The Complete Yes Prime Minister

THE MINISTERIAL BROADCAST

February 6th

I dont remember much about today. I got back from America last night and was in my study first thing this morning after a fairly sleepless night. But I neednt have hurried. I wanted to speak to Humphrey about something but he didnt seem to be around today. Bernard told me there wasnt much happening, and there were no appointments in the diary, so we spent some time reviewing what the papers had said about my American rip, and congratulating ourselves on the success of it. Thats about it, really.

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

The Prime Ministers recollection of his return from the United States is somewhat clouded by jet-lag, I fear. He was frightfully tired.

He lurched down the stairs from his flat and into his study, looking very white -- except for his eyes, which were very red. He claimed that he was not jet-lagged, though he was concerned that he could not remember anything that the President said to him at the White House. Actually, this was not due to jet-lag -- the President hadnt really said very much. Perhaps this was because the President was frightfully tired too.

Hacker yawned a lot and set for Sir Humphrey Appleby, who had not been to Washington and was consequently very fresh and alert. Hacker, aware of his exhaustion, expressed concern that statesmen [the word that politician use to describe themselves Ed.] nowadays spend so much time jetting around the world, taking part in major negotiations that could affect the future of mankind when they are zonked, as he described it.

Sir Humphrey explained that this is the reason why such negotiations are nearly always completed in advance by humble servants such as himself. They could hardly be left in the hands of the zonked.

Fortunately Sir Humphreys comment passed unnoticed by the Prime Minister, who gently nodded off while he spoke. Perhaps this accounts for the Prime Ministers mistaken recollection that Sir Humphrey was absent that day.

We attempted to wake the Prime Minister. After some moments we succeeded. He opened his eyes, sat up slightly startled and said: Ah, Humphrey, good morning.

Unfortunately Hacker had no recollection of sending for Sir Humphrey, nor could he remember why he had done so. I didnt know why either, because Hacker had fallen asleep before he told me. So Sir Humphrey left us. As he did so the Prime Minister nodded off again, and I left him to snooze in peace.

Much later in the day he buzzed down to me in the Private Office, and asked me to review with him the large backlog of work which he assumed -- incorrectly -- would have built up in his absence.

I was obliged to explain to him that there was no backlog, and that -- contrary to public belief -- he would have much less work to do now that he is Prime Minister and no longer has a department of his own.

The fact is that everything that one reads in the newspapers about how hard the Prime Minister has to work is rather a myth, generally put out by the Press Office. I listed the jobs for the Prime Minister that he actually has to do:

1. Chair the Cabinet Two and a half hours per week.

2. Chair two or three Cabinet Committees Four hours per week.

3. Answers questions in the House Half an hour per week.

4. Audience with the Queen One hour maximum (if she doesnt get bored before that).

This is a total of eight hours per week. Apart from that the Prime Minister has to read all the briefs, minutes, submissions, Foreign Office telegrams, and so forth. And the Private Office arranges to rush the Prime Minister from place to place, shaking hands with people. But in fact, although there are lots of things people want the Prime Minister to do, lots of things he should do, and any number of things he can do, there are very few things he has to do. After all, the Prime Minister is the boss.

[In fact, there is much to be said for the system adopted by a United States President in the mid-1980s, of doing virtually nothing. This left time to think, if he felt up to it, or to sleep if he didnt Ed.]

In the absence of the expected backlog of work, the Prime Minister wanted to look at his press clippings.

He was delighted with the report sent to him by Malcolm Warren, the Number Ten Press Officer. Apparently in our absence the PM had been on all the TV news bulletins for three successive nights. There had been a special feature on Panorama. There were 1269 column inches in the nations, and thirty-one photos. There were also sixteen radio reports.

I asked the Prime Minister if he regarded the Washington visit as a success. He did not understand my question -- in his view, it was by definition a success if it achieved all this publicity.

My question related to possible agreements with the Americans. However, it seems that little progress was made on that front.

[Later that day Bernard Woolley had a meeting with Sir Humphrey Appleby in his office. Sir Humphrey records the meeting in detail in his own diary Ed.]

BW came to give me a report on the PMs Washington visit and confirmed that he had not mentioned his new defence policy to the President. This was a relief.

Nonetheless, we still have a considerable problem. By we I mean all of us in the Cabinet Office, the Treasury, the MOD, the FCO and sundry lesser departments. The Prime Minister still wishes to cancel Trident and Cruise, continue with Polaris and bring back conscription to achieve a large conventional army.

BW, very properly in his role as Principal Private Secretary, defended the Prime Ministers ideas. He argued that to save money, reduce unemployment and make our defence credible is a worthy aim. I give him alpha plus for loyalty but nought out of ten for common sense.

He appears to believe that the purpose of our defence policy is to defend Britain. Clearly in this modern world this is an impossibility. Therefore, the only purpose of our defence policy is to make people believe that Britain is defended.

Some advocates of the deterrent theory understand this, but they assume that our defence policy is designed to make the Russians believe that we are defended. This is absurd. Our policy exists to make the British believe Britain is defended -- the Russians know its not.

Our defence policy is therefore designed to impress all those simple ignorant British citizens who suffle in and out of houses, buses, pubs, factories and the Cabinet Room. We are trying to make them feel secure.

BW and the PM are seeking a better way, which is doubtless thoroughly laudable. But the very words better way imply change, always a most dangerous notion.

At the moment we have a magic wand. It is called Trident. No one understands anything about it except that it will cost 15 billion, which means that it must be wonderful. Magical. We just have to write the cheque, and then we can all relax. But if people in the government start talking about it, eventually they will start thinking about it. Then they will realise the problems, the flaws in the reasoning. Result: the nation gets anxious.

