From: Sir Humphrey Appleby
To: Bernard Woolley
Subject: The Prime Minister problem
When we transferred power from voters to parties by increasing the size of constituencies so that voters no longer knew the person they were voting for, we in effect gave far more power to the cabinet. We were able to neutralise that by increasing its size. You and I know that it is impossible for any committee of more than ten members to give proper consideration to problems, or reach sensible and considered decisions. Once we raised cabinet membership above twenty we removed the danger of its doing anything original or decisive. As you know, it is now in effect a group therapy session.
The downside is that the Prime Minister now has remarkable power. Our problem is to make sure he does not use it to make unwelcome decisions or take ill-advised actions. The danger period is after the first six months, when he has settled in and is starting to learn the job. Obviously we try to keep him too busy to interfere with our job of running the country efficiently; preparing for Prime Minister’s questions and cabinet meetings are useful, as are party committees and conferences, ceremonial events and receiving distinguished visitors. And we are fortunate that his first priority is not running the country but winning the next election, so that an agreeable amount of time can be consumed in sucking up to rich potential donors and influential journalists. Nevertheless these harmless occupations still leave him time to interfere with our work.
The answer is to encourage him to develop his international role. All Prime Ministers are obsessed with how they will appear in the history books, and this makes them desperate to play a leading part on the world stage. We can get him out of our hair for long periods by persuading him to attend top level meetings at the United Nations, the European Union, the Commonwealth, the WTO, the IMF and NATO, as well as less formal excursions to Brussels, Washington and Moscow. Throw in the occasional trips to Beijing, Tokyo and the Middle East and our problems are almost over. Best of all is a small war – these preoccupy Prime Ministers to the exclusion of almost everything else. Iraq and Afghanistan have done wonders for the orderly and efficient conduct of government at home, and if there is a danger of their ending we have Iran on standby.
Humphrey Appleby
(Sir Humphrey Appleby KCB CVO)
© Sir Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, 5 October 2010
Tuesday, 5 October 2010
Thursday, 30 September 2010
Understanding Ministers
As I pointed out earlier, enlarging constituencies to 50,000 or so enabled us to remove power from voters and transfer it to parties (The EU, with MEP constituencies of 250,000 or more, is as usual ahead of us in combating the evils of unbridled democracy) Since the governing party operates through ministers, our task is to ensure that ministers do not interfere with the serious business of government.
Fortunately the calibre of ministers is almost uniformly exceedingly low largely because the Prime Minister has so little choice. Assuming the governing party has 300 – odd members, a hundred will be too young and inexperienced, a hundred will be too old and stupid, leaving the Prime Minister with only about a hundred MPs to fill a hundred government posts. What is more his criterion for appointment is not suitability for the job, it is the repayment of political debts, the silencing of difficult supporters, or the placating of awkward groups within the parliamentary party. Intelligence, experience and efficiency rarely come into it. That is why in a crisis most of them behave like one of the two types of office chair: they either fold up instantly or go round and round in circles.
Obviously a career in politics is no training for government. Nevertheless ministers do have certain skills. These include blurring issues, avoiding decisions, dodging questions, juggling figures, bending facts and concealing errors. All these can be useful to us on occasions. And they do perform certain useful functions for their departments: they are advocates, making their department’s actions seem plausible to Parliament and the public; they steer our legislation through the House; and they fight the cabinet and the Treasury for the funds we need to do our job. But we have to make sure that is all they do.
But they do have one other function. If things go wrong (as they do even in the best of departments) ministers can be sacked, demoted, moved sideways, resign or be ennobled, leaving most of us who do the real work unscathed. People will then think the problem is solved. This not only protects us, but also gives us a new minister who is easy to manipulate. The greatest ministerial benefit of all to a department is the sacrificial function.
Humphrey Appleby
(Sir Humphrey Appleby KCB CVO)
© Sir Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, 30 September 2010
Fortunately the calibre of ministers is almost uniformly exceedingly low largely because the Prime Minister has so little choice. Assuming the governing party has 300 – odd members, a hundred will be too young and inexperienced, a hundred will be too old and stupid, leaving the Prime Minister with only about a hundred MPs to fill a hundred government posts. What is more his criterion for appointment is not suitability for the job, it is the repayment of political debts, the silencing of difficult supporters, or the placating of awkward groups within the parliamentary party. Intelligence, experience and efficiency rarely come into it. That is why in a crisis most of them behave like one of the two types of office chair: they either fold up instantly or go round and round in circles.
Obviously a career in politics is no training for government. Nevertheless ministers do have certain skills. These include blurring issues, avoiding decisions, dodging questions, juggling figures, bending facts and concealing errors. All these can be useful to us on occasions. And they do perform certain useful functions for their departments: they are advocates, making their department’s actions seem plausible to Parliament and the public; they steer our legislation through the House; and they fight the cabinet and the Treasury for the funds we need to do our job. But we have to make sure that is all they do.
But they do have one other function. If things go wrong (as they do even in the best of departments) ministers can be sacked, demoted, moved sideways, resign or be ennobled, leaving most of us who do the real work unscathed. People will then think the problem is solved. This not only protects us, but also gives us a new minister who is easy to manipulate. The greatest ministerial benefit of all to a department is the sacrificial function.
Humphrey Appleby
(Sir Humphrey Appleby KCB CVO)
© Sir Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, 30 September 2010
Tuesday, 28 September 2010
Tax Chaos
From: Sir Humphrey Appleby
To: Bernard Woolley
Subject: Tax Chaos
I am afraid that the spectacular blunders at the Inland Revenue are more serious than you seem to realise. If it merely involves tax payers having to shell out for underpaid taxes that is of no consequence. The danger is that it may call into question the method by which we connect the bulk of government revenue, PAYE.
The fact is that PAYE is the principal foundation stone of the government of Britain. Since it is removed from people’s wage packets and pay cheques before it reaches them, they are only vaguely aware that they are paying it. They see their pay as what ends up in their wallet or bank statement. In the same way, they are not really aware of how much of the price of VAT-rated goods or a pint of beer or a packet of cigarettes is taken by customs and excise. The whole art of taxation is to remove money from the citizen at the time of receipt or payment, so that he has minimal awareness of how much he is in fact contributing. You only have to look at the problems the Revenue has in getting tax out of the self-employed, who actually have to write a cheque, to see the advantages of PAYE and duty. The self-employed cause more trouble than all the rest of the tax payers put together. You will also be aware of the problems local councils have, and the resentment they cause, because householders actually have to pay over the money rather than have it painlessly and invisibly deducted at source. Indeed it is an agreeable consequence of the system that the natural hostility of people towards tax collectors is much more directed at councils, to whom they have to pay over their ‘own’ money, than to central government, who remove it before they see it.
As you know, we successfully foster the illusion that we work out what needs to be done and then set tax levels to pay for it, whereas in fact of course we calculate how much we can get away with taking and then decided what to spend it on. If taxpayers all had to write out cheques for their taxes, and realized that government expenditure amounted to an average of around £30,000 per household, we would never be able to sustain taxation revenues at anything like their present level. Abolishing PAYE would spell the end of government as we know it.
