-Europe, so a Director-Generalship in Brussels seemed unlikely to be offered. He was therefore most anxious to ensure the seat on the board of Sir Desmond’s bank – Ed
.]

Excellent coverage in the press today for my speech on the environment last night.

Headlines in a couple of the quality dailies: HACKER SPEAKS OUT AGAINST TOWER BLOCKS and MINISTER’S COURAGEOUS STAND ON HIGH BUILDINGS, though the latter does make me sound more like Harold Lloyd than a Minister of the Crown. Still, to be called courageous by a newspaper is praise indeed.

But all this coverage in the posh press, though nice, isn’t worth all that much in votes. There was no coverage of my speech in the popular press. It’s weeks since I had my photo in any of the mass-circulation dailies.

So I called in Bill Pritchard, the press officer, and asked his advice. He thought for a moment or two.

‘Well,’ he offered, ‘the papers always like a photograph of a pretty girl.’

Brilliant. I pointed out that, although it may have escaped his notice, I did not qualify on that score. But he went on to suggest that I judge a bathing beauty contest, kiss the winner, that sort of thing. A cheap stunt really, and rather old hat. Besides, if my picture’s going to be in the paper I’d like the readers to look at
me
.

Then he suggested animals and children. He pointed out that tomorrow’s visit to a City Farm will almost certainly yield good publicity. Apparently it’s to be covered by the
Mirror, Mail, Express, Sun
, and
Today
and
Nationwide
.

This is marvellous. Telly coverage is the best of all, of course. And an innocuous non-controversial venue like a City Farm can’t possibly contain any hidden pitfalls.

Bill told me that Sue Lawley wanted to interview me. And that I was to be photographed with some baby donkeys at the
Sun
’s special request.

Sometimes I think he’s got no sense at all! Even if the
Sun
has no ulterior motive (which I doubt) it would be a gift for
Private Eye
– JAMES HACKER WITH A CROWD OF OTHER DONKEYS or A MEETING OF THE INNER CABINET.

I refused. He offered little pigs instead. I don’t think that my being photographed with a crowd of little pigs is any great improvement! That could give rise to SNOUTS IN THE TROUGH jokes.

I told Bill to pull himself together, and that I’d agree to be photographed with Sue Lawley or a nice woolly lamb. Positively no one else.

[
Politicians frequently try to avoid making public appearances that could give rise to jokes at their expense. For instance, when Harold Wilson was PM in the late 1960s some of his advisers suggested that perhaps he shouldn’t go to
Fiddler on the Roof
as it might encourage jokes about his leadership style. He also avoided going to visit A
Month in the Country
as it was feared that this would give rise to dangerous speculation that he was going to the country, i. e. calling a general election – Ed
.]

At my diary session later this morning Bernard said that Sir Desmond Glazebrook wanted an urgent meeting with me tomorrow. He’s a ridiculous old fool who keeps making speeches against the government. Unfortunately, I appointed him Chairman of the Co-Partnership Commission – I’d had no choice [
see Chapter 7 – Ed
.].

Glazebrook wants to talk to me about his forthcoming application to add some more storeys to his bank’s proposed new office block.

Clearly he hasn’t read this morning’s papers!

This is just the sort of thing we have to stop. Someone has to speak out to save the environment. I shall do it, without fear or favour. It is the right thing to do. Also, it’ll be very popular.

[
Bernard Woolley reported this conversation with Hacker to Sir Humphrey Appleby sometime later that day. He knew that Appleby was due to meet Sir Desmond Glazebrook for tea, to discuss the new high-rise building for the bank, and he felt obliged to let Sir Humphrey know the extent of the Minister’s opposition to it
.

We found a report of this and of Appleby’s meeting with Glazebrook among Sir Humphrey’s private papers – Ed
.]

B. reported to me that the Minister wanted to make a courageous stand on high buildings, for the press. I hope he has a head for heights. It seems that Hacker will do anything to get his picture in the papers.

Had tea with Sir Desmond, and reported that the matter did not look too hopeful. He was surprised. I remarked that, clearly, he had not read the
Financial Times
this morning.

‘Never do,’ he told me. I was surprised. He is a banker after all.

‘Can’t understand it,’ he explained. ‘It’s too full of economic theory.’

I asked him why he bought it and carried it about under his arm. He explained that it was part of the uniform. He said it took him thirty years to understand Keynes’s economics and just when he’d finally got the hang of it everyone started getting hooked on those new-fangled monetarist ideas. Books like
I want to be free
by Milton Shulman.

Presumably he means
Free To Choose
by Milton Friedman, but I share his feelings and doubts.

He asked me why they are all called Milton, and said he was still stuck on Milton Keynes. I corrected him: ‘Maynard Keynes.’ He said he was sure there was a Milton Keynes, I felt the conversation should be abandoned then and there, and I opened up his copy of the
FT
and showed him our Minister’s speech to the Architectural Association last night in which he attacked skyscraper blocks. This speech has attracted much favourable publicity and must be reckoned a problem for us now.

Sir Desmond insisted that the bank’s new block is not a skyscraper. Nonetheless, it has thirty-eight storeys on current plans, and he is asking for an extra six storeys.

The Minister, on the other hand, is talking about a maximum tolerable height of eight storeys.

The Minister is further encouraged by his party’s manifesto, which contained a promise to prevent many more high-rise buildings. But this problem is more easily dealt with. I explained to Sir Desmond that there is an implicit pact offered to every Minister by his senior officials: if the Minister will help us implement the opposite policy to the one to which he is pledged (which once he is in office he can see is obviously undesirable and/or unworkable) we will help him to pretend that he is in fact doing what he said he was going to do in his Manifesto.

[
We are indeed fortunate that Sir Humphrey’s training as a civil servant – training to put everything down in writing – resulted in his recording for posterity these attitudes and skills which were undoubtedly Civil Service practice in the 1980s but which were kept secret because they were unacceptable constitutionally – Ed
.]

Desmond said that this was a reasonable compromise, in his opinion. So it is. Regrettably, reasonableness is not the first quality that springs to mind when one contemplates the average Minister. [
Hacker was a very average Minister – Ed
.]

Desmond tried to apply pressure to me. He dropped hints about our future plans together. I reassured Desmond that, although he would not get permission from Hacker this week and although it would be tricky, I was sure a way could be found to alter any adverse decision.