Minister: Ah, Sir Humphrey. Have you seen this report in the newspapers?
Sir Humphrey: Which report would that be, Minister?
Minister: This report about the collapse of the Gaelic daily newspaper in Belfast.
Sir Humphrey: Indeed I have. Quite inevitable of course – the only surprising thing is that it lasted as long as it did.
Minister: You mean you knew that it would fail?
Sir Humphrey: Of course, Minister. The funding arrangements were completely inadequate - £200,000 a year was never going to be enough to sustain it.
Minister: But that’s exactly the amount we’ve said that we’ll make available in Wales!
Sir Humphrey: Quite so, Minister, quite so.
Minister: And just last week, I praised this newspaper, saying it was a good example!
Sir Humphrey: Indeed, you did Minister. The timing is rather unfortunate in the circumstances.
Minister: Unfortunate! That’s something of an understatement isn’t it? I’m in danger of looking like a complete fool!
Sir Humphrey: Do you believe that there is anything which the civil service could ever do to prevent that, Minister?
Minister: Well, you could have warned me, to start with.
Bernard: But if you had known that the paper was about to collapse because of lack of funds, you would have known that the amount we were offering here was completely inadequate as well. Then you would have looked like a dishonest complete fool. Er, that is, I mean…
Sir Humphrey: Thank you Bernard. We didn’t actually know for certain when it would collapse, Minister. And the Consultant’s report did note that the paper was already asking for extra funding – it was in the third footnote on page 1,325. Did you not read that?
Minister: If I read everything that you gave me, I’d never have time for anything else.
Sir Humphrey: Precisely, Minister.
Minister: Anyway, what do I do next? My friends are deserting me, and I'm being attacked on all sides.
Sir Humphrey: We are your friends, Minister. And we’re not deserting you, are we, Bernard?
Bernard: Of course not, Minister. You may look like a complete fool to others, but we know the truth.
Sir Humphrey: Thank you, Bernard. What do you think we should do next, Minister?
Minister: Me? I usually rely on you to tell me. Surely there’s something we can do to draw attention away from this issue?
Sir Humphrey: Ah, yes, diversionary tactics. That was one of your predecessor’s favourite approaches, too. I think we have some good news for you there, Minister. We’re quite close to completing the work on the new language legislation; I'm sure that we'll be able to announce something soon.
Minister: You mean something like, ‘Minister announces the most sweeping extensions to language rights in history’?
Sir Humphrey: Well, we may need to change the tone slightly, Minister, but you will certainly be able to announce something.
Minister: Excellent. Thank you Sir Humphrey. Get on to it right away.
Sir Humphrey: Yes, Minister.
Showing posts with label Bunker. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bunker. Show all posts
Friday, 22 February 2008
Thursday, 7 February 2008
From the Heritage Bunker (Episode 5)
Minister: Ah, Sir Humphrey. I need a little chat with you.
Sir Humphrey: Indeed, Minister? How can I be of assistance?
Minister: People are complaining about the budget cuts being made by the Arts Council as a result of the Olympic Games.
Sir Humphrey: Hardly a surprise, Minister. The cuts are really quite significant.
Minister: But I thought that you told me that we couldn’t divert money from the Arts to other things, like gardens. Surely the same applies to sports?
Sir Humphrey: Indeed it does Minister.
Minister: Then how are we diverting money from the Arts to the Olympics?
Sir Humphrey: We are not, Minister. This is Lottery money; a completely different set of rules applies.
Minister: But surely, they can’t just stop funding like this?
Sir Humphrey: Well, Minister, I am sure that you will recall that, when the lottery was established, it was made perfectly clear that any funding from that source was to be regarded as additional, and not to be used to fund things which the government would otherwise be funding. So, when it gets cut, it is the additional items which will suffer.
Minister: But it looks to me as though the Arts Council are cutting mainstream activities. They don’t look like additional items to me.
Bernard: Yes, they are Minister, because they’re additional to what we pay for. We give them part of the money they ask for each year, and then they ask the Lottery for additional money for the additional projects. So anything we don’t fund is defined as additional.
Sir Humphrey: Thank you, Bernard. However much the Arts Council get, it is for them to decide how to spend it, Minister.
Minister: But most of the money they spend comes from us – can’t I tell them what to do?
Sir Humphrey: Certainly not, Minister. The whole point of having an Arts Council is so that politicians don’t take decisions on arts priorities. If you started interfering, what would be the point of having an Arts Council at all?
Minister: But who decided to cut the funding from the Lottery?
Sir Humphrey: Well, when the government decided to bid for the Olympics, they decided that the lottery would be expected to pay for a large part of the costs.
Minister: But I thought that the Lottery Commission was independent of the government, and the funds couldn’t be used to replace government expenditure?
Sir Humphrey: Minister, really. That was what was said when the lottery was established, but surely no-one really expected any government not to control the way in which billions of pounds of money was being spent – especially when the potential alternative was more taxes?
Minister: But isn’t that what they promised?