Humphrey Appleby
(Sir Humphrey Appleby KCB CVO)
© Sir Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, 28 September 2010
To: Bernard Woolley
Subject: Tax Chaos
I am afraid that the spectacular blunders at the Inland Revenue are more serious than you seem to realise. If it merely involves tax payers having to shell out for underpaid taxes that is of no consequence. The danger is that it may call into question the method by which we connect the bulk of government revenue, PAYE.
The fact is that PAYE is the principal foundation stone of the government of Britain. Since it is removed from people’s wage packets and pay cheques before it reaches them, they are only vaguely aware that they are paying it. They see their pay as what ends up in their wallet or bank statement. In the same way, they are not really aware of how much of the price of VAT-rated goods or a pint of beer or a packet of cigarettes is taken by customs and excise. The whole art of taxation is to remove money from the citizen at the time of receipt or payment, so that he has minimal awareness of how much he is in fact contributing. You only have to look at the problems the Revenue has in getting tax out of the self-employed, who actually have to write a cheque, to see the advantages of PAYE and duty. The self-employed cause more trouble than all the rest of the tax payers put together. You will also be aware of the problems local councils have, and the resentment they cause, because householders actually have to pay over the money rather than have it painlessly and invisibly deducted at source. Indeed it is an agreeable consequence of the system that the natural hostility of people towards tax collectors is much more directed at councils, to whom they have to pay over their ‘own’ money, than to central government, who remove it before they see it.
As you know, we successfully foster the illusion that we work out what needs to be done and then set tax levels to pay for it, whereas in fact of course we calculate how much we can get away with taking and then decided what to spend it on. If taxpayers all had to write out cheques for their taxes, and realized that government expenditure amounted to an average of around £30,000 per household, we would never be able to sustain taxation revenues at anything like their present level. Abolishing PAYE would spell the end of government as we know it.
Humphrey Appleby
(Sir Humphrey Appleby KCB CVO)
© Sir Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, 28 September 2010
Thursday, 23 September 2010
The Big Society
From: Sir Humphrey Appleby
To: Bernard Woolley
Subject: The Big Society
I have noted the general hilarity in the Department at The Big Society, and admit that I have partly shared in it myself. There is something engagingly ridiculous in politicians’ use of slogans to conceal the absence of policies. But we have to be very careful; if carried out in its extreme form it could be disastrous. If large sums of money were to be controlled by local councils and committees, our departmental budgets could be seriously reduced. If legal authority were delegated to them, we would be under pressure to reduce our staffing levels when their function has been removed. The prospect is hideous. Councils would compete for businesses by offering lower taxes. Different areas would have different rules. National uniformity would cease to exist; legislative inconsistency and administrative untidiness would flourish. You only have to look at the United States to see the chaotic variation between state governments, not to mention their permanent conflict with the Federal government.
We and our predecessors have spent the last two centuries removing legal jurisdiction and taxation revenues from the regional areas and provincial authorities and centralising them here in Whitehall where they are under the control of people who are in a position to understand the needs of the country. All this could be put at hazard if a government were to take serious measures to return them to the control of the ignorant, inexperienced and irresponsible local people.
Fortunately the Big Society is at its formative stage. Like most political ideas, it has not been properly thought through. We must therefore welcome it, while making sure it does not in any way diminish our authority or reduce our revenue. We must focus on the involvement of voluntary groups, while supervising them to make sure that they behave responsibly; we may need a modest staff increase for this. And we must encourage widespread consultation on many subjects and at many levels; this may involve a small increase in our budget. And we must draw out the process long enough for the politicians to lose interest and impetus, and wait for them to find a new slogan.
Humphrey Appleby
(Sir Humphrey Appleby KCB CVO)
© Sir Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, 24 September 2010
To: Bernard Woolley
Subject: The Big Society
I have noted the general hilarity in the Department at The Big Society, and admit that I have partly shared in it myself. There is something engagingly ridiculous in politicians’ use of slogans to conceal the absence of policies. But we have to be very careful; if carried out in its extreme form it could be disastrous. If large sums of money were to be controlled by local councils and committees, our departmental budgets could be seriously reduced. If legal authority were delegated to them, we would be under pressure to reduce our staffing levels when their function has been removed. The prospect is hideous. Councils would compete for businesses by offering lower taxes. Different areas would have different rules. National uniformity would cease to exist; legislative inconsistency and administrative untidiness would flourish. You only have to look at the United States to see the chaotic variation between state governments, not to mention their permanent conflict with the Federal government.
We and our predecessors have spent the last two centuries removing legal jurisdiction and taxation revenues from the regional areas and provincial authorities and centralising them here in Whitehall where they are under the control of people who are in a position to understand the needs of the country. All this could be put at hazard if a government were to take serious measures to return them to the control of the ignorant, inexperienced and irresponsible local people.
Fortunately the Big Society is at its formative stage. Like most political ideas, it has not been properly thought through. We must therefore welcome it, while making sure it does not in any way diminish our authority or reduce our revenue. We must focus on the involvement of voluntary groups, while supervising them to make sure that they behave responsibly; we may need a modest staff increase for this. And we must encourage widespread consultation on many subjects and at many levels; this may involve a small increase in our budget. And we must draw out the process long enough for the politicians to lose interest and impetus, and wait for them to find a new slogan.
Humphrey Appleby
(Sir Humphrey Appleby KCB CVO)
© Sir Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, 24 September 2010
Tuesday, 21 September 2010
Electoral Reforms
From: Sir Humphrey Appleby
To: Bernard Woolley
Subject: Electoral Reforms
We should welcome the proposals for electoral reform. Fewer MPs will mean larger constituencies. The larger the constituency, the fewer voters will know their representative, and the more they will vote for the party and not the candidate. This means that MPs’ careers will depend on the favour of Party HQ, not the approval of their constituents.
There was a terrible period after 1832 when a constituency numbered about 1,200 voters and their member could know nearly all of them. This meant he could disobey his party leaders so long as he retained the support of his constituents. Fortunately we have, through successive Reform Acts, enlarged constituencies to 50,000 or more and thus brought MPs back under government control. It is our duty to then guide the party in power towards the correct decisions, which they can then impose on their party. We have a proud record of success in this task.
The alternative vote system is a trivial measure, but still a move in the right direction. Our objective is full Proportional Representation, when electors simply vote for a party, and the parties then appoint their placemen in proportion to the votes they receive. This would cut the last link between the MP and the voter, eliminating the risk of voters electing one of those maverick independent-minded members who cause us so much trouble. All MPs will have their jobs by virtue of party patronage alone and therefore their docility will be guaranteed. Furthermore it will greatly increase the likelihood of a coalition, as no single party will be able to introduce those sweeping reforms which overturn those tried and trusted administrative procedures which enable us to conduct responsible government.
Your criticisms of some aspects of government as being ‘undemocratic’ suggest a profound misunderstanding. Democracy is the enemy of government. The mass of voters have no idea how the country should be run. That is our job. Democracy is only a device to enable the government to pretend it is acting with the consent of the people. The purpose of elections is to give ordinary citizens the illusion that they have control over the decisions that shape their lives, while leaving us free to conduct the affairs of the nation as we know they should be conducted.
