We were all more than surprised to hear this. So he clarified the statement: what he meant was that the MOD knows what it would have to do to repel a Russian invasion. I was even more surprised, and asked if we could repel it. He said no, of courts not, but at least the MOD dont have to do any more thinking about it.
It was up to me nominally to defend the Employment Secretarys proposal, since the Prime Minister has publicly supported it, so I reiterated that, although the armed forces contain a lot of men from the north, they are not the ones who are unemployed now. And the Employment Secretarys scheme is designed to help those who are currently unemployed.
Alan felt that we were doing quite enough already. Many of our troops from the north were unemployed, thats why they joined up. This argument wont wash with the PM, who is concerned about jobs in the north, whereas the troops who have joined up in the north are spending all their money in the south where they now are.
Alan said that this was logically inevitable, since there is nothing to spend it on in the north.
Field Marshal Sir Geoffrey Howard joined us. He went straight on to the attack, informing me that this proposal must be stopped. He told me that you cant just move hundreds of thousands of men around the country like that.
I thought thats what you did with armies. It sounds a feeble argument to me. But upon closer examination it was the permanent of the move to which he objected. Quite reasonably.
He conceded that some servicemen could be stationed permanently in the north of England: other ranks perhaps, junior officers possibly. But he made it clear, very properly, that we really cannot as senior officers to live permanently in the north.
I asked for a list of reasons. He obliged.
1. Their wives wouldnt stand for it.
2. No schools. [There were schools in the north of England at this time, but perhaps Sir Geoffrey meant that suitable fee-paying schools were not accessible Ed.]
3. Harrods is not in the north.
4. Nor is Wimbledon.
5. Ditto Ascot.
6. And the Henley Regatta.
7. Not to mention the Army and Navy Club.
In short, he argued that civilisation generally would be completely remote. This sort of sacrifice is acceptable to the forces in times of war but if the move were made in these circumstances, morale would undoubtedly plummet.
I was impatient with these arguments. The matter is to be discussed in Cabinet this afternoon, and more serious arguments are required than senior officers being three hundred miles from the club, however disturbing, however true!
Geoffrey could think of nothing more serious than that. He remarked indignantly that chaps like him and me might have to move up there.
I pressed him for objective reasons against the plan. He insisted that these were objective reasons. I decided against showing him the dictionary, and enquired if there are any strategic arguments against it.
He said there were. Several. My pencil poised, I asked him to list them. He was unable to do so. He said that he hasnt had time to think about it yet, but that strategic arguments can always be found against anything. Hes absolutely correct in that.
So when Alan and Geoffrey have had time to find some strategic arguments, we must ensure that if they cannot stand up to outside scrutiny we will make them top secret. This is in any case customary with all defence matters, and is the way in which we have always managed to keep the defence estimates high. We will make the strategic arguments For The Prime Ministers Eyes Only, which certainly means that they will not be subject to expert scrutiny.
However, the strategic arguments might not be sufficient to deflect the Prime Minister from the Employment Secretarys plan. So I proposed that, for additional safety, we play the man instead of the ball. This is always a good technique, and the man in question is -- and deserves to be -- the Employment Secretary, whose dreadful idea this was.
The plan we devised involves appealing to the Prime Ministers paranoia. All Prime Ministers are paranoid, this one more than most. It should be childs play to suggest to the Prime Minister that the Employment Secretary is plotting against him.
Geoffrey asked if this were true. Soldiers really are awfully simple people. The question is not whether there is a plot (which, so far as I know, there is not) but whether the Prime Minister can be made to believe there is.
Geoffrey asked if there were any chance of getting rid of him completely. At first I thought that he was referring to the PM, and I indicated that it would be an awful pity to get rid of him after all the effort weve put into getting him house-trained.
But it transpired that Geoffrey meant getting rid of the Employment Secretary. The man is dangerous. If hes moved from Employment he might get Industry -- in which case he might try to sell the RAF. Or privatise the army. Or float the navy.
In view of the presence of one or two junior MOD officials at the meeting and the consequent risk of ponting, I expressed appropriate horror at Field Marshal Howards notion that humble civil servants should presume to try and remove a member of Her Majestys Government from the Cabinet. I explained that it was out of the question, that only a Prime Minister can remove Secretaries of State.
Nonetheless, any Prime Minister would be forced to consider such drastic action if he were to suspect the loyalty of a member of his cabinet. And since only someone in an advanced state of paranoia would suspect the Employment Secretary of a plot were in with a chance.
Before the meeting broke up we ensured that the minutes reflected our enthusiasm for the Employment Secretarys proposal to relocate substantial numbers of our armed forces, at all levels, in the north of England and Scotland.
[Appleby Papers 36/17/QQX]
[Sir Humphreys comment about the discretion of the junior officials reflects the growing concern about freedom of information at this time. An Assistant Secretary by the name of Ponting was one of those officials who had taken it upon himself to leak information to Members of Parliament and other totally unqualified and unsuitable individuals, in what was claimed to be the public interest. Ponting became the participle from the verb to pont used to describe such leaks, and many junior officials were concerned with the problem of to pont or not to pont, the alternatives being loyalty and discretion in the job or resignation from it. Ponting was clearly an attractive temptation, carrying with it the improbability of conviction, the certainty of notoriety and the serialisation of ones memoirs in the Guardian .
The day following the secret meeting at the MOD, the Employment Secretarys proposal came up for discussion in Cabinet Committee. Hackers diary continues Ed.]
July 4th
We discussed Dudleys proposal today in Cabinet Committee and I encountered opposition, just as I expected. Sir Humphrey was present. So were Max [Sir Maxwell Hopkins, Secretary of State for Defence] and Dudley and several others. Bernard was there too, of course.
Dudley, at my prompting, asked for reactions to his paper.
Max spoke first. He was bound to be against it. Well, Prime Minister, I know that on the face of it this plan looks as though it might benefit the employment situation in depressed areas. But this is to be achieved, as I understand it, but relocating most of our defence establishments. I suggest that it affects the Defence Department at least as much as the Department of Employment and I need time to do a feasibility study.