Other matter? I couldnt think what he meant.
He cleared his throat. May I, er, enquire who is to be the Head of the Home Civil Service?
You -- perhaps, I said. He smiled. Or, maybe, Sir Frank, I added. His smile faded. Or maybe share it like now. I havent decided yet. But whatever happens, its my decision, isnt it, Humphrey?
Yes Prime Minister, he replied, a sadder but wiser man.
A REAL PARTNERSHIP
March 9th
I staggered upstairs to the flat for lunch today. Fortunately Annie was home. She took one look at me and asked if it had been a bad Cabinet.
Got anything for getting blood off carpets? I groaned as I slumped into my chintz flowered armchair with a deep sigh. [We presume that it was not the armchair which was the possessor of the deep sigh Ed.]
Whose blood? asked Annie, as she picked up the decanter.
Everyones, I told her miserably.
She asked me if I wanted a small scotch or a double. I settled for a triple.
The nub of my depression was a Treasury Paper that had just been presented to us. The financial crisis is much worse than any of us thought. No one saw it coming -- least of all me -- except one person: my predecessor, the last Prime Minister. No wonder he resigned unexpectedly!
Annie wasnt a bit surprised. I always thought, she mused, that it was strange that he resigned to make way for an older man.
I was slightly put out. Im not older than him, I said.
Oh. She gazed at me with sympathy. Maybe you just look it.
I do now, I thought, thats for certain! I really dont know what Im going to do about all the cuts that have got to be made in the Cabinets spending plans. They werent at all prepared for this. They all have ambitious development ideas, because I asked for them.
We heard the sound of leaden footsteps. Bernard appeared at the living-room door. Annie offered him a Scotch.
Triple, please, he replied bleakly.
Annie nodded sympathetically, and wisely kept silent.
Bernard, I said, Humphrey should have warned me this was coming.
He sat on the sofa and sipped his drink. I dont think Sir Humphrey understands economics, Prime Minister -- he did read classics, you know.
Well, what about Sir Frank? Hes head of the Treasury.
Bernard shook his head. Im afraid hes at an even greater disadvantage in understanding economics, Prime Minister. Hes an economist.
Annie joined us, with a Perrier. Jim, if theres an economic crisis, cant the Cabinet see thereve got to be cuts?
They can see that the other departments have got to make cuts. Not theirs.
Thats rather selfish, she remarked. Annie still seems to think that the Cabinet is full of team spirit. Its not. Theyre in a constant popularity contest against each other. And the quickest way to become popular is to spend money. Public money. This makes them popular with their Department, the Party, the House and the Press. Cutting spending makes everyone unpopular. Annie didnt see why. Bernard tried to explain, but he rabbited on for ages in a totally incomprehensible way about hats, making everything as clear as mud.
SIR BERNARD WOOLLEY RECALLS [in conversation with the Editors]:
My explanation was crystal clear, as it happens. Mrs Hacker seemed to feel, as I remember, that the public would be pleased if spending were cut, because the public are the taxpayers. I explained that it was and is a question of hats. The voter, wearing his voters hat, is always frightfully pleased when the Government pays for something because he thinks its free! He doesnt realise that, wearing his taxpayers hat, hes paying for what hes receiving in his voters hat. And the Cabinet Ministers, wearing their Head-of-a-Department hats, are competing with themselves because, wearing their member-of-the-Government hats, they have to pull economic success out of the hat and yet allow the taxpayer, wearing his voters hat, to think that the Government is spending someone elses money when its not, its spending theirs, and so they have to try and keep this under their hat.
[Hackers diary continues Ed.]
Annie asked me, Presumably you encouraged all those spending plans because you wanted to be popular?
Yes and no was the only possible answer. Of course I want to be popular -- nothing wrong with that, thats how you get elected, being popular is what democracys all about. But I also thought we could afford it. I didnt know, and nobody had told me, of these looming problems with inflation, the sterling crisis and low productivity.
Annie asked what I was doing about it. Did you order a clamp-down this morning?
I cant order anything, Annie, I explained miserably.
She didnt understand. Hes only the Prime Minister, Mrs Hacker, said Bernard. He doesnt even have a department of his own to clamp down on.
Annie thought -- still thinks, for all I know -- that the Prime Minister is completely in charge. Its a fallacy. A leader can only lead by consent.
So who is in charge, if youre not? asked Annie, rather perplexed.
I was perplexed by her question. There didnt seem to be an answer. I thought for a bit. Nobody really, I said finally.
Is that good? She was even more perplexed.
It must be, I replied hopelessly. Thats what democracy is all about.
Its made Britain what she is today, added Bernard with sincerity.
Annie contemplated what shed just been told. So your Cabinet are in control, not you.
Shed got completely the wrong end of the stick! No! I said. Think back, Annie! I wasnt in control when I was a Minister, was I?
No, she said, but I thought that was just you.
Annie, like the press and the media, keeps harping on about control. But the point about government is that no one has control. Lots of people have the power to stop something happening -- but almost nobody has the power to make anything happen. We have a system of government with the engine of a lawn-mower and the brakes of a Rolls-Royce.
Of course Id never say any of this in public. The electorate would interpret this as defeatism. Its not, though! Its the truth! And I am going to fight it. [We do not believe that Hacker wanted his readers to believe that he intended to fight the truth Ed.]
We began talking about the further implications of this financial mess. Tomorrow Ive got a deputation of backbench MPs coming to see me, about a pay rise I promised them. Naturally Ill have to tell them they cant have it now. Theyll be furious. Theyll say:
1. That I cant go back on a promise.
2. That they are shamefully underpaid.
3. That its all very well for me because I get fifty thousand quid a year.
4. That its not the money, its the principle of the thing.
5. That its not for them personally.
6. That I am striking a blow against the very foundations of Parliamentary democracy.
How do I know theyll say all that? Because thats what I said when I was a backbencher.
The only way to reply is to lie. I shall say:
1. That I sympathise deeply -- which I dont!
2. That they certainly deserve the money -- which isnt true!
3. That I shall make it my number one priority when the crisis has passed -- which I shant!
4. And that if MPs vote themselves a whacking great pay rise and then tell everyone else theres no money for pay rises, it doesnt do wonders for the dignity of Parliament -- which it certainly doesnt!
I shall forbear to add that when anyone says, Its not the money, its the principle, they mean its the money!
I explained this all to Annie. To my surprise she sympathised with them. Arent MPs underpaid, in fact?
I was astonished. Underpaid? Backbench MPs? I explained to Annie that being an MP is a vast, subsidised ego trip. Its a job that needs no qualifications, that has no compulsory hours of work, no performance standards, and provides a warm room, a telephone and subsidised meals to a bunch of self-important windbags and busybodies who suddenly find people taking them seriously because theyve got the letters MP after their names. How can they be underpaid when theres about two hundred applicants for every vacancy? You could fill every seat twenty times over even if they had to pay to do the job.