Humphrey Appleby
(Sir Humphrey Appleby KCB CVO)
© Sir Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, 21 September 2010
To: Bernard Woolley
Subject: Electoral Reforms
We should welcome the proposals for electoral reform. Fewer MPs will mean larger constituencies. The larger the constituency, the fewer voters will know their representative, and the more they will vote for the party and not the candidate. This means that MPs’ careers will depend on the favour of Party HQ, not the approval of their constituents.
There was a terrible period after 1832 when a constituency numbered about 1,200 voters and their member could know nearly all of them. This meant he could disobey his party leaders so long as he retained the support of his constituents. Fortunately we have, through successive Reform Acts, enlarged constituencies to 50,000 or more and thus brought MPs back under government control. It is our duty to then guide the party in power towards the correct decisions, which they can then impose on their party. We have a proud record of success in this task.
The alternative vote system is a trivial measure, but still a move in the right direction. Our objective is full Proportional Representation, when electors simply vote for a party, and the parties then appoint their placemen in proportion to the votes they receive. This would cut the last link between the MP and the voter, eliminating the risk of voters electing one of those maverick independent-minded members who cause us so much trouble. All MPs will have their jobs by virtue of party patronage alone and therefore their docility will be guaranteed. Furthermore it will greatly increase the likelihood of a coalition, as no single party will be able to introduce those sweeping reforms which overturn those tried and trusted administrative procedures which enable us to conduct responsible government.
Your criticisms of some aspects of government as being ‘undemocratic’ suggest a profound misunderstanding. Democracy is the enemy of government. The mass of voters have no idea how the country should be run. That is our job. Democracy is only a device to enable the government to pretend it is acting with the consent of the people. The purpose of elections is to give ordinary citizens the illusion that they have control over the decisions that shape their lives, while leaving us free to conduct the affairs of the nation as we know they should be conducted.
Humphrey Appleby
(Sir Humphrey Appleby KCB CVO)
© Sir Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, 21 September 2010
Thursday, 16 September 2010
Subject: Unwelcome reports
From: Sir Humphrey Appleby
To: Bernard Woolley
Subject: Unwelcome reports
I quite agree with you that the draft report on overstaffing in Whitehall is a pernicious document, but you must understand that in an open democracy like ours it would be most improper to suppress it. What we can do, however, is persuade ministers to take a reasonable decision, in the public interest, not to publish it.
We have a well-established four stage procedure for discrediting unwelcome documents. In Stage One we start by hinting that there are security implications and considerations – hostile or competitive governments could deduce confidential information from its revelations. We then point out that it could be used to put unwelcome pressure on the government if it were to be misinterpreted; this is unanswerable as anything might be misinterpreted, even the Ten Commandments. Indeed especially the Ten Commandments. We then say it is better to wait for the results of a wider and more detailed survey over a longer time scale. If there is no such survey in progress, so much the better – we commission one, which gives us more time to play with.
In Stage Two we discredit the evidence; we say that it leaves important questions unanswered, that much of the evidence is inconclusive, that the figures are open to interpretations, that the facts have changed since the survey was carried out, that certain findings are contradictory, and that some of the main conclusions have been questioned. (If they haven’t been, question them. Then they have)
Stage Three consists in undermining the recommendations. We have certain tried and tested phrases for this: ‘Not really a basis for long term decisions…’ ‘…. not sufficient information on which to base a valid assessment….’ ‘… no reason for any fundamental rethink of existing policy…’ ‘… broadly speaking, it endorses current practice…’ I can give you the full list if you need it.
Stage Four cannot be committed to paper and must be done strictly off the record. It involves discrediting the author of the report; he has a grudge against the government, he is a publicity seeker, he is pitching for a knighthood/chair/vice-chancellorship. He used to be, or wants to be, a consultant to a multinational company, he wants to chair a Quango.
These four stages always work. But there must never be any suggestion of censorship or repression. This is a democracy, Bernard.
Humphrey Appleby
(Sir Humphrey Appleby KCB CVO)
© Sir Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, 16 September 2010
To: Bernard Woolley
Subject: Unwelcome reports
I quite agree with you that the draft report on overstaffing in Whitehall is a pernicious document, but you must understand that in an open democracy like ours it would be most improper to suppress it. What we can do, however, is persuade ministers to take a reasonable decision, in the public interest, not to publish it.
We have a well-established four stage procedure for discrediting unwelcome documents. In Stage One we start by hinting that there are security implications and considerations – hostile or competitive governments could deduce confidential information from its revelations. We then point out that it could be used to put unwelcome pressure on the government if it were to be misinterpreted; this is unanswerable as anything might be misinterpreted, even the Ten Commandments. Indeed especially the Ten Commandments. We then say it is better to wait for the results of a wider and more detailed survey over a longer time scale. If there is no such survey in progress, so much the better – we commission one, which gives us more time to play with.
In Stage Two we discredit the evidence; we say that it leaves important questions unanswered, that much of the evidence is inconclusive, that the figures are open to interpretations, that the facts have changed since the survey was carried out, that certain findings are contradictory, and that some of the main conclusions have been questioned. (If they haven’t been, question them. Then they have)
Stage Three consists in undermining the recommendations. We have certain tried and tested phrases for this: ‘Not really a basis for long term decisions…’ ‘…. not sufficient information on which to base a valid assessment….’ ‘… no reason for any fundamental rethink of existing policy…’ ‘… broadly speaking, it endorses current practice…’ I can give you the full list if you need it.
Stage Four cannot be committed to paper and must be done strictly off the record. It involves discrediting the author of the report; he has a grudge against the government, he is a publicity seeker, he is pitching for a knighthood/chair/vice-chancellorship. He used to be, or wants to be, a consultant to a multinational company, he wants to chair a Quango.
These four stages always work. But there must never be any suggestion of censorship or repression. This is a democracy, Bernard.
Humphrey Appleby
(Sir Humphrey Appleby KCB CVO)
© Sir Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, 16 September 2010
Tuesday, 14 September 2010
Guiding Ministers
From: Sir Humphrey Appleby
To: Bernard Woolley
Subject: Guiding Ministers
Your proposal for the induction course for high-fliers misses an important element. Since it is not our job as civil servants to oppose the policies of our lords and masters, we need to develop and deploy a range of techniques to resist those of their ideas which are patently foolish, misguided, impracticable or potentially catastrophic, which of course constitutes the great majority of the schemes they come up with. I suggest you break this down into four sections.
Our initial resistance is based on our three general objections: absence of parliamentary time, lack of money and existing statutory provisions which prohibit their proposed measures. Those often do the trick, but if they fail the second line of defence is that the proposals will bring us into conflict with the outside bodies. The most effective are the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organisation, the U.N., the European Union, the European Commission on Human Rights and Washington, although we can usually find others on specific subjects.
