一 : 如何使用“YES”和“NO”
正确使用YES和NO，是学好肯定句和否定句的关键。中学生常误译“YES”为“是”，“NO”为“不”。因为“YES”有“是”、“NO”有“不”的含义。生活中的说话者有时也会搞错，译作如不留意也会出毛病。中英互译如果掌握不好，会导致词不达意或意思相反。汉语中的“不”字有时可用“没有”、“无”、“非”等字来代替，以便达到句子意思相同或相近。英语的否定句和肯定句很灵活，可能出现在单词、词组或句子的句型中。
中学英语课本有关“YES”和“NO”的泽法，你能理解吗？
（1）——Didn’t you have a good time at the party?
——Yes, a very good time。
—— 难道你在聚会上玩得不快活吗？
—— 不，玩得很快活。
（2）——I don’t think I know you.
——No, you wouldn’t。
—— 我想我并不认识你。
—— 是的，你不会认识我的。
（3）——That’s not a very good place for papers, is it?
——Yes, it is.
—— 那不是放稿子的好地方，是吗？
—— 不，这是个好地方。
上述几个句子中，“Yes”译为“不”，“No”译为“是的”。
一般问句中的回答，“YES”是“是”，“NO”是“不”的含义。例如：Are you a worker? Yes, I’m. / No, I’m not. (“你是工人吗？”“是的，我是工人。”“不，我不是工人。”)
但具体情况要具体分析，按上下文去翻译，“Yes”可能是“不”，“NO”可能是“是”的意思。因为各民族语言有其习惯表达方法，英语单词不能与汉语划等号。
错用“YES”和“NO”，在英语对话里引起了许多误解。这两个词在答语中代表了整个句子。有时叫做“句词”。假设你的朋友问你，“Haven’t you finished your exercises yet?”你可能回答“Yes”或“No”，“Yes”代表“I have finished them.”“No”代表“I have not finished them.”显然不可能说，“Yes, I have not finished them.”也不能说，“No, I have finished them.” 这叫做答语要一致。在一般否定问句和反意问句的前半部是否定时，答语的“Yes”是“不”，“No”是“是的”的含义。“Yes”表示不赞同提问人，“No”表示赞同提问人。
例如Haven’t you finished your exercises?或You have’t finished your exercises, have you?
回答“Yes”，意思仍然是“Yes (不), I have finished them.”“No”意思仍然也是“No (是)，I haven’t finished them.”
在改革开放的年代里，国际友人来华访问、交流、参观等活动，外语起了交际桥梁作用。英语显得尤其重要，因为英语在世界上是一种被广泛应用的语言。我们应该学会“Yes” 和“No”的正确使用，不然会弄出笑话来。
如果外国人问你，“Haven’t great changes taken place in your country since liberation?”（解放以来你们的国家没有发生巨大变化吗？）你应该理直气壮地回答“Yes”。（Yes, great changes have taken place in our country since liberation .（不，解放以来我们的国家发生了巨大变化）。外国人带有一种强烈感情意识想了解你或他人的情况时可用反意问句。例如：
Aren’t you proud of being a Chinese? / You aren’t proud of being a Chinese, are you?（难道你作为一个中国人不感到自豪吗？）你的回答是：Yes./ Yes, I’m.（我作为一个中国人而感到骄傲。）如果有意打听某人情况，如说：He isn’t a running dog, is he? /Isn’t he a running dog? Your answer may be“Yes, he is /No, he isn’t.”你的回答可能是“（不），他是一只走狗。（是），他不是走狗。”
有关“YES”or“NO”的问题需要弄清楚：
（1）英语的肯定和否定与汉语不尽相同。英语的否定常出现在谓语部分（A）、主语（B）、宾语（C）、表语（D）、状语（E）或不定式（F）。句子有部分否定（G）、双重否定（H）、否定转移（I）等。