BW was quite clear about these dangers after I had explained them to him. But he raised the question of the PMs impending television broadcast. He was concerned that the PM might want to use it to announce his new policy, immediately after discussing it in Cabinet and announcing it to the House. He might seek to use a TV appearance to open a national debate. This would be a bad precedent -- one should not open a national debate until the government has privately made up its mind.

BW thinks that the PM has indeed made up his mind. If so, he must unmake it. I instructed him to see to it immediately.

BW was not sure that he could oblige, and loyally he pointed out that the PM is the PM, and, as such, he has certain rights and power.

The PMs rights and obvious and generous. He gets his own car and driver, a nice house in London, a place in the country, endless publicity and a pension for life. I asked BW what more the PM wants.

I think he wants to govern Britain, he replied.

This must be stopped! He is not qualified.

[Appleby Papers WB/CAA/400]

[Hackers diary continues Ed.]

February 7th

I felt much more energetic today, and I also saw Humphrey for the first time since Id been back, which was very pleasant.

But we began the day with a big meeting with Malcolm, to discuss my first broadcast on TV since I became Prime Minister. It raised a whole lot of interesting questions and problems that, as a mere Cabinet Minister, had never before confronted me.

The first question he raised was whether the broadcast should be an interview or to camera. I didnt understand the difference at first so I just said yes. But he explained that it had to be one or the other.

At first I suggested an interview, because I felt it might be less like hard work. But Malcolm immediately asked who I should like to be interviewed by. It seemed that the choice was between Robin Day, Brian Walden, Terry Wogan or Jimmy Young [all well-known media people during Hackers first term as Prime Minister although now, alas, forgotten Ed.].

It depends, Prime Minister, whether you wish to be seen as a thinker, a man of power, the peoples friend or just a good fellow.

All of them, really, I said, but he misunderstood this and said that they wouldnt all interview me at once. I hadnt meant all of them, Id meant that I wish to be seen to have all those qualities. Since I have them I couldnt see a problem.

Malcolm shook his head knowledgeably. An image is automatically created by the choice of interviewer. How do you wish to place the emphasis?

I suggested that I should be seen primarily as a thinker. This, apparently, meant Brian Walden would talk to me. But Malcolm said there were problems associated with Brian Walden. He knows rather too much. He was an MP himself, dont forget.

Isnt that a help? I wondered.

No. Because if you dont answer the question, he asks it again. If you dont answer it a second time, he asks it a third time. Then, if you dont answer three times, he tells the viewers you havent answered it, and that you had three opportunities.

On reflection, it seemed that Walden might not necessarily be the best choice. And perhaps, I thought, it would be good if my image were more the Man of Power rather than the Thinker.

Apparently this meant that Id have to talk to Robin Day. But Malcolm said I would have to dominate him to get away with it. Dominating Day seemed a tall order, but clearly Malcolm felt that otherwise he might look more like a Prime Minister than I do.

Bernard Woolley felt that Robin Day was a little easier to handle since he got his K [knighthood]. Be that as it may, I felt it would be better to take no chances. How would it be, I asked, if I just opt for beign a good fellow.

That means Wogan, replied Malcolm. But youd have to bandy words with him.

I couldnt think what Malcolm meant. Bandy words?

Bernard explained. Youd have to be witty.

I could see no problem there. Ive always been very witty. But Malcolm and Bernard were looking excessively gloomy. I couldnt see why, till Bernard suddenly said: Well the trouble is, he rather goes in for insult humour.

Would he insult the Prime Minister? I couldnt beliee it.

He insults everybody, if he feels so inclined.

I had an idea. Perhaps hed like a knighthood.

Bernard didnt think much of that idea. Sir Terence Wogan? I hardly think so, Prime Minister.

I was forced to agree that it would be a bit much, although a CBE would be okay and might ensure that he wasnt insulting.

Bernard was still unimpressed by the idea. Well hes Irish. Im not sure they really understand about honours. Also, being a Commander of the British Empire mightnt go down awfully well in Ireland. Especially in the peat bogs from which he emanates.

It seemed to me that Bernard had a point. So it just left one option: Id have to appear as the Peoples Friend, on the Jimmy Young show.

There are problems with him too, remarked Malcolm. You rather get shoved in between the record requests, the traffic news and the shopping basket.

Bernard agreed. Hes awfully chummy, but it can all look a bit lightweight. Furthermore, hes only on the radio. [How something can look anything on radio Bernard did not explain Ed.]

By this time Id rather gone off the whole idea of an interview. It seems to me that its much better for me to talk to the camera -- then Id be in charge, not those failed MPs and jumped-up disc jockeys.

Malcolm suggested a party political. I thought that was a really crummy idea. Party politicals spell instant boredom. My whole idea is that it should be a Prime Minister addressing his People.

Bernard intervened. If you do that it will be a ministerial broadcast, and the Leader of the Opposition will want the right of reply.

On the face of it, that is absurd. I said I wouldnt give a right of reply. I asked him whose side he was on.

He was at his most punctilious and prissy. I am simply thinking ahead, Prime Minister. When you are the Leader of the Opposition, you will want the right of reply.

I have no intention of being the Leader of the Opposition, at least not in the remotely foreseeable future. But I could see that I had to concede the point. So I told Bernard that Id do it into the camera, like a party political.

But you said they were boring, he said.

I was getting fed up with him. I didnt say I would be boring, did I? Silence. Do you think Id be boring? He made no reply. I should think not! It is highly unlikely that I would ever make a boring speech or broadcast, as he knows only too well!

Malcolm asked me if Id done much talking to cameras. As I havent, he offered to fix a rehearsal -- an excellent idea.

Then he raised one final question. What is the broadcast to be about?

I couldnt think what he meant for a moment. Obviously the broadcast is to be about me. I explained this to him, and he saw the point entirely. However, he wanted further clarification on one small matter of detail: what exactly was I going to say?

