The discussion turned to the DES. Giles felt that there could be problems with conscription from the educational point of view. Our educational system has been a triumphant success in turning out socially integrated and creatively aware children who are fully trained in the arts and techniques of self-expression. The DES has a proud record in this, and has done a first-class job. However, Giles felt that conscription would inevitably give publicity to the fact that many school-leavers cannot actually read, write or do sums. So the NUT [National Union of Teachers] will be violently against its introduction.
Furthermore, there is a slight incidental risk that the Services might take over most of the Colleges of Further Education and use them for teaching purposes. We all agreed that such unnecessary interference would be rather shocking -- a total distortion of their function.
I was concerned that, as conscription is not really an educational issue, it would be hard for Giless Secretary of State to involve the NUT veto. Giles felt that, on the contrary, the NUT might veto his Secretary of State, making his life impossible.
I asked Giles what advice he proposed to give his political master. Giles remarked that although conscription is not what the DES call education, it would work very well in terms of actually teaching people things. So its hard to oppose. Not that any of us want to oppose it.
Norman wondered if the issue could not be raised that there has been a lack of reasonable time for deliberation. Fatal to rush things.
I suggested that there might be educational question marks about the credentials of the man putting the idea forward: Professor Rosenblum.
Giles agreed enthusiastically. He felt it could be argued that Rosenblums figures have come under severe critical scrutiny, or perhaps that he is academically suspect. He felt that this would be his Secretary of States view, once the Secretary of State heard the facts. Indeed, Giles recalled that there is a paper coming out that criticises the whole basis of Professor Rosenblums thinking. It will be coming out tomorrow morning. [This technique is known in the Civil Service, as it is in football, as Playing the Man Not the Ball Ed.]
It so happens that this paper will be written [Sir Humphrey made a slip here. He should have said has been written Ed.] by one of the Professors who was passed over for Chief Scientific Adviser. Not that he is jealous -- he just feels that Rosenblums influence may not be an entirely good thing.
We agreed that, in order to avoid hurting his feelings, it would probably be best if Professor Rosenblum does not actually see the paper. It should be submitted by Giles as personal advice to the Secretary of State. [It is essential, if you play the man and not the ball, that you do not let the man know you are doing so Ed.]
We turned finally to the employment implications. It is a significant part of this scheme that National Service might involve young people in doing useful jobs in the community.
David felt that this was a jolly good idea, on the face of it. But it does create grave problems with the Unions. Once you start giving jobs to non-members of Trade Unions you are on a very slippery slope. Once you let a couple of kids do up the old folks houses, you will have an uproar from all the bricklayers, plasterers, painters, plumbers, electricians and carpenters who ought to be doing it instead.
We agreed that community service can be very damaging to the community. However, it is likely that the Prime Minister will argue that if the kids were earning a living and the old people were pleased with the work, that would be all right. This argument is of course an over-simplification, but the Prime Minister never seems too worried about over-simplification.
David had an excellent idea. He felt that the Secretary of State for Employment might argue that the unemployed young people are now unfit, unorganized, undisciplined and untrained. They are a problem -- but not a threat! Conscription would mean eventually releasing on the streets an army of fit young people all trained to kill.
We unanimously agreed that this is a far-sighted and responsible attitude, and we encouraged David to ensure that his Secretary of State had taken the idea on board by tomorrow.
In my summing up we all agreed that there was no question of our trying to oppose the Prime Ministers policy, which we believe to be novel and imaginative. We are only opposed to precipitate haste.
[Appleby Papers PA/121/LAX]
[Hackers diary continues Ed.]
February 16th
Cabinet Committee this afternoon, and my colleagues responded to the Grand Design in a way that I did not predict.
It was last on the agenda. I told them that I intended to announce my Grand Design in my TV broadcast on Friday, and -- if the Committee agreed -- I would put it to full Cabinet on Thursday morning and tell the House the same afternoon.
There was a bit of a silence. I took it as general assent. So I was about to pass on to the next item when Duncan [Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs] spoke up.
Prime Minister, I think it is an excellent plan, he began.
Good, I said.
The only thing is cancelling Trident so early in your premiership could look like weakness to the Soviets.
Humphrey grunted an impressed grunt, nodded thoughtfully, and turned to me with an enquiring expression.
I was a little taken aback. When last I spoke to Duncan he had been completely in favour. I thought you were in favour of the idea. It would surely enable us to strengthen NATO through credible conventional forces.
Duncan nodded, but he didnt agree. Yes But it could look like lack of courage. It might smack of appeasement.
I told Duncan that I would record his view, even though he was in a minority of one.
I had spoken too soon. Hugh [Secretary of State for Defence] piped up.
Well, actually, Prime Minister, although I think its an excellent plan too, the fact is that Trident is the best and Britain should have the best.
I was astonished. But, Hugh, I said, I thought you wanted to get rid of Trident. Pointless waste of money, you said.
Hugh looked a little uncomfortable. Well, yes, I did say that, but now Im not sure. Ive been reviewing the papers. Theres more to it than I thought. I stared at him coldly. Um Im simply against making an early announcement, thats all.
Im against making an early announcement too, Prime Minister. Now Patrick [Secretary of State for Education] was lining up with Duncan and Hugh. I was speechless, so I asked him why.
Because the whole plan is based on Professor Rosenblums figures. And my information is that he is academically suspect. Ive just received a high-powered paper that severely criticises the whole basis of his argument.
But, Patrick, I said, with rising anxiety, you agreed that conscription will solve the whole youth unemployment problem, as well as give us meaningful defence forces.
Tom [Secretary of State for Employment] replied instead of Patrick. Yes, but it has since occurred to me that it will also create an army of fit, disciplined, organised young people who will be released from the forces after two years, unemployed again but now trained to kill.
I stared at him in disbelief. So youre against it too?
He didnt answer directly. Im against an early announcement. I think we need time to consider all more fully.
This entire conversation baffled me. Only a week ago they were all agreed that the policy was a real vote-winner. I shall have to think very hard about my next step.
Humphrey said that hed minute the Committee meeting so as to leave the door open. Jolly helpful of him.