A. He doesn’t study English every day.
B. Nobody can prevent us from doing this work.
C. I have nothing to do.
D. He is not the first one to come here.
E. We’ll build the house with fewer people and less money.
F. Please tell him not to play with fire.
G. Both of them are not here.
H. We can not finish the work without your help.
I. Li Ming has not been married for a month. (李明结婚还不到一个月。)
（2）英语的肯定句译成汉语时，有时汉语有否定意义。因此，一句话可能有几种表达方式。例如：
① 不喜欢英语。He dislikes English.肯定句) He doesn’t like English.否定句)
②He is impolite to people.肯定句)（他待人没有礼貌。）
He is not polite to people.否定句)
（3）有些不定式是肯定式，但有否定内容。
①He is too old to work. (他太老了不能工作。)
②He is too young to join the army. (他未达到参军年龄。)
句型：too +adj.+to+V.，太……而不……。但too接下列形容词pleased，glad，wise，ready，anxious，不能用这个句型译法，因为too=very/so。例如：
He is too ready to help you. (他乐于帮助你。)
He is too anxious to do this work. (他急于做这一动作。)
（4）肯定句变否定句时，一些词语有不同搭配。在英语中一些词语习惯上只用于肯定句，而不在否定句中使用，若变成否定句式，要把这些词改成与其相对应的词。例如some→any,，too/also→either，and→or，very much→at all，already/still→yet，a long way→far，a lot→much，plenty of/lots of→much/many，等等。例如：
①I caught some birds.→I didn’t catch any birds.
②He can speak English too.→He can’t speak English either.
③You have a lot of friends.→You don’t have many friends.
④He sings and dances.→He never sings or dances.
用any的合成词作主语时，谓语不能用否定式。
Anything can be done here.→Nothing can be done here.
（5）英语十大词类中，除了数词和冠词本身没有否定内容外，其他八大词类中某些词含有否定意义。如介词but，except，without，against，beyond，等等；连词or，unless，but，otherwise，neither ...or...，等等。例如：
All are present but/except Li Ming.
He came here without being invited.
We’ll go there unless it rains tomorrow.
（6）单词前后缀有否定含义。下列是肯定句：
The meeting is unimportant.
They ate carelessly.
Li Ying dislikes English.
（7）除了no，not，none，neither之外，还有许多单词有否定含义，常做准否定词，如seldom，little，never，few，scarcely，hardly，rarely等。反意疑问句后半部常用肯定式。这些词位于句首时，常用倒装句。
You seldom hear from him，do you?
Never have I seen him before.
（8）句子的否定转移。
You don’t think/suppose/guess/believe he is wrong.
It was not until ten o’clock that I went to bed.
She had not been married for many weeks.（她结婚还不到几个星期。）本句否定状语部分，不能译为“几个星期前她还没有结婚”。
It is not a place where anyone would expect to see strange characters on the street.（在这里人们不会想到在街上碰到古怪人物。）这句也是否定转移，anyone的谓语部分不能有否定式。
（9）否定句式也可能表达肯定内容。
We can not praise him too much.我们无论怎样称赞他也不算过分。（can’t ...too...决不会……）
I can’t thank him too much.（我对他的感谢无论如何也不会过分。）
We can’t live without water.（没有水我们就不能生存。）（否定加否定变成肯定。）
综合上述，英语的肯定句式和否定句式内容较为丰富，因此，“Yes”或“No”的正确使用不容忽视。
二 : Didyouhelpthemcleantheirroom?[ ]A.Yes, Idid.B.No,
| Didyouhelpthemcleantheirroom? |
| [ ] |
| A.Yes, Idid. B.No, Idid. C.Yes, Ididn't. |
| A |
考点：
考点名称：一般疑问句一般疑问句：一般疑问句的改写：
一、含有be动词的一般疑问句,通常把be动词调到句首。例如:
陈述句:They are in the swimming pool.
一般疑问句:Are they in the swimming pool?
注意：一般疑问句句末要用“?”。
二、含有情态动词的一般疑问句(can, may...),把情态动词调到句首。例如:
陈述句:He can drive a car.
一般疑问句: Can he drive a car?
三、含有have的一般疑问句,have译为“有”。一般疑问句式有两种形式:
1.把have/has调到句首。例如:
陈述句:Tommy has a computer.
一般疑问句:Has Tommy/he a computer?
2.加助动词do/does,第三人称单数用does,其他人称用do。其句型为:Do/Does + 主语 + have...?
例如上句可变为: Does Tommy have a computer?
四、一般动词的一般疑问句,也要借助助动词do/does,第三人称单数用does,其余人称用do。
其句型为:Do/Does + 主语 + 动词原形+其它?
陈述句:Amy speaks English.
一般疑问句:Does Amy speak English?
一般疑问句的回答：
首先要有人称的改变。当主语为名词时,在答语中要改成其相应的代词。
另外，答语有两种,肯定的回答(用yes)和否定的回答(用no),否定式常用缩写形式。
现在还是让我们分句型一一说明。
一、一般疑问句含be动词时,用be动词回答,句末用句号。例如:
-Is Mary your sister?