I couldnt see that this mattered much, but he wanted to know which policies Id be referring to. I explained that it would be the usual: go forward together, a better tomorrow, tighten our belts, all pull together, healing the wounds, that kind of thing.

He was happy with that, but urged me to consider what Id say specifically. My first thought was that Id talk about specifically tightening our belts, healing specific wounds in our society.

But Malcolm pressured me to consider saying something new. Id never considered that. Then, suddenly, I realised what an opportunity I have here: I shall talk about my Grand Design. I told Malcolm that Id let him have the text in due course. Meanwhile, he is going to find a suitable producer for the broadcast and set up a rehearsal. It all looks very promising.

February 8th

Tense meeting with Humphrey today. He had requested it for the earliest available moment today.

As soon as I was settled in my study I sent for him. He arrived almost at once. He must have been waiting downstairs for me.

Ah, Humphrey, I said. Here already?

Yes. I gather you want to discuss a television appearance.

I was surprised that this was what he wanted to talk about. Its not that desperately urgent, is it? I asked.

Absolutely not, he agreed. Not remotely important.

I wasnt awfully pleased that my first TV broadcast should be described by Humphrey as not remotely important. He must have seen the expression on my face, because he hastily added that it was terribly important, but not a worry or a crisis.

It was quite clear that he wasnt worried about the broadcast per se, but about my Grand Design. He doesnt want me to mention it on the air.

I told him that I proposed to do just that and I asked him for his opinion.

I think it is a mistake, Prime Minister.

The policy? I asked. I was enjoying myself.

No, no, announcing it on television. Precipitate. Premature. Perilous.

He has an undoubted habit for alliteration when under pressure. I continued my little game. So you do approve of the policy?

He was trapped. He couldnt say he disapproved of both the policy and the TV announcement. Its not up to Civil Servants to approve policy. He hesitated. I waited. But of course, he was not lost for words for very long. I er I think the policy, is, er, interesting imaginative stimulating. A most stimulating approach. Tremendously refreshing to have a new mind on the old problem, challenging old ideas, questioning the whole basis of government thinking for the past thirty years.

The implication was clear. If I was about to overturn all government thinking for the past thirty years, I must be a moronic idiot.

So I gave him the opportunity to express his opinion. You dont approve of the policy?

As usual, he was less than frank. Thats not true, Prime Minister. Its just that there are implications. Repercussions. Reverberations. Knock-on effects. We need time to sift and weight the evidence. Examine the options. Test the arguments. Review. Research. Consult.

I couldnt have been more helpful. I told Humphrey that he should press on with all those tasks, and, meanwhile, I would announce the policy on the broadcast.

No! he yelped. You cant. Not yet.

Why? I wanted to know. He still hadnt come up with a reason.

Well we have to tell the Americans.

Now I was angry. Suddenly Id had enough. Only last week, before I went to America, he advised me not to tell the Americans. Thats why I didnt do it while I was there. I faced him with this.

Ah he replied carefully, yes, but that was before your visit. It was the wrong moment to talk to them.

And after Ive got back, I enquired with heavy irony, is the right moment to talk to them?

He was defiant. Yes. But they will have grave objections. It will take many months of patient diplomacy. Delicate issues need sensitive handling.

I decided it was time to remind Humphrey who was boss. Humphrey, who has the last word about the government of Britain? The British Cabinet or the American President?

He sat back, crossed his legs, and considered the matter for a moment. Thats a fascinating question, Prime Minister. We often discuss it.

And what conclusion do you come to?

Well, he replied, I have to admit Im a bit of a heretic. I think its the British Cabinet. But I know Im in a minority.

I told Humphrey that I had news for him. From now on he is in the majority.

He was surprised. But you got on so well with the President. Hes right. I did. In fact, when we started our talks I read him my brief and he read me his, and then we decided it would be much quicker if we just swapped briefs and read them to ourselves. So we spent nearly all the time rubbishing the French. Terrific.

But now the honeymoons over. I told Humphrey in no uncertain terms that from now on Britain will be governed in the interests of the British and not the Americans.

Humphrey wouldnt accept this. Prime Minister, are you sure you can make that change without the approval of the Americans?

I brushed his objections aside. I told him we would start to assert our independence with my Grand Design.

Good, good, he said. He was very unhappy. Excellent -- but not yet! It is my duty to speak up for the legitimate constitutional interests of the Cabinet. Im their Secretary.

A ridiculous ploy. You dont have to do that, I pointed out. I appointed them. They are my government.

With respect, Prime Minister, they are Her Majestys Government. Now he was splitting hairs.

With all due respect, Humphrey, I said, putting him firmly in his place, I shall raise the policy formally with OPD [Overseas Policy and Defence Committee of the Cabinet] and then put it to Cabinet. Ive sounded most of them out privately. They think its a major contribution to the defence of this country, and, as such, very popular [i.e. a vote winner Ed.].

With great respect, Prime Minister, he was pulling no punches, its not just a matter for the Cabinet. You know it must be announced to the House first. You are still a House of Commons man.

I didnt need to be reminded of this. With the greatest respect, Humphrey, I replied nastily, Ill tell the House that same afternoon.

With the greatest possible respect, Prime Minister

I wont put up with that sort of insolence. You may regret that remark, I informed him abruptly.

February 10th

Today we did the rehearsal for my television appearance. A very difficult and slightly embarrassing day.

We started with me sitting at a desk, talking to the camera. The script was on one of those autocue things.

We got off to a fairly bad start. I started the speech. It was the usual drivel. So let us be abundantly clear about this. We cannot go on paying ourselves more than we earn. The rest of the world does not owe us a living. We must be prepared to make sacrifices. And so on. Clich after clich.

I demanded to be told who wrote this rubbish, and Bernard told me, in front of everybody, that I did. I couldnt believe it at first, but it turned out to be a rather old speech written when I was much less experienced.

