The Complete Yes Prime Minister

THE NATIONAL EDUCATION SERVICE

[December 11th

From the arts to education -- real education. The party has serious problems with the local authorities and our education system.

But today was fascinating for other reasons. Before I got to the petty problems of British schools I spent the day on the world stage dealing in a statesmanlike way with matters that affect the future, indeed the very existence, of mankind. Or personkind, as some of our more dedicated so-called educationalists would have it.

After Christmas Im due to visit the USA, which will certainly be good for my standing in the opinion polls. Im going to try to follow this with a spring trip to Moscow, which will demonstrate to the voters that Im the man to bring world peace to them.

Of course that may be beyond me in the sort term -- we will need several more working funerals for that. But itll still be excellent for the image.

So this morning I was working on my speech for my special appearance at the UN while Im in New York. My first draft was quite good, I thought. Id based it on the UN Charter itself. The Foreign Office sent me over a copy, with a note attached explaining that the preamble to the Charter was known as the Unconditional Surrender of the English language.

[The first sentence of the preamble runs as follows Ed.]

Quote:

WE THE PEOPLES

OF THE UNITED NATIONS

DETERMINED

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our life-time has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.

AND FOR THESE ENDS

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS.

The first draft of my speech referred to the British belief in peace, freedom and justice. It talked of the impossibility of justice while the vast majority of member states of the UN have prisoners of conscience; of the impossibility of freedom while most of the member states have one-party government (appealing though the idea is if you happen to lead the one party); and of the low chance of world peace when almost everyone votes blindly in special-interest blocks instead of with us. [It is interesting to note that Hacker, after all this time in government, remained a moralist at heart, even though he was seldom able to see his moral positions through into practical politics Ed.]

The FO took one look at my speech. They only got it on Saturday. Today they effectively vetoed it. Dick Wharton [Permanent Secretary of the FCO] phoned me and said that, for Gods sake, I mustnt say any of it.

Because its wrong? I asked.

Because its right, he replied.

I told him I didnt want to mouth platitudes or clichs ever again. [To mouth platitudes is itself a clich Ed.] I reiterated that I wished to say something about peace and freedom. Dick Wharton said that if I insisted I could speak about peace at the UN, but not freedom -- its too controversial. I told him I didnt mind controversy. Controversy gets better headlines.

Over lunch I prepared for PQs [Parliamentary Questions] in my room at the House. The PQ Secretary expected questions from the anti-nuclear lobby about the rumour in the press today about the latest US missiles. It seems that theres a fear of Soviet infiltration at the place where most of our guided-missile microchips are manufactured.

Is that California? I asked Bernard. Silicon Valley?

Taiwan, he replied.

I was staggered. Taiwan??

Bernard nodded. It appears that we have paid for about fifteen million faulty microchips.

What is meant by faulty? I asked carefully.

He shrugged hopelessly. No one knows exactly, Prime Minister. We dont dare ask. Maybe the missiles simply wouldnt work. Maybe theyd blow up in the face of whoever pushes the button.

My God! I said. I was horrified. I asked what else might happen. Bernard shrugged. Maybe theyd boomerang. Go all the way round the world and land back on us.

I stared at him in silence, my boggling mind trying to assimilate the full implications of this horror.

Bernard spoke again. Maybe it would be better to avoid full and frank disclosure of this matter.

Malcolm Warren [the Press Secretary], whom Bernard had included in the meeting, nodded vigorously, in full agreement.

A sudden thought struck me, a thought even more horrific than that of boomeranging missiles. My mouth went dry with panic. When did we buy these? I asked, petrified.

Bernard reassured me. Before you took office, Prime Minister. So theres nothing to worry about.

Thank God! Its certainly fortunate that I wasnt responsible. But I am now, now that I know! And nothing to worry about is a curious way to talk of guided missiles that might do their own thing. Nothing to worry about? I repeated incredulously.

No. I mean, nothing to worry about personally, he said. Unless they boomerang on Whitehall, he added pensively.

And what doesnt? muttered Malcolm. Hes so gloomy!

I asked who was responsible. The MOD [Minister of Defence], said Bernard. And the Pentagon. The issue seems to be lack of control over the defence industries.

The issue, said Malcolm, appears to be lack of control over the missiles.

The issue, I said, seems to be the low level of imagination in the MOD.

Might be better to avoid disclosing that too, suggested Malcolm.

In the event, the PQs went off smoothly and, as always, I left the Chamber immediately afterwards. The Chief Whip and the Party Chairman were ushered in to my room at the House. I ordered Bernard to stay and listen.

He was reluctant. Isnt this a party matter, Prime Minister? A meeting with the Party Chairman and the Chief Whip?

Its also a government matter, I told him firmly. It concerns our education policy.

Bernard is a stickler for detail. The governments? Or the partys?

Its the same thing, Bernard! I was getting testy with him.

Neil, the Party Chairman, whos looking rather overweight and breathless, foolishly interfered. With respect, Prime Minister, theyre not the same thing.

Jeffrey [Jeffrey Pearson, the Chief Whip] joined in. Thats why we want the meeting.

Bernard tried to slide out of the room again. Well, it seems to be a party matter, so if youll excuse me

Sit! I commanded him. He sat. Hes quite obedient really, and impeccably trained. You would try the patience of a saint, Bernard, I told him. Now stay!

He stayed. I turned to Neil and Jeffrey and asked what the problem was.

Education, said Neil succinctly.

I was feeling belligerent. What the hell do you think I can do about it?

Youre the Prime Minister, said Jeffrey. I knew that already. But so what? The Prime Minister has no direct control over education. I cant control the curriculum, the exams, the appointment of Head Teachers -- nothing! But the voters are holding me responsible for everything thats going wrong.

You do have influence, said Neil.

And Im utterly fed up with it, I remarked. I thought that when I became Prime Minister Id have power. And what have I got? Influence! Bloody influence, thats all! I have no power over the police, the rates, EEC directives, the European Court, the British courts, the judges, NATO, the falling pound What have I the power to do?

Neil eyed me beadily. You have the power to lose us the next election.

Which you will, said Jeffrey nodding solemnly. Unless we do something aobut education.