-Yes, she is. / No, she isn’t.(缩写)
二、一般疑问句含有情态动词(can, may, should等)时,用情态动词回答。例如:
-May I come in?
-Yes, you may. / No, you can’t.
三、一般疑问句含有have(译为“有”)时,有两种回答方式。
1.直接用have/has回答。
例如：
-Have they any pictures?
-Yes, they have. / No, they haven’t.
2.用助动词do/does回答。
例如：
-Does Millie smoke?
-Yes, she does. / No, she doesn’t.
四、一般动词的一般疑问句回答时也用助动词。
例如：
-Do the workers live in London?
-Yes, they do. / No, they don’t.
三 : Yes,PrimeMinister[1x03]-TheSmokeScreen
Frank, the problem is all new Prime Ministerswant to cut either taxes or public expenditure.Thank you. That's what Hacker wants, too.Politicians are like children.You can't just give them whatthey want. It only encourages them!But let's be clear about this, Humphrey.The entire system hinges on you asCabinet Secretary controlling the PMand on me as Permanent Secretary atthe Treasury controlling the Chancellor.- Right?- Right.And on both of us keeping an agreeabletension between them, mistrust, hostility.Mind you, I think they'd managethat all right even without us.The Chancellor will never forgive thePrime Minister for beating him to Number 10and the Prime Minister willnever trust the Chancellor.- One never trusts anyone one has deceived.- Perhaps not.But tax cuts unite them.They get them both votes.Yes, but surely this tax cut is contingentupon the Prime Minister's fantasyabout cancelling Trident andswitching to conventional forces.Nevertheless, he is givingaway 1.5 billion of our money!It's unthinkable, even if only proposals. I hada real job getting the Chancellor to oppose it.How did you do it?I used the one about our needing the moneyfor hospitals, schools and old people.- The kidney machine gambit.- The caring Chancellor- Yes, that one.- It usually works.But would a tax cut matter allthat much? It's only 1.5 billion.I agree, it's not much in itself. My worryis about you letting it get through so soon.If I were in your shoes at the Treasury,I'd be much more worried about thestate of the economy, low productivity.That's not our fault.It's the British worker- fundamentally lazy, wants something for nothing.The figures for absenteeism are going up andup. Nobody wants to do an honest day's work.- Shocking! I must rush.- Busy afternoon?Yes, indeed. I gatherEngland are 70 for 3.Whoa, whoa! Easy does it, Gerald.Plenty more where that came from.Cheers. To the Civil Service!To the British TobaccoGroup and its chairman.Thank you.Ah!I do love a good afternoon's cricket.You know, you chaps at BTG arenational benefactors really.We like to think so.You know, Gerald, I've got a small favourto ask on behalf of the Royal Opera House.Now, as you know, Covent Garden is moreor less run from the Cabinet Office.But I'm told that one or more productionsare threatened next year, lack of funds.Well, I've got the Minister forSport coming along this afternoon.I know he wants to twist my arm on behalfof Wimbledon or Brands Hatch or something.Covent Garden... We'll see what we can do.Oh, I don't know wherewe'd all be without you.Tell me, have you everinvited Peter Thorne?- The Minister of Health?- You always included them.This one's been got atby the anti-smoking lobby.Oh, silly man!Very silly. He hasn't got muchclout in Whitehall, has he?None at all. He's just a minister.Good shot!Was he out
smokescreen Yes,PrimeMinister[1x03]-TheSmokeScreen
?Humphrey, this paper says that if wecancel Trident and bring in conscription,we shall have 1.5 billion fortax cuts, and what do I find?- What do you find, Prime Minister?- The Chancellor opposes me.A great chance to be popular with the votersand he says no. Doesn't that surprise you?No.Why doesn't it surprise you?He's advised by the Treasury and theydon't believe in giving money back.- It's not theirs. It's the taxpayers'.- That's not the view the Treasury takes.- Not once they've got it.- But if they don't need it?- Sorry?- If they don't need it.- Taxation isn't about what you need.- What is it about?The Treasury doesn't work out what they needto spend and then think how to raise the money.What DOES it do?They pitch for as much as they think they canget away with, then think what to spend it on.If you start giving moneyback because you don't need it,you're breaking withcenturies of tradition.- What would happen to the British Navy?- We still need a navy.We have four capital ships, so we need onlyfour admirals and one Admiral of the Fleet.- How many Admirals have we got?- 60.The Treasury's the most powerfuldepartment as it controls all the money.If you take away its money, youtake away its power, so they resist.- How will the Treasury agree to tax cuts?