Nonetheless, I had to explain that it wasnt drivel exactly (which Im afraid it was) but that I felt we should be rehearsing with the draft of my actual broadcast.

Bernard seemed reluctant, because it was only a draft. I couldnt see that it mattered, since we were only doing a practice. Bernard said that it was highly confidential as it referred to my Grand Design, cancelling Trident, reintroducing conscription and so forth. I still couldnt see a problem -- everyone in the room had been cleared.

So I insisted that they put the actual draft speech up on the autocue. I couldnt see why Bernard was being so unhelpful about it all.

Malcolm has found an ex-BBC producer called Godfrey Essex to advise me on the art of television. Very nice chap, I thought. Tall, slim, slightly grey, distinguished-looking with glasses -- very experienced, with a gentle intelligent manner and a bow tie. While they changed the autocue I asked him how I was doing. He was extremely encouraging and said that I was pretty good.

But he raised an interesting point. The first of many, actually. He asked me if Id be wearing my glasses.

I asked for his opinion.

Its up to you, he replied carefully. With them on you look authoritative and commanding. With them off you look honest and open. Which do you want?

This was the first of many imponderables upon which I had to decide. I hadnt known this sort of thing mattered. I told Godfrey that Id really like to look authoritative and honest.

Its one or the other, really, he said.

Suppose I thought for a moment, suppose I sort of put them on and take them off while I talk?

That just looks indecisive.

Well, I certainly dont want to look indecisive. That would be a travesty of the truth. I weighed up the pros and cons, unable to decide.

What about a monocle? suggested Bernard. I suppose it was one of his jokes.

I have left the decision about the glasses until the day of the recording.

The autocue was fixed, the new script in, and I began. Godfrey, Bernard, and Fiona -- a charming make-up lady -- all clustered around a monitor, watching me carefully. I felt as though I were a specimen under a microscope. It is a strange feeling, being watched so minutely.

I was pleased with the speech as it began. The Trident programme is too expensive. By cancelling it we shall release billions of pounds to fund an imaginative and radical attack on the nations problems.

Godfrey interrupted me. He told it was very good, but he clearly had something on his mind. Bernard tried to talk to me as well, but I told him to wait.

Godfrey said that I was leaning forward too much, and that this made me look as though I was selling insurance. Trying to urge the customers to sign.

I tried a variety of ways of sitting, leaning and looking. I could tell that Godfrey didnt totally approve of any of them. Bernard and Malcolm had been off in a corner, and came back with a slightly different version of the speech: We shall of course be reviewing a wide range of options over the whole field of government expenditure.

Bernard, I exclaimed, slightly exasperated. That doesnt say anything.

Thank you, Prime Minister.

Hed missed the point. Totally devoid of impact, I explained.

Youre too kind, he replied with a modest blush.

No Bernard -- I dont like it!!

He was surprised, and looked at it again to see how it could be given more impact. How about urgently reviewing?

I scowled at him. He was a little edgy but stuck to his guns. I do really feel, Prime Minister, that it should be toned down a bit.

I turned to Malcolm for his thoughts or guidance. He suggested: The Trident programme is a heavy burden on your tax bill. 15 billion is a lot of money and we shall be looking at it very carefully to see if it merits the amount it costs.

It obviously watered down the content somewhat but I accepted the compromise. I checked with Godfrey if it was okay to mention figures.

Yes. He was quite enthusiastic about figures. I mean, practically no one takes them in and those who do dont believe them. But it makes people think youve got the facts at your fingertips. Dont forget, people dont know youre reading them off the teleprompter.

Good point. Apart from that his only criticism was that I was going a bit slowly. This was true -- but I was going slowly because the teleprompter thing was going slowly. But I neednt have worried. He explained that it follows your speed -- if you go fast, or slow, it just goes with you.

I tried it. Very slowly I said: The Tri dent pro gra mme is aaa And then I speeded up abruptly: very-heavy-burden-on-your-tax-bill-Fifteen-billion-pounds-is a lot of mo ney and we I was going dead slow again. And it worked. Very freeing, but quite difficult to make it look natural, spoken rather than read. Still, I think I got the hang of it pretty fast.

Godfrey picked up on another detail in that paragraph. I wonder if youd mind not saying your tax bill? It makes you sound as if youre not one of the people. The ruler talking to the ruled. Them and us.

Another good point. I should say our tax bill. I pay tax too!

Bernard was still worrying that this part of the speech was too direct. I couldnt see any problem with that, till Bernard reminded me that a lot of peoples jobs in this country depend onTrident. He felt that until there had been some consultation we shouldnt exactly spell this out.

On reflection, I felt he might be right. Malcolm came up with an alternative: Defence expenditure is one of the areas which this government will be examining closely to see if we can achieve the same level of defence at lower cost.

It seemed okay to me. But Godfrey said it was too long, and should be said in two sentences. We find if any sentence takes more than two lines, when it gets to the end most people have forgotten how it began. Including the person speaking it.

So we split that bit into two sentences.

Godfrey was still worried about my position at the desk. Clearly I had not yet arranged myself to his satisfaction. He told me that I was starting to lean forward again.

I couldnt really help it. Thats what I do, I explained to him, when I want to look sincere.

The trouble is, he replied, it makes you look like someone who wants to look sincere. If you lean back, you look relaxed and in control.

I leaned right back. Not too far, Godfrey said, it makes you look as though you had a liquid lunch.

We certainly dont want that! I sat bolt upright, wondering what to do about looking sincere if I couldnt lean forward.

Godfrey had a solution. Well underline the bits of the script where you want to sound sincere. When you come to them you frown, and say them a bit more slowly.

So far so good. But then he started giving me acting lessons. He told me my face was a bit wooden! Nobodys ever said that to me before. I didnt quite know how to take it.

