True Story: I visited No. 11 Downing Street as a school boy in 1998 when Gordon Brown, our local MP, was chancellor. He took us next door to no. 12 where Nick Brown was chief whip, he started pointing out things in his office and as he was doing so a side door opened and a man stepped in. He pointed at the man and said "And that's a civil servant". The man reversed course, closed the door, opened it again and stuck his head around and said "Yes, minister". My classmates didn't get the joke, I did but was too stunned to laugh as Nick Brown and Gordon Brown had fallen about laughing and I was just thinking "aren't you meant to be running the country and not making TV jokes?" To be fair it was pretty funny :)
I grew up watching Yes, (Prime)? Minister. The 70s to the early 80s were really the golden age of British TV. This show, Blake's 7 (if you like sci-fi and haven't seen this it's still great, go watch it), Dr Who's golden years (ie Tom Baker), even the Goodies. probably even Grange Hill (which had a high school student die of a heroin overdose).
One particularly prescient piece was the Nuclear Deterrant [1]. Even 40+ years ago this episode argued that nuclear weapons were mostly pointless because you'd never use them and instead you should invest in smart weapons. The linked segment even has a line that the Soviets can't take Western Europe, they can't even hold Afghanistan. Consider that in light of Ukraine. Think about where munitions have gone and "smart" weapons are particularly prevelent.
And of course the writing and performance for Sir Humphrey in particular was absolutely top notch.
> Jim: Sometimes wonder why we need the weapons
> Sir Humphrey: Minister, you are not a unilateralist?
> Jim: Sometimes wonder, you know
> Sir Humphrey: Well then you must resign from the government!
> Jim: Nonono, I am not that unilateralist. The Americans will always protect us from the Russians, wouldn't they?
> Sir Humphrey: Russians? Who's talking about the Russians?
> Jim: Well, independent deterrent...
> Sir Humphrey: It's to protect us against the French!
> Jim: The French? But.. But.. They are our allies! And partners!
> Sir Humphrey: Well, that are now, but they've been our enemies for most of the past 900 years. If they have got the bomb, we must have the bomb
> Sir Humphrey: I gather there's an airborne battalion in the air.
> Jim Hacker: Sounds like the right place for it.
With the best shit-eating grin ever. I love Yes Prime Minister with all my heart. And the event leading up to it:
> James Hacker : Hello? Yes, Ronnie. I want the president of St George's Island to extend an invitation to Britain to send an airborne battalion on a goodwill visit. No, just a friendly gesture. Goodwill. Yes, at once, please. Thank you.
> [hangs up]
> James Hacker : He seemed to think that 800 fully armed paratroopers was an awful lot to send on a goodwill visit.
> Israeli Ambassador : No, it's just an awful lot of goodwill.
> James Hacker : [phone rings] Oh, yes, Paul. You know you have an airborne battalion on standby in Germany? Never mind how I know. Well, since it's not being used, I want them to fly straight off to St George's Island. [Pause] Sort of between Africa and India. A goodwill visit. Just showing the flag. They have been invited. Yes. Leave in... six hours. Yes, an *instant* goodwill visit. Tell your press office to announce it at once. No, no, leave me out of it. A *routine* visit. All right - a routine *surprise* visit. Well, say they were invited earlier, but the NATO exercise got in the way. Now they're not needed, they're going anyway. All right. Nobody knows it's not true. Press statements aren't delivered under oath.
Yup. Kind of amazing what you can do with decent stories. Blake's 7 and 70s Doctor Who were notorious for cheezy effects, sets, props and costumes. But the stories really were pretty decent. Blake's 7 eventually annoyed me by how slow it progressed, but if you relax and accept that it's slower than your typical trek episode, it's perfectly fine.
The same era saw Survivors, The Tripods and Children of the Stones. Cheezy effects but very decent stories and still worth watching.
After Stephen Greif left Blake's 7 and they replaced him with that awful guy, every episode with Space Commander Travis in it was excruciating. Apparently Mr Greif died last December.
I don't think the GP comment was asking a question in a parenthetical; rather, they were expressing the names of both shows together using regular-expression syntax.
True, though GP made a subtle mistake in not moving one space into the optional capture group. It should have been for example /Yes,( Prime)? Minister/, lest it were to match
It's true, it was regex-ish. I did actually think about the space and decided it didn't look nice. It should also be clear from context clues (ie having declared watching the show and quoting it, familiarity with the two show names could be inferred). Plus you don't need parentheses to insert a question mark:
Yes, Prime? Minister
Although if you're inclined to believe that's still regex the e is optional.
Makes sense. In my case, I probably would have phrased it as a question myself, since I did watch them as a kid but honestly couldn't tell you which one of those I used to watch.