- Get the Chancellor to agree.- How will the Chancellor agree?- Get the Treasury to agree.- This is impossible.- Yes, Prime Minister, it is impossible.- We must be able to force the Treasury's hand.- Yes, by forcing the Chancellor's hand.- How do I force the Chancellor's hand?- By forcing the Treasury's hand.Can't YOU persuade the Chancellor?He's your Cabinet colleague.That's the point. I need helpfrom somebody who's on my side.The Minister of State at the DHSS is here.- Show him in. Thank you, Humphrey.- Thank you, Prime Minister.- Dr Thorne, Prime Minister.- Peter, come in.Sit down.Now, you wanted to talk to me about...?- Cigarettes.- Ah, yes.- You read my paper?- Yes, absolutely.How did you react?Well, I...wonder if you couldsummarise it in your own words.Those WERE my own words.Yes, yes, exactly, of course.But the Prime Minister often finds that abrief summary focuses on the salient points.Salient points, precisely.Well, briefly, I'm proposing that the governmentshould take action to eliminate smoking,a complete ban on all cigarettesponsorship and advertising,50 million to be spenton anti-smoking publicity,a ban on smoking in all public places andprogressive tax rises over the next five yearsuntil a packet of 20 costs aboutthe same as a bottle of whisky.Isn't that rather drastic?Absolutely. It should reduce smokingby at least 80%, 90% if we're luckyand drive tobaccocompanies out of business.Yes. Well, Peter, of course, youknow I agree with you basically.Smoking should be stopped.No question. And we willstop it in
扩展：yes prime minister / prime minister / prime minister mori
smokescreen Yes,PrimeMinister[1x03]-TheSmokeScreen
due course.At the appropriate juncture,in the fullness of time.- You mean forget it?- No, absolutely not.But we must be realists. Youand I weren't born yesterday.- No, and we didn't die yesterday.- No. What?300 people did prematurelyas a result of smoking.100,000 deaths a year at least.It's appalling, but you knowwhat the Treasury would say?They'd say that smoking bringsin 4 billion a year in revenue.- You can't beat the Treasury.- Not with financial arguments.But this is a moral argument.Yes, but even...Wait a minute. I've got an idea. Thiscould be a way to beat the Treasury.- You mean you'll support me?- You've made your point.We'll give it a try. I'lleven read your report. Again!This could be very interesting.Thank you very much indeed.But will you support me?Yeah, well, not publicly.It would undermine my position, undermine theargument if I supported you from the start.I have to be seen as the impartial judgeswayed by the force of the argument.Yes, I see that.But off the record, I'd like tosee this pushed very hard indeed.Make some speeches on it. Peter,thank you very much indeed.Thank you for your cigarettepaper... your paper on cigarettes.- Is this serious?- What do you mean?It's always been the practiceto discourage anti-smoking speeches byministers and not to distribute them.Well, I want Peter's speechesdistributed. I want everybody to know.Yes, Prime Minister. Do you think you will winthis one? The tobacco lobby is very powerful.Well, some you win, some you lose,Bernard. This one I shall definitely lose.Then why?If you were the Treasury, would yourather do without 1.5 billion in tax cutsor 4 billion in lost tobacco tax revenue?The tax cuts.Exactly. That's what I wantand that's what I shall get.- Can Sir Humphrey have a word?- Of course.Yes, come in, please.- Prime Minister...- Humphrey.Did you have an interestingchat with Dr Thorne?Yes. He proposed theelimination of smoking.By a campaign of mass hypnosis perhaps!By raising tobacco taxes sky high andsimultaneously banning all advertising.- I think his position is admirably moral.- Moral perhaps, but extremely silly.No man in his right mind couldcontemplate such a proposal.I'm contemplating it.Yes, of course, Prime Minister.Please don't misunderstand me.It is quite right that you should CONTEMPLATEall proposals that come from your government,but no sane man would ever SUPPORT it.- I'm supporting it.- And quite right too, Prime Minister.The only problem is that the tax on tobacco isa major source of revenue for the government.And a major source of death from diseases.Yes, but no definite causativelink has ever been proved, has it?- The statistics...- You can prove anything with statistics.- Even the truth.- Yes... No!It says here, "Smoking-related diseasescost the NHS 165 million a year."Yes, but we've be
smokescreen Yes,PrimeMinister[1x03]-TheSmokeScreen