He explained that in normal speech people move their head and eyebrows and cheek muscles and so on. The teleprompter was apparently turning me into a zombie.

So I tried it again. My efforts to move my face seemed to provoke sniggers in the far corner of the room where the technicians were lurking. Godfrey told me Id been doing it a little too much that time.

Bernard was still worrying about the relevant paragraph of the speech, which still read: Defence expenditure is one of those areas which this government will be examining closely. He still felt it was dangerously explicit. If you specify defence cuts it causes a lot of anxiety in places like Devonport, Portsmouth, Rosyth, Aldershot and Bristol.

I suddenly saw his point. All those towns have marginal constituencies. I told him to tone it down a little. So we went on with another bit of the speech in the meantime.

It went like this. Youll have heard a lot of nonsense from the Opposition. They say we waste money. They say we are selling out to the United States. I say, look at the mess they made when they were in power. Look at the damage they did to the economy.

This time it was Godfrey who objected to the content of the speech. Prime Minister, if I might suggest -- don't attack the Opposition.

This was a very disappointing response. After all, those are the bits that the Party likes best.

But Godfreys attitude was most interesting. His argument is that the Party will vote for me anyway. Attacking the Opposition will simply make the floating voters see me as an angry and divisive figure.

If hes right, we certainly dont want that. Godfrey also advised me never to repeat charges people make against me. It just gives more publicity to the criticisms. He also feels that people will think Im really worried about the Opposition if I go out of my way to attack them.

So I couldnt see what I could say about them. His answer was simple. Dont mention them at all. Everything you say has to make you sound warm and friendly. Authoritative, of course, but loving. Father of the Nation. Try lowering the pitch of your voice.

I found it enormously difficult to speak in a deeper voice. It sounded completely false, like a Paul Robeson impression. Im told that I must take voice lessons from someone at the RSC if I want to get it really right. [Royal Shakespeare Company, a theatrical production company which was regarded primarily for diction and voice production Ed.]

Anyway, in as deep a voice as I could muster I started on the next paragraph. They reduced our gold resources, they destroyed our export trade, they concluded contemptible and infamous agreements I realised that all of this excellent knocking copy had to go as well. What a pity!

But Godfrey had a word with Malcolm and they slipped in an optimistic, positive piece about me and the future. I think he could be right that this is an improvement on saying negative things about the past: We want to build a bright future for our children. We want to build a peaceful and prosperous Britain. A Britain that can hold her head high in the fellowship of nations.

I thought it was rather good. I asked them where they had got it. It turned out theyd taken it from the last Party Political by the Leader of the Opposition. Well have to paraphrase it.

Godfrey wanted to get back to the subject of my appearance. I prepared myself for more personal criticisms, but he wanted to discuss my clothes initially.

What will you be wearing?

What do you suggest?

A dark suit represents traditional values.

I said Id wear a dark suit.

On the other hand, a light suit looks businesslike.

Another dilemma. To look traditional or businesslike. Again I wanted to look both. Could I have a sort of lightish jacket with a darkish waistcoat?

No, Prime Minister, that would just look as if you had an identity problem. Of course, you could try a tweed suit, which suggests the British countryside. Environment, conservation and so on.

This sounded good too. But Godfrey had still more choices to offer. A sports jacket can be good -- it looks informal and approachable.

I explained to Godfrey that I am all of these things and have all of these qualities.

He was very good. He told me that I didnt have to make an instant decision, and gave me a list of pointers for when I had time to think about it. If you are all these things, then you should emphasise the one youre not. Or the one people are in danger of thinking youre not. So, if youre changing a lot of things, you want to look reassuring and traditional. Therefore you should have a dark suit and an oak-panelled background and leather books. But if youre not doing anything new, youd want a light modern suit and a modern high-tech setting with abstract paintings.

Fiona took Godfrey aside for a little word about my make-up. I had mixed feelings about it al. I must say, it is lovely to be fussed over and pampered, but I could hear the whole whispered conversation between them -- which I think was not meant for my ears.

Godfrey, are you happy about the grey hair or shall we darken it?

No, its fine.

And the receding hairline?

Receding what? I said, to indicate that I could hear them perfectly clearly.

Godfrey swung around. High forehead, he said.

Fine.

The next bit didnt please me all that much either, but Godfrey had warned me when he took on the job that he would have to be absolutely frank and honest with me or he wouldnt be of any help. He and Fiona stared at me in person, then on the monitor, then back at me again. Um, Fiona can you do something about the eyes? Make them look less close-set?

Sure. She could see no problem. Nor could I. And shall I lighten the bags underneath, and darken the pallid cheeks? He nodded. The biggest problem is the nose.

I intervened. The nose?

Godfrey reassured me that there was no problem with my nose per se. It was just a lighting problem. There was a large shadow from somewhere, apparently.

Id had enough of all this. I told them I wanted to get on with the rehearsal. But Godfrey asked Fiona if she had any other problems, reassuring me that all of this was in my interest: the better I look on television, the better chance I have of winning the next election. Hes right, of course.

Theres just the teeth, of course, said Fiona, and turned to me. Would you smile, Prime Minister?

I smiled. They stared at me, gloomily. Then Godfrey sighed. Yes, he said, in a tone of deep melancholy. And he strolled over to my desk. Prime Minister, how would you feel about a little dental work?

I didnt feel very good about it at all.

But Godfrey was rather insistent. Just a little tooth straightening. People do pick on these things. And it did wonders for Harold Wilson. Look. Fiona handed me two photos of Wilson, before and after his dental work.

Ill make an appointment for next week.

So we began again. I sat back, but not too far back. I spoke in a deep voice, moved my face and eyebrows a little, and read at a variable speed: We shall of course be reviewing a wide range of options over the whole field of government expenditure and I realised that this was exactly what Id started out with!

