When three political magnificos gathered to speak to a committee of MPs, they said almost nothing ? in a very prolix fashion
It was a great occasion. Three of the most magnificent magnificos in British public life were gathered together to speak to a committee of MPs. There are no more powerful panjandrums in existence. All were former cabinet secretaries and heads of the civil service: Lord Armstrong of Ilminster GCB, CVO, Lord Wilson of Dinton, GCB, and Lord Turnbull of Enfield KCB, CVO, leading immediately to a mystery: what did Lord Wilson do so wrong that he didn't get a CVO, or Commander of the Victorian Order? Why doesn't he have that bauble on his tree?
These were the people who made Sir Humphrey look like an office boy. And they had that skill possessed by all the greatest and the goodest of saying almost nothing, in a very prolix fashion. The chairman, Bernard Jenkin, kept begging them to keep their answers short. But they could no more do that than paint their backsides blue and dance naked on the table.
Take the discussion on the powers of the monarch. Paul Flynn, Labour, the thinking man's Dennis Skinner, pointed out that whereas the Queen never expresses political views, her heir does little else. And some Tory MPs had been fearful in 1990 that the Queen might call a general election, following the defenestration of Margaret Thatcher. Shouldn't we define what the sovereign can and cannot do?
Here is Lord Wilson's reply: "The fact is that by not defining it over the centuries, we have allowed the role of the sovereign to evolve in a very British way without creating crises. We are very lucky to have a sovereign who has such experience of political life, and who has met the prime minister of the day weekly to discuss affairs of state. But if you tried to put it into law, you would have trouble pinning down the essence of it. Better to move incrementally ?"
In other words, let's do nothing at all! But let's do it at interminable length!
The MPs fretted about a document called the cabinet manual. This is, apparently, a sort of IKEA assembly-style guide to what you can and cannot do in government. The mandarins were anxious to claim it was no such thing, without actually saying so. Lord Turnbull said it was essentially descriptive and not prescriptive. Why, Lord Armstrong pointed out that "the words 'should', 'ought' and 'must' hardly appear at all!" So don't bother your little MPs' heads about that, was the message.
Lord Armstrong had been in charge when the Brighton bomb went off in 1984. "I did a lot of thinking about what one would do if the prime minister was removed from the scene," he said gravely. The result of all that thinking? We would need a new prime minister! Worth a CVO in anyone's money, I'd say.
And there was a fine moment when Lord Turnbull was asked whether the civil service had held back radical change. "Radicalism, I have no problem with. Initiativitis is a different matter." And, having invented this ugly new word, he gave a meaningful shudder.
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/02/panjandrum-shudders-initiativitis-mps-committee
Dick Cheney Noam Chomsky Bill Clinton Hillary Clinton Tom DeLay
No comments:
Post a Comment