Then there are the administrative devices: fixing key meetings at awkward times and short notice and reassuring them that they do not have to attend; saying people are unavailable when they have not actually been approached; suppressing reports that conflict with our advice or challenge our policy; leaving political advisors off circulation lists on security grounds; reporting serious objections from people who do not actually object at all; subtly altering instructions and agreements when writing up reports; setting up interdepartmental committees to examine proposals; and circulating proposals widely for comments and not chasing up responses.
These three categories should take care of all but the most energetic persistence by the most intransigent of ministers; if they do not, we can fall back on the four magic words: costly, slow, complicated and controversial. In an emergency we can substitute ‘courageous’ for ‘controversial’, which rarely fails; it is the ultimate deterrent. We can then turn the magic words round to commend the policy we are guiding them towards. We tell them it will be cheap, quick, simple and popular. There are few if any ministers who do not find that combination of adjectives irresistible.
Humphrey Appleby
(Sir Humphrey Appleby KCB CVO)
© Sir Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, 14 September 2010
To: Bernard Woolley
Subject: Guiding Ministers
Your proposal for the induction course for high-fliers misses an important element. Since it is not our job as civil servants to oppose the policies of our lords and masters, we need to develop and deploy a range of techniques to resist those of their ideas which are patently foolish, misguided, impracticable or potentially catastrophic, which of course constitutes the great majority of the schemes they come up with. I suggest you break this down into four sections.
Our initial resistance is based on our three general objections: absence of parliamentary time, lack of money and existing statutory provisions which prohibit their proposed measures. Those often do the trick, but if they fail the second line of defence is that the proposals will bring us into conflict with the outside bodies. The most effective are the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organisation, the U.N., the European Union, the European Commission on Human Rights and Washington, although we can usually find others on specific subjects.
Then there are the administrative devices: fixing key meetings at awkward times and short notice and reassuring them that they do not have to attend; saying people are unavailable when they have not actually been approached; suppressing reports that conflict with our advice or challenge our policy; leaving political advisors off circulation lists on security grounds; reporting serious objections from people who do not actually object at all; subtly altering instructions and agreements when writing up reports; setting up interdepartmental committees to examine proposals; and circulating proposals widely for comments and not chasing up responses.
These three categories should take care of all but the most energetic persistence by the most intransigent of ministers; if they do not, we can fall back on the four magic words: costly, slow, complicated and controversial. In an emergency we can substitute ‘courageous’ for ‘controversial’, which rarely fails; it is the ultimate deterrent. We can then turn the magic words round to commend the policy we are guiding them towards. We tell them it will be cheap, quick, simple and popular. There are few if any ministers who do not find that combination of adjectives irresistible.
Humphrey Appleby
(Sir Humphrey Appleby KCB CVO)
© Sir Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, 14 September 2010
Friday, 10 September 2010
Brussels
From: Sir Humphrey Appleby
To: Bernard Woolley
Subject: Brussels
Any attempt by this new government to weaken our ties with the European Union must be firmly resisted. Our membership has been a godsend. Since no cabinet minister is really au fait with all the provisions of the treaty of Rome, we can guide them towards our desired decisions by telling them they are obligations under the treaty, and deflect them from unwelcome actions by saying that the treaty prohibits them. In addition we can cite some of the myriad directives, which can be creatively adapted to our purposes by skilful translation from the original French. Since few of them have progressed beyond O level in any modern language, our version is unlikely to be challenged. And of course when we want to get rid of a minister for a few days we can always arrange an emergency meeting in Brussels, Strasburg or Luxembourg to give us a few days breathing space.
Brussels provides a model for modern government. Legislation can be brought forward only by officials, not by elected members. All important posts are filled by appointment, not election. Political ‘leadership’ is rotated every six months, to ensure that no one ever gets a real grip on the job. The proliferation of nations and languages gives officials endless scope for fomenting distrust, confusion and conflict between members. And there is no nonsense about financial constraints: the auditors have refused to approve the EU accounts for the past fourteen years, but they go on spending happily regardless.
Ministers in previous governments have occasionally expressed concern about this in their early months, but we have always found that after a few visits to Brussels and contingent exposure to the legendary Belgian hospitality, their opposition has cooled remarkably, and indeed they express enthusiasm for further visits, which of course we are more than happy to arrange.
Humphrey Appleby
(Sir Humphrey Appleby KCB CVO)
© Sir Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, 9 September 2010
To: Bernard Woolley
Subject: Brussels
Any attempt by this new government to weaken our ties with the European Union must be firmly resisted. Our membership has been a godsend. Since no cabinet minister is really au fait with all the provisions of the treaty of Rome, we can guide them towards our desired decisions by telling them they are obligations under the treaty, and deflect them from unwelcome actions by saying that the treaty prohibits them. In addition we can cite some of the myriad directives, which can be creatively adapted to our purposes by skilful translation from the original French. Since few of them have progressed beyond O level in any modern language, our version is unlikely to be challenged. And of course when we want to get rid of a minister for a few days we can always arrange an emergency meeting in Brussels, Strasburg or Luxembourg to give us a few days breathing space.
Brussels provides a model for modern government. Legislation can be brought forward only by officials, not by elected members. All important posts are filled by appointment, not election. Political ‘leadership’ is rotated every six months, to ensure that no one ever gets a real grip on the job. The proliferation of nations and languages gives officials endless scope for fomenting distrust, confusion and conflict between members. And there is no nonsense about financial constraints: the auditors have refused to approve the EU accounts for the past fourteen years, but they go on spending happily regardless.
Ministers in previous governments have occasionally expressed concern about this in their early months, but we have always found that after a few visits to Brussels and contingent exposure to the legendary Belgian hospitality, their opposition has cooled remarkably, and indeed they express enthusiasm for further visits, which of course we are more than happy to arrange.
Humphrey Appleby
(Sir Humphrey Appleby KCB CVO)
© Sir Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, 9 September 2010
Tuesday, 7 September 2010
Transparency
From: Sir Humphrey Appleby
To: Bernard Woolley
Subject: Transparency
I understand your anxiety about the new government’s fixation on what they are pleased to call ‘transparency’, but you are distressing yourself unnecessarily. It afflicts all incoming administrations. It used to be called ‘open government’, and reflects the frustrations they felt when they were in opposition and could not find out what was going on, combined with an eagerness to discover and publicise the deception, distortions and disasters of their predecessors.
But it does not last beyond the first few months. As time passes they realise they have more to lose than to gain from public knowledge of what they are up to. Each month increases their tally of catastrophic misjudgements, pathetic deceptions, humiliating retreats and squalid compromises. They very soon come to understand that sound and effective government is only possible if people do not know what you are doing. The Freedom of Information Act was the greatest blow to firm and decisive administration since the execution of King Charles I. We are gradually but steadily pruning its worst excesses, but it takes time.
Quite soon our new masters will realise that secrecy may be the enemy of democracy, but it is the foundation of government. Where would we be if Eisenhower has succumbed to calls for transparency about our plans for D-day? It is not a coincidence that ‘secretary’ originally meaning a humble clerk, the repository of secret information, has come to designate so many of the highest offices – Secretary General, Secretary of State, Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary and (if I may say so) Permanent Secretary. We should of course give the greatest possible encouragement to the idea of transparency, but in any particular case we will continue with our established practice of making public only that information which is already known or can easily be found out some other way.