I was getting irritated. I told Bernard that we seemed to be going round in circles.

Prime Minister, he said, I do think that this is the most suitable, most appropriate

Most meaningless, I interjected.

He begged leave to differ. Not exactly meaningless, Prime Minister. More non-committal.

I was beginning to despair of ever getting it together. I asked Godfrey for his opinion on the material.

He wouldnt give it, of course. I dont blame him. Its not his problem. Its up to you, of course, Prime Minister, he said, returning the ball firmly to my court. All I can say is that, if thats what you want to say, I suggest a very modern suit. And a high-tech background and a high-energy yellow wallpaper with abstract paintings. Everything to disguise the absence of anything new in the actual speech.

I told him that I might go back to the original speech.

Then, said Godfrey obligingly, its the dark suit and the oak panelling.

Bernard was quite extraordinarily upset at my suggestion that I might go back to the old version. Prime Minister, I do earnestly beg you to reconsider.

I decided that the moment had come to make my position plain. I told him, told them all, that as this is my first broadcast as PM it is imperative that it deals with an important subject. I cant just go on the air and waffle. My speech must have impact.

Bernard said that he agreed wholeheartedly (which he didnt, by the way) but couldnt I make a speech on a less controversial subject. I explained that, by definition, less controversial subjects have less impact than more controversial subjects.

Surely some less controversial subjects have impact?

Such as? I waited for his suggestions with interest.

Well litter! Was he being serious? A stinging attack on people who drop litter. Or safer driving. Or saving energy. Lots of subjects.

I made my own suggestion. I told him to save some energy himself.

Godfrey raised one final matter. The opening music. The same rules apply apparently: Bach for new ideas, Stravinsky for no change.

I suggested to Godfrey that it might be appropriate if we used music by British composers. Something that reflects my image. He seemed to like that idea. Elgar, perhaps?

Yes, I said, but not Land of Hope and Glory.

How about the Enigma Variations? said Bernard. I silenced him with a look.

[Three days later Bernard Woolley sent a note to Sir Humphrey Appleby, about the content of Hackers television speech. Fortunately this came to light amongst the documents released under the Thirty Year Rule. We reproduce the original below Ed.]

10 Downing Street

From the Principal Private Secretary

February 13

Dear Humphrey,

Im afraid the TV appearance looks unpromising.

The Prime Minister has ordered a dark suit and oak panelling. This means that he is planning to say something new and radical on the air, hence the need for a traditional, conventional, reassuring image.

I know that this will cause you some concern, but he is very keen on it.

Yours ever,

B.W.

[Bernard Woolley received this reply on the following day Ed.]

70 Whitehall, London SW1A 2AS

From the Secretary of the Cabinet and Head of the Home Civil Service

February 14

Dear Bernard,

The Prime Ministers intention to discuss his so-called Grand Design on television is a matter of the utmost concern.

The fact that he is very keen on it is neither here nor there. Things dont happen just because Prime Ministers are keen on them. Neville Chamberlain was very keen on peace.

This is precisely what we had hoped you would avoid. Why has this happened?

Yours ever,

HA.

[Bernard Woolley immediately sent a brief note in reply Ed.]

10 Downing Street

From the Principal Private Secretary

February 14

Dear Humphrey,

The explanation is that the Prime Minister thinks that his Grand Design is a vote-winner.

The party has had an opinion poll done. It seems that the voters are in favour of bringing back National Service.

Yours ever,

B.W.

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

Yes, I remember that exchange of notes. Humphrey Appleby was not at all pleased that I had failed to have Hackers speech watered down, in spite of my best efforts.

He asked me to drop in on him in the Cabinet Office, to discuss the situation. He was most interested in the party opinion poll, which I had seen as an insuperable obstacle to changing the Prime Ministers mind.

His solution was simple: have another opinion poll done, one that would show that the voters were against bringing back National Service.

I was somewhat naf in those days. I did not understand how the voters could be both for it and against it. Dear old Humphrey showed me how its done.

The secret is that when the Man In The Street is approached by a nice attractive lady with a clipboard he is asked a series of questions. Naturally the Man In The Street wants to make a good impression and doesnt want to make a fool of himself. So the market researcher asks questions designed to elicit consistent answers.

Humphrey demonstrated the system on me. Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?

Yes, I said.

Do you think there is a lack of discipline and vigorous training in our Comprehensive Schools?

Yes.

Do you think young people welcome some structure and leadership in their lives?

Yes.

Do they respond to a challenge?

Yes.

Might you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?

Yes.

Well, naturally I said yes. One could hardly have said anything else without looking inconsistent. Then what happens is that the Opinion Poll publishes only the last question and answer.

Of course, the reputable polls didnt conduct themselves like that. But there werent too many of those. Humphrey suggested that we commission a new survey, not for the Party but for the Ministry of Defence. We did so. He invented the questions there and then:

Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?

Yes, I said, quite honestly.

Are you unhappy about the growth of armaments?

Yes.

Do you think theres a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?

Yes.

Do you think it wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?

Yes.

Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?

Id said Yes before Id even realised it, dyou see?

Humphrey was crowing with delight. You see, Bernard, he said to me, youre the perfect Balanced Sample.

Humphrey really had a very fertile mind. It was a pleasure to work closely with him.

He had more suggestions to make. The Prime Minister was planning to make his broadcast in three or four weeks time. The Cabinet Secretary urged me to tell Hacker that he should make the broadcast within the next eleven days.

I thought the Prime Minister might refuse. It was rather soon. Humphrey had foreseen this. He advised me to tell Hacker that I had just learned from the Joint Broadcasting Committee that the Opposition would have a Party Political in eighteen days time, that Hacker was entitled to do his Ministerial first, but that if he didnt the first political broadcast of his Premiership would be given by the Opposition.

