His argument, quite simply, is that my support would be crucial for him because Im universally popular. I must admit that I can see the truth of this. He also emphasised that I have a good public image and that Im regarded as sound by everyone.
I explained my problem. Well, at least, I didnt explain that I was undecided because of my legitimate anxiety about backing the wrong horse. But I did explain, fully and frankly, that as Chairman of the Party I have to look impartial. [We note that Hackers definitions of fully and frankly, though in general use in politics, would not correspond with definitions found in the Oxford English Dictionary Ed.]
Eric played on my feelings of party loyalty. He reminded me that we are both moderates, that weve always had the same objectives for the Party, and that if Duncan got it it would be a disaster.
I knew hed say all that. But then he surprised me. Ill tell you one thing, he said firmly, I wouldnt keep Duncan at the Foreign Office. Id be looking for a new Foreign Secretary.
The inference was clear. He means me! This is very exciting! But its still dangerous -- what if he were to lose the race? However, I must seize my opportunities. So in conclusion I said to Eric that although I must appear impartial I would find ways of hinting at support for him. In a completely impartial way, of course.
So I think perhaps Ill be supporting Eric.
December 24th
Duncan came round to see me at the flat last evening. I got the impression that hed heard about my little chat with Eric.
Duncan is very different from Eric. Also very bright, he is not devious, malicious or treacherous -- he is a straightforward, heavy-handed bully. I began to explain that I ought to be impartial, or at least look impartial, as Chairman of the Party.
He brushed that aside in his usual offhand manner. As Chairman of the Party you carry more weight than before. And you havent got any real enemies. Yet.
The threat was unmistakable. Then he went on to explain what a catastrophe it would be if Eric got into Number Ten. I nodded, which I felt could be interpreted as full agreement, but in fact could also be taken merely as an indication that I could hear what he was saying.
Then, like Eric, he tried the loyalty gambit. He bared his teeth in what he thought was a warm and friendly smile. Jim, were on the same side, arent we?
I said yes, as I felt that a yes could simply mean that as members of the same party we must be on the same side. [Not necessarily Ed.] I was scrupulously careful not to tell lies. [There is, of course, a significant difference between not telling lies and not telling the truth. The truth in politics means any statement that cannot be proved false Ed.]
Good, said Duncan. But Im afraid that he could see my support for him was less than wholehearted, because he added: Im going to win, you know. And I never forgive people who let me down.
Really, Duncans not obviously subtle. I pointed out that if I gave him my support I couldnt make it too public.
It doesnt have to be public, he answered, just as long as everybody knows. Then, when Im in Number Ten and Erics in Northern Ireland, here he chuckled maliciously, we know wholl be the next Chancellor, dont we?
Another job offer! He means me! But, predictably, he couldnt finish the conversation without a threat. Unless you fancy Northern Ireland yourself?
I think perhaps Ill be supporting Duncan.
[There the matter rested until after the Christmas break. Hacker gave himself a well-earned holiday, and even stopped dictating his notes for his diary. There are one or two undecipherable, slightly slurred cassettes that may have been dictated over the festive season, but we have ascribed their lack of clarity to a faulty cassette recorder.
Early in the New Year Sir Humphrey Appleby met Sir Arnold Robinson for lunch at the Athenaeum Club. Appleby refers to the lunch in his private diary Ed.]
It was my first meeting with Arnold since he retired from the Cabinet Office and took on his other onerous duties. I asked him, mischievously, how things are at the Campaign for Freedom of Information. Im sorry, he said, but I cant talk about that.
Fair enough. Arnold wanted to know whether the new PM was likely to be our eminent Chancellor or our distinguished Foreign Secretary. [Sir Humphrey used irony extensively, even in his private notes Ed.] Funnily enough, this was what I wanted to discuss with Arnold: who, in his opinion, should get Number Ten?
He takes a fairly dim view of them both. Hes right, it is a difficult choice, rather like asking which lunatic should run the asylum.
We both agreed that they would present the same problems. They are both interventionists and they would both have foolish notions about running the country themselves if they became Prime Minister.
Arnold asked me if we had any allies. [Allies, that is, in helping to find a third, more suitable candidate for Number Ten Ed.] There is the Chief Whip, of course. He is worried that whichever gets the job will antagonise the other ones supporters and split the party. A very real fear, in my view.
As this could lead to a period of real instability and change [two things that the Civil Service wishes to avoid at all costs Ed.] it is clearly advisable to look for a compromise candidate.
We agreed that such a candidate must have the following qualities: he must be malleable, flexible, likeable, have no firm opinions, no bright ideas, not be intellectually committed, and be without the strength of purpose to change anything. Above all, he must be someone whom we know can be professionally guided [manipulated Ed.], and who is willing to leave the business of government in the hands of the experts.
Only one person seemed to have all these qualifications Hacker! But the idea of his becoming Prime Minister seems, on the face of it, completely laughable. And, what is worse, it would be difficult to achieve.
Nonetheless, we felt that it should be seriously considered for several reasons. Many of the government would welcome a less interventionist leader. The real obstacle will undoubtedly be the two front-runners for the job, but Arnold feels they might be persuaded to stand aside.
The key to this lies in their MI5 files. I have not yet had a chance to glance at them but Arnold advised me that one should always send for the MI5 files of Cabinet Ministers if one enjoys a good laugh. [The Cabinet Secretary is the centre of all security operations, and the Cabinet Office contains rooms full of top-secret security information Ed.]
BW [Bernard Woolley] joined us for a brief cup of coffee, as he had some final DAA files for me to look at. We wished each other a Happy New Year, and then I raised the matter with him.
He was quite astonished when I asked him what he would think of his present master as the next Prime Minister. In fact, he seemed unable to grasp the question for some moments. He kept asking if I meant Mr. Hacker, his Minister?
AR wanted to know if BW was suggesting that JH was not up to the job of PM. BW seemed unable to frame an appropriate reply. So we explained that there is a considerably body of opinion that can see many advantages in such an appointment. Advantages for Britain. [By which Sir Humphrey meant advantages for the Civil Service, which in his view represented all that was best about Britain. It is also worth noting that Sir Arnold Robinsons statement that there was a considerable body of opinion in favour might not have been true at that moment, but would definitely have been true by the following morning Ed.]
We concluded the meeting by giving BW some firm and clear advice as to what Hacker should not do in the next few weeks if he was to succeed. Essentially, Woolley has to ensure that his Minister does nothing incisive or divisive in the next few weeks, avoids all controversy, and expresses no firm opinion about anything at all.