Bernard: That was a politician’s promise, Minister. It’s like saying that they’re not going to increase taxes, when everyone knows that’s exactly what they’re going to do.
Minister: So, what can I do?
Sir Humphrey: You could write to the UK Heritage Minister on the matter.
Minister: What difference will that make?
Sir Humphrey: None whatsoever, Minister. You asked me what you could do, not how you could change the decisions.
Minister: So what can I do to change the decisions?
Sir Humphrey: Nothing, Minister.
Minister: So Welsh Arts Projects simply lose out to the Olympic Games in London?
Sir Humphrey and Bernard: Yes, Minister.
Sir Humphrey: Indeed, Minister? How can I be of assistance?
Minister: People are complaining about the budget cuts being made by the Arts Council as a result of the Olympic Games.
Sir Humphrey: Hardly a surprise, Minister. The cuts are really quite significant.
Minister: But I thought that you told me that we couldn’t divert money from the Arts to other things, like gardens. Surely the same applies to sports?
Sir Humphrey: Indeed it does Minister.
Minister: Then how are we diverting money from the Arts to the Olympics?
Sir Humphrey: We are not, Minister. This is Lottery money; a completely different set of rules applies.
Minister: But surely, they can’t just stop funding like this?
Sir Humphrey: Well, Minister, I am sure that you will recall that, when the lottery was established, it was made perfectly clear that any funding from that source was to be regarded as additional, and not to be used to fund things which the government would otherwise be funding. So, when it gets cut, it is the additional items which will suffer.
Minister: But it looks to me as though the Arts Council are cutting mainstream activities. They don’t look like additional items to me.
Bernard: Yes, they are Minister, because they’re additional to what we pay for. We give them part of the money they ask for each year, and then they ask the Lottery for additional money for the additional projects. So anything we don’t fund is defined as additional.
Sir Humphrey: Thank you, Bernard. However much the Arts Council get, it is for them to decide how to spend it, Minister.
Minister: But most of the money they spend comes from us – can’t I tell them what to do?
Sir Humphrey: Certainly not, Minister. The whole point of having an Arts Council is so that politicians don’t take decisions on arts priorities. If you started interfering, what would be the point of having an Arts Council at all?
Minister: But who decided to cut the funding from the Lottery?
Sir Humphrey: Well, when the government decided to bid for the Olympics, they decided that the lottery would be expected to pay for a large part of the costs.
Minister: But I thought that the Lottery Commission was independent of the government, and the funds couldn’t be used to replace government expenditure?
Sir Humphrey: Minister, really. That was what was said when the lottery was established, but surely no-one really expected any government not to control the way in which billions of pounds of money was being spent – especially when the potential alternative was more taxes?
Minister: But isn’t that what they promised?
Bernard: That was a politician’s promise, Minister. It’s like saying that they’re not going to increase taxes, when everyone knows that’s exactly what they’re going to do.
Minister: So, what can I do?
Sir Humphrey: You could write to the UK Heritage Minister on the matter.
Minister: What difference will that make?
Sir Humphrey: None whatsoever, Minister. You asked me what you could do, not how you could change the decisions.
Minister: So what can I do to change the decisions?
Sir Humphrey: Nothing, Minister.
Minister: So Welsh Arts Projects simply lose out to the Olympic Games in London?
Sir Humphrey and Bernard: Yes, Minister.
Wednesday, 31 October 2007
From the Heritage Bunker (Episode 2)
Sir Humphrey: I thought your statement on the Millennium Centre went extremely well, Minister.
Minister: Thank you, Sir Humphrey.
Sir Humphrey: Particularly the way in which you transferred the blame to the people who had leaked the document to the media. That usually has the desired effect of diverting attention from the real issue.
Minister: For the time being at least. But I’d still like to know how much it is all going to cost.
Sir Humphrey: Well, which answer would you like, Minister?
Minister: The correct one?
Sir Humphrey: The correct answer to any question always depends on the question, Minister. So before I can give you a correct answer, we need to define the correct question. Perhaps we could start by asking what answer you would like to be able to give?
Minister: What?
Bernard: Well, Minister, it’s really very simple. Any aid will be a mixture of grants and loans, and there will be some promises to underwrite costs which may never transpire to be real expenditure at all. Some of the money will be paid immediately and some will be deferred, and some will merely be contingency which may never be called upon. Some might even be in the form of the Arts Council subsidising productions and events, so will never go to the Centre itself at all, or will come from a different line on the budget. So there are a range of possible answers, depending on the question.
Minister: I see. What’s the lowest figure?
Sir Humphrey: I thought that might be the one that you would want, Minister. I already have a small team of civil servants working on the answer for you, and we should have it back in a month or two. Now, perhaps we can turn to more pressing issues. Ess Four See.
Minister: I’m thinking of calling for it to be devolved to the Assembly.
Sir Humphrey: Is that wise, Minister?
Minister: Of course. It’s a Welsh channel, its future should be decided by the Assembly. And it would be a bold statement of the way I intend to increase the powers of the Assembly.