I wondered if Humphrey was telling the truth. I challenged him on it. It will be, he said with a smile, if you dont tell him till tomorrow morning.

The reason for bringing Hackers broadcast forward was to outflank him. He would not be able to use it to announce his new policy because within the ensuing eleven days he would have been able to squeeze in only one meeting of the Overseas and Defence Policy Committee -- not enough to clear such a radical change of direction with his Cabinet colleagues.

His colleagues were largely in favour of the policy at that time. But only personally. Only politically. Not officially!

As responsible departmental Ministers their official reaction had to depend on the advice that they received.

[Meetings at Whitehall were invariably minuted. Inter-departmental meetings were no exception. Everything had to be recorded on paper, as a record of what was decided and how it was to be acted upon. There was a wide measure of agreement that this was essential for the continuity of government. One meeting, however, was never minuted: this was the weekly meeting of Permanent Secretaries, which took place in the Cabinet Secretarys office every Wednesday, the day before Cabinet met. This was an informal keeping in touch meeting, with no agenda.

Fortunately for historians, Sir Humphrey did make private notes about some of these meetings, for his own purposes. He guarded them jealously throughout his lifetime. Lady Appleby has been good enough to make these notes available to us, and they include a record of the Permanent Secretaries meeting on the morning of Wednesday 15 February Ed.]

Very useful chin-wag this morning. Among those present were Dick, Norman, Giles and David. [Sir Richard Wharton, Permanent Under-Secretary of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; Sir Norman Coppitt, Permanent Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Defence; Sir Giles Bretherton, Permanent Under-Secretary of the Department of Education and Science; and Sir David Smith, Permanent Under-Secretary of the Department of Employment Ed.]

We discussed the Prime Ministers so-called Grand Design. We agreed at the outset that the idea of abandoning Trident and Cruise missiles and of increasing conventional forces by means of conscription was both a novel and an imaginative proposal. [From these two adjectives can be seen the depth of the contempt and animosity which those Civil Servants present at the meeting felt for Hackers policy Ed.]

We agreed that as loyal Permanent Secretaries we have a duty to do everything in our power to assist its implementation.

Nonetheless, we suspected that our political masters may perhaps not have thought through all the implications. In view of this we discussed them at length, in order to be able to brief them when the PM raises the question tomorrow in Cabinet Committee.

Dick said that there were problems from the FCO point of view. The Americans simply wont stand for it. Not that British policy is determined by the Americans -- Heaven forbid! -- but in practice, we do know that it is sensible to clear all new initiatives with Washington. Last time we failed to do so the results were unfortunate. [The Suez crisis, 1956 Ed.]

I warned Dick that the Prime Minister might be somewhat hazy about the events at Suez, and therefore this argument might not worry him. Nor will he wish to look as though he is kow-towing to the Americans.

Dick raised one further point: cancelling Trident so early in his Premiership might look like weakness. Appeasement of the Soviets. Lack of courage and resolve. We agreed that this should form the basis of the Foreign Office view. The Prime Minister admires courage, from a safe distance. I enquired if Dick had been stating the views of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Dick was confident that these would be his views by tomorrow.

Norman was particularly concerned about the new policy, since it affects him most closely at the MOD. The Secretary of State for Defence is fairly confused at the moment -- his special problem is that the advice from the Navy, Army and RAF is not always identical. There is underlying harmony, of course, but they have no one on whom to vent their warlike instincts except each other. However, the one thing that unifies the three Services is their implacable opposition to conscription. They have nothing against the young people of this country, but they do not want their skilled professional lite armed forces diluted by riff-raff. British officers are the best leaders of men in NATO. It is true that there are hardly any men to lead, which might be the reason why they lead so well.

I indicated to Norman that the Prime Minister might not take the opposition of the Service Chiefs as the clinching argument.

Norman felt that the argument should be kept simple: Trident is the best and Britain must have the best. This is an argument that could well appeal to the Defence Secretary. He is very simple himself and he will be able to follow it. We agreed that Norman would give him a little coaching.

The discussion turned to the DES. Giles felt that there could be problems with conscription from the educational point of view. Our educational system has been a triumphant success in turning out socially integrated and creatively aware children who are fully trained in the arts and techniques of self-expression. The DES has a proud record in this, and has done a first-class job. However, Giles felt that conscription would inevitably give publicity to the fact that many school-leavers cannot actually read, write or do sums. So the NUT [National Union of Teachers] will be violently against its introduction.

Furthermore, there is a slight incidental risk that the Services might take over most of the Colleges of Further Education and use them for teaching purposes. We all agreed that such unnecessary interference would be rather shocking -- a total distortion of their function.

I was concerned that, as conscription is not really an educational issue, it would be hard for Giless Secretary of State to involve the NUT veto. Giles felt that, on the contrary, the NUT might veto his Secretary of State, making his life impossible.

I asked Giles what advice he proposed to give his political master. Giles remarked that although conscription is not what the DES call education, it would work very well in terms of actually teaching people things. So its hard to oppose. Not that any of us want to oppose it.

Norman wondered if the issue could not be raised that there has been a lack of reasonable time for deliberation. Fatal to rush things.

I suggested that there might be educational question marks about the credentials of the man putting the idea forward: Professor Rosenblum.

Giles agreed enthusiastically. He felt it could be argued that Rosenblums figures have come under severe critical scrutiny, or perhaps that he is academically suspect. He felt that this would be his Secretary of States view, once the Secretary of State heard the facts. Indeed, Giles recalled that there is a paper coming out that criticises the whole basis of Professor Rosenblums thinking. It will be coming out tomorrow morning. [This technique is known in the Civil Service, as it is in football, as Playing the Man Not the Ball Ed.]

It so happens that this paper will be written [Sir Humphrey made a slip here. He should have said has been written Ed.] by one of the Professors who was passed over for Chief Scientific Adviser. Not that he is jealous -- he just feels that Rosenblums influence may not be an entirely good thing.