I wonder if they overstate the seriousness of it. Maybe not. I told them I was listening.

The voters, said the Party Chairman, beads of sweat appearing on his forehead, want something dones about low academic attainment, the non-competitive ethos

You meant the three Rs, I said, cutting him short. I got the point.

He nodded gloomily. Kids are being taught about Marxism, sexism, pacificism, feminism, racism, heterosexism

Bernard chimed in. Its all the isms. Theyre causing schisms. I think he was trying to get me to tell him to go. But I wouldnt!

Id not heard of heterosexism. Neil explained that its the idea that children are being taught not to be irrationally prejudiced in favour of heterosexuality. This has come up before, I remarked. But I see the problem. We dont want prejudice.

Neil exploded. Prejudice! he shouted. You cant describe it as prejudice to teach kids to be normal. His face had turned a curious mauve colour. I thought he was going to have a heart attack. I wasnt very bothered, to tell you the truth -- I was thoroughly fed up at his suggestion that I might lose the next election. Hes the bloody party chairman, and all he ever does is criticise me. I may be out of a job after the election -- but he may only have to wait until I reshuffle.

He was still ranting on about normal. I silenced him. It all depends, Neil, I explained, on how you define normal. Im certainly not against homosexual teachers per se. And Im not against sex education. Now calm down.

He tried. He took a deep breath. Im not against teaching kids the facts of life in the classroom. But not homosexual technique. Nor heterosexual technique, come to that.

Where should they learn it then? I asked curiously.

Behind the bike sheds, said Neil firmly. Like we did!

This was a whole new insight into Neil. Did you? I asked with interest.

Jeffrey, our Chief Whip, was not remotely interested in Neils adolescence. Never mind about the sexual technique. Some of our schools are teaching more Hindi than English.

This was even trickier. Perhaps its lucky that I have no power over education. I agree that English is more important than Hindi. But I cant say it in public -- I'll be accused of racism. Only last week, while I was receiving a deputation from the Ethnic Awareness Council, I looked at my watch while a black woman delegate was speaking. I was immediately accused of racist body language. And sexist body language. And I only did it because I was bored rigid!

Still, Id got their message and I didnt see what I could do. So I asked them to be specific.

Get Patrick [Patrick Snodgrass the Secretary of State for Education] to get a grip on the Education Department.

You know it cant be done, I replied. Theyve got Patrick completely housetrained.

Then sack him.

I cant have another Cabinet convulsion. Not yet.

Then, said the Party Chairman, invite the Leader of the Oppositions wife round to Number Ten.

Why? What could she do? I was puzzled.

Neils face was a little less puce but no less grim. She can start measuring up for carpets and curtains.

[Hacker turned to Sir Humphrey Appleby for advice, believing that Sir Humphrey would be a believer in excellence for its own sake. But Sir Humphrey had his own hidden agenda, as this note in his private diary makes clear Ed.]

Wednesday 12 December

B.W. had a private word with me. He told me the Prime Minister has a problem with Education. Ive known that for years. But its a bit late for him to do anything about that now, especially as hes got to Number 10 without any.

But apparently I was mistaken. The Prime Minister was not concerned about his own education (or lack of it). That would be too much to hope for. No, it was the education system that was on his mind -- and in my view its a bit too late to do anything about that either.

He thinks, Bernard told me, that Education is going to lose him the next election. This is indeed a possibility, but it is my view that worse things could befall the nation.

Furthermore, there is nothing to worry about. Our education system does all that most parents require of it. It keeps the children out of mischief while theyre at work. Most of them, anyway.

It must be conceded that it does not, as Woolley pointed out, train their minds or prepare them for a working life. But then some of our local authorities would be most unhappy if it did.

When Bernard quoted the Party Chairmans paper, which suggests that the whole comprehensive system is breaking down, I sent him away with a flea in his ear. Hes clearly been got at by the enemy -- the Prime Ministers Chief Policy Adviser [Dorothy Wainwright] to be precise. I will not put up with Bernard Woolley standing in my office telling me that as comprehensive education was an experiment, it ought to be validated. Of course it should -- but on no account should it be invalidated.

Comprehensive education was not introduced with the idea of improving educational standards. It was to get rid of class distinction. But the impression has been allowed to develop, quite wrongly, that the intention was to remove class distinction among children.

Nobody at the DES [Department of Education and Science], however, ever mentioned children. They never have. Comprehensives were introduced so as to get rid of class distinction in the teaching profession. It was to improve the living standards of teachers, not the educational standards of children, and to bring the NUT [National Union of Teachers] in primary and secondary-modern schools up to the salary levels of their rivals in the National Association of Schoolmasters who previously taught in the Grammar Schools.

When there is a Labour government the Departments official line is Comprehensives abolish the class system. When there is a Conservative government the Department says: Comprehensives are the cheapest way of providing mass education. Thus the DES takes the view that selective education is divisive (if youre Labour) or expensive (if youre Conservative).

It is in the interest of the civil Service to preserve this status quo. This enables the DES and the Government as a whole to have a happy relationship with the NUT. And it doesnt affect us personally because we educate our children independently [privately Ed].

B.W. stubbornly insisted that the government wants change. Sometimes he is really dense. The teaching unions do not want change -- and whereas we only have to cope with any government for four or five years, the teaching unions are there for ever.

Furthermore, Woolley seems to be under the impression that it is our job to get the unions to accept government policy. It is in this very fundamental sense that he has been got at and brainwashed by the enemy. Mrs Wainwright may believe that this course is in the governments interest; she may even have persuaded the Prime Minister; but she is wrong!

Our objectives in the Civil Service are harmony and consistency, conciliation and continuity. Laudable aims, as anybody will agree. And since governments change policy all the time, and the unions never change their policy at all, common sense requires in practice that it is the government that should be brought into line with the unions. And that is what the DES is there for -- to get the government to accept the policies of the teachers unions.

Bernard Woolley remained doubtful, I am sorry to say. He merely reiterated that his master, the Prime Minister, is deeply worried that he is responsible for something he cant change.

Im sure he is. I call it Responsibility Without Power -- the prerogative of the eunuch throughout the ages.