It doesn't say they are pointless. It says one would never use them (there is no worst case scenario that wouldn't became worse by using them), but for them not to be used, one has to have them.
Some great shows, if you're talking nuclear deterrent, 'Whoops Apocalypse' was a great mini series from the same era, that I still revisit now and then.
When I was in high school (in the UK) we had a talk from someone who had been the Principle Private Secretary to the prime minister in the 80s and 90s, as well as cabinet secretary. Similar roles to Bernard and Sir Humphrey.
He commented on how incredibly accurate the show was, not just in the humour, but in the rules, regulations, behaviour of the characters, etc.
Even small details were accurate, like the time Jim (through Bernard) locks the door between Downing St and the cabinet office. We were told how there was a single door, and use was a privilege afforded to specific roles, and it could be cut off.
For all its excellent humour, it was especially biting for how true and accurate it was about basically everything. The scenarios were all cleverly written to be generic enough to be timeless, while also specific enough to the time.
We still argue about the value of nuclear deterrents, for example, and the politicians still mindlessly chase votes and vote winning ideas and slogans.
What has dated is that in the series they were all "jolly nice chaps" and the public service was super-competent if not always directed in the way one might like. Awfully pleasant "deep state" in the modern parlance.
It seems much harder to suspend that disbelief on either competence or that they're all very sound and nice people. Is that just my ageing or have things changed a little?
The fancy college I went to sent a lot of people into the UK Civil Service. The latter had a fast track program for those who passed a fairly rigorous set of exams.
The thing is, those exams tested for a certain kind of confident general intelligence, and the upper echelons of the UK university system was extremely, extremely good at producing people like this-- but that didnt mean they had deep knowledge of anything, or that they had a moral compass, or even believed anything in particular.
By way of example, in my college, you had to read some books, write essays taking a position, and defend it in real time to your tutor and a few peers. Twice a week for three years. You very rapidly learned how to pivot an argument, adapt to changing ground, even reverse your position. Do you see now why people like Boris Johnson are so eloquent without actually saying anything of meaning? That is the entire elite political class of Britain. And they are served by the same types of people. Its a blessing and a curse that civil servants have the intellectual flexibility to say the sun rises in the East to one minister and in the West to another, but that's how you get Sir Humphrey.
Well, the article talks about them all having no idea what this scientific compound was. Most people are reasonably competent on their own; the ineffectiveness of organisations is more about misalignment than about individual incompetence. That still feels true today.
Right and not knowing detailed expertise is fine. I mean core competence of giving advice to the minister "if you do this, then that" and it not being idiotic.
I can't imagine the public service advice to Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and I'll leave the current one alone for now. I would have trouble suspending disbelief that it was as competent as Sir Humphry in his core competence. Sure every single f*king politician, judge, public servant and policy maker have their brain fall out of the ear as soon as "...using a computer on the internet.." is somewhere in what they are being told. It's truly astounding and embarrassing but that is different to say, to cite one example, Liz Truss deciding to cut taxes and increase spending when they're already broke and the obvious repercussions of that. ie Bank of England having to enter the markets to prevent crisis.
"That's very courageous prime minister. Have you considered where you will take your holidays next week?"
well, we are all very nice people - except when it comes to the beef of the matter (i mean they all tend to bite when their basic interests are at stake)
I recently re-watched the first few seasons with my kids (who are now teens and were, beyond all expectations, absolutely riveted to the screen). I wholly agree with the "somewhat-Machiavellian" moniker regarding Sir Humphrey, but it is quite fun to watch the tables turn as the Minister (sometimes) gets the upper hand.
That episode, in particular, was hilarious and felt very, very much up to date, and highlighted (also to my kids) how people "in charge" and "scientifically correct" could be overwhelmed and undermined by those kinds of situations.
Thanks, I shall rewatch it with my 12 year old boy now - good tip! I'm already on a roll of watching classics not rewritten for a modern audience, it's been a complete hit so far.
I completely loved it growing up in the 80s. It was simply brilliant. And as a Norwegian, I credit the show (along with Monty Python) with my spoken English ending up British style rather than American, which seems to have been the norm. My group of friends would mimic their ways of talking all day long. :)
My father was a stenographer in a ministry (perhaps the Bernard equivalent), and he loved this show because it hit close to home, despite not being from the same country, issues were still the same. And I loved watching it with him.
Now all three of the stars are dead, my father has passed away too, and every time I see a clip of the show on Youtube, it hurts a little, the nostalgia cuts.
Growing up, my dad was a US Congressman (and later chief of staff of a different congressman's office and in retirement a minor functionary in the county tax office.)
