I wrote to nigel hawthorne to thank him for the madness of george iii at the national theatre. It was the happiest night of my life in a theatre. He graciously took the time to write back
So sad that this swirling of news makes me miss the news of Derek's gone. RIP, Bernard. Will ever be the world sane and fun again with you three. Just watch some f*** up news about Bloomberg's boxgate right before this. How degenerative I have become? Sigh.
"I was just wondering if the Minister was right." "Very unlikely. (half-beat) What about?" The immaculate comedy timing of the entire trio, plus Humphrey's essential attitude to Hacker all on display in mere moments.
"Bernard, I have served 11 governments in the past 30 years. If I'd believed in all their policies, I'd have been passionately committed to keeping out of the Common Market, and passionately committed to joining it. I'd have been utterly convinced of the rightness of nationalizing steel and of denationalizing it and renationalizing it. Capital punishment? I'd have been a fervent retentionist and an ardent abolitionist. I'd have been a Keynesian and a Friedmanite, a grammar school preserver and destroyer, a nationalization freak and a privatization maniac, but above all, I would have been a stark-staring raving schizophrenic! Perfection. That might be my favorite moment of the series."
@landhr1 • If you've read the comments om many of the other clips for this series, you've probably seen how cynical most of them are about how governments fuction. It's way too seldom that this series delves into why the "bureaucrats" are the way they are. Who would realistically want a government where the civil servants were so committed to the incumbent administration's set of policies that they would all need to be fired when a new administration came in? No social security checks, no TSA, no doctors or nurses & no military to backfill behind them, no Coast Guard, no Customs to clear freight, no air traffic controllers...and so many more all gone because they're so fervent for one set of policies, they can't switch to a new administration. Maybe voters need to think twice about what the country would be like if we didn't have the "bureaucrats" some politicians use to dehumanize the people who are just trying to keep the ship of state afloat.
Except it doesn't really make sense. He keeps talking about how it's not his job to care, not his job to make policy, just carry it out, whether he agrees with it or not, etc. But Hacker's policy is to inform the PM about the bomb sales, so Humphrey should, if he meant a word he was saying, simply say 'Yes, Minister' and set up an appointment for Hacker to meet the PM. And of course, we constantly see, throughout the series, Humphrey manipulating policy instead of just carrying it out.
@@redrackham6812 What makes sense is the discussion on government and politics, not Humphrey as the head of civil servant. Civil servants controlling politicians makes no sense at all.
Nearly 40 years old- and still so, so relevant. Nothing really changes in Government circles, does it? Superb observational writing and delivery from the real golden age of British TV comedy, before the race to the bottom and dumbing-down started. Thank you for posting this as a reminder of what (and who) we have lost.
It has changed though. It's become nastier and more blatantly dishonest and deceitful. It wasn't that long ago that an MP found to be lying to the house would have resigned. Today it is government policy to lie to the house.
The moment from 2:02 is superb. When Hacker says 'you will go to hell' and then Humphrey gives Hacker a look, the mask slips off both of them and they're communicating as two human beings rather than Minister and civil servant. The comedy falls away completely and you're reminded that these are two top-notch actors; not 'comedy actors' or performers, but actors.
@@cargumdeu you should worry about your karma. If you're born in a British family you've got blood on your hands and souls. Karma never forgets or forgives.
@@cargumdeu all the amenities, all the benefits britons enjoy today are of the theft and enslavement. Britain systematically removed all evidence of it's attrocities and continues to applaud it's genocidal leaders who shot and killed Innocents. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/23/british-empire-crimes-ignore-atrocities
Derek fowlds' physical acting whilst the other too are speaking is masterful, the little smiles and glances back and forth. A lot of actors seem to zone out if they're not the foreground. He nails the body language of a nuteral third party
There are two series - Yes Minister & then Yes Prime Minister. They were, no surprise, written by a senior civil servant. If you want to watch the whole series they are, or at least were, avialiable on DVD. Health Warning .............after watching many episodes a lot of people start to echo Sir Humphrey's style.
Five minutes of "Yes, Minister" is worth all of the seasons of "West Wing" put together so far as acting, writing, and accuracy of observations put together.
@MichaelKingsfordGray You're right, nobody of any influence studied philosophy or politics lmao. Maybe if you had you'd understand why advocating killing entire groups of people is bad!