[Hackers diary continues Ed.]

December 13th

At my usual early morning meeting with Humphrey, right after breakfast, he raised the education question.

I understand, Prime Minister, that youre worried about the Local Education Authorities?

No, I told him, Im worried about the Department of Education and Science.

He was visibly surprised. In my opinion, the DES does an excellent job.

He cant possibly believe that! Nobody could believe that. I dont believe you believe that, I said.

You dont?

Sorry, no. Now he was insulted, I realised. I suppose Id inadvertently called him a liar. Still, I was committed. Dont you believe that I dont believe you believe that?

He was adamant and empathic. I believe that you dont believe that I believe that, but I must ask you to believe that although you dont believe that I believe it, I believe it.

I felt I had to accept that, especially as it took me quite a while to work out what hed said. Be that as it may, I continued, look whats happening to education in this country.

Dorothy had armed me with actual questions from school exam papers. Which do you prefer -- atom bombs or charity? And a maths question -- even maths is becoming political: If it costs 5 billion a year to maintain Britains nuclear defences and 75 a year to feed a starving African child, how many African children could be saved from starvation by abandoning nuclear defence?

Humphrey answered the second question immediately. Thats easy. None. The MOD would spend it all on conventional weapons. But the question is simply asking for 5 billion divided by 75.

Do you deny, I remonstrated with him, that kids arent even being taught basic arithmetic?

No, he replied carefully. But the LEAs [Local Education Authorities] would doubtless argue that they dont need it -- the kids all have pocket calculators.

But they need to know how its done, I reminded him forceably. We all learned basic arithmetic, didnt we?

Humphrey then asked me a whole bunch of stupid and irrelevant question designed to prove to me that a strict academic education has no value! Humphrey, of all people! I couldnt believe it. He had the most traditional strict academic upbringing of anyone Ive ever met. Anyway, I brushed his smokescreen -- for that was what it was -- aside.

SIR BERNARD WOOLLEY RECALLS [in conversation with the Editors]:

I read this portion of Hackers diary with the greatest amusement. The questions to which he refers were neither stupid nor irrelevant.

When the Prime Minister asserted that we had all learned basic arithmetic Sir Humphrey immediately asked him: What is three thousand nine hundred and fifty-seven divided by seventy-three?

Hacker prevaricated, then said that he would need a pencil and paper for that. I offered him both but to no ones surprise he refused them, remarking simply that he could certainly have done that sum when he left school.

And now youd use a calculator? enquired Humphrey. The point was well taken. But Hacker denied that Sir Humphrey had made any useful point at all. Instead, he remarked peevishly that hardly anyone knew any Latin any more either.

Tempora mutantur, et nos mutamur in illis, replied Sir Humphrey appropriately.

There was a slight pause as Hacker stared vacantly at him. Finally he was obliged to humiliate himself again by asking him for a translation.

The times change and we change with the times, I said.

Precisely, said the Prime Minister, as if the quotation proved his point -- whereas any fool could see it helped Sir Humphreys side of the argument.

Humphrey provocatively continued to speak in Latin. Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses, he said.

Hacker was suspicious. He asked what that meant. Sir Humphrey obliged. If youd kept your mouth shut we might have thought you were clever.

Hacker looked apoplectic. I thought he was going to suffer a coronary then and there. Sir Humphrey hastily explained. Not you, Prime Minister. Thats the translation.

Hacker then berated Sir Humphrey for denying the value of an academic education, whereupon Sir Humphrey replied -- rather too insultingly in my view -- that he could see no use for it if he personally couldnt even use it in conversation with the Prime Minister of Great Britain.

There is no doubt in my mind that Sir Humphrey, with his arrogance and determination to win the argument for its own sake, lost sight of his own policy objectives. By provoking and humiliating Hacker he ensured that Hacker would not drop the matter -- a serious miscalculation.

[Hackers diary continues Ed.]

Humphrey was basically refusing to admit that our educational system was a disaster. I told him: Children are being taught subversive nonsense. There is total indiscipline in the classroom.

Humphrey simply wouldnt acknowledge the truth. He kept making cheap debating points. For instance: If theres total indiscipline in the classrooms, they wont even know theyre being taught subversive nonsense. And they certainly wont learn any. Anyway, no self-respecting child believes a word the teacher tells him.

I was getting seriously angry at these facetious and unworthy answers. Were supposed to be educating them for a working life and three-quarters of the time theyre bored stiff.

I should have thought being bored stiff for three-quarters of the time was excellent preparation for working life, was the flip reply.

Humphrey, I said firmly, we raised the leaving age to sixteen to enable them to learn more. And theyre learning less.

Suddenly he answered me seriously. We didnt raise the leaving age to enable them to learn more. We raised it to keep teenagers off the job market and hold down the unemployment figures.

He was right. But I didnt want to get into all that. I returned to the rest of the question. I asked him if he was trying to tell me that theres nothing wrong with our educational system.

Of course Im not, Prime Minister. Its a joke. Its always been a joke. As long as you leave it in the hands of local councillors it will stay a joke. Half of them are your enemies anyway. And the other half are the sort of friends that make you prefer your enemies.

I finally saw where he was coming from in this discussion. He believes that education will never get any better so long as its subject to all that tomfoolery in the town halls. He rightly observed that wed never leave an important subject like defence to the local authorities -- if we gave them 100 million each and told them to defend themselves we could stop worrying about the Russians, wed have civil war in three weeks.

He claims that thats what weve done with education, that no one thinks education is serious the way defence is serious.

Its certainly true that no one takes civil defence seriously, and thats why its left to the borough councils. But I assured Humphrey that I took education incredibly seriously -- it could cost me the next election.

Ah. He smiled a superior smile. In my navet I thought you were concerned about the future of our children.

Well, I am. These are not contradictory worries. After all, kids get the vote at eighteen.

Humphrey had a simple answer to the education screw-up: Centralise! Take the responsibility away from the local councils and put it under the Department of Education and Science. Then I could do something about it.

I wonder if hes right. It sounds too easy somehow. And yet my hopes were raised.

