[First lines. The episode opens at night with people on a balcony, including Minister James George "Jim" Hacker and the Mayor, who is announcing the results]
MMayor
David Lloyd Evans, 4,106...
NNarrator
And here at Birmingham East, the Returning Officer is just declaring the result.
MMayor
...James George Hacker: 21,793! Arthur William Gaunt: 19,321!
NNarrator
So Jim Hacker's back with an increased majority, and after many years as a Shadow Minister, seems almost certain to get a post in the new Government.
[The President of Buranda plans a speech urging the Scots and Irish to fight against "British colonialism".]
Humphrey, do you think it is a good idea to issue a statement?
Well, Minister, in practical terms we have the usual six options. One: do nothing. Two: issue a statement deploring the speech. Three: lodge an official protest. Four: cut off aid. Five: break off diplomatic relations. And six: declare war.
Well, if we do nothing, that means we implicitly agree with the speech. If we issue a statement, we'll just look foolish. If we lodge a protest, it'll be ignored. We can't cut off aid, because we don't give them any. If we break off diplomatic relations, then we can't negotiate the oil rig contracts. And if we declare war, it might just look as though we were over-reacting.
How many people do we have in this department?
Ummm... well, we're very small...
Two, maybe three thousand?
About twenty-three thousand to be precise.
TWENTY-THREE THOUSAND! In the department of administrative affairs, twenty-three thousand administrators just to administer the other administrators! We need to do a time-and-motion study, see who we can get rid of.
Ah, well, we did one of those last year.
And what were the results?
It turned out that we needed another five hundred people.
[The Minister is already double-booked when his wife reminds him of another prior engagement.]
JHJim Hacker
[on the phone] Bernard? Yes, it's me. Look, I'm going to have to cancel tomorrow. Swansea and Newcastle. Well, you see, it's my wife's wedding anniversary tomorrow.
And mine, too, actually. Yes, it is...What do you mean, "coincidence"? Don't be silly, Bernard!
[One day, Mr. Hacker is taking some paperwork out of his red box and Sir Humphrey has come to see him]
I am still not happy with this report, Humphrey.
Then, Minister, we shall be happy to redraft it for you.
You've redrafted it three times already.
That's not absolutely correct, Minister.
Yes, it is, Bernard, I can count. This is the third draft report.
It's quite so, Minister, therefore it's been drafted once and subsequently redrafted twice.
But we shall be happy to redraft it a third time.
And a fourth and a fifth and a sixth, no doubt. And it still won't say what I want it to say, it'll say what you want it to say, and I want it to say what I want it to say.
What do you want it to say, Minister?
We want it to say what you want it to say.
I'm sure the parliament doesn't want you to say anything you don't want to say.
Stop wittering, Bernard! Six weeks ago, the Think Tank asked us for our evidence on Civil Service overmanning. Three times, I have briefed a group of civil servants in words of one syllable and each time, they've sent back a totally unintelligible report, saying the exact opposite of what I asked them to say.
With respect, Minister, how do you know it says the opposite if it's totally unintelligible?
All I am saying is that the Civil Service is grossly overmanned and must be slimmed down.
Quite so. That is what the report says.
It - it does... Look, what I'm talking about is a phased reduction in the Civil Service of about 200,000 people. Are you going to put that in this report or not?
Well, Minister, perhaps if you were to take that draft home with you this weekend and study it, you might find that it does, in fact, say what you want it to say.
Then I can only suggest that we redraft it.
Humphrey? Humphrey, sit down. (Humphrey sits in the chair opposite Hacker) Will you give me a straight answer to a straight question?
Oh, well, Minister, as long as you are not asking me to resort to crude generalisations and vulgar oversimplifications, such as a simple yes or no. I shall do my utmost to oblige.
(Takes a deep breath) Yes.
Right. Well, here's the straight question.
Oh, I thought that was it.
When you give your evidence to the Think Tank, are you going to support my view that the Civil Service is overmanned and feather-bedded, or not? Yes or no? Straight answer.
Well, Minister, if you ask me for a straight answer, then I shall say that, as far as we can see, looking at it by and large, taking one time with another in terms of the average of departments, then in the final analysis it is probably true to say, that at the end of the day, in general terms, you would probably find that, not to put too fine a point on it, there probably wasn't very much in it one way or the other. As far as one can see, at this stage.
Suppose you weren't asked for a straight answer?
Well then I should play for time, Minister.
Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?
That's all ancient history, surely?
Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing [the EEC] up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing — set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch... The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
But surely we're all committed to the European ideal?
[chuckles] Really, Minister.
If not, why are we pushing for an increase in the membership?
Well, for the same reason. It's just like the United Nations, in fact; the more members it has, the more arguments it can stir up, the more futile and impotent it becomes.
Yes... We call it diplomacy, Minister.
DHDaniel Hughes
Let's face it, all your functions could be subsumed by other departments. Jim Hacker will win through with a thoroughly public-spirited, self-sacrificing policy. The PM will probably kick him upstairs: Lord Hacker of Kamikaze. [chuckles]
I hardly think that's funny, Daniel. Or likely.
DHDaniel Hughes
But why not? I mean, he ran the leadership campaign against the PM, didn't he? This could be the PM's masterstroke! In one fell swoop: approbation, elevation, and castration. You know the PM's motto: in defeat, malice. In victory, revenge.