@MichaelKingsfordGray ah yes, using internet linguistics clearly denotes I am an infant. Pure, refined genius. Also, what the fuck is a "philosomaven"? I googled it, but the only result I could find on google was...you, having a very similar tantrum to this on a grim-looking forum called "slyme pit". Did you just make it up? Interestingly, you cite Sam Harris in that weird little rant as well...you know he studied philosophy and is a self-described philosopher right? That's fair though, you didn't say nobody of influence studied philosophy, you just implied that, because of my degree, I would be working in McDonald's. My point (as would have been apparent to anyone with more than 3 whole brain cells) was that many, many people who studied philosophy now run the entire country, and several other countries besides. I don't work in McDonald's, I work in a library, and am a full time student studying for an MSc in Environmental Sciences. I'd put money on me being more "scientifically educated" than you if I'm entirely honest. Also, do you really think all philosophers are french, ignorant of evolution (????) or think endless human growth is good? The first people to suggest endless human growth was bad were philosophers, you absolute pan troglodyte. Also, I don't really feel like I need to bring in much philosophy to argue against the position "kill people who studied for a degree this man on the internet doesn't like" frankly. It's what we stupid philosophers would call "a priori fucking stupid".
A superb scene. All those who spent the last few years bashing the Civil Service over Brexit, or for trying to 'obstruct the will of the people' should watch this, and then watch it again. If you truly want a Civil Sevice to be impartial, who serves the government of the day without question, then this is what you get. A moral vacuum indeed.
It is the truth and it is so funny because the official narrative in the media is so much different, selling everyone a very distorted picture of how government works.
"but frightfully-well carried out" delivered with a smile, and a career, and integrity, and an empire, and a commonwealth, and in English, when politicians meant something, and the UK's civil service meant something
@@patricklamshear1806 well, Jonathan Lynn, one of the writers of ym/ypm is himself a leftist! Ofcourse of the old labour type not of the new, wretched Corbyn-style left.
If you actually ignore the laughter track, this is actually a fantastic piece of dramatic acting and a fascinating conversation, along the lines of the Grand Inquisitor's monologue in Dostoyevsky's Brothers Karamazov. Also, if you enjoy this sort of thing, try watching "The Good Place"
@@r.h.8754 actually, showrunners used real audience much to annoyance of cast and with idea, that having real people laughing their guts out will convey to powers that be that show is worth continuing.
@@vikramkrishnan6414 Thank you for taking it in a civilised manner. Also what Sir Humphrey said throughout this clip is to a great extent a summary of the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, arguably the greatest English political philosopher. And Hacker's negative reaction to that and lapping up Christian theology as an aid in the argument reminds us Middle class Englanders resistance to the self serving, nihilistic but commendable ideas of British Establishment. Hacker was educated in LSE, a centre-left university (not Marxist) and Humphrey in Oxford, an old, elite institution.
@@deepakbharadwaj4783 The thought in a way predates even Hobbes. Confucius similar to Humphrey emphasized order and the role of a meritocratic bureaucracy. Kautilya also makes similar arguments. LSE at the time of its founding was center-left relative to Oxford, but let us remember Hayek taught there, so if Hacker attended it post say 1950, he would not have been necessarily left wing. In fact, Hacker as PM does advocate for policies closer to the Public Choice school of Jim Buchanan. Also Hacker's wife mentions that during their honeymoon, Hacker tried to explain the "Velocity of Money supply" to her, which would place him closer to Friedman, in the 1960s very few people considered the impact of monetary aggregates on growth and inflation, they thought it was a purely fiscal thing. Considering one of the creators of this show was a Thacherite, one imagines there is an element of self-insertion
When I watched this again, I realised just how much it had informed the opinions which I have today, especially the fact that Governments are only interested in doing whatever prevents chaos and their own downfall.
@@NerdGirlUK Speaking of Porridge, did you watch the 2016 series? I really enjoyed it, for me it ticked all the right boxes, the writers understood the feel of the show perfectly. Which they should have done as they were the original writing team. It took a while for me to warm to Kevin Bishop as Fletcher's grandson but he won me over. It's a shame they didn't make more seasons.
@Tony Becker I did see the Porridge revival and I agree totally with you. I thought it had potential and it was a shame it got cancelled. I've only seen a few clips of BBT, didn’t appeal but might catch it some time. My favourite American sitcom is Frasier.