Humphrey Appleby
(Sir Humphrey Appleby KCB CVO)
© Sir Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, 7 September 2010
To: Bernard Woolley
Subject: Transparency
I understand your anxiety about the new government’s fixation on what they are pleased to call ‘transparency’, but you are distressing yourself unnecessarily. It afflicts all incoming administrations. It used to be called ‘open government’, and reflects the frustrations they felt when they were in opposition and could not find out what was going on, combined with an eagerness to discover and publicise the deception, distortions and disasters of their predecessors.
But it does not last beyond the first few months. As time passes they realise they have more to lose than to gain from public knowledge of what they are up to. Each month increases their tally of catastrophic misjudgements, pathetic deceptions, humiliating retreats and squalid compromises. They very soon come to understand that sound and effective government is only possible if people do not know what you are doing. The Freedom of Information Act was the greatest blow to firm and decisive administration since the execution of King Charles I. We are gradually but steadily pruning its worst excesses, but it takes time.
Quite soon our new masters will realise that secrecy may be the enemy of democracy, but it is the foundation of government. Where would we be if Eisenhower has succumbed to calls for transparency about our plans for D-day? It is not a coincidence that ‘secretary’ originally meaning a humble clerk, the repository of secret information, has come to designate so many of the highest offices – Secretary General, Secretary of State, Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary and (if I may say so) Permanent Secretary. We should of course give the greatest possible encouragement to the idea of transparency, but in any particular case we will continue with our established practice of making public only that information which is already known or can easily be found out some other way.
Humphrey Appleby
(Sir Humphrey Appleby KCB CVO)
© Sir Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, 7 September 2010
Friday, 3 September 2010
Induction Course
From: Sir Humphrey Appleby
To: Bernard Woolley
Subject: Induction Course
I am delighted you will be running this induction course for this year’s intake of potential high-fliers. You will obviously have the official course notes and handouts, but there are some points of which they need to be apprised but which for reasons of confidentiality cannot be committed to paper. It is nevertheless vital that they should be made aware of them.
The first point to make clear to them is that ministers – indeed all politicians – belong to a different world from ours. Theirs is a world of appearances, ours is a world of reality. Theirs is a world of words, ours is a world of actions. We have to think years ahead, they think days ahead (a few think weeks ahead; they are called ‘statesmen’). A week is a long time in their world: a year is a short time in ours. They think they have been successful when everybody knows what they are doing: we know we have been successful when nobody knows what we are doing. We ask ‘Will this work?’ They ask ‘How will this look?’. Our concern is to formulate and execute policies that will improve the lives of our fellow citizens. Their concern is to get re-elected. Every action they take, every word they speak in public, has to pass through the filter of ‘Will this improve or impair my chances of re-election?’ They are obsessed with ingratiating themselves with the press, with Number Ten, with their cabinet colleagues, with the House of Commons, with the party conference, with their constituents. Obviously this leaves them little or no time for the serious business of government for which few of them are qualified and which of course we can carry out for them. We can indeed use their obsession with popularity to guide them away from ill-judged or unwelcome decisions: ‘I’m not sure Number Ten will be happy with this’, ‘Don’t you think the party in the House might object?’, ‘But how will this go down with Conference?’, ‘If the press got hold of this, they could have a field day.’
Despite this obsession with burnishing and projecting their public image, there is still a danger that some of them will find time to try and trespass on our territory and interfere with the business of government. We therefore have to make sure they are kept busy. Ministers need activity; it is their substitute for achievement. They will of course have cabinet committees, appearances before select committees and parliamentary questions to keep them out of our way for much of the time. We also need to arrange for them to attend conferences – especially overseas as this adds valuable travelling time – to greet visitors, to meet delegations and to carry out press briefings. If there are still dangerous spaces in their diary they must be filled with ceremonial functions – cutting tapes, unveiling plaques, presenting certificates and opening factories, preferably in the more remote provincial cities.
All this may sound trivial, but it is absolutely essential if we are to prevent opinionated amateurs from jeopardising the professional management of the affairs of the nation.
Humphrey Appleby
(Sir Humphrey Appleby KCB CVO)
© Sir Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, 3 September 2010
To: Bernard Woolley
Subject: Induction Course
I am delighted you will be running this induction course for this year’s intake of potential high-fliers. You will obviously have the official course notes and handouts, but there are some points of which they need to be apprised but which for reasons of confidentiality cannot be committed to paper. It is nevertheless vital that they should be made aware of them.
The first point to make clear to them is that ministers – indeed all politicians – belong to a different world from ours. Theirs is a world of appearances, ours is a world of reality. Theirs is a world of words, ours is a world of actions. We have to think years ahead, they think days ahead (a few think weeks ahead; they are called ‘statesmen’). A week is a long time in their world: a year is a short time in ours. They think they have been successful when everybody knows what they are doing: we know we have been successful when nobody knows what we are doing. We ask ‘Will this work?’ They ask ‘How will this look?’. Our concern is to formulate and execute policies that will improve the lives of our fellow citizens. Their concern is to get re-elected. Every action they take, every word they speak in public, has to pass through the filter of ‘Will this improve or impair my chances of re-election?’ They are obsessed with ingratiating themselves with the press, with Number Ten, with their cabinet colleagues, with the House of Commons, with the party conference, with their constituents. Obviously this leaves them little or no time for the serious business of government for which few of them are qualified and which of course we can carry out for them. We can indeed use their obsession with popularity to guide them away from ill-judged or unwelcome decisions: ‘I’m not sure Number Ten will be happy with this’, ‘Don’t you think the party in the House might object?’, ‘But how will this go down with Conference?’, ‘If the press got hold of this, they could have a field day.’
Despite this obsession with burnishing and projecting their public image, there is still a danger that some of them will find time to try and trespass on our territory and interfere with the business of government. We therefore have to make sure they are kept busy. Ministers need activity; it is their substitute for achievement. They will of course have cabinet committees, appearances before select committees and parliamentary questions to keep them out of our way for much of the time. We also need to arrange for them to attend conferences – especially overseas as this adds valuable travelling time – to greet visitors, to meet delegations and to carry out press briefings. If there are still dangerous spaces in their diary they must be filled with ceremonial functions – cutting tapes, unveiling plaques, presenting certificates and opening factories, preferably in the more remote provincial cities.
All this may sound trivial, but it is absolutely essential if we are to prevent opinionated amateurs from jeopardising the professional management of the affairs of the nation.
Humphrey Appleby
(Sir Humphrey Appleby KCB CVO)
© Sir Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, 3 September 2010
Wednesday, 1 September 2010
Arts budget cuts
From: Sir Humphrey Appleby
To: Bernard Woolley
Subject: Arts budget cuts
We must oppose the cuts to the arts budget with our usual argument, namely that it is justified by the tourist revenue it attracts. This has of course never been proved, and indeed it cannot be. To be frank I doubt if it is true. It has however worked well in the past, largely due to our diligence in getting seats for cabinet ministers at Covent Garden and the National Theatre, and by introducing them to the famous personalities in the arts world. Ministers are notoriously star-struck, and when properly softened up by genuine celebrities – people famous by virtue of their talent and achievement, not simply the posts to which they have been appointed – they have been persuaded to resist the economic evidence
Although we cannot say so in public, the fact is that we do not subsidise the arts because people want to see and hear great works interpreted by famous (and expensive) performers. If people want entertainment they will pay for it. We do not subsidise football matches or speedway or pop music festivals or cinemas showing Hollywood movies or music halls or greyhound racing; these are the chosen pursuits of the great mass of ordinary people, and they are quite happy to pay for them. The point is, we subsidise arts that people do not want to see, certainly not in large enough numbers to make quality performances financially viable.
