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
Thursday, 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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)