Bernard's face in this is fantastic watching the master lecturing the minister, picking up tools of the trade. It's above acting... you totally believe this is real, not scripted. Brillant!
This is such a good episode -- and so very dark. Humphrey and the chief whip both keep their underlings (Bernard and the Minister) in line by genuinely abusive means: overtly threatening to nuke their careers if they try and follow their conscience, and then distracting them with praise, engaging problems to solve, and potential career progression when they're strong-armed into line. (don't think Humphrey didn't already think of the "Rhodesia solution" -- he wanted Bernard to be the one solve the problem, with his achievement leaving him completely distracted from the concerns of his conscience, which he never really resolved; it's also far better for Jim's acceptance for Bernard to come up with the idea). At the end, Jim's failures to make headway are shown to be driving him to the bottle -- and when he runs out, it turns out that whatever civil servant prepares his red boxes (Bernard?) understands government well enough to know that there's little other response than to turn the bottle, implying that the moral vacuum of the civil service is probably kept intact by the same dysfunction and addiction. The only light is in the way Annie manages to maintain both moral clarity and her support/love of Jim, but all she can really achieve is to keep him from falling off the wagon entirely, so that he can go back to his work as a cog in the gears of government.
@Johannes Liechtenauer Been thinking about that. Its the corruption that is the cause of all problems, not morality and such dilemmas. What you think about idea of requiring politicians and civil servants only to have their job and no connections what so ever to private market, so their job is their only job and they have upper pay limit on that, no freebies or extras. Those who do this to be honest in that case shitty, low paying, highly monitored job, then do it for the people and not for self gain. Those who do get punished full extent of the law and investigation can be launched by collecting X number of names and jury is made of populous chosen at random. Personally i think its the corruption what ruins what ever system we have built. What ever it is the socialistic, capitalistic, democratic or dictator in nature, some of course being far easier to become corrupt than others.
@Johannes Liechtenauer difference between now and 40 years ago is apparent, they were strictly apolitical then, they are political appointees and private industry-on-secondment these days. Much shabbier. But I rather think our civil servants then as now would have been largely Europhile and would have acted in the same negative, evasive, damaging way then as now. And they will end up in the House of Lords as reward.
government is chaos the chaos it claims anarchy brings government is the rich eating the poor the few leading the many a prison of manipulation. fearing the unknown an staying a slave huh cowardice an ignorance is the only things keeping government a float. indeed all government types think means before ends otherwise ud turn anarchist were terrible with means but anarchy is inevitable.
I mean it isn't an intrinsically immoral position. The potential morality of your actions are constrained by your ability to act, implementation is often as important as the aim itself. With that said, lies tend to destabilise in the long term, principle and many measures of morality make structures predictable and trustable. One way of conceptualising what morality is for is a long term stable way of living for a group of people.
Morality is not like logic, a system of perfectly consistent statements that can be expected to never contradict. Moral principles, on the other hand, frequently do end up contradicting each other. We constantly run into situations where two moral principles are in conflict, and any action to uphold one requires abandoning the other.
It’s probably very true about civil servants in government. I think a lot of them have to bite their lip about their own principles and political biases and put their heads down and get on with serving the government that happens to be in power, Pink green turquoise or violet- whatever shade of the political spectrum the government might be.
Sir Humphrey is right about his place. It should be up to the ministers alone to decide policy and up to civil servants to carry out said policy. Unfortunately, these days civil servants appear to be the ones who decide policy and the ministers doggedly agree. Civil servants are not elected and largely not accountable. They should not have as much political influence as they do and Sir Humphrey understands this. Obviously the example of selling weapons to terrorists is extreme but the principle still applies.
Is it bad that I actually agree with Sir Humphrey's opinion about government - that it's not about morality, but about stability, preventing anarchy and chaos, and just making sure that society keeps going?
Humphrey’s opinion is spot on about the role of the civil service (or similar government bureaucracies), but the whole point of a democracy is for the people to have representatives to force the bureaucrats away from projects that we consider unacceptable. Stability isn’t everything: North Korea’s government is extremely stable, being the only soviet-style regime to survive the 1990s essentially unchanged, but obviously it’s not a place any of us would want to live, nor would its means be acceptable to any of us.
