This sounded terrific to me. I glanced at Dorothy, but she was looking decidedly less enthusiastic. She indicated that she wanted to speak.
Where would the constituency party come in? she asked pleasantly.
Marriott beamed. Well, thats the marvellous thing, you see. The party organisations would be completely bypassed. MPs would become genuinely independent.
I was aghast.
You see, continued Marriott enthusiastically, if they were personally known to all their constituents, or to their community representatives, then whether MPs could get re-elected or not would be nothing to do with whether the party backed them. It would depend on whether the constituents felt the MP was doing a good job.
Humphrey smiled at me. So if MPs werent dependent on the party machine they could vote against their own government party and get away with it, he explained.
Exactly, said the Professor again. Because thered be no need for official candidates, election would depend on the reputation of each individual MP, not the image of the party leader. Its the end of the party machine. The end of the power of the whips.
I couldnt begin to grasp how such a system could possibly work. So how would the government get its unpopular legislation through if it couldnt twist a few arms? How would it command a majority?
Marriotts answer was all too clear. Thats the whole point. It couldnt! A government couldnt command a majority! It would have to deserve it. Just like in 1832, when an MPs constituency was only about 1200 voters, there could only be legislation if a majority of the MPs were actually in favour of it. And MPs would only favour it if the voters did too. Parliament would be genuinely democratic again.
I couldnt believe my ears. Who in their right mind could possibly come to the Prime Minister with such a dangerous proposal? Only some damn-fool academic. As far as I was concerned the good professor could return to the ivory tower from whence he came -- and pronto!
Thank you so much, Professor, I said with finality. Absolutely fascinating. And I stood up and shook hands.
He was surprised. Beads of sweat broke out on the high dome of his receding forehead. Oh, er, thank you, Prime Minister, he said, and Bernard whisked him out of the room before his feet could touch the ground.
The heavy panelled door closed with a soft thud. Humphrey smiled at me. Isnt that splendid, Prime Minister? Real democracy! He clapped his hands together and rubbed them with glee.
I ignored him and turned to Dorothy. Is he right? Would that happen?
Im afraid it probably would.
Glassy-eyed, I repeated the dreadful threat aloud. MPs free to vote how they like? Its intolerable.
Just like the 1832 Reform Act, Humphrey confirmed.
But, I explained to Humphrey, as if he didnt know, the whole system depends on our MPs voting the way I tell them. Under this system they could follow the dictates of their constituents.
Or their consciences, agreed Humphrey.
Exactly! I said, echoing that bloody Professor. Dorothy, this whole schemes a complete non-starter.
Dorothy asked me what I was going to do, in that case, about Agnes Moorhouse and the police. I was stuck. But to my surprise Humphrey indicated that he had the answer. Ive had another talk with her, Prime Minister. Its all arranged. I wrote you this memorandum.
And he handed me a sheet of paper.
[Fortunately the memorandum in question was found beside the cassette on which this portion of the diary was dictate, and is reproduced below Ed.]
70 Whitehall, London SW1A 2AS
14 November
Memorandum
To: The Prime Minister
From: The Secretary of the Cabinet
Certain informal discussions have taken place, involving a full and frank exchange of views, out of which there arose a series of proposals which on examination proved to indicate certain promising lines of enquiry which when pursued led to the realisation that the alternative courses of action might in fact, in certain circumstances, be susceptible of discreet modification, in one way or another, leading to a reappraisal of the original areas of difference and pointing the way to encouraging possibilities of significant compromise and co-operation which if bilaterally implemented with appropriate give and take on both sides could if the climate were right have a reasonable possibility at the end of the day of leading, rightly or wrongly, to a mutually satisfactory conclusion.
H.A.
[Hackers diary continues Ed.]
I stared at the sheet of paper, mesmerised. Finally, I looked up at Humphrey. Could you summarise this please? I asked.
He thought hard for a moment. We did a deal, he replied.
He did a deal with Agnes Moorhouse? Splendid! How did you fix it?
He smiled humbly. Oh, the old system has its good points, you know. It works things out in its own time.
I sat back in my chair, relaxed, content to ask no more. Yes, it does, doesnt it? I murmured happily.
And the Marriott plan? he asked. He knew what my answer would be.
I dont think the nations ready for total democracy, do you? He shook his head sadly. Shall we say next century?
You could still be Prime Minister next century, Dorothy interjected.
Well, the one after, I said.
Yes, Prime Minister, said Humphrey, quite content. In fact we were all content, Humphrey, Dorothy and me. Friends at last.
THE TANGLED WEB
[The day after Hacker, Dorothy Wainwright and Sir Humphrey Appleby agreed to postpone democracy until the twenty-second century, Hacker answered questions in the House of Commons. This was a twice-weekly event: Prime Ministers Question Time. The Prime Minister was likely to be asked about almost anything at all, and was given no notice of the questions. To be more precise, the first question from an MP was likely to be: Will the Prime Minister list his official engagements for today? The supplementary question could be about absolutely anything: e.g. Will the Prime Minister find time to consider rising interest rates? Or Will the Prime Minister find time to consider the scandal of Agnes Moorhouse creating no-go areas for the police of the London Borough of Houndsworth? Or Will the Prime Minister find time to consider the scandal whereby 25% of the Honours go to less than 1% of the population, most of whom are in government?
The Prime Minister can react any a number of ways: honestly, dishonestly, with a mass of figures. He can counter-attack, flatter, or make jokes. The latter is the most dangerous and least recommended response.
Hacker, like all Prime Ministers, would prepare for Prime Ministers Question Time with great care. Bernard Woolley and the Parliamentary Questions Secretary -- a Principal from the Private Office -- would meet for a briefing from 2.30 to 3.10 p.m. in the Prime Ministers room at the House. They would be armed with a three-volume book which lists what each MP on the Order Paper has asked before, what are that MPs special interests, and -- most important -- what have been the previous answers.
The Prime Minister is obliged to give an answer to a question about policy. However, if the question demands a purely factual answer, the Prime Minister may be able to give a written reply.
The burden can be lightened by planting some of the questions. Questions come from alternate sides of the House, and a government backbencher hoping for preferment may well inform the Prime Minister of a potential question question -- "I always like to be of service, Prime Minister -- or even offer: What would you like me to ask, Prime Minister?
Furthermore, the mob of the Prime Ministers Parliamentary Private Secretary is to nobble an MP: The Prime Minister would like you to ask this question. Nonetheless, the Prime Minister can confidently expect two-thirds to three-quarters of questions to be hostile. And the most awkward questions of all frequently come from the government side -- from disappointed, disaffected and sour senior backbenchers who have either been overlooked or sacked from office.