en into that.It has been shown that if those extra100,000 people had lived to a ripe old age,they would have cost us even morein pensions and social securitythan they did in medical treatment.So financially speaking,it's unquestionably betterthat they continue to dieat about the present rate."When cholera killed 30,000 peoplein 1833, we got the Public Health Act."When smog killed 2,500 people in1952, we got the Clean Air Act."A commercial drug kills half a dozenpeople and we get it withdrawn from sale.Cigarettes kill 100,000 peoplea year and what do we get?4 billion a year.25,000 jobs in the tobacco industry, aflourishing cigarette export business,helping our balance of trade,250,000 jobs related to tobacco- newsagents, packaging, transport...- These figures are just guesses.- No, they're government st... They're facts.So your statistics are facts andmy facts are merely statistics?I'm on your side. I'm merely givingyou some arguments you'll encounter.Humphrey, I'm so glad to knowwe'll have support such as yours.It will be pointed out that the tobaccocompanies are great sponsors of sport.Where would the BBC sports programmes beif cigarette companies couldn't advert...couldn't SPONSOR theevents that they televise?We're talking about 100,000 deaths a year.Yes, but cigarette taxes pay for a thirdof the cost of the National Health Service.We're saving many morelives than we otherwise couldbecause of those smokers who voluntarilylay down their lives for their friends.Smokers are national benefactors.So long as they live!Not that any definite causallink has ever been proved.It's time for your next Cabinet committee,then the Minister of Sport wants an urgent word.- What about?- Sponsorship.Who tipped him off? He'sone of the tobacco lobby.A member of YOUR government?Yes, he's Minister for Sport. He has a vestedinterest. He's also an MP for Nottingham.Did you tell him? How did he know?The grapevine perhaps. Prime Minister...Tell the minister I'll see him at 2.30.- With pleasure, Prime Minister.- Not with pleasure, but I'll see him anyway.The Minister for Sport, Prime Minister.Oh, Leslie, my dear fellow. Hi.Do you mind if I smoke?Prime Minister, it's about the rumourthat you intend to make a personalattack on the tobacco industry.- I hadn't heard that rumour.- It's not true?The Minister for Healthis considering the matter.There's no smoke without fire.You'd be consulted. As Ministerfor Sport, you have an interest.Never mind sport.There are marginal seats in Bristol, Nottingham,Glasgow, Basildon and Northern Ireland,all with tobacco workers.I've got 4,000 tobacco workers inmy constituency. What about my seat?What about your lungs?My lungs are fine.He doesn't breathe through his seat.Oh, your seat, I see, I'm sorry.Thank you, Bernard. I see the difficulty,but if something is right for the
扩展：yes prime minister / prime minister / prime minister mori
smokescreen Yes,PrimeMinister[1x03]-TheSmokeScreen
country,surely the government must pursue it.The government must do what's right, butnot if it affects marginal constituencies.- There is a limit.- No decision has been taken.For the good of theparty, you can't do this.Weren't you a paid consultantto the British Tobacco Group?Of course, the fact that theBTG did pay me a small retainer,it's totally beside the point.They're a very generous corporation with astrong sense of responsibility to the community.Look at all the money they give to sport!They just do it to sell more cigarettes.No, they do it as aservice to the community.Oh, that's all right, then. They can go ongiving the money anonymously if they like.Well, I'm sure they'd be happy to,provided they could publicise the factthat they were doing it anonymously.Is it true that Peter Thorne is also tryingto change the government health warning?Is it?He's proposing something like "Dying of lungcancer can seriously damage your health".It is not true!If we do nothing, in the next ten years,in this country we'll haveone million premature deaths.Yes, but evenly spread.Not just in marginal constituencies.Listen, Jim, there is noconclusive proof of any causal linkbetween smoking and...We at the DHSS are profoundlyworried about smoking.And we agree it's our duty to help thePrime Minister achieve his objective,but with a third of the voters assmokers, I can't raise taxes too high.The Chancellor won't commit electoral suicideand the inflationary effect is considerable.There is a moral principle involved.Moral principle, yes.We understand the PM's concern. In fact,we earnestly believe in the moral principle.But where 4 billionof revenue is at stake,I think we should haveto consider very carefullywhether we have theright to indulge ourselvesin the rather selfish luxuryof pursuing moral principles.Where would the arts be without tobaccosponsorship? At the mercy of the Arts Council.Exactly. Then those silly pressure groups andfanatics like the Royal College of Physicians!Fanatics!They want the government tohave a policy on the matter.It would be different ifthe government were a team,but in fact they're a looseconfederation of warring tribes.If only the PM could meet the tobacco people,he could see what really nice chaps they were.And genuinely concernedabout the health risks.There can't be anything wrong with them. BTGhave an ex-Permanent Secretary on their board.