@@CHR1SZ7 I'm not sure that it actually is; there's a huge amount of behind the scenes violence in that system. The real genius is what the British state has done since 1689, but might be slightly losing its grip on right now, and what the German one seems to have built since 1945; stability without executing the awkward squad with anti-aircraft guns or running the entire country as a prison.
"Either something is morally wrong or it isn't. It can't be slightly morally wrong" A statement that I must fundamentally disagree with. There are moral absolutes. But they are rare. Most things are an intangible mess of grey moral shades.
@Jacob Zondag A Woman breaks into a pharmacy to get medicine she can't afford when her husband runs out of insulin. A life is saved, but a theft was committed. Not exactly clear cut.
@@arimoarola2392 let me add to that: the Insulin that the Wife stole, is actually already ordered by someone else's (could be children, elderly, or anyone) who also need those Insulin badly. and since the Wife stole those Insulin, now someone else is dead. in the end, which life is more important? the Husband's? or someone else's?
As Norman Schwarzkopf said.. "It's never difficult to know what the right thing to do is but the right thing is not always easy to do." in the case put forward here there is no right answer hence the moral ambiguity... Actually one of the best discussions of this you will ever see is Al Pacino's monologue towards the end of"Scent of a Woman" during Charlie's trial at the school assembly...
Series is absolute masterpiece. It goes far out from the frame of comedy, I heard that Margaret Thatcher called it a "documentary" and many other people do, I myself agree on that. That is real, detailed profile of real diplomacy and real politics and they are so shamefully cynical. But of course, as Sir Humphrey said, otherwise all will fall to chaos.
Humphrey is right. Government is about stability. It’s the individual person like you and me that handles our morals and our interpretation of good and evil.
I'd been wondering where I'd heard someone say "there's no difference between means and ends," but I never could seem to find the quote. It's actually rather profound, if you think it through to the end. If you want to achieve some end, the means that you use will dictate the ends you will get. If you use means of justice, treating people fairly and all in the right fashion; you will create the end of a just society regardless of your individual intentions. If you use unsavory means, you will create unsavory ends regardless of your intentions. A man who desires to create a utopia and lies, kills, and blackmails to do it; will create a corrupt and in the last resort totalitarian society, though his intention was a perfect civilization. The means are the seeds of ends, and as the Lord said; whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. (Galatians 6:7) So means and ends are, at the end of the day, the same things.
@steve gale If I found the right references, Aristotle was saying that we do not deliberate about ends; only means. Unless there's a reference I didn't find I don't think Aristotle was saying that the result is the same no matter what is done. But I don't know, I could be wrong about what he meant.
@randomguy8196 It depends on the nature of the trolley problem, and how it is formulated. But ultimately I would avoid judging such a point without knowing both what someone chose and why they chose it, in detail. I still stand by the statement that means are the seeds of ends, and that if you want just ends you must choose the most just means at your disposal in order to attain them.
I'm actually siding with Humpry on this one. Throughout history people have believed in ends over means, and used it to justify terrible things. I'm a man of means over ends. Doing the right thing is the right thing, even if you think the outcome will be bad. You're more likely to be wrong about what the outcome might be, than about judging if the right thing is the right thing. Of course Humpry is about the wrong means, so yeah he'd go down to hell for this one.
He does make a good point, though. Every new government comes in with their own policies, often in opposition to the last government. Should all the civil servants resign when they're asked to carry out the opposite policies? That would be chaos. What you want out of a civil service is exactly what Sir Humphrey says - a body that will carry out the policies of any government in an even-handed way, regardless of what they are.
You're more likely to be wrong about what the outcome might be, than about judging if the right thing is the right thing." - if you're a consequentialist, then being wrong about the former means you were wrong about the latter. "Doing the right thing is the right thing, even if you think the outcome will be bad." - Getting a bad outcome means what you did was bad too.
@@ArawnOfAnnwn Only if you're a consequentialist. And I'm arguing that generally speaking consequentialism is arrogant, because we can't know the full consequences of our actions. As in, it's mathematically impossible to know. The world is chaotic, and people even more so. Now certainly there are cases where we might have to do a short term evil, to do a long term good. And that can be the best course of action. But even then the short term evil doesn't become a good. It's still an evil, an evil you perhaps needed to do, but an evil nonetheless. Forgetting this means forgetting to improve yourself so that next time you find yourself in a similar situation you can lessen the short term evil you need to do for a long term good.
