The Times can exclusively reveal the contents of a secret memo by Britain’s top civil servant
From: Sir Humphrey Appleby
To: Bernard Woolley
Subject: War in Libya: What a Godsend for Whitehall
My Dear Bernard,
I note your anxieties about the recent developments in the Middle East, but I have to tell you that they are misplaced. Let me explain why.
Whenever a new government is inflicted on us we suffer from a surge of unpleasant language. Ministers indulge themselves in disagreeable words like “action”, “initiative”, “change”, “reform” and “rethink”. They urge their departments to come up with new ideas and revolutionary proposals. They show a distressing desire to do things, usually things that will earn them column inches in the press. We have seen all too much of this lately, just as we did in 1997 and (as I remember but you will not) in 1979.
Obviously we have to feign enthusiasm for all this nonsense, and comfort ourselves with the knowledge that it will not last. Ministers are almost complete amateurs in the business of running things, and as their primary objective is promotion and re-election, rather than the orderly and efficient management of the nation’s affairs, this gives us plenty of time to let their early enthusiasms evaporate and run into the sand on to which they were built.
As with any new government, our first task has been to prevent any precipitate action. The usual devices of widespread consultation, further research and interdepartmental committees have more or less achieved this. The second task, now well under way, is to undermine the Prime Minister’s confidence in his Cabinet colleagues. One of the greatest threats to responsible government is to have a lot of ministers running their departments uncontrolled. Once the Prime Minister starts to feel anxious about what they are up to, we can persuade him to insist on Downing Street approval for all press announcements, policy initiatives and legislative proposals.
The objective, of course, is to centralise all policymaking in Downing Street. Prime ministers are touchingly susceptible to the attractions of omnipotence, and always believe that they are the only one who really understands the needs of the country and the wishes of the electors. But while this does indeed solve the problem of the overzealous departmental ministers, it creates another: the overpowerful Prime Minister.
We have of course over the years refined the techniques for stopping prime ministers from interfering with our business of governing the country. Press conferences, cabinet committees, ceremonial visits, receiving visiting heads of government — you will be familiar with all of these. Better still are overseas visits — Washington, Brussels, the United Nations, Nato, and photo opportunities with our troops overseas. And, of course, there are his political responsibilities — party committees, party conferences, visits to marginal constituencies, press interviews, and receptions and dinners for major contributors to party funds.
All of the above assist in our primary task of centralising all power in Downing Street and then making sure that the Prime Minister does not have time to exercise it himself, and consequently leaves most of it to those of us who are trained, experienced and professionally qualified to exercise it for him.
Despite all this, however, an able and energetic Prime Minister may still find time to interfere with the government of the country. We need something even more compelling and distracting. And, of course, the perfect answer is a war. The best sort of war is a small and distant one that drags on for a very long time.
We have been extremely lucky over the past 20 years to have had just the right sort of wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, to keep Prime Ministers out of our way for long periods. Some of us were worried that both of these seemed to be in danger of coming to an end shortly, so the Libyan operation has come as a godsend. There is nothing like a war to absorb, preoccupy and — let us be honest — gratify a politician. All politicians are by their nature and job divisive figures, but war is a great national unifier. It also enables a politician to present himself as patriotic, courageous, resolute and defiant.
There was a time when we only went to war when Britain was directly threatened, which severely restricted our scope. But happily our modern statesmen have found a new excuse. War is now a moral crusade, and our politicians now seek to right wrongs, not merely to defend interests. We fight to restore justice to other countries, to overthrow oppressive regimes, to defend human rights, to establish democratic government.
All we ask is that the country should be small enough not to constitute an actual danger to ourselves. Communist China is undemocratic and oppressive, but we do not hear any calls to invade it and give its citizens democratic rights and freedoms. But with any luck the Middle East will keep our government busy for the next ten years and leave us free to provide the professional administration that has made Britain what she is today.
Humphrey Appleby
(Sir Humphrey Appleby KCB CVO)
© Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, 5th May 2011
The comedy Yes, Prime Minister by Jonathan Lynn and Antony Jay is currently on tour and will be returning to the West End from July 6 for a strictly limited season at the Apollo Theatre
Thursday, 5 May 2011
Tuesday, 5 October 2010
The Prime Minister problem
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)