Humphrey, I said, do you think I could? Actually grasp the nettle and take the bull by the horns?

Bernard spoke for the first time. Prime Minister, you cant take the bull by the horns if youre grasping the nettle.

I could hardly believe that this was Bernards sole contribution to a discussion of such importance. I just sat there and goggled at him. He must have thought I didnt understand him, for he began to explain himself: I mean, if you grasped the nettle with one hand, you could take the bull by one horn with the other hand, but not by both horns because your hand wouldnt be bit enough, and if you took a bull by only one horn it would be rather dangerous because

I found my voice. Bernard I said. And he stopped. Perhaps he just cant help it. Attention to detail is all very well, but really!

I told Humphrey hed given me food for thought.

In that case, he replied complacently, bon apptit.

December 14th

Im off on a brief pre-Christmas tour of the North-West tomorrow. Dorothy gave me a schedule, which includes Prime Ministerial visits to factories and hospitals.

Drumming up votes in the marginal constituencies, I remarked jovially to Bernard.

No, Prime Minister, he said.

I didnt realise what he meant at first.

Im coming with you, he explained carefully, so its a government tour. But if it consists of canvassing in marginals its a party event and I cant come -- and, more to the point, the Treasury cant pay for it all.

His pedantry can be useful! Dorothy immediately made it clear, for the record, that we are making a government visit to the North-West, and that it is a pure coincidence that all the stops are in marginals. Bernard was satisfied.

I was still preoccupied with education. I asked Dorothy what I could do about it. Quickly!

Do you mean do, or appear to do? she wanted to know.

Silly question. Appear to do, obviously. Theres nothing I can do.

She thought for a moment, then proposed that I made some television appearance associated with something good and successful in education.

I was pleased to hear that there was such a thing. She delved into her briefcase and handed me a sheet containing details of St Margarets School business enterprise unit. She thinks I should visit the school on my tour. Apparently it could be squeezed into the schedule.

The school has set up its own manufacturing and trading company. They make cheeseboards, paperweights, toast racks and so on. Then they market and sell them. Furthermore, in their maths and business studies they track the whole operation. They involve local businessmen, and parents help too.

It sounds great. And whats more, it costs the DES nothing -- they make a profit.

I wondered if there was any downside. Bad publicity on the grounds that children are being taught to be grasping? But no -- Dorothy tells me that they given the money to local charities.

Its obviously a must for a North-West trip. I told Dorothy to give it enough time on the schedule for TV cameras to cover it properly. And, I added, give me a speech with a snappy twenty-second passage for the TV news. It should all help to win back a few seats.

Bernard shifted uncomfortably in his chair. He cleared his throat. Um, Prime Minister he reminded me firmly.

I mean, Bernard, I said, changing my tone, it will give a lead to those responsible for the nations education.

Of course, Prime Minister, he said with a smile.

[Hackers tour of the North-West was a great success, and his visit to St Margarets School was indeed reported on the national news. The film itself does not survive, but we are fortunate that a transcript was made and we reprint it below, with the kind permission of Independent Television News Ed.]

Independent Television News Limited

The attached transcript was typed from a recording and not copied from an original script. Because of the risk of mishearing ITN cannot vouch for its complete accuracy.

NEWS AT TEN

TRANSMISSION: DECEMBER 17th

ACTUALITY:

NEWSREADER (offscreen):And finally, this morning the Prime Minister visited St Margarets School, W north-western tour.

SHOTS OF JIM HACKER, WITH BERNARD WOOLLEY IN THE BACKGROUND, SURROUNDED BY NUMEROUS PRESS REPORTERS, ENTERING A SCHOOL WOODWORK SHOP WHERE BOYS AND GIRLS IN NEAT SCHOOL UNIFORMS ARE BUSY.

NEWSREADER (offscreen):The school has set up its own little manufacturing business where the children make a variety of goods in the school carpentry shop for sale in the local community. The children do their own sales and marketing.

CUT TO:

JIM HACKER STANDING WITH A GROUP OF SCHOOLCHILDREN, WATCHING THEM PACKING, LABELLING AND STACKING BOXES OF GOODS.

NEWSREADER (offscreen):And they use the experience they gain from the enterprise as a basis for their maths and business studies.

CUT TO:

WIDE ANGLE THE SCHOOL HALL. PRIME MINISTER HACKER IS SEEN ON THE DAIS. A SENIOR GIRL HANDS HIM A THREE-LEGGED STOOL. THEY SHAKE HANDS. BULBS FLASH FOR PHOTOS.

NEWSREADER (offscreen):The Prime Minister was presented with an example of the schools output.

CUT TO:

MEDIUM CLOSE-UP OF THE PRIME MINISTER, ADDRESSING THE SCHOOL.

HACKER:I must congratulate you all on the hard work, the discipline and the success of your enterprise. You set an example in British education which other schools would do well to follow. We need more schools like St Margarets. And I shall certainly treasure your present -- no Prime Ministers ever lose seats if they can possibly help it.

CUT TO:

WIDE-ANGLE OF AUDIENCE IN SCHOOL HALL. LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE.

CUT TO:

THE PRIME MINISTER, SMILING AND WAVING AS HE LEAVES THE PLATFORM.

[Hackers diary continues Ed.]

December 17th

I watched a very satisfying film report of my visit to Widnes on the News at Ten tonight. Annie and Dorothy, whod stayed for dinner, watched it with me. We all agreed that it had gone pretty well, especially my joke at the end of my little speech.

Actually, Dorothy claimed it was her joke. She was being petty. If by her joke she meant that she thought of it, then I suppose shes right -- but thats hardly relevant.

The coverage was much better than it had been on the BBC. The BBC didnt describe it as the Prime Minister touring the North-West, they said it was Jim Hacker visiting the marginal constituencies.

Both versions are perfectly true, but in my opinion it shows that the BBC is biased against me. I tried to explain this to Annie, who couldnt see it.

Why shouldnt they report the facts? she asked.

I explained that they dont have to report all the facts. Furthermore, theres nothing wrong with visiting marginal constituencies, but they imply that there is.

Annie still didnt understand. You mean, its all right to report the majority of the facts but not the facts of the majorities?