@@rutger5000 I mean, which is more arrogant - to try to estimate the consequences of an action (something we do all the time when trying to make all sorts of other decisions) and decide on its moral worth therein, or to believe you already know the moral worth of an action regardless of its consequences? The former may overestimate our ability to predict the future, but the latter involves a certainty in our ability to evaluate moral worth (and that too sans any tangible yardstick or test to hold us accountable). Which involves more hubris - believing you can guess the future, or believing you can always tell right from wrong? Deontological ethics (like Kantianism) at least insists on you following a consistent principle, but it's also incredibly inflexible as a result. And keep in mind you could also just choose to decide right and wrong arbitrarily - if you choose to decide morality yourself, it doesn't have to be in a principled manner.
@@ArawnOfAnnwn Morality is far simpler than people make it out to be. Unless you're a psychopath you've got a conscience and you know right from wrong. Ethical philosophy is only necessary when weighing a good vs an evil. Which is why most people hardly ever need it. It also carries the danger to be used for rationalization. To comfort yourself to go against your conscience.
The Scots are native speakers of English, and their dialects all have trilled Rs. Most native speakers in Britain use trills for emphasis; I do it myself, there is nothing unusual about it.
The dialogue with Bernard after demonstrates Sir Humphrey's reasoning - and why it is correct. Morality is the job of politicians - the civil service is simply there to enact whatever policy is decided by politicians. It is strictly neutral, and it has to be. As he points out, it has to enact policies that are diametrically opposed to each other and is duty bound to favour neiher side. It's like a doctor, who has to put aside their personal feelings about what is "right" or "wrong" about a particular patient - they are equally duty bound to treat a criminal the same way they'd treat anyone else. Sir Humphrey is not truly a moral vacuum, he simply does not let his personal feelings interfere with what he sees as his duty, but abiding to the code of Civil Service neutrality. The Minister he serves could be replaced by someone with completely different views, and Sir Humphrey would have to enact the new policies as dilligently as Hacker's.
Can’t remember which episode, but Sir Humphrey references this, Bernard has to walk the fine line between pleasing his minister and the civil service. “To prove his ability for the high office to which he aspires.” When he became PM ,Jim was able to choose his PPS, but at the time Humphrey wasn’t happy about it. And later on in “The Key” Humphrey pointed out to Bernard that long term prospects relied on pleasing the civil service, not the PM.
That delivery of "well almost all government policy is wrong, but... frightfully well carried out" is just perfect.
Nigel Hawthorne (sir Humphrey) deserves a posthumous medal for how he handled some of the monologues in this show!
An expert in the professional use of the English language. An excellent proponent of prevarication to the nth degree.
Rest in peace, gentlemen.
Sir hawthorne actually, he got his recognition while he could enjoy it 😄
You should have seen him in Demolition Man.
Absolutely, totally agree. He was incredible.
@@Hatersgonnahate726 Not to mention "The Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office" from 1989 to 1997 being named in honour of his role in this show.
I wrote to nigel hawthorne to thank him for the madness of george iii at the national theatre. It was the happiest night of my life in a theatre. He graciously took the time to write back
RIP, Derek. Now, all three of you are gone, yet you'll be with us forever.
So sad that this swirling of news makes me miss the news of Derek's gone. RIP, Bernard. Will ever be the world sane and fun again with you three. Just watch some f*** up news about Bloomberg's boxgate right before this. How degenerative I have become? Sigh.
So true. Great team, great actors, and great show.
May they R.I.P.
It is sad.
On the other hand.
What a *superb* legacy to be remembered by and loved by millions for.
@@Farweasel Having been a key member of the ensemble for this extraordinary show practically guarantees immortality.
"I was just wondering if the Minister was right."
"Very unlikely. (half-beat) What about?"
The immaculate comedy timing of the entire trio, plus Humphrey's essential attitude to Hacker all on display in mere moments.
"We give them all the support short of help"😂 from Estonia and loving it
😂from Germany and doing it.
@@Fusselwurmify good one 🤣👍 and at the same time 😥
"Bernard, I have served 11 governments in the past 30 years. If I'd believed in all their policies, I'd have been passionately committed to keeping out of the Common Market, and passionately committed to joining it. I'd have been utterly convinced of the rightness of nationalizing steel and of denationalizing it and renationalizing it. Capital punishment? I'd have been a fervent retentionist and an ardent abolitionist. I'd have been a Keynesian and a Friedmanite, a grammar school preserver and destroyer, a nationalization freak and a privatization maniac, but above all, I would have been a stark-staring raving schizophrenic! Perfection. That might be my favorite moment of the series."
