The Prime Minister was in very bullish mood on the morning of 22 May. He informed me that things were going very well, and that he had the Treasury on the run. And the Chancellor.
I asked him if this was entirely to the good. After all, the Chancellor is a member of the Prime Ministers own government.
Of course its good, he told me. Hes got to be brought to heel. Hes got to learn to co-operate.
I asked him what he meant, precisely, by co-operate. He revealed that he defined co-operation as obeying his commands! That, he said, is what co-operation means if you are Prime Minister.
It reminded me not a little of Humpty Dumpty.
[When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, it means just what I use it to mean -- neither more nor less.
The question is, said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many different things.
The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be master -- that's all. Through the Looking-Glass, Chapter 5, by Lewis Carroll Ed.]
The Chancellor wanted to be Premier, remember? He was the front runner. And I outsmarted him. How well I remember this! The Prime Minister did a little dance of glee in front of his study windows. Now Im outsmarting him again. He knows that if he loses 4 billion of tobacco revenue hell either have to impose four billion more in other taxes, which will make him frightfully unpopular in the country, or cut 4 billion of government expenditure, which will make him even more unpopular in the Cabinet. Theyre all terrified about Peter Thorns policies -- loss of smokers votes, loss of tobacco taxes, loss of jobs -- it's wonderful! So I shall support Peter Thorn until I get the Treasury to stop obstructing me on the income tax cut of 1.5 billion that I want.
[Hackers diary continues Ed.]
May 22nd
A good meeting with Humphrey. He began it by showing me some impenetrable piece of paper, always a good sign I now realise. He can no longer bamboozle me like that. Its merely an indication of his own insecurity. [A sign of Hackers growing awareness and administrative skill Ed.]
[The piece of paper contained Sir Humphreys comments on a submission concerning Dr Thorns plans, which had been submitted by the DHSS. The entire submission survives. Sir Humphreys comments are reproduced below Ed.]
Notwithstanding the fact that the proposal could conceivably encompass certain concomitant benefits of a marginal and peripheral relevance, there is a consideration of infinitely superior magnitude involving your personal complicity and corroborative malfeasance, with the consequence that the taint and stigma of your former associations and diversions could irredeemably and irretrievably invalidate your position and culminate in public revelations and recriminations of a profoundly embarrassing and ultimately indefensible character.
I asked Humphrey for a prcis. In one short sentence.
He thought for a moment. Theres nicotine on your hands, he said.
I couldnt think what he meant. Im a non-smoker. Then I realised he was speaking not literally but figuratively. All the hospitality you have enjoyed at BTGs expense, he reproached me in a sorrowful voice. Champagne receptions, buffet lunches, the best seats at sporting and cultural events.
He seemed to think that the tobacco companies might release this embarrassing information to the press if I legislated against them.
But I cant see anything embarrassing about that. Ive had drinks at the Soviet Embassy -- that doesnt make me a spy. If thats the best idea Humphrey can come up with to block me, I may have to put Dr Thorns proposals through after all! I think Humphrey may be losing his grip -- it's the feeblest threat I ever heard.
Humphrey realised it himself, because he fell silent. Anything else? I asked, hopeful that hed do better.
Yes, Prime Minister. He was fighting on, but not looking too confident. It has been put to me that since smoking is not a political issue the government should not take sides.
You mean we have to be impartial?
Exactly, he replied with gratitude.
You mean, I enquired innocently, impartial as between the fire engine and the fire?
He hurried straight on. He knows when hes backing a loser. And there is a much graver objection. A large number of people, eminent people, influential people, have argued that Dr Thorns legislation would be a blow against freedom of choice.
I asked why. He rabbited on about how it is a serious attack on freedom to introduce penal taxation and prohibit the advertising of a product which is perfectly legal in itself. I told him this was complete and utter rubbish! We are not talking about prohibiting smoking itself. And I asked him if every tax increase is a blow against freedom?
He hedged. That depends on how big a tax increase.
A fascinating answer. So, I asked, is twenty pence a blow against freedom?
He began to protest. Prime Minister
I brushed him aside. Is twenty-five pence? Thirty pence? Thirty- one pence? Is something a blow against freedom just because it can seriously damage your health?
Rather good that, I thought! He didnt laugh though. He just remarked grimly that it was very droll.
So I took him through the freedom of choice argument. We agreed that advertising is essential if there is to be a free choice because free choice depends on full information. Therefore there should be advertising on both sides. Why, since the tobacco companies spend at least 100 million on advertising and promotion, shouldnt they pay an equal amount to advertise the arguments against smoking? This, I suggested to Humphrey, would be a point of view that would appeal to all those eminent and influential people who favour freedom of choice.
Prime Minister, he said, gritting his teeth. I do have to advise you that this proposal will cause grave difficulties. I foresee all sorts of unforeseen problems.
Such as? I asked.
Humphrey was getting irritable. If I could foresee them, they wouldnt be unforeseen! he snapped.
But you said you could foresee them, I reminded him cheerfully.
He was cornered. He had now reached his last refuge. Look, how about setting up an interdepartmental committee a Parliamentary enquiry a Royal Commission?
I asked the question that Ive been wanting to ask for days now. Humphrey, why are you so keen on the tobacco industry?
He ignored the question. I knew he would, of course. Prime Minister, how about a Treasury Committee in the first instance?
This was my opening. Dont talk to me about the Treasury, I sighed sadly. Theyre blocking my plan for including a one and a half billion tax cut in my new defence strategy. I sighed again heavily, theatrically, wondered if I were overdoing it a bit, then pressed on. Of course, if only the Treasury would show some flexibility
Humphrey saw the point immediately, or even sooner. Oh, he said, brightening up considerably. Er Prime Minister, I dont think theyre fully committed to that other matter yet.
Really? I pretended surprise.
Absolutely not. Oh no. Flexible. Im sure they could find a way.
Could they? I asked with wide-eyed amazement. I should have got an Oscar for this one.
The only stumbling block, said Humphrey, adjusting rapidly to his new negotiating position, would be that if the anti-smoking proposals go through, the Treasury will be too busy working on those to look for a way to help with the other cuts.
We were now talking in a code that we both understood. Well, I said, The anti-smoking proposals dont have nearly such a high priority as defence.
Humphrey now knew what deal Id accept. The quid pro quo was acceptable to him, I could see. Its just a matter of clearing it with the Treasury.
May 23rd
A slight complication developed today.
Peter Thorn came to see me in my room at the Commons. Ive just had some very exciting news, Prime Minister, he began. We have just got full backing from the BMA [British Medical Association], the Royal College of Physicians, and eight other top scientific and medical colleges.