Skinflint's City Diary
You may feel bewildered by government economic policy in the economic sphere — if it is any consolation you are not alone. But never fear, our politicians and civil servants will explain all if we only listen to them carefully enough. Hearken to their parliamentary -words and all will be made clear.
' For instance, the cause of inflation. The following is a verbatim extract from Hansard for February 20:
Mr Renton: Which is now the collective view of the cabinet — the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that wages are the main cause of inflation, or the view of the Secretary of State for Industry that they are not?
The Prime Minister: The Cabinet is totally at one on all these matters.
Thank you Mr Wilson; I'm glad you explained that. And no, I did not make that up; and yes, we do now understand why the great American humorist Will Rogers used to say there Was nothing in being a political satirist when you had both parties working for you. But Hansard is widely circulated material which anyone can read 'and lots do. It is in fact highly .enjoyable reading and can become positively addictive. The quick-fire exchange of sophisticated inanity, the carefully-turned phrases of empty bombast, the cut and thrust of knockabout farce — all are there. God knows MPs' reluctance to allow TV cameras is all too understandable.
Sir William Armstrong as head of the Civil Service used to tell the story of the two senior civil servants lost on a country drive. They stop by a yokel and wind down the window — "I say my man, can you tell us where we are?" Yokel shifts straw to other side of mouth, scratches head and says "Arr. You'm be here." The driver is just about to get annoyed when his companion soothes him: "Calm down," he says "think of it this r way, it contains all the ingredients of the perfect parliamentary answer. It is brief, it is truthful, and it adds absolutely nothing to what we know already."
But there is more to Parliament than question-time in the House. Less well known, perhaps because less glamorous and with a slightly lower content of unconscious humour, are the deliberations of select committees. These too can be instructive.
On February 24 the general subcommittee of the select committee on expenditure examined the Treasury — well, made some groping and desultory efforts at eliciting the bases of government policy. Judge for yourself with what success.
Chairman Michael English listed the horrifying frequent changes .in public expenditure forecasts and asked how in heaven's name
anyone was supposed to be able to plan ahead with such vacillation. The Treasury men dodged and weaved but for once they were not to be let off the hook. Changes in government entail change in policy, said the Treasury irrelevantly. Mr English pointed out the changes were not thereby explained. '
Ternpora mutantur et nos muta,mur in iliis, replied the Treasury (in English and at much greater length). No, but seriously, said the committee. Well, said Mr F. Jones, deputy secretary public sector group, obviously losing patience at such querying of the Treasury's omniscience, the fact that governments do it shows it is feasible. Snorts of amazed derision from the public benches, despair from committee.
But hold hard a moment, this is not the total myopia, ignorance of consequences, or Eichmann-like obedience to orders that it seems. Civil servants may lack many skills but they are certainly trained in the use of language so we should listen carefully; feasible strictly speaking means it can be done. And in that case you cannot fault the reasoning (though you might note the avoidance of examining consequences) — it was done therefore it can be done. QED. John Garrett tried to pursue whether anybody had looked at the cost consequences of the changes but he met a blank wall — whether of incomprehension or unhelpful defensiveness is hard to say.
Previous page