We agreed that, in order to avoid hurting his feelings, it would probably be best if Professor Rosenblum does not actually see the paper. It should be submitted by Giles as personal advice to the Secretary of State. [It is essential, if you play the man and not the ball, that you do not let the man know you are doing so Ed.]

We turned finally to the employment implications. It is a significant part of this scheme that National Service might involve young people in doing useful jobs in the community.

David felt that this was a jolly good idea, on the face of it. But it does create grave problems with the Unions. Once you start giving jobs to non-members of Trade Unions you are on a very slippery slope. Once you let a couple of kids do up the old folks houses, you will have an uproar from all the bricklayers, plasterers, painters, plumbers, electricians and carpenters who ought to be doing it instead.

We agreed that community service can be very damaging to the community. However, it is likely that the Prime Minister will argue that if the kids were earning a living and the old people were pleased with the work, that would be all right. This argument is of course an over-simplification, but the Prime Minister never seems too worried about over-simplification.

David had an excellent idea. He felt that the Secretary of State for Employment might argue that the unemployed young people are now unfit, unorganized, undisciplined and untrained. They are a problem -- but not a threat! Conscription would mean eventually releasing on the streets an army of fit young people all trained to kill.

We unanimously agreed that this is a far-sighted and responsible attitude, and we encouraged David to ensure that his Secretary of State had taken the idea on board by tomorrow.

In my summing up we all agreed that there was no question of our trying to oppose the Prime Ministers policy, which we believe to be novel and imaginative. We are only opposed to precipitate haste.

[Appleby Papers PA/121/LAX]

[Hackers diary continues Ed.]

February 16th

Cabinet Committee this afternoon, and my colleagues responded to the Grand Design in a way that I did not predict.

It was last on the agenda. I told them that I intended to announce my Grand Design in my TV broadcast on Friday, and -- if the Committee agreed -- I would put it to full Cabinet on Thursday morning and tell the House the same afternoon.

There was a bit of a silence. I took it as general assent. So I was about to pass on to the next item when Duncan [Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs] spoke up.

Prime Minister, I think it is an excellent plan, he began.

Good, I said.

The only thing is cancelling Trident so early in your premiership could look like weakness to the Soviets.

Humphrey grunted an impressed grunt, nodded thoughtfully, and turned to me with an enquiring expression.

I was a little taken aback. When last I spoke to Duncan he had been completely in favour. I thought you were in favour of the idea. It would surely enable us to strengthen NATO through credible conventional forces.

Duncan nodded, but he didnt agree. Yes But it could look like lack of courage. It might smack of appeasement.

I told Duncan that I would record his view, even though he was in a minority of one.

I had spoken too soon. Hugh [Secretary of State for Defence] piped up.

Well, actually, Prime Minister, although I think its an excellent plan too, the fact is that Trident is the best and Britain should have the best.

I was astonished. But, Hugh, I said, I thought you wanted to get rid of Trident. Pointless waste of money, you said.

Hugh looked a little uncomfortable. Well, yes, I did say that, but now Im not sure. Ive been reviewing the papers. Theres more to it than I thought. I stared at him coldly. Um Im simply against making an early announcement, thats all.

Im against making an early announcement too, Prime Minister. Now Patrick [Secretary of State for Education] was lining up with Duncan and Hugh. I was speechless, so I asked him why.

Because the whole plan is based on Professor Rosenblums figures. And my information is that he is academically suspect. Ive just received a high-powered paper that severely criticises the whole basis of his argument.

But, Patrick, I said, with rising anxiety, you agreed that conscription will solve the whole youth unemployment problem, as well as give us meaningful defence forces.

Tom [Secretary of State for Employment] replied instead of Patrick. Yes, but it has since occurred to me that it will also create an army of fit, disciplined, organised young people who will be released from the forces after two years, unemployed again but now trained to kill.

I stared at him in disbelief. So youre against it too?

He didnt answer directly. Im against an early announcement. I think we need time to consider all more fully.

This entire conversation baffled me. Only a week ago they were all agreed that the policy was a real vote-winner. I shall have to think very hard about my next step.

Humphrey said that hed minute the Committee meeting so as to leave the door open. Jolly helpful of him.

February 20th

Today I got a memo from Hugh at the MOD. They had an opinion poll done. It says that 73% of the public are against conscription.

This is deeply confusing. The Partys poll said 64% in favour!

And then the minutes arrived.

[Sir Humphrey Applebys minutes have survived the ravages of time, and are shown below Ed.]

Item 7, Grand Design

It is clear that Cabinet Committee is agreed that the new policy is an excellent plan, in principle. But in view of the doubts being expressed, it was decided to record that, after careful consideration, the considered view of the committee was that while they considered the proposal met with broad approval in principle, it was felt that some of the principles were sufficiently fundamental in principle, and some of the considerations so complex and finely balanced in practice that in principle it was proposed that the sensible and prudent practice would be to subject the proposal to more detailed consideration with and across the relevant departments with a view to preparing and proposing a more thorough and wide-ranging proposal, laying stress on the less controversial elements and giving consideration to the essential continuity of the new proposal with existing principles, to be presented for parliamentary consideration and public discussion on some more propitious occasion when the climate of opinion is deemed to be more amenable for consideration of the approach and the principle of the principal arguments which the proposal proposes and propounds for approval.

[Hackers diary continues Ed.]

I read this passage over a few times. I think it simply means that the Committee didnt want me to refer to the Grand Design on TV on Friday.

I have no intention of abandoning my policy. But Ill have a fight on my hands, I can see that.

Meanwhile, I have instructed Bernard that on TV Id better have a light suit, high-tech furniture, a yellow high-energy wallpaper background, abstract painting -- and Stravinsky.