I LOVED Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister. To this day I ramble on about meeting minutes in attempted imitation of Humphrey Appleby.
I knew Jay and Lynn were onto something when my father watched 5 minutes of one episode and said "I ain't watchin' that bullshit. It's too much like work."
Speaking of chemistry, I caught the play at Chichester a while back (with different actors.) Perfectly good acting and perfectly good writing, but the "chemistry" was definitely different. Not better. Not worse. Just different.
YM and YPM are amazing in that there are almost zero other political comedies that have any life beyond a year or two. Those shows are still hilarious even 30 years later.
Last time this topic came up, someone put me on to "The Thick of It" which is quite different but also very funny. Too bad you have to subscribe to BritBox to see all of it, AFAIK.
"The Thick of it" is basically YM/YPM transposed in the modern age, namely the media/spin cycle being at the centre of politics. It's a very worth successor.
It's a _slightly_ different setup, in that Yes Minister is mostly about civil servants (the only significant civil servant character in the Thick of It is Terri); the Thick of It is mostly about political operatives (these only really show up as bit players in Yes Minister).
It perfectly satirised the government of the time. The spin doctor is one of the most powerful government figures, unelected like the civil service, and operating at the whims of the press.
"Have I Got News for You", legendary UK political satirical/comedy-panel show, 1990-still running
One thing that kept them fresh was inviting guests-of-the-hour; often beleaguered under-fire politicians, who they would then call corrupt or liars or incompetent to their faces. Not something you'd ever see on US television, other than Stewart or Colbert.
That is one of the more memorable episodes. Even the head of the British Chemical Corporation has no clue what he‘s talking about; he’s a political appointee with no actual chemistry education, since this is a nationalized industry. They’re not holding back in this episode.
"It would appear that the American report leaves some important questions unanswered, some of the evidence is inconclusive, some findings have been questioned, and the figures are open to interpretation and different results might come from a widened, more detailed study over a longer time scale." [1]—words that killed any possibility of science under the umbrella of the political since 1981.
I don't understand why the author needs to qualify: "Yes, Minister is one of the most seminal British political satires", it simply is the most seminal political satires [2], together with the follow-up, Yes, Prime Minister [3].
[1] Around minute 25 of the episode 4, season 2.
[2] Of course, some might say de gustibus, however, even Veep could not succeed in combining wit, humor, and relevancy in such a manner. Not to even mention the unique use of the English language: any of the Humphrey-ian soliloquyial verbiages is up there with any speech from Hamlet and above. The fact that there are so few episodes certainly helps in keeping the essence dense.
I tend to agree. It’s definitely a British television show, but it wipes the floor with any other political satire I’ve ever seen, British or otherwise. Of course I haven’t watched all the television shows that ever aired, so… top 5 at least.
[The writers for Yes Minister acknowledged that this wasn't their invention]
The "tits" punchline used in later versions of the joke makes more sense in an era where the association between the role of Prime Minister and male gender is shaken, which in 1973 may still have seemed like a distant future possibility - whereas by the time Yes Minister was first broadcast Margaret Thatcher was in 10 Downing Street.
The accents were a brilliant move: instead of making them speak English with a Slavic accent, they use only heavy English accents as to demarcate and indicate the provenance of the speaker in the same manner as if they spoke actual Russian, Georgian, Ukrainian, and so forth.
'Director Iannucci explained the decision to Metro: “I felt Russian accents would just kill the comedy dead,” he said. “It makes the whole thing artificial. It makes you feel like you’re not there. And I want people to feel like they’re there.”' [1]
I watched the Zelenskyy political comedy series [1], well, because of the implication. In the same period, 2015-2019, there is also Au service de la France [2]. They both have their moments, but they cannot deliver the constant overflow of satirical point-counterpoint in the same manner as Yes, Minister.
Modern Australian Equivalent of this is Utopia, though it’s focused on the bureaucrats instead of the politicians. Chemistry/Writing/Performance all really hit the mark For the Australian Public Service.
I love this show. It really makes fun of the fact that the people who run the country are the civil service not the elected representatives.
Which is probably for the best.
quite possibly my favourite tv show of all time, though it's hard to compare across genres. definitely my favourite tv comedy, beating out even the excellent "jeeves and wooster" adaptation.
The slice by slice approach talked in there for whether to push the nuclear bomb is a good strategy for Russian. They have got 1 and 3 and … if they kept on doing that where is Ukraine to defend against.
Great for Ukraine Russia did not learn the lesson of how they take a bit and German can still build stream II and we still have Olympic etc.
Luckily for us all. Better of course if they do not invade. Tell chinese about Taiwan. They cannot help themselves.