Thats the kind of smart-alec remark that really makes me angry. The point is, its all part of a wider picture. The BBC did the same to me earlier on, in the Nine OClock News, when they reported our dispute with the French: Mr Hacker claimed that the action was permissible, but the French government stated it was a violation of the treaty.

Isnt that true?

Of course its true! I exploded. But it makes it sound like me, on my own, being put down by the whole of France. It makes me look as though Im in the wrong.

But the French think you are.

Thats not the bloody point! I shouted. They could have said: Monsieur Dubois claimed that the action was a violation of the treaty, but the British Government stated it was permissible. Then it would have sounded -- quite correctly -- as though all of us were putting some cheeky Frog in his place. But they dont say that! Oh no! They want to get me!

Annie was apparently undisturbed by the BBCs manifest bias, hatred, intolerance and corruption. But what they said was still true, she reiterated stubbornly.

My jaw seized up with fury and frustration. Through clenched teeth I snarled, Its still biased to say so!! The others true too!!

I didnt want to demean myself by losing my temper in front of Dorothy, whod so far stayed very quiet. I took several deep breaths, then strolled calmly over to the drinks table and poured myself a very large Scotch.

Annie remained completely calm. Jim, she said, Im not interested in your paranoia, Im interested in that school.

Dorothy spoke up, relieved not to have to take sides in a family fight. Yes, it must be a good place if parents are queuing up to get their kids into it.

What a pity that they cant all get in, said Annie, and poured coffee for us both. Why cant parents send their children there?

No room, I explained.

Dorothy corrected me. There is room actually, Jim. School numbers are falling.

Shes right, in one sense. But it would be poaching from other schools, I pointed out.

Annie looked up. Whats wrong with that?

Its obvious. The other schools would then be too short of pupils. Theyd have to close.

Great, said Annie. So then St Margarets would take over their buildings.

I tried to explain to Annie that they couldnt do that. It wouldnt be fair.

Who to? she wanted to know.

To the teachers in the schools that had to close.

But the good ones would be taken on by the popular schools. Theyd be needed.

What about the bad ones? I argued. It wouldnt be fair on them.

What about being fair on the kids? said Annie. Or are the teachers jobs more important?

I sipped my coffee, and put my feet up on the leather footstool. Its no good, Annie. I was tolerant. Whos to say which are the bad teachers? It cant be done.

Why not?

I couldnt really think of the reason, but I was sure there was one. Then, to my surprise, Dorothy asked the same question: Why not?

This threw me. And to my surprise I found that I was really stuck.

Dorothy took up the argument. Suppose schools were like doctors, she pondered, helping herself to a peppermint cream chocolate. After all, under the National Health Service you can go to whichever doctor you like, cant you?

I nodded.

And the doctor gets paid per patient, she continued thoughtfully. So why dont we do the same with schools? A National Education Service. Parents choose the school they want, and the school gets paid per pupil.

Theres be an outcry, I replied.

From parents? said Dorothy, knowing the answer full well.

No, I had to acknowledge. From the Department of Education.

I see. And she smiled. Then she asked another question to which she already knew the answer. And who has the most votes, parents or the DES?

That wasnt exactly the point. And she knew it! The DES would block it, I reminded her.

And then she said something so revolutionary, so riveting and so ruthless that it shook me rigid. [Hacker often displayed a talent, probably subconscious, for alliteration when excited Ed.]

Fine, said Dorothy. Get rid of them!

It took me a moment to realise what she meant. I think I just stared blankly at her. Get rid of the Department of Education? I didnt really understand.

Get rid of it! she repeated. Abolish it. Remove it.

I asked her what she meant, exactly.

Eliminate it. Expunge it. Eradicate it, she explained.

I was beginning to understand what she was driving at. But I asked her to explain further.

She looked slightly flummoxed. Um I dont quite know how else to well, let me put it this way. She hesitated for a moment, considering her choice of words carefully. What I mean is, she said finally, get rid of it.

Get rid of it? I asked.

She confirmed that she meant that I should get rid of it.

I couldnt do that, I said. I was in a daze.

Why? she asked. What does it do?

And, suddenly, I realised that I could do that! Local Authorities could administer everything that is needed. We could have a Board of National School Inspectors, and give all the rest of the DESs functions to the Department of the Environment. And I could send that house-trained idiot Patrick to the House of Lords.

Golly! I wondered in awe. What will Humphrey say?

Dorothy smiled a beatific smile. Whatever he says, she said happily, I want to be there when you tell him.

And witness a clash between the political will and the administrative will?

She sat back thoughtfully. I think it will be a clash between the political will and the administrative wont.

December 18th

I called Humphrey in first thing this morning. Dorothy was with me. I tried to disguise my excitement as I casually told him that I wanted to bounce a new idea off him.

The word new usually alerts Humphrey that troubles in store, but this time he seemed perfectly relaxed and actually chuckled when I told him that Ive realised how to reform our education system.

So I let him have it. Humphrey, Im going to let parents take their children away from schools. They will be able to move them to any school they want.

He was unconcerned. You mean, after application, scrutiny, tribunal hearing and appeal procedures?

It was my turn to chuckle. No, Humphrey. They could just move them. Whenever they want.

Im sorry, Prime Minister, I dont follow you. I could see that he genuinely didnt understand.

Dorothy spelled out, abrasively. The government, Sir Humphrey, is going to let parents decide which school to send their children to.

Suddenly he understood that we actually meant what we were saying. He exploded into protest. Prime Minister, youre not serious?

I nodded benevolently. Yes I am.

But thats preposterous!

Why? asked Dorothy.

He ignored her completely. You cant let parents make these choices. How on earth would parents know which schools are best?

Coolly I appraised him. What school did you go to, Humphrey?

Winchester.

Was it good? I asked politely.

Excellent, of course.

Who chose it?

My parents, naturally. I smiled at him. Prime Minister, thats quite different. My parents were discerning people. You cant expect ordinary people to know where to send their children.

Dorothy was manifestly shocked at Humphreys snobbery and litism. Why on earth not?

He shrugged. The answer was obvious to him. How could they tell?

