Humphrey, You’re looking very chipper today. I’m guessing I know why.

 

A prime minister that makes uninformed guesses could be regarded as rather dangerous, Prime Minister.

 

Ah but I am informed Humphrey. Our little bill went through the Lords this afternoon. And so you’re thinking about Mrs Humphrey next week when she finds her divorce petition has no basis.

 

Well perhaps, Prime Minister. It is certainly a jolly thought to carry with me, but there is a thought that is even better. I found a German website where they sell stainless steel products. They say they are designed for long term use. It is that thought that fills my heart with joviality.

 

Oh excellent Humphrey. You must let me have the details. For Mary you understand.

 

Indeed Prime Minister. Your wife is truly to be an unlucky lady.

 

A very quiet and frustrated unlucky lady I’ll wager. Now, do you have a plan?

 

I do Prime Minister. I was going to write it down as just a few notes and ideas, but when I put finger to keyboard, well the words just kept coming and I took the liberty of drafting up the legislation directly. I hope the Prime Minister doesn’t think I have overstepped the mark by doing so.

 

Nonsense Humphrey. The sooner we can get it into law the better. We’re not getting any younger are we. Let’s have it then.

 

Well of course you have already made great strides towards reviving the old and obviously correct ways when it comes to women, but these strides have been rather easy things to achieve.

 

Easy? I wouldn’t call them easy. Nobody else has been able to stop the rot since it set in.

 

Well Prime Minister, easy in the sense that all that has really been done is to take away the frail sex’s rights. Now having things taken from you is a fairly passive and one-sided experience. You have something, and then you lose it, and there’s not a whole lot you can do about it. I’m imagining She Who Thinks She Must Be Obeyed next week when she finds her right to a divorce is gone. She can stamp her feet and complain and protest, but that’s about it. She cannot defy the new law by divorcing me anyway, and so it’s an easy thing to take from her. But with your, I’m going to call it a dress code, things are a bit different. You are not just taking away, you are making a demand. You are demanding that she must behave in a certain way. And that introduces the possibility to not just complain, but to disobey and to defy. And this, Prime Minister, is where we have to be careful because if they defy then we have to react and punish, and if they defy en-masse then we have a problem. We don’t have the resources to punish millions, and if we don’t punish then we look weak and unable to enforce our own laws.

 

Yes, yes Humphrey. This is why you have your cunning plan. It is cunning isn’t it? As cunning someone who gets the law changed in order to thwart his wife’s divorce.

 

Equally cunning, Prime Minister.

 

Good-oh.

 

In order to prevent them being able to defy and disobey us we must avoid making laws that they can break.

 

But how can we enforce anything if don’t make a law?

 

Well imagine you are the owner of a restaurant.

 

Ooh goodie. I’ll have the sushi place on Wardour Street. I love the little trains of food that run around.

 

Yes, quite. Now in order to operate a restaurant you need a licence. The licence is mainly about food and fire safety and boring stuff like that, but we could add something that requires you, the owner to enforce a dress code on your customers, or at least your female customers. If they don’t comply then you can’t feed them, and if you’re caught feeding them when incorrectly dressed then you lose your licence. What do you do?

 

Err, let’s see… I have to enforce a dress code or go out of business.

 

Exactly Prime Minister. The restaurant owner has to do our dirty work for us. And women can bitch and complain to him, but he has no choice. The long and short of it is that if they want to eat in a restaurant then they have to comply. And they can come out and protest on the streets about it, but we can ignore them and not arrest them because they’re not breaking any law. We don’t look weak and there’s nothing for them to defy or disobey.

 

Excellent Humphrey. Inspired. But I can see a teeny tiny problem. You plan works in restaurants. What about everywhere else?

 

Well we can extend the idea to anywhere that requires any sort of licence to operate. Cafes, bars, pubs, clubs, cinemas, theatres, perhaps even shops. We end up in a situation where our typical feminist can go out wearing whatever she likes, but she can’t actually go anywhere or do anything very much unless she complies with your dress code. It becomes impractical to resist and compliance becomes the norm. And once that happens we can quietly amend an old indecent exposure or public decency act and use it to mop up any hardcore refusers.

 

Yes, I see Humphrey. It would be like those signs you see in seaside resort cafés in the summer. “No shirt? No shoes? No service”, except it would say “No skirt? No service”, or “No dress? No dining”. I like that.

 

Yes Prime Minister. And then I thought we could get business and industry to help us. Businesses are simple animals motivated by only one thing, profit. Some of them might have ‘ethical policies’ but they’re only really for PR and for ingratiating themselves with their customers. And so if we were to offer a company something like a reduction in corporation tax if it insists on, and enforces a dress code for its female employees then that business is rather likely to accept. And we can make up any shortfall in tax revenue by increasing the tax burden on companies that refuse. Shareholders will ultimately choose the path that keeps the dividends flowing.

 

Oh Humphrey that is clever. Perhaps we could go one step further. Instead of just a dress code, we could have company uniforms. I can see it now. Our rush hour streets filled with ladies heading to work looking like 1950s air hostesses. Oooh.

 

Well Prime Minister, before we get too carried away, perhaps we should consider that not all women are able to look like a 1950s air hostess, no matter what they’re wearing.

 

Ah, yes. But will it not inspire them to try? How many women want to be beautiful, and could be beautiful if only they made the effort? Today they would say they are too weighed down with the burdens of their responsibilities to find the time or effort to spend on their appearance. We seek to relieve them of those burdens and allow them to be the women who, deep down they really want to be, and indeed need to be in order to be truly happy. Our critics say we hate women, but it’s not true. We only seek to guide them into the existence they are designed for, and in so doing, enhance their happiness. And of course if that enhances the happiness of men too then is that not a win win situation?

 

And here we see why you are the prime minister and I, I am merely a humble civil servant.

 

Oh Humphrey, you flatter me. Well much as I am enjoying this little discussion, I will have to adjourn until next week. I’m playing golf this afternoon with Sir Bennet Atherton. He’s the boss of the British Standards Institution and he’s ‘one of us’ you know. Ooh, now I wonder if I should get him to get his staff to draw up some standards for erm… uniforms. Would that make it easier for companies to choose their lady employees’ look?