Humphrey was looking worried, and remarked that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office might have views on this matter. [This would undoubtedly have been the case. It has always been said that one Prime Ministers lunch with an ambassador destroys two years of patient diplomacy. The Foreign Office would have been unlikely to react favourably to such lunches Ed.]
I didnt much care what the Foreign Office would say. Its quite absurd that theres no one to cater for me and my family.
Humphrey couldnt see why. But then he wouldnt, would he? He gets his lunch in the Cabinet mess too. Prime Minister, its the way things have been done for two and a half centuries.
Is that the clinching argument? I demanded.
It has been for two and a half centuries.
Bernard, bless his heart, intervened in his usual pedantic and obsessive fashion. Uh with respect, Sir Humphrey, he began disrespectfully, It cant have been the clinching argument for two and a half centuries, because half a century ago it had only been the clinching argument for two centuries, and a century ago only for one and a half centuries, and one and a half Humphrey was staring malevolently at him and he ground to a halt. But Bernards logic was both as impeccable and irrelevant as always.
I stepped in hurriedly, to distract Humphrey and direct his wrath away from my loyal Private Secretary. Humphrey, I am not convinced. I want a cook and I want you to see that its paid for.
Humphrey was stony-faced. Stubbornly he turned to me. Then let me put it like this. How would you like the press to announce that your first act as Prime Minister was to give yourself an effective salary increase of eight to ten thousand pounds a year?
I hadnt thought of that. But I couldnt see why we should tell them. Nobody would ever know.
Humphrey read my thoughts. We must tell them, by the way. We have no alternative. The Prime Ministers salary and expenses have to be published.
Isnt there any way we can not refer to it? I asked hopefully.
Open Government, Prime Minister. Freedom of Information. We should always tell the press, freely and frankly, anything that they can easily find out some other way.
I simply do not believe that there is no way to solve this problem. But I had to let it drop for today. Humphreys position is that ever since Number Ten was first used as the PMs official residence, two hundred and fifty years ago, there has been no solution to this problem. And therefore, according to Civil Service reasoning, there never will be.
Humphrey changed the subject. Prime Minister, you said you had been thinking.
Yes, Humphrey, I replied. We have agreed that things have been going well ever since Ive been Prime Minister. So I have been asking myself: How do I ensure that this run of success continues?
Humphrey gazed at me hopefully. Have you considered masterly inactivity?
Ridiculous. But I was patient with him. No, Humphrey, a Prime Minister should be firm.
Indeed! he agreed. How about firm masterly inactivity?
I could afford to be nice -- after all, Im in the driving seat now. No, I smiled, but I shall be firm.
Good, said Sir Humphrey.
And decisive, I went on.
Absolutely, agreed Sir Humphrey.
And imaginative, I added provocatively.
Im not so sure about imaginative. I bet hes not!
And above all, I finished up, I must offer leadership.
Leadership. He was at his most encouraging. Leadership, above all.
And as Im the Prime Minister I have the power to do so, dont I?
Indeed, Prime Minister, you are the Prime Minister, and wherever you lead we shall obediently follow.
So I told him my new policy. My Grand Design. Ive decided to cancel Trident, spend the 15 billion on conventional forces and the ET, bringing in conscription, and thus solve our defence, balance of payments, education and unemployment problems at a stroke.
He gaped at me. I glanced at Bernard, who was watching his old boss with considerable interest.
I waited for Humphreys response. But answer came there none. Not at first, anyway. He seemed absolutely poleaxed. I gave him a few moments to pull himself together and then, as I was getting bored with waiting, I told him to say something.
I er where did this idea come from? Not a very flattering question. But I reminded him that Id been thinking.
You cant do that! he said with desperation.
At first I thought he was telling me that I cant think. Or mustnt think. But he went on to say that what I was proposing was completely revolutionary, an unprecedented innovation.
So the gloves were off! He meant that I could not pursue my policy. Well, in my opinion it is not up to him to say.
He clearly thinks it is. Prime Minister, you cant simply reorganise the entire defence of the realm, just like that!
My answer was simple. Im the Prime Minister. Besides, he had said he would follow me. He had agreed that I should be decisive. He had agreed that I should offer leadership. So what was he complaining about? [Presumably Sir Humphrey wanted Hacker to be decisive only if he took decisions of which Sir Humphrey approved. And leadership was only welcome if it went in the approved direction Ed.] Furthermore, I added, I have the power.
He didnt like that one bit. Yes -- but only within the law and the constitution and the constraints of administrative precedent, constitution and the constraints of administrative precedent, budgetary feasibility and Cabinet government. What about your Cabinet colleagues, what do they think?
I was obliged to admit that I hadnt told them yet. But I know theyll love it. Theyll love anything that cuts unemployment. Half of them would even welcome inflation on those grounds. And I know that the Cabinet will be only too happy to have an extra 15 billion of Trident cash available for other public spending. Anyway, Im the Prime Minister, what does it matter what they think?
I appoint the Cabinet, I said simply.
Humphrey smiled coldly. Im sure you dont want to disappoint them.
Very droll, as he used to say so patronisingly to me. I didnt laugh. I didnt say anything. I just waited for him to capitulate. Unfortunately he didnt say anything either.
Humphrey, youre very silent.
Youve given me a lot to be silent about.
You mean, you think we should keep Trident?
He could only answer that one way. It is not for me to say, Prime Minister. Quite right. Hes only a civil servant.
Fine, I agreed magnanimously, thats agreed then.
Humphrey couldnt let it go. But since you ask my opinion
I was enjoying myself. Go on then.
Yes, he said grimly, I do think we should keep it.
I told him I couldnt see the sense in it. Humphrey, groping for my reasoning, asked if I was therefore going to buy Cruise missiles instead.
I told him that I intended that the UK should buy no more nuclear weapons.
He blanched. But Prime Minister -- you're not a secret unilateralist, are you?
I explained that I was nothing of the sort, that we still have Polaris, and that I have no intention of getting rid of that.
He relaxed a little. At least (in his view) I was not a security risk, just a loony. He tried to tell me Polaris is not good enough, that its a ramshackle old system, whereas Trident is superb -- faster, more warheads, independently targeted. According to Humphrey, Trident is almost impossible to intercept whereas the Soviets might easily develop a multi-layered ballistic missile defence system that can intercept Polaris.
By when? I asked.
In strategic terms, any day now.
I can spot an evasive answer at fifty paces. [The more so since Hacker was himself a master of the evasive answer Ed.] I asked him by what year, precisely, this might happen.
Well 2020. I smiled. But thats sooner than you think, he added hastily.
And youre saying that such a missile defence system could intercept all 192 Polaris missiles?
Not all, no. But virtually all -- ninety-seven per cent.