Dorothy, a mother herself, found the question only too easy to answer. They could tell if their kids could read and write and do sums. They could tell if the neighbours were happy with the school. They could tell if the exam results arent good.

Again he studiously ignored her. Examinations arent everything, Prime Minister.

Dorothy stood up, moved around the Cabinet table and sat down very close to me so that Humphrey could no longer avoid meeting her eyes. That is true, Humphrey -- and those parents who dont want an academic education for their children could choose progressive schools.

I could see that, as far as Humphrey was concerned, Dorothy and I were talking ancient Chinese. He simply didnt understand us. Again he tried to explain his position, and he was becoming quite emotional. Parents are not qualified to make these choices. Teachers are the professionals. In fact parents are the worst people to bring up children, they have no qualifications for it. We dont allow untrained teachers to teach. The same would apply to parents in an ideal world.

I realised with stunning clarity, and for the very first time, how far Humphreys dream of an ideal world differed from mine. You mean, I asked slowly and quietly, parents should be stopped from having kids until theyve been trained?

He sighed impatiently. Apparently Id missed the point. No, no. Having kids isnt the problem. Theyve all been trained to have kids, sex education classes have been standard for years now.

I see, I said, and turned to Dorothy, who was wide-eyed in patent disbelief at our most senior Civil Servant and advocate of the Orwellian corporate state. Perhaps, I suggested, we can improve on the sex education classes? Before people have children we could give them exams. Written and practical. Or both, perhaps? Then we could issue breeding licences.

Humphrey wasnt a bit amused. He ticked me off. Theres no need to be facetious, Prime Minister. Im being serious. Its looking after children that parents are not qualified for. Thats why they have no idea how to choose schools for them. It couldnt work.

Dorothy leaned across in front of me, to catch his eye. Then how does the Health Service work? People choose their family doctor without having medical qualifications.

Ah, said Humphrey, playing for time. Yes, he said, flummoxed. Thats different, he concluded, as if hed actually said something.

Why? asked Dorothy.

Well, doctors are I mean, patients arent parents.

Really? Dorothy was laughing openly at him. What gives you that idea?

He was beginning to get extremely ratty. I mean, not as such. Anyway, as a matter of fact I think that letting people choose doctors is a very bad idea. Very messy. Much tidier to allocate people to GPs. Much fairer. We could even cut the numbers in each doctors practice, and everyone would stand an equal chance of getting the bad doctors.

I was quietly amazed at Humphreys -- and the Civil Services -- concept of fair.

Humphrey was now in full flow, passionate, emotional, scathing, committed like I have never seen. But were not discussing the Health Service, Prime Minister, were discussing education. And with respect, Prime Minister, I think you should know that the DES will react with some caution to this rather novel proposal.

This was the language of war! Humphrey had all guns blazing. Ive never heard such abusive language from him.

I stayed calm. So you think theyll block it?

I mean, he said, tight-lipped and angry, that they will give it the most serious and urgent consideration, but will insist on a thorough and rigorous examination of all the proposals, allied to a detailed feasibility study and budget analysis before producing a consultative document for consideration by all interested bodies and seeking comments and recommendations to be incorporated in a brief for a series of working parties who will produce individual studies that will form the background for a more wide-ranging document considering whether or not the proposal should be taken forward to the next step.

He meant theyd block it! But it will be no problem. No problem at all. Because, as I told him, I have a solution to that. So Ill abolish the DES! I mentioned casually.

He thought hed mis-heard. Im sorry?

Well abolish it, I repeated obligingly.

Abolish it? He couldnt grasp the meaning of the words.

Why not? Dorothy wanted to see if there were any reason.

Why not? he said, his voice rising to the pitch of a Basil Fawlty at the end of his tether. Abolish Education and Science? It would be the end of civilisation as we know it.

I shook my head at him. He was quite hysterical. No, wed only be abolishing the Department. Education and science will flourish.

Without a government department? He was staring at us in horror, as though we were certifiably insane. Impossible!

Dorothy seemed almost sorry for him. She tried to explain. Humphrey, government departments are tombstones. The Department of Industry marks the grave of industry. The Department of Employment marks the grave of employment. The Department of the Environment marks the grave of the environment. And the Department of Education marks where the corpse of British education is buried.

He was staring the Goths and the Vandals in the face. He had no reply. So I asked him why we need the DES. What does it do? Whats its role?

He tried to calm down and explain. I I hardly know where to begin, he began. It lays down guidelines, it centralises and channels money to the Local Education Authorities and the University Grants Committee. It sets standards.

I asked him a string of questions. Does it lay down the curriculum?

No, but

Does it select and change Head Teachers?

No, but

Does it maintain school buildings?

No, but

Does it set and mark exams?

No, but

Does it select the children?

No, but

Then how, I wanted to know, does the Secretary of State affect how my child does at her school?

To Humphrey the answer was obvious. He supplies sixty percent of the cash!

So thats it. We were right. Dorothy pursued the cross-examination. Why cant the cash go straight from the Treasury to the schools? And straight to the University Grants Committee? Do we really need 2000 civil servants simply to funnel money from A to B?

Almost in despair, he shook his head and cried: The DES also creates a legislative framework for education.

What did he mean? Theres hardly any legislation at all. What there is, the Department of the Environment could do -- Environment deals with other local government matters.

Humphrey was fighting a desperate rearguard action. Prime Minister, you cant be serious. Who would assess forward planning and staffing variations, variations in pupil population, the density of schooling required in urban and rural areas Who would make sure everything ran properly?

It doesnt run properly now, I pointed out. Lets see if we can do better without the bureaucracy.

But who would plan for the future?

I laughed. But I didnt just laugh, I laughed uproariously. Laughter overwhelmed me, for the first time since Id been Prime Minister. Tears were rolling down my cheeks. Do you mean, I finally gasped, breathless, weeping with laughter, that education in Britain today is what the Department of Education planned?

Yes, of course, said Humphrey, and then went immediately and without hesitation straight into reverse. No, certainly not.

Dorothy was getting bored with the meeting. She stood up. Two thousand five hundred private schools seem to solve these planning problems every day, she commented curtly. They just respond to changing circumstances, supply and demand. Easy.