We subsidise them because it is important for Britain to hold its place in the civilized world. It is, I concede, unfortunate that the great majority of those of us who appreciate art and occupy the subsidised seating at Covent Garden, Sadler’s Wells, The Festival Hall, the National Theatre and the RSC are the well educated and better-off members of society. It is not however unreasonable for people like us, who strive so hard to increase the prosperity and improve the lives of the masses, and who pay such high taxes, to receive some small recompense for our great contribution.
In a few years the current financial and economic crisis will have been resolved, but it would be tragic if we emerged from it without those cultural institutions which make us so envied by other countries which, by a purely economic calculus, are more successful and prosperous than we are. When people talk about the glories of the first Elizabethan age they are not talking about sixteenth century GDP and balance of payments; they are talking about Shakespeare and Marlowe and Beaumont and Fletcher. If we stop subsidising the arts, the chances of the second Elizabethan age being remembered in the same way as the first will have gone for ever.
Humphrey Appleby
(Sir Humphrey Appleby KCB CVO)
© Sir Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, 1 September 2010
To: Bernard Woolley
Subject: Arts budget cuts
We must oppose the cuts to the arts budget with our usual argument, namely that it is justified by the tourist revenue it attracts. This has of course never been proved, and indeed it cannot be. To be frank I doubt if it is true. It has however worked well in the past, largely due to our diligence in getting seats for cabinet ministers at Covent Garden and the National Theatre, and by introducing them to the famous personalities in the arts world. Ministers are notoriously star-struck, and when properly softened up by genuine celebrities – people famous by virtue of their talent and achievement, not simply the posts to which they have been appointed – they have been persuaded to resist the economic evidence
Although we cannot say so in public, the fact is that we do not subsidise the arts because people want to see and hear great works interpreted by famous (and expensive) performers. If people want entertainment they will pay for it. We do not subsidise football matches or speedway or pop music festivals or cinemas showing Hollywood movies or music halls or greyhound racing; these are the chosen pursuits of the great mass of ordinary people, and they are quite happy to pay for them. The point is, we subsidise arts that people do not want to see, certainly not in large enough numbers to make quality performances financially viable.
We subsidise them because it is important for Britain to hold its place in the civilized world. It is, I concede, unfortunate that the great majority of those of us who appreciate art and occupy the subsidised seating at Covent Garden, Sadler’s Wells, The Festival Hall, the National Theatre and the RSC are the well educated and better-off members of society. It is not however unreasonable for people like us, who strive so hard to increase the prosperity and improve the lives of the masses, and who pay such high taxes, to receive some small recompense for our great contribution.
In a few years the current financial and economic crisis will have been resolved, but it would be tragic if we emerged from it without those cultural institutions which make us so envied by other countries which, by a purely economic calculus, are more successful and prosperous than we are. When people talk about the glories of the first Elizabethan age they are not talking about sixteenth century GDP and balance of payments; they are talking about Shakespeare and Marlowe and Beaumont and Fletcher. If we stop subsidising the arts, the chances of the second Elizabethan age being remembered in the same way as the first will have gone for ever.
Humphrey Appleby
(Sir Humphrey Appleby KCB CVO)
© Sir Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, 1 September 2010
Thursday, 26 August 2010
Addressing Ministers
From: Sir Humphrey Appleby
To: Bernard Woolley
Subject: Addressing Ministers
This is a problem that often arises with a new administration. Nevertheless when ministers ask us to address them by their Christian names (or ‘first names’ as I suppose we have to say), it is absolutely imperative that we demur and continue to use the title of their offices eg ‘Yes, Secretary of State’, ‘Yes, Chancellor’, ‘Yes, Minister’.
It is not just a question of convention; it goes much deeper. We absolutely have to preserve the fiction that these people, as elected representatives, are running the country. It is of course obvious to even moderately informed observers that they cannot be doing so. They do not have the training or the experience, and the system denies them the opportunity to acquire it. They do not have the continuity – the average minister’s tenure is about eleven months. And they do not have the security of office; they face the sack every five years or less, with the result that securing re-election takes precedence over all other considerations. And their selection process is laughable.
We in central government, on the other hand, are rigorously selected and spend thirty or more years learning the business of our departments. There are half a million of us controlling a budget of six hundred billion pounds, compared with a handful of temporary political incumbents whose parties struggle to raise a few million, mostly from dodgy millionaires. Obviously, therefore, the governance of the country is in our hands. Whether this is a good or bad thing may be debatable; what is beyond question is that it is so.
This is not to say that the politicians are completely useless. Their preoccupation with re-election gives them a sensitivity to popular opinion and a skill in handling press and public relations which can be helpful to us. They are, if you like, our marketing consultants who can tell us the best ways of presenting our actions and decisions, and occasionally suggest changes in policy. But they are temporary. Every five year they have to pitch for our business and may lose it to a rival agency, while we enjoy continuity and permanence.
Clearly the British people must be protected from exposure to these realities of modern governance. They need the fiction of democratic government and popular sovereignty, and it is our job to see that they retain it. This means that we must show the deepest possible deference to their elected representatives, provide them with large offices, chauffeur-driven cars and a staff of high quality. We must exalt them. We must present them as superior beings, as our masters, and behave like self-effacing minions in their presence. It is a small price to pay for the privilege of running a great country. But it means that any idea of addressing them by their first names runs the risk of exposing the illusion and must be resisted at all costs.
Humphrey Appleby
(Sir Humphrey Appleby KCB CVO)
© Sir Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, 26 August 2010
To: Bernard Woolley
Subject: Addressing Ministers
This is a problem that often arises with a new administration. Nevertheless when ministers ask us to address them by their Christian names (or ‘first names’ as I suppose we have to say), it is absolutely imperative that we demur and continue to use the title of their offices eg ‘Yes, Secretary of State’, ‘Yes, Chancellor’, ‘Yes, Minister’.
It is not just a question of convention; it goes much deeper. We absolutely have to preserve the fiction that these people, as elected representatives, are running the country. It is of course obvious to even moderately informed observers that they cannot be doing so. They do not have the training or the experience, and the system denies them the opportunity to acquire it. They do not have the continuity – the average minister’s tenure is about eleven months. And they do not have the security of office; they face the sack every five years or less, with the result that securing re-election takes precedence over all other considerations. And their selection process is laughable.
