The Complete Yes Minister

I explained quietly, however, that we need a reason. By which I meant a pretext. He was ready with one, as I knew he would be.

‘No problem. I understand that the Palace has been under pressure from a number of Commonwealth leaders. We can’t embarrass the Palace, so we’ll have to redesignate Baillie as a Commonwealth Education Centre.’

Immediately I saw a chance for the deal that I wanted to do.

‘But how will I find the money?’ I asked, wide-eyed. ‘You know how set I am on making five per cent cuts across the board. If we could achieve that . . . well, anything’s possible.’

I reckoned that this was an offer he couldn’t refuse. I was right. ‘We might be able to achieve these cuts –’ this was a big step forward – ‘and I can only speak for this Department, of course, as long as this absurd idea of linking cuts to honours were to be shelved.’

So there it was. A double quid pro quo. Out in the open.

The expenditure Survey Committee gathered around my conference table.

The minutes of the last meeting went through on the nod. Then we came to Matters Arising. The first was Accommodation. Sir Humphrey pre-empted the Assistant Secretary who usually spoke on this matter. As the young man opened his mouth to reply, I heard Humphrey’s voice: ‘I’m happy to say that we have found a five per cent cut by selling an old office block in High Wycombe.’

The Assistant Secretary looked mightily surprised. Clearly Humphrey had not forewarned him of the New Deal.

I was delighted. I said so. We moved straight on to number two: Stationery Acquisition.

A Deputy Secretary spoke up, after getting an unmistakeable eye signal and slight nod of the head from Humphrey. ‘Yes, we’d discovered that a new stock control system will reduce expenditure this year.’

‘By how much?’ I asked.

The Deputy Secretary hesitated uncertainly. ‘About five per cent, wasn’t it?’ said Humphrey smoothly.

The Dep. Sec. muttered his agreement.

‘Good, good,’ I said. ‘Three: Parks and Forestry Administration?’

An Under-Secretary spoke, having caught on with the civil servant’s customary speed to a change in the party line.

‘If we delay the planned new computer installation, we can make a saving there.’

‘Can we?’ I said, pretending surprise. ‘How much?’

They all pretended that they couldn’t remember. Much consultation of paper and files.

A bright Principal spoke up: ‘About five per cent?’ he said, hopefully. We all nodded our approval, and assorted civil servants muttered ‘Of that order.’

Humphrey pointed out that the saving in the computer installation would lead inevitably to a cut in Data Processing. I looked at him expectantly. ‘By about five per cent,’ he said.

‘This is all very encouraging, Humphrey,’ I said benevolently.

And after the meeting, at which everyone had somehow managed to come up with cuts of about five per cent, Humphrey took me aside for a quiet word.

‘Minister, while I think of it, have you finished with the list of departmental recommendations to the Honours Secretary?’

‘Certainly.’ I was at my most obliging. ‘There was no problem with any of them. Bernard will give it to you. All right, Humphrey?’

‘Yes, Doctor,’ he replied.

A fitting tribute. I look forward to the ceremony next June.

¹ Vintage port.

² In fact, the size of Oxford University is limited by the University Grants Committee. Baillie might not even have been allowed to take more home students, except by taking them from other colleges. The other colleges would be unlikely to agree to this, because it would put them in jeopardy.

³ Translation: who guards the guards? A quotation from Juvenal’s Satires and not, as is commonly supposed in political circles, from juvenile satires.

⁴ The Oxford term for the second part of the classics degree course.

⁵ Privy Counsellor.

⁶ First among equals.

⁷ Brand name of popular packaged sliced loaf, not of the kind customarily consumed at High Table.

⁸ In conversation with the Editors.

11

The Greasy Pole

[There are times in a politician’s life when he is obliged to take the wrong decision. Wrong economically, wrong industrially, wrong by any standards – except one. It is a curious fact that something which is wrong from every other point of view can be right politically. And something which is right politically does not simply mean that it’s the way to get the votes – which it is – but also, if a policy gets the votes, then it can be argued that that policy is what the people want. And, in a democracy, how can a thing be wrong if it is what the people will vote for?