Of course we would all like it to be larger. But apparently this is a time of national stringency and we all have to think in terms of national needs. There are many calls on the public purse One of my favourite phrases, that! Education, inner cities, health, kidney machines.
I nodded sagely. Another murmur went round the room, this time of disappointment. Simon Monk, it was clear, was not going to attack me. And in fact, at that moment he removed a couple of pages from his speech and slipped them into his pocket. Very wise. Perhaps he knew the old adage: Never speak when you are angry. If you do youll make the best speech youll ever regret.
Simons speech was unexpectedly brief. All that was left of it was I suppose we should be glad that any increase has been possible. And grateful to our Guest of Honour whose personal intervention has made even this small increase possible.
I beamed at him. The cameras were on me, I knew. Ladies and gentlemen, said Monk, holding up his glass, I give you our Guest of Honour, the patron of the arts, the Prime Minister.
He sat down to a smattering of unenthusiastic applause. Little did his audience know, but hed made the smart move and the only possible speech.
I let him see me remove the appropriate pages from my script. And I whispered to Humphrey: Excellent speech, wasnt it?
He seemed as angry as the theatricals. Yes Prime Minister, he said, through clenched teeth! But then, old Humphreys always been a bit theatrical himself.
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.