We in central government, on the other hand, are rigorously selected and spend thirty or more years learning the business of our departments. There are half a million of us controlling a budget of six hundred billion pounds, compared with a handful of temporary political incumbents whose parties struggle to raise a few million, mostly from dodgy millionaires. Obviously, therefore, the governance of the country is in our hands. Whether this is a good or bad thing may be debatable; what is beyond question is that it is so.
This is not to say that the politicians are completely useless. Their preoccupation with re-election gives them a sensitivity to popular opinion and a skill in handling press and public relations which can be helpful to us. They are, if you like, our marketing consultants who can tell us the best ways of presenting our actions and decisions, and occasionally suggest changes in policy. But they are temporary. Every five year they have to pitch for our business and may lose it to a rival agency, while we enjoy continuity and permanence.
Clearly the British people must be protected from exposure to these realities of modern governance. They need the fiction of democratic government and popular sovereignty, and it is our job to see that they retain it. This means that we must show the deepest possible deference to their elected representatives, provide them with large offices, chauffeur-driven cars and a staff of high quality. We must exalt them. We must present them as superior beings, as our masters, and behave like self-effacing minions in their presence. It is a small price to pay for the privilege of running a great country. But it means that any idea of addressing them by their first names runs the risk of exposing the illusion and must be resisted at all costs.
Humphrey Appleby
(Sir Humphrey Appleby KCB CVO)
© Sir Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, 26 August 2010
Wednesday, 25 August 2010
Think tank report on University Reform
From Sir Humphrey Appleby
To: Bernard Woolley
Subject: Think tank report on University Reform
Your enthusiasm for this report is touching but misplaced. We have known for a long time that if university courses were reduced from three years with long vacations to two years with just three weeks holiday a year, huge sums could be saved without any impairment of instruction.
And we have also known that if all but the top ten percent of students were to live at home and go to their local college, further huge sums could be saved. And of course I share your agreement with the report’s conclusion that we are turning out far too many graduates with worthless pseudo – academic qualifications and far too few with usable craft skills. We produce ten students who can write essays on the history of catering for every one who can cook a decent meal.
All of this, however, has one disastrous and quite unacceptable implication. If the practice recommended in the report were to be adopted it would be impossible to stop our two genuine universities being forced down the same route. It would indeed be excellent if the broad mass of students were to leave higher education with usable, employable skills, but the country still needs a few people at the top level of all its major national institutions who have had the broad and deep education in the humanities that you and I received at Oxford and which, I am credibly assured, is also available at Cambridge. There is of course a need for science, engineering and maths graduates for specialist functions, but only an elite collegiate university with a three-year course can give the best of our young people the time and the leisure to absorb the depth of culture and develop the breadth of intellect that will fit them for the leadership of a great nation. If you look at the top of the great institutions – not just Whitehall but also the Cabinet, the media, the church, the law, the financial system – you will see that they are dominated by the powerful minds and refined sensibilities formed at Oxford and Cambridge. They have made this country what it is today – such a jewel in Britain’s crown cannot be put at hazard just to save a few billion pounds a year.
We should therefore give these proposals the especially enthusiastic welcome we reserve for reports whose recommendations we shall reluctantly find to be unworkable in practice. We should then re-circulate with appropriate revisions and updates, the document we used when this idea came up in 1998, 1980, 1971 and 1965, demonstrating that reducing university courses by a year would add half a million to the unemployed register. That knocked the proposal into the long grass on all the previous occasions, and can be confidently trusted to do so again.
Humphrey Appleby
(Sir Humphrey Appleby KCB CVO)
© Sir Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, 25 August 2010
To: Bernard Woolley
Subject: Think tank report on University Reform
Your enthusiasm for this report is touching but misplaced. We have known for a long time that if university courses were reduced from three years with long vacations to two years with just three weeks holiday a year, huge sums could be saved without any impairment of instruction.
And we have also known that if all but the top ten percent of students were to live at home and go to their local college, further huge sums could be saved. And of course I share your agreement with the report’s conclusion that we are turning out far too many graduates with worthless pseudo – academic qualifications and far too few with usable craft skills. We produce ten students who can write essays on the history of catering for every one who can cook a decent meal.
All of this, however, has one disastrous and quite unacceptable implication. If the practice recommended in the report were to be adopted it would be impossible to stop our two genuine universities being forced down the same route. It would indeed be excellent if the broad mass of students were to leave higher education with usable, employable skills, but the country still needs a few people at the top level of all its major national institutions who have had the broad and deep education in the humanities that you and I received at Oxford and which, I am credibly assured, is also available at Cambridge. There is of course a need for science, engineering and maths graduates for specialist functions, but only an elite collegiate university with a three-year course can give the best of our young people the time and the leisure to absorb the depth of culture and develop the breadth of intellect that will fit them for the leadership of a great nation. If you look at the top of the great institutions – not just Whitehall but also the Cabinet, the media, the church, the law, the financial system – you will see that they are dominated by the powerful minds and refined sensibilities formed at Oxford and Cambridge. They have made this country what it is today – such a jewel in Britain’s crown cannot be put at hazard just to save a few billion pounds a year.
We should therefore give these proposals the especially enthusiastic welcome we reserve for reports whose recommendations we shall reluctantly find to be unworkable in practice. We should then re-circulate with appropriate revisions and updates, the document we used when this idea came up in 1998, 1980, 1971 and 1965, demonstrating that reducing university courses by a year would add half a million to the unemployed register. That knocked the proposal into the long grass on all the previous occasions, and can be confidently trusted to do so again.
Humphrey Appleby
(Sir Humphrey Appleby KCB CVO)
© Sir Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, 25 August 2010
Monday, 23 August 2010
The Economy Drive
From: Sir Humphrey Appleby
To: Bernard Woolley
Subject: Economy Drive
Your worries about the forthcoming economy drive are understandable but unfounded. As one who has been through several of these charades, I can assure you that if correctly handled they can in fact strengthen and consolidate our position.
Clearly our first concern must be to ensure that no cuts fall directly on us or our Whitehall colleagues. For this we need the confidence of ministers, so our first response must be to express our unreserved enthusiasm and offer our whole-hearted co operation. We then set about proposing significant economies in the seven areas which do not directly affect Civil Service personnel or resources:
1. People. It is expensive to dismiss established staff, but the recent policy of engaging more and more people on contract and a block on replacing those who have retired make the reductions easiest. If we are having to let too many people go, immediately re-hire them as outside contractors.
2. Purchases. The appetite of schools, hospitals and the armed forces for expensive new toys is insatiable. Cancellation or postponement of new equipment, medication and building work will elicit protests but cause no problems.
3. Contractors. Now that outside companies have taken over so many areas of government work – cleaning, transport, legal and financial advice, redecoration, catering, public relations etc – dramatic reductions here should not be a problem, so long as work for central government departments is not affected.
4. Premises. This is a great opportunity to get rid of some of the expensive real estate currently occupied by the armed forces, and the many unnecessary offices acquired in the regions. Property sales will bring in an agreeable amount of revenue and, if we still need the buildings, sale and lease back arrangements can give a satisfactory illusion of economy.
5. Agencies, inspectorates, regulatory institutions and advisory bodies. A rich harvest here could not only save money but also eliminate some of our most irritating critics.