Yes,Yes. We all watched it. Don't need you to type it out.
@@joto4294 Watched what?
Ek het lekker geglimlag. Baie interessante humor.
@landhr1 • If you've read the comments om many of the other clips for this series, you've probably seen how cynical most of them are about how governments fuction.
It's way too seldom that this series delves into why the "bureaucrats" are the way they are.
Who would realistically want a government where the civil servants were so committed to the incumbent administration's set of policies that they would all need to be fired when a new administration came in? No social security checks, no TSA, no doctors or nurses & no military to backfill behind them, no Coast Guard, no Customs to clear freight, no air traffic controllers...and so many more all gone because they're so fervent for one set of policies, they can't switch to a new administration.
Maybe voters need to think twice about what the country would be like if we didn't have the "bureaucrats" some politicians use to dehumanize the people who are just trying to keep the ship of state afloat.
Humphrey has a point there. What is the right thing to do in such a situation??
I love it when a bit of Humphrey cynicism turns out to actually make sense when he explains it.
Except it doesn't really make sense. He keeps talking about how it's not his job to care, not his job to make policy, just carry it out, whether he agrees with it or not, etc. But Hacker's policy is to inform the PM about the bomb sales, so Humphrey should, if he meant a word he was saying, simply say 'Yes, Minister' and set up an appointment for Hacker to meet the PM. And of course, we constantly see, throughout the series, Humphrey manipulating policy instead of just carrying it out.
@@redrackham6812 He says it's his job to carry out government policy and government policy was different to what Hacker thought it should be.
@@redrackham6812 What makes sense is the discussion on government and politics, not Humphrey as the head of civil servant. Civil servants controlling politicians makes no sense at all.
@@huanglong08 Whether it makes sense, it happens all the time.
@@redrackham6812 What happens all the time? Government isn't about morality, or civil servants control politicians?
Nearly 40 years old- and still so, so relevant. Nothing really changes in Government circles, does it?
Superb observational writing and delivery from the real golden age of British TV comedy, before the race to the bottom and dumbing-down started. Thank you for posting this as a reminder of what (and who) we have lost.
So, in other words PM Johnson doesn't want you to know that Putin pulls his strings and makes Boris dance.
Indeed
It has changed though. It's become nastier and more blatantly dishonest and deceitful. It wasn't that long ago that an MP found to be lying to the house would have resigned. Today it is government policy to lie to the house.
Have you seen the Thick of It?
Civil servant mandarins lost their powers after this show. Now it's all spin doctors like Malcolm Tucker.
The moment from 2:02 is superb. When Hacker says 'you will go to hell' and then Humphrey gives Hacker a look, the mask slips off both of them and they're communicating as two human beings rather than Minister and civil servant. The comedy falls away completely and you're reminded that these are two top-notch actors; not 'comedy actors' or performers, but actors.
To glorify the genocidal British empire one has to be a moral vaccum
@@simona4315 feel better now dearie?
@@cargumdeu you should worry about your karma. If you're born in a British family you've got blood on your hands and souls. Karma never forgets or forgives.
@@simona4315 speak of your own family sunshine. Or were they all social justice warriors like yourself?
@@cargumdeu all the amenities, all the benefits britons enjoy today are of the theft and enslavement. Britain systematically removed all evidence of it's attrocities and continues to applaud it's genocidal leaders who shot and killed Innocents. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/23/british-empire-crimes-ignore-atrocities
Re-watching this after so many years is pure joy.
Derek fowlds' physical acting whilst the other too are speaking is masterful, the little smiles and glances back and forth. A lot of actors seem to zone out if they're not the foreground. He nails the body language of a nuteral third party
Nuteral? Is that similar to neutral?
@@markfox1545 theres always one :p
A stage is a fantasy place where out of the action actors do not act. Its theatre you see.
@@sammerry7706 Or should it be 'natural'....?
This is the first scene of Yes Minister I have ever seen. I find it of extraordinary quality!