I wanted to give Humphrey one last chance. Is there anything else the DES does?

His eyes whizzed back and forth, as he thought furiously. Um er um.

I stood up. Fine, I said. Thats it. We dont need it, do we? Quod erat demonstrandum.

[In her book The Prime Ministers Ear , Dorothy Wainwright made an interesting attempt to explain Sir Humphrey Applebys complex attitude to state education. Her book is now out of print but we reprint a short extract below Ed.]

Sir Humphreys paternalist attitude may not have been wholly cynical. He apparently believed that more central direction was the answer to all the nations problems. It is possible that he viewed the main purpose of state education as a means of removing children from the undesirable influence of their semi-educated parents. And he doubtless felt that most parents regarded schools as somewhere that they could dump their children during working hours. In short, he truly believed that the man in Whitehall knew best. For at the root of this passionate dispute over education lay the fundamental tribal struggle between the Whitehall Man and Westminster Man.

It is not that Sir Humphrey was against giving the parents what was euphemistically known as a voice in the running of the school. Indeed, he was unconcerned about parent governors because, so long as the parents as a whole were unable to remove their children from a school with which they were unhappy, the parent governors could safely be ignored. If a child was prevented from attending school by a dissatisfied parent, the Attendance Officer was soon on hand to threaten the parent with an appearance in court.

In the end, it was the more affluent middle classes who benefited from the system, the same middle classes who won the lions share of all the benefits of the welfare state in not only education, but housing and medicine too. Inevitably benefits went to articulate people who could best advance their claims, who could move to the nicest residential areas with the best schools and doctors, who could claim mortgage tax relief, and who enjoyed subsidised art.

Sir Humphrey, however, clung to the only belief that he had left after thirty years in government: that if he had more control, he could make things better. Anything that was wrong with society was evidence, proof indeed, of not enough power. Sadly he remained unshakeably convinced right up until the very day of his death in St Dympnas Home for the Elderly Deranged.

[The last entry of the year in Sir Humphrey private diary records a meeting with Sir Arnold Robinson, his predecessor as Secretary of the Cabinet, at their old haunt: the Athenaeum Club Ed.]

Tuesday 18 December

Met Arnold for lunch at the Club. I told him of the truly appalling meeting with Hacker this morning.

Like me, he thought it was unthinkable. Once they start abolishing whole departments, the very foundations of civilisation crumble. Indeed hes right. The barbarians are at the gates. This is the return of the Dark Ages.

I asked him if anything so shocking had ever been suggested while he was at 70 Whitehall [the Cabinet Office Ed.]. Apparently not. Arnold had let them amalgamate Departments, of course, but thats quite a different matter: amalgamation means that you keep all the existing staff and put in an extra layer of co-ordinating management at the top.

But he agreed that, come hell or high water, I have to stop the liquidation of the DES. He asked me if Id tried discrediting the person who proposed it.

That is impossible in this case, of course. The Wainwright female is the culprit, and therefore Hackers passing it off as his own idea.

Arnold had a couple of other tired old ideas:

1. Discrediting the facts its based on.

Not possible. Its a political idea, so obviously facts dont come into it.

2. Massaging the figures.

There are no figures involved.

I asked him what he really thought. Shamefully he peered over the side of his leather wing armchair to check that he wasnt being overheard, and then he leaned forward and whispered an appalling admission: that in his opinion it was actually a good idea.

Id never even though of that: for a mad moment I wondered if we ought to experiment with it, play along with it for the sake of the nations children.

But this was not Arnolds intention and, seeing that I was wavering, he bolstered me up and gave me courage. Never mind about the nations children! What about our colleagues in the Department of Education?

I apologised for my lapse. Its just that Ive been under great strain.

The fact is that the only people who will like this plan are parents and the children. Everyone who counts will be against it, namely:

i) Teachers Unions

ii) Local Authorities

iii) The Educational Press

iv) The DES

We decided upon a temporary holding strategy:

1) The Unions can be counted on to disrupt the schools. And their leaders will go on television to say that it is the government who are causing the disruption.

2) The local authorities will threaten to turn the constituency parties against the government.

3) The DES will delay every stage of the process and leak anything and everything that embarrasses the government. Arnold will be able to help with that, at the Campaign for Freedom of Information.

4) The education press will print any damn fool story we feed them.

We relaxed and ordered a couple more brandies. There was one little problem: we hadnt decided what our argument would be. Arnold suggested that we say that this new proposal will destroy our educational system. But there was a problem: everyone knows that its destroyed already. So we decided that we will say [by which Sir Arnold meant that the Press will say Ed] that government interference has already destroyed the education system, and that this plan will make things even worse.

I was sceptical. I wondered if that would really do the trick. Arnold assured me that it always has in the past. Hes right, of course, but this time the political pressure is much stronger.

We had no answer. Arnold stressed that I must find a political weapon with which to fight this battle. It is undoubtedly in the national interest to do so, even though Id be in conflict with government policy.

Government policy, said Arnold thoughtfully, is almost always in conflict with the national interest. Our job is to see that the national interest triumph. Governments are always grateful in the end.

He may be right. But I have no political weapon in mind, and nor has he. And its my job. I must somehow prove myself worthy of the high office to which Ive been called.

[But luck was on Sir Humphreys side. A most unlikely event occurred that changed the course of history. When the Cabinet Secretary arrived at 70 Whitehall the following morning, with leaden step and a heavy heart and no strategy, Bernard Woolley was waiting anxiously to see him. Sir Bernard Woolley recalls [in conversation with the Editors] the momentous events of that morning, the turning point that never was Ed.]

I was waiting for Sir Humphrey in his oak-panelled office. He was late. The Prime Minister had sent me to find him.

Humphrey asked for the agenda -- which was all too simple. The Abolition of the DES.

He commented that it was going to be bloody! I agreed.

And on the way to the Cabinet Room I asked him for some advice on what I thought was an urgent but minor problem.

This was it: St Margarets School in Widnes, the enterprise school which the Prime Minister had visited at the beginning of the week, where theyd given him that stool, had been in trouble with the law.