6. Quangos. We can do without 70% of these; we just have to be careful that abolishing them does not saddle us with extra work, expenditure or exposure to criticism.
7. Local Government. A tighter cap on their expenditure is overdue. It cannot make them more inefficient than they are already.
We can easily demonstrate to ministers that they key to effective planning, negotiating, enforcing and policing these economies lies with the civil service. We shall probably need a modest increase in Whitehall staff and resources to achieve this, and the rewards could be enormous. As a result our departments will emerge from the recession stronger and more secure than before, and better able to serve our ministers when they stop queuing for buses and return to their chauffeur-driven saloons.
Humphrey Appleby
(Sir Humphrey Appleby KCB CVO)
© Sir Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, 23 August 2010
To: Bernard Woolley
Subject: Economy Drive
Your worries about the forthcoming economy drive are understandable but unfounded. As one who has been through several of these charades, I can assure you that if correctly handled they can in fact strengthen and consolidate our position.
Clearly our first concern must be to ensure that no cuts fall directly on us or our Whitehall colleagues. For this we need the confidence of ministers, so our first response must be to express our unreserved enthusiasm and offer our whole-hearted co operation. We then set about proposing significant economies in the seven areas which do not directly affect Civil Service personnel or resources:
1. People. It is expensive to dismiss established staff, but the recent policy of engaging more and more people on contract and a block on replacing those who have retired make the reductions easiest. If we are having to let too many people go, immediately re-hire them as outside contractors.
2. Purchases. The appetite of schools, hospitals and the armed forces for expensive new toys is insatiable. Cancellation or postponement of new equipment, medication and building work will elicit protests but cause no problems.
3. Contractors. Now that outside companies have taken over so many areas of government work – cleaning, transport, legal and financial advice, redecoration, catering, public relations etc – dramatic reductions here should not be a problem, so long as work for central government departments is not affected.
4. Premises. This is a great opportunity to get rid of some of the expensive real estate currently occupied by the armed forces, and the many unnecessary offices acquired in the regions. Property sales will bring in an agreeable amount of revenue and, if we still need the buildings, sale and lease back arrangements can give a satisfactory illusion of economy.
5. Agencies, inspectorates, regulatory institutions and advisory bodies. A rich harvest here could not only save money but also eliminate some of our most irritating critics.
6. Quangos. We can do without 70% of these; we just have to be careful that abolishing them does not saddle us with extra work, expenditure or exposure to criticism.
7. Local Government. A tighter cap on their expenditure is overdue. It cannot make them more inefficient than they are already.
We can easily demonstrate to ministers that they key to effective planning, negotiating, enforcing and policing these economies lies with the civil service. We shall probably need a modest increase in Whitehall staff and resources to achieve this, and the rewards could be enormous. As a result our departments will emerge from the recession stronger and more secure than before, and better able to serve our ministers when they stop queuing for buses and return to their chauffeur-driven saloons.
Humphrey Appleby
(Sir Humphrey Appleby KCB CVO)
© Sir Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, 23 August 2010
Friday, 13 August 2010
Education
From: Sir Humphrey Appleby
To: Bernard Woolley
Subject: Education
Let us not be under any illusions here: the service is facing a major crisis. I appreciate the efforts that have been made to undermine the new secretary of state by giving him demonstrably false information to announce in the house, but they will not be enough in themselves and cannot be repeated very often. We need a different approach.
The danger, of course, is that people will come to think that schools and colleges can function without close government supervision. I know that the schools where you and I were educated had no government supervision, but Winchester and Westminster parents are sophisticated and discriminating people who know how they want their children taught. The great mass of the public, alas, are different. They need qualified people to make their choices for them. They need educational institutions whose curriculum, standards and examinations are constructed and applied by their intellectual superiors. They need, in fact, a wealthy Department of Education and a network of generously staffed Local Authorities to produce the next generation of voters and taxpayers.
I trust you see the real threat? If this dangerous idea of academies free from state control were to prove successful, there would be irresistible pressure to dismantle the Local Education Authorities and replace the Department of Education with a small Inspectorate, leaving schools and colleges to be run by governors, staff and parents. They would then be subjected to the horrors of competition, and have to compete to provide the sort of education parents want for their children, rather than the sort their superiors know they should have.
But there is a far greater menace. Once politicians discover that they can save money and gain popularity by abolishing departments, who know where they would stop? The whole basis of the civil service would be threatened. So it absolutely must not be allowed to happen. The purpose of this memo is to urge you to demonstrate to the Prime Minister that the academies plan is (a) too expensive, (b) illegal, (c) impracticable, (d) a vote loser, (e) requires an Act of Parliament and (f) contravenes EU directives. I myself have to preserve the appearance of judicial impartiality, but I think you can guess which side I shall come down on when consulted.
Humphrey Appleby
(Sir Humphrey Appleby KCB CVO)
© Sir Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, 18 August 2010
Contact Alan Brodie for permission to use content.
www.alanbrodie.com
Alan Brodie Representation Ltd
Paddock Suite
The Courtyard
55 Charterhouse Street
London EC1M 6HA
Tel +44 (0)20 7253 6226
To: Bernard Woolley
Subject: Education
Let us not be under any illusions here: the service is facing a major crisis. I appreciate the efforts that have been made to undermine the new secretary of state by giving him demonstrably false information to announce in the house, but they will not be enough in themselves and cannot be repeated very often. We need a different approach.
The danger, of course, is that people will come to think that schools and colleges can function without close government supervision. I know that the schools where you and I were educated had no government supervision, but Winchester and Westminster parents are sophisticated and discriminating people who know how they want their children taught. The great mass of the public, alas, are different. They need qualified people to make their choices for them. They need educational institutions whose curriculum, standards and examinations are constructed and applied by their intellectual superiors. They need, in fact, a wealthy Department of Education and a network of generously staffed Local Authorities to produce the next generation of voters and taxpayers.
I trust you see the real threat? If this dangerous idea of academies free from state control were to prove successful, there would be irresistible pressure to dismantle the Local Education Authorities and replace the Department of Education with a small Inspectorate, leaving schools and colleges to be run by governors, staff and parents. They would then be subjected to the horrors of competition, and have to compete to provide the sort of education parents want for their children, rather than the sort their superiors know they should have.
But there is a far greater menace. Once politicians discover that they can save money and gain popularity by abolishing departments, who know where they would stop? The whole basis of the civil service would be threatened. So it absolutely must not be allowed to happen. The purpose of this memo is to urge you to demonstrate to the Prime Minister that the academies plan is (a) too expensive, (b) illegal, (c) impracticable, (d) a vote loser, (e) requires an Act of Parliament and (f) contravenes EU directives. I myself have to preserve the appearance of judicial impartiality, but I think you can guess which side I shall come down on when consulted.
Humphrey Appleby
(Sir Humphrey Appleby KCB CVO)
© Sir Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, 18 August 2010
Contact Alan Brodie for permission to use content.
www.alanbrodie.com
Alan Brodie Representation Ltd
Paddock Suite
The Courtyard
55 Charterhouse Street
London EC1M 6HA
Tel +44 (0)20 7253 6226
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)