There are two series - Yes Minister & then Yes Prime Minister. They were, no surprise, written by a senior civil servant. If you want to watch the whole series they are, or at least were, avialiable on DVD. Health Warning .............after watching many episodes a lot of people start to echo Sir Humphrey's style.
Really? Sir Humphrey will wish you Happy Christmas...watch it.
I envy you. You're in for a treat seeing the rest for the first time
How very unlucky you have been! British humor at its best!
Try finding the sketch about why Britain is in the EU... very up to date
Five minutes of "Yes, Minister" is worth all of the seasons of "West Wing" put together so far as acting, writing, and accuracy of observations put together.
"Actually, it was Lenin" -Humpy Soviet spy theory confirmed
Impossible! He was one of US!
@@handris99 Yes he was one of US.
@@aaaleshin Haha!
Impossible, Humphrey went to Oxford, not the riff-raff at Cambridge
Who's his KGB handler?
Timeless wisdom, but the _"Nearly right. Actually, it was Lenin"_ was probably the best part.
Stunning writing - equally stunning acting. Wonderful.
Every person who takes political science in college should be obliged to watch the entire Yes Minister/Prime Minister series.
I find it very useful for understanding large corporations as well...
I can't believe I only found it after I finished my degree in philosophy and politics!
@MichaelKingsfordGray You're right, nobody of any influence studied philosophy or politics lmao.
Maybe if you had you'd understand why advocating killing entire groups of people is bad!
@MichaelKingsfordGray ah yes, using internet linguistics clearly denotes I am an infant. Pure, refined genius.
Also, what the fuck is a "philosomaven"? I googled it, but the only result I could find on google was...you, having a very similar tantrum to this on a grim-looking forum called "slyme pit". Did you just make it up? Interestingly, you cite Sam Harris in that weird little rant as well...you know he studied philosophy and is a self-described philosopher right?
That's fair though, you didn't say nobody of influence studied philosophy, you just implied that, because of my degree, I would be working in McDonald's. My point (as would have been apparent to anyone with more than 3 whole brain cells) was that many, many people who studied philosophy now run the entire country, and several other countries besides. I don't work in McDonald's, I work in a library, and am a full time student studying for an MSc in Environmental Sciences. I'd put money on me being more "scientifically educated" than you if I'm entirely honest.
Also, do you really think all philosophers are french, ignorant of evolution (????) or think endless human growth is good? The first people to suggest endless human growth was bad were philosophers, you absolute pan troglodyte.
Also, I don't really feel like I need to bring in much philosophy to argue against the position "kill people who studied for a degree this man on the internet doesn't like" frankly. It's what we stupid philosophers would call "a priori fucking stupid".
@@GingePlaysMinecraft Sorry I can only give you one like Digby. Your erudition in applying a burn is worthy of Sir Humphrey.
A superb scene.
All those who spent the last few years bashing the Civil Service over Brexit, or for trying to 'obstruct the will of the people' should watch this, and then watch it again.
If you truly want a Civil Sevice to be impartial, who serves the government of the day without question, then this is what you get. A moral vacuum indeed.
And yet Humphrey appears to believe he is serving democracy by maintaining the status quo.
love it! "All government policy is wrong...but frightfully well carried out!"
Such a superb programme. Closer to the truth, rather than comedy
Thatcher loved it.
It’s both.
it was close to the truth because they were fed actual material from senior civil servants and advisers right from early on!
It is the truth and it is so funny because the official narrative in the media is so much different, selling everyone a very distorted picture of how government works.
"but frightfully-well carried out"
delivered with a smile, and a career, and integrity, and an empire, and a commonwealth, and in English, when politicians meant something, and the UK's civil service meant something
Empire and integrity don't entirely correlate well with one another
Absolutely brilliant writing, and genuinely chilling in a way.
Life is chilling, when you think about it. My advice is: don't think about it.
Fabulous. How they remembered their lines I will never know. Such brilliant dialogue beautifully delivered. Bless them.
Great comedy. Not seen today. Intelligent, sardonic, wonderfully iconoclastic.
Every thing is downgraded by the left wing politically correct brigade.🗣🗣🗣🗣
@@patricklamshear1806 well, Jonathan Lynn, one of the writers of ym/ypm is himself a leftist! Ofcourse of the old labour type not of the new, wretched Corbyn-style left.