Sir Humphrey: But the costs of S4C are just a pinprick in London; they would look like a substantial part of your budget here in Wales. What if the Assembly were to decide to cut back on spending in order to build more hospitals, for instance?
Minister: Well, we’ll demand that the money currently spent on the channel should be devolved as well, and that it should be ring-fenced so that it can't be spent on anything else.
Bernard: So the Minister in London retains control over how much should be spent by the devolved administration in Cardiff, and gets rid of a problem at the same time.
Sir Humphrey: Bernard! Yes, I think I can probably persuade my colleagues in Whitehall of the merits of that suggestion, Minister. But there are some serious issues facing the channel with a declining number of viewers and an increasing cost per viewer – how do you propose to tackle those?
Minister: Any suggestions?
Sir Humphrey: Well, the real problem, Minister, is that the channel has a very low audience and that makes it difficult to attract advertising revenue. Now, what it really needs to do is to attract a higher audience.
Minister: And how could it do that?
Sir Humphrey: The factor which restricts the audience is the fact that it only currently appeals to those who can speak Welsh. Now if we could only find some way of overcoming that…
Minister: What if it were to become a bilingual channel?
Sir Humphrey: What a brilliant idea, Minister. And a very bold decision. The thought hadn’t crossed my mind.
Bernard: But wouldn’t that look like a betrayal of the principles on which the channel was founded?
Sir Humphrey: Only to a few fringe nationalists. But think of the headlines – Minister thinks the Unthinkable; Minister in Brave New Departure; Minister faces up to the tough decisions needed in government.
Minister: And some good photo opportunities as well?
Sir Humphrey: Certainly Minister.
Minister: With Superted on one side and Sam Tân on the other?
Sir Humphrey and Bernard: Yes, Minister.
Minister: Thank you, Sir Humphrey.
Sir Humphrey: Particularly the way in which you transferred the blame to the people who had leaked the document to the media. That usually has the desired effect of diverting attention from the real issue.
Minister: For the time being at least. But I’d still like to know how much it is all going to cost.
Sir Humphrey: Well, which answer would you like, Minister?
Minister: The correct one?
Sir Humphrey: The correct answer to any question always depends on the question, Minister. So before I can give you a correct answer, we need to define the correct question. Perhaps we could start by asking what answer you would like to be able to give?
Minister: What?
Bernard: Well, Minister, it’s really very simple. Any aid will be a mixture of grants and loans, and there will be some promises to underwrite costs which may never transpire to be real expenditure at all. Some of the money will be paid immediately and some will be deferred, and some will merely be contingency which may never be called upon. Some might even be in the form of the Arts Council subsidising productions and events, so will never go to the Centre itself at all, or will come from a different line on the budget. So there are a range of possible answers, depending on the question.
Minister: I see. What’s the lowest figure?
Sir Humphrey: I thought that might be the one that you would want, Minister. I already have a small team of civil servants working on the answer for you, and we should have it back in a month or two. Now, perhaps we can turn to more pressing issues. Ess Four See.
Minister: I’m thinking of calling for it to be devolved to the Assembly.
Sir Humphrey: Is that wise, Minister?
Minister: Of course. It’s a Welsh channel, its future should be decided by the Assembly. And it would be a bold statement of the way I intend to increase the powers of the Assembly.
Sir Humphrey: But the costs of S4C are just a pinprick in London; they would look like a substantial part of your budget here in Wales. What if the Assembly were to decide to cut back on spending in order to build more hospitals, for instance?
Minister: Well, we’ll demand that the money currently spent on the channel should be devolved as well, and that it should be ring-fenced so that it can't be spent on anything else.
Bernard: So the Minister in London retains control over how much should be spent by the devolved administration in Cardiff, and gets rid of a problem at the same time.
Sir Humphrey: Bernard! Yes, I think I can probably persuade my colleagues in Whitehall of the merits of that suggestion, Minister. But there are some serious issues facing the channel with a declining number of viewers and an increasing cost per viewer – how do you propose to tackle those?
Minister: Any suggestions?
Sir Humphrey: Well, the real problem, Minister, is that the channel has a very low audience and that makes it difficult to attract advertising revenue. Now, what it really needs to do is to attract a higher audience.
Minister: And how could it do that?
Sir Humphrey: The factor which restricts the audience is the fact that it only currently appeals to those who can speak Welsh. Now if we could only find some way of overcoming that…
Minister: What if it were to become a bilingual channel?
Sir Humphrey: What a brilliant idea, Minister. And a very bold decision. The thought hadn’t crossed my mind.
Bernard: But wouldn’t that look like a betrayal of the principles on which the channel was founded?
Sir Humphrey: Only to a few fringe nationalists. But think of the headlines – Minister thinks the Unthinkable; Minister in Brave New Departure; Minister faces up to the tough decisions needed in government.
Minister: And some good photo opportunities as well?
Sir Humphrey: Certainly Minister.
Minister: With Superted on one side and Sam Tân on the other?
Sir Humphrey and Bernard: Yes, Minister.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