- And could well have more.- In the fullness of time.I think we ought to raise somequestions about your minister, Ian.What does he know about the subject?Peter Thorne is only a doctor.His sole purpose is keeping people alive!Must be biased.Seeing your patients die mustemotionally distort your judgement.It's very understandable, but a greathandicap to cool decision-taking.Very true, but can we findsomething a bit stronger?Fr
smokescreen Yes,PrimeMinister[1x03]-TheSmokeScreen
ank, I think the crucial argumentis that we're living in a free country.We must be free to make our own decisions.Government shouldn't be a nursemaid.We don't want the nanny state.- Very good.- Excellent.The only problem isthat is also the argumentfor legalising the sale of marijuana,heroin, arsenic and gelignite.Maybe that's a good idea if weput a big enough tax on them.- Politically difficult.- Pity.Yes.Got it!When the Prime Minister wasMinister for Administrative Affairs,I used to get him to accompany me on regularvisits to Lord's, Wimbledon and Glyndebourneas a guest of BTG,so he's thoroughly implicated inreceiving hospitality worth hundreds,possibly thousands from them.Now, if that were to leak...shocking though a leak would be...- Oh, shocking.- Shocking.It'd be profoundly embarrassingfor the Prime Minister.I can't think why Ididn't think of it before.Nor can I.- Well, Bernard.- Well, Prime Minister.Very well. Things aregoing very well indeed.Oh, good.I've got the Treasury onthe run and the Chancellor.Is that good? He's in your own government.Of course it's good. They've got to learnto come to heel and learn to co-operate.- What do you mean, co-operate?- I mean obey my commands!I see.That's what "co-operate" meanswhen you're Prime Minister.Why are these tax cuts in yourinterest? It's your government too.Bernard, it's simple. Cutting taxes by 1.5billion is going to win us masses of votes.My ministers are interested in getting moneyfor their departments, not in supporting me.I'm using my support for PeterThorne as leverage on the Treasury.- Your loyal support?- Precisely.In order to get THEIR loyal support.After you get the tax cut, you willwithdraw your support from Peter Thorne?Bernard, how can you be so cynical?I shall simply rearrange my priorities.Sir Humphrey's waiting to see you outside.Send him in at once.Yes, Prime Minister. Yourword is my co-operation.- Humphrey!- Prime Minister.- Everything all right?- Everything is very far from all right.- What's the trouble? - Youranti-smoking legislation.What about it?Notwithstanding thefact that your proposalcould encompass certain concomitantbenefits of a peripheral relevance,there is a countervailing considerationof infinitely superior magnitude,involving your personal complicityand corroborative malfeasance,with the consequence that the taint and stigmaof your former associations and diversionscould irredeemably and irretrievablyinvalidate your positionand culminate in public revelations andrecriminations of a profoundly embarrassingand ultimately indefensible character.Perhaps I could have a pr閏is of that.- There's nicotine on your hands.- What do you mean?All the hospitality thatwe've enjoyed at BTG's expense.Champagne receptions, the best seatsat sporting and cultural events.- What's the problem
扩展：yes prime minister / prime minister / prime minister mori
smokescreen Yes,PrimeMinister[1x03]-TheSmokeScreen