It had just come to light that the wood being used in the carpentry shop was stolen. In fact, stolen from the government, from a YTS [Youth Training Scheme] workshop. It was stolen by the previous years pupils, who were working there.

Humphreys reaction astonished me. He stopped dead, in the middle of the long dark corridor, stared at me, and then smiled what I can only describe as an ecstatic smile. How shocking! he beamed. I gave him the file, which showed that the matter had been referred to the DES from the Department of Employment because the theft had come to light in a school. They didnt know whether to prosecute.

I apologised for bothering Sir Humphrey with such a minor matter. Little did I realise the significance of the report at that moment -- though only five minutes later it was clear that Id help drop an atom bomb on Hackers educational reforms.

[Hackers diary continues Ed.]

December 19th

A sad day. My greatest, most fundamental reform had to be abandoned. Its not that the DES is the most significant Department in Whitehall -- but to me it had come to represent bureaucracy in its purest, least diluted form -- a totally unnecessary Department, one that was not merely irrelevant but which was by its very existence an impediment to reform.

The meeting started well enough. Only one item on the agenda -- abolition of the DES, I began cheerfully.

I noticed Humphrey was in much better spirits than I had expected. If its only one item, its an agend um, he corrected me arrogantly as he sat down across the table from me.

Bernard leapt to my defence. I dont think the Prime Minister got as far as the second declension, he said. At least, I think he was leaping to my defence.

In any case, I felt extremely tolerant, even benign. I dont mind you scoring cheap debating points, Humphrey, I said, since youve lost the battle of the DES. Pride goeth before a fall!

The DES will be very upset, Prime Minister, replied Humphrey, who was worryingly relaxed, I noted.

Does it matter, I asked, since theyll have ceased to exist?

Humphrey gave me every chance to back out and save face. But he withheld the crucial point of information that had come his way. I knew he was hiding some ace up his sleeve -- but I didnt know it was the ace of trumps.

Meanwhile, we sparred. He told me that the process of abolishing the DES would take a year or two, and meanwhile theyd fight tooth and nail.

I asked what they could do to me. He was enigmatic, confining himself to veiled threats, such as They are a formidable Department.

Im a formidable Prime Minister, I retorted.

Oh indeed, agreed my Cabinet Secretary, but you might still need their co-operation.

Actually, that idea struck me as intrinsically funny. The idea of the DES co-operating with the Government? Absurd. But as I sat there laughing, the axe fell!

Fine, said Humphrey. If you dont want their co-operation Ill tell them to go ahead with the prosecution.

At first I thought Id misheard. Prosecution? What prosecution? I didnt know what he could mean. I looked at Bernard. Bernard stared intently at his shoelaces. I had no choice but to ask Humphrey what he was talking about?

He smiled again, so I knew I was in deep trouble. Well, its hardly worth bothering you with, but that enterprise school where you were televised this week He paused, elegantly, to make me suffer.

Yes? I said.

An example of whats best in education, he quoted me saying.

Yes? I repeated, my heart in my mouth.

A model for other schools to follow. I began to think he was going to re-enact my entire speech.

Go on! I snapped.

Well its just that its profits were apparently the proceeds of theft.

I didnt know what he meant. What do you mean, theft?

I mean, he explained patiently, removing goods without the knowledge or consent of the owner, with the intent of permanently depriving him of possession.

Yes, Humphrey. I was getting pretty tight-lipped. I know what theft means. But what do you mean?

Well, it all boiled down to this: the stool that they gave me in that presentation was made from stolen wood. It was nicked from the local YTS workshop by two of last years pupils. A pair of knickers, as Bernard said, trying unsuccessfully to lighten the atmosphere.

The YTS want to prosecute. And the Department of Education can stop them -- by returning the wood and hushing the whole thing up.

Humphrey said that the DES took a different view. Surprise, surprise!

I tried to tough it out. I said that the DES must obviously return the wood and forget the whole thing. It is their duty, I argued -- otherwise Ill look ridiculous, having told millions of voters on TV that the school is an example to Britain.

It is a sort of example, conceded Humphrey maliciously.

But its not typical of enterprise schools, I insisted.

He smiled a benevolent smile. It was enterprising.

They mustnt prosecute! I commanded him, cutting the crap.

He looked surprised. Is that your instruction? I nodded. He took a sharp intake of breath. Well, I hope that the Department of Education doesnt leak the fact that youre covering up for thieves.

Blackmail, if ever I heard it. I changed my position immediately. You misunderstood, Humphrey, I said grandly. Its not my instruction. Just tell them not to prosecute.

Ah, said Humphrey thoughtfully. That would need their co-operation.

Checkmate. Game, set and match. Snookered. I could just imagine the headlines: PRIME MINISTER OF CRIME! Or JIMS ENTERPRISING PUPILS.

It was my turn to beg. Humphrey, I said, you must persuade them to stop it.

He was implacable. Its rather difficult, he drawled, to persuade people to co-operate when theyre under a death sentence.

I had no choice but to lie. Death sentence? I queried, in a surprised voice.

I thought you were about to abolish the Department.

Abolish it? I said. Oh, that! And I laughed as convincingly as I could. No, no, Humphrey, that was just a vague idea. I wasnt really serious. Cant you tell when Im joking?

Youre sure?

Im sure I was joking.

I left myself a loophole. But Humphrey spotted it instantly. And youre sure youre not going to abolish the DES?

Yes.

I have your assurance, Prime Minister?

I took a deep breath. Yes, I said quietly. My plans were turning to dust. Like all my plans. Suddenly I saw, with a real clarity that Id never enjoyed before, that although I might win the occasional policy victory, or make some reforms, or be indulged with a few scraps from the table, nothing fundamental was ever ever going to change.

Humphrey was now in the best of humour. I heard his voice, as if in the distance. Prime Minister? Prime Minister? Are you all right?

I focused on him. Yes.

Excellent. Then shall we continue with the agendum?

Agendum? I smiled. All the fight had gone out of me. No, Humphrey, we have no agendum any more. Meeting declared closed. All right?

Yes Prime Minister. He smiled at me with sympathy. He could see that at last I understood.