The Complete Yes Minister

How? I made notes as he spoke. It occurred to me, that his technique could be useful for discrediting some of the party’s more idiotic research papers.

Stage one: The public interest

1) You hint at security considerations.

2) You point out that the report could be used to put unwelcome pressure on government because it might be misinterpreted. [Of course, anything might be misinterpreted. The Sermon on the Mount might be misinterpreted. Indeed, Sir Humphrey Appleby would almost certainly have argued that, had the Sermon on the Mount been a government report, it should certainly not have been published on the grounds that it was a thoroughly irresponsible document: the sub-paragraph suggesting that the meek will inherit the earth could, for instance, do irreparable damage to the defence budget – Ed.]

3) You then say that it is better to wait for the results of a wider and more detailed survey over a longer time- scale.

4) If there is no such survey being carried out, so much the better. You commission one, which gives you even more time to play with.

Stage two: Discredit the evidence that you are not publishing

This is, of course, much easier than discrediting evidence that you do publish. You do it indirectly, by press leaks. You say:

(a) that it leaves important questions unanswered

(b) that much of the evidence is inconclusive

(c) that the figures are open to other interpretations

(d) that certain findings are contradictory

(e) that some of the main conclusions have been questioned

Points (a) to (d) are bound to be true. In fact, all of these criticisms can be made of a report without even reading it. There are, for instance, always some questions unanswered – such as the ones they haven’t asked. As regards (e), if some of the main conclusions have not been questioned, question them! Then they have.

Stage three: Undermine the recommendations

This is easily done, with an assortment of governmental phrases:

(a) ‘not really a basis for long-term decisions . . .’

(b) ‘not sufficient information on which to base a valid assessment . . .’

(c) ‘no reason for any fundamental rethink of existing policy . . .’

(d) ‘broadly speaking, it endorses current practice . . .’

These phrases give comfort to people who have not read the report and who don’t want change – i.e. almost everybody.

Stage four: If stage three still leaves doubts, then Discredit The Man Who Produced the Report

This must be done OFF THE RECORD. You explain that:

(a) he is harbouring a grudge against the government

(b) he is a publicity seeker

(c) he’s trying to get his knighthood

(d) he is trying to get his chair

(e) he is trying to get his Vice-Chancellorship

(f) he used to be a consultant to a multinational company or

(g) he wants to be a consultant to a multinational company

June 9th

Today the Propanol plan reached the television news, damn it. Somehow some environmental group got wind of the scheme and a row blew up on Merseyside.

The TV newsreader – or whoever writes what the newsreader reads – didn’t help much either. Though he didn’t say that Propanol was dangerous, he somehow managed to imply it – using loaded words like ‘claim’.

[We have found the transcript of the BBC Nine O’Clock News for 9 June. The relevant item is shown below Hacker seems to have a reasonable point – Ed.]

[We asked an old BBC current affairs man how the News would have treated the item if they had been in favour of the scheme, and we reproduce his ‘favourable’ version to compare with the actual one – Ed.]

June 10th

I summoned Humphrey first thing this morning. I pointed out that metadioxin is dynamite.

He answered me that it’s harmless.