?- The tobacco companies may tell the press.So? I've had drinks at the Soviet embassy.That doesn't make me a Russian spy.Oh... Well... Oh.- Does it?- Well, no.Let them do their worst. Anything else?Well, Prime Minister, there isanother vital point to bear in mind.A lot of eminent people,influential peopleargue that such legislation wouldbe a blow against freedom of choice.Rubbish! I'm not banning smoking. Does everytax rise represent a blow against freedom?Well, it depends how big the tax rise is.Fascinating! Does 20 pencerepresent a blow against freedom?- Prime Minister...- 25 pence? 30 pence? 31?Is something a blow against freedom simplybecause it can seriously damage your wealth?I must warn you of the difficulties. Iforesee all sorts of unforeseen problems.Such as?If I could foresee them,they wouldn't be unforeseen.You just said you COULD foresee them.If we could set up aninter-departmental committee,a Royal Commission, perhapsa Treasury Committee...- Don't talk to me about the Treasury!- Why not?The Treasury are blocking myplans for a 1.5 billion tax cut.If only they could be more...flexible.Oh...Well, I don't think they're fullycommitted on that other matter yet.Really?Absolutely not. Oh, no, I'msure they could find a way.Could they?The only stumbling block would be ifyour anti-smoking proposals went through,they'd be too busy with those to finda way to help with the other cuts.Well, of course, my anti-smokingproposals, important though they are,don't have nearly such ahigh priority as defence.Ah.The Minister of State for Health is here.Prime Minister, if I might have one or twominutes to make some phone calls. Thank you.Show him in, Bernard.- Dr Thorne.- Peter, what can I do for you?I've just had some very exciting news.We've got full backing from the BMA andeight top scientific and medical colleges.Marvellous.But your legislation can'tbe put through immediately.It is announced as government policy withinthree months, with a White Paper in a year.Yes, since we spoke, I've encountereda few problems. The Treasury, you know.- Can't be anything you didn't know already?- Yes. I mean no... Well, yes.Peter, it's not as simple as you think.Jim, I really am serious about this.It's the one really important and worthwhilething I believe I can do in politics.If you stall it, I'll haveto resign. And say why.Excuse me, Prime Minister. Could SirHumphrey see you urgently just for a moment?- Would you mind waiting outside, Peter?- Of course.Prime Minister, it's quite all right.The Treasury have looked at your proposalagain and they can encompass your tax cut,provided no work is neededon the anti-smoking proposal.That's fine, but thereis another complication.Peter Thorne is goingto resign if I drop it,go to the press and have me condemned byall the doctors and scientists in Bri
smokescreen Yes,PrimeMinister[1x03]-TheSmokeScreen
tain.Oh...Help!You still have that governmentvacancy in the Treasury?You mean...? It's a very bigpromotion, a very rapid one.Nevertheless, for a very able minister.Bernard, get Peter back in here and thenget on to the Department of the Environment.Get Leslie Potts over here at once.Prime Minister, I think I'lljust, erm... If you'll excuse me.Dr Thorne.Peter, I've just remembered we stillhave that vacancy at the Treasury.I've been racking mybrains how to fill it,but your work on this paperhas impressed me enormously.You're not trying to get rid of me?Definitely not. Quite the reverse.It's a terrific step up.But thoroughly merited.How can I take it if itmeans dropping my bill?Peter, sit down.Let me be absolutely honest with you.This legislation would have been...wouldbe... will be very difficult to get through.The Treasury is the stumblingblock, not the Department of Health.It'll take longer, but if youwere inside learning the ropes,we'd have a much better chance of a watertight,foolproof Act when it gets to the statute book.- Believe me.- So my proposals aren't dropped?Absolutely not.- OK. I'll take the Treasury job.- Good.Thanks a lot. Goodbye, Prime Minister.That leaves us with a vacancy atthe Department of Health. Now...The Minister for Sportis here, Prime Minister.- Come in.- Mr Potts!Leslie! My dear chap.Sit down. Now...How would you like tobe Minister of Health?- Me?- Yes.Well...It's a considerable promotion.But thoroughly merited.You're very suitable for the job. You're notone of the medical lobby like Dr Peter Thorne.Well, of course I can't refuseit. Thank you, Prime Minister.Humphrey, meet our newMinister for Health.Oh, congratulations.I don't want the job if it meansattacking the tobacco industry.Ah, but it wouldn't.You see, Leslie, we ingovernment have to be realists.I want you to work WITHthe tobacco industry.They're only trying tosort out the problems.They've got huge resources, nice chaps,caring people and really fabulous employers.They are really trying to help.I want you to work with theindustry, not against it.All right?What did he say?I think he said, "Yes, Prime Minister."
扩展：yes prime minister / prime minister / prime minister mori
扩展：yes prime minister / prime minister / prime minister mori
本文标题：no yes-如何使用“YES”和“NO”61阅读| 精彩专题| 最新文章| 热门文章| 苏ICP备13036349号-1