Church of England problem🤣
This conversation is so relevant even today,this describes the government workings so beautifully
If you actually ignore the laughter track, this is actually a fantastic piece of dramatic acting and a fascinating conversation, along the lines of the Grand Inquisitor's monologue in Dostoyevsky's Brothers Karamazov. Also, if you enjoy this sort of thing, try watching "The Good Place"
@@r.h.8754 actually, showrunners used real audience much to annoyance of cast and with idea, that having real people laughing their guts out will convey to powers that be that show is worth continuing.
I am not nitpicking here but have to say that grand inquisitor appears in Dostoevsky's last novel 'Brothers Karamazov', not in 'Idiot'.
@@deepakbharadwaj4783 Correct, my bad. Fixed it
@@vikramkrishnan6414 Thank you for taking it in a civilised manner. Also what Sir Humphrey said throughout this clip is to a great extent a summary of the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, arguably the greatest English political philosopher. And Hacker's negative reaction to that and lapping up Christian theology as an aid in the argument reminds us Middle class Englanders resistance to the self serving, nihilistic but commendable ideas of British Establishment. Hacker was educated in LSE, a centre-left university (not Marxist) and Humphrey in Oxford, an old, elite institution.
@@deepakbharadwaj4783 The thought in a way predates even Hobbes. Confucius similar to Humphrey emphasized order and the role of a meritocratic bureaucracy. Kautilya also makes similar arguments.
LSE at the time of its founding was center-left relative to Oxford, but let us remember Hayek taught there, so if Hacker attended it post say 1950, he would not have been necessarily left wing. In fact, Hacker as PM does advocate for policies closer to the Public Choice school of Jim Buchanan. Also Hacker's wife mentions that during their honeymoon, Hacker tried to explain the "Velocity of Money supply" to her, which would place him closer to Friedman, in the 1960s very few people considered the impact of monetary aggregates on growth and inflation, they thought it was a purely fiscal thing. Considering one of the creators of this show was a Thacherite, one imagines there is an element of self-insertion
This was sold as a comedy, but I regard this as a documentary.
High Camp! Thank you, Michael Sloth.
When I watched this again, I realised just how much it had informed the opinions which I have today, especially the fact that Governments are only interested in doing whatever prevents chaos and their own downfall.
My favourite sitcom of all time. Perfection.
There's not many as intelligently written as this. In fact I'm not sure I can think of another.
@Tony Becker Not the same, but my 2nd tier is Blackadder, Red Dwarf, Porridge, Steptoe and Son.
@@NerdGirlUK Speaking of Porridge, did you watch the 2016 series? I really enjoyed it, for me it ticked all the right boxes, the writers understood the feel of the show perfectly. Which they should have done as they were the original writing team. It took a while for me to warm to Kevin Bishop as Fletcher's grandson but he won me over. It's a shame they didn't make more seasons.
@@NerdGirlUK Also, Big Bang Theory is very well written.
@Tony Becker I did see the Porridge revival and I agree totally with you. I thought it had potential and it was a shame it got cancelled. I've only seen a few clips of BBT, didn’t appeal but might catch it some time. My favourite American sitcom is Frasier.
I would keep very quiet, minister. LOL
Bernard's face in this is fantastic watching the master lecturing the minister, picking up tools of the trade. It's above acting... you totally believe this is real, not scripted. Brillant!
You know how good the language is when the closed captions only show half the conversation!
What a "Sitcom". It"s so intelligent and so fare from the through.
Truth
This is such a good episode -- and so very dark. Humphrey and the chief whip both keep their underlings (Bernard and the Minister) in line by genuinely abusive means: overtly threatening to nuke their careers if they try and follow their conscience, and then distracting them with praise, engaging problems to solve, and potential career progression when they're strong-armed into line. (don't think Humphrey didn't already think of the "Rhodesia solution" -- he wanted Bernard to be the one solve the problem, with his achievement leaving him completely distracted from the concerns of his conscience, which he never really resolved; it's also far better for Jim's acceptance for Bernard to come up with the idea). At the end, Jim's failures to make headway are shown to be driving him to the bottle -- and when he runs out, it turns out that whatever civil servant prepares his red boxes (Bernard?) understands government well enough to know that there's little other response than to turn the bottle, implying that the moral vacuum of the civil service is probably kept intact by the same dysfunction and addiction. The only light is in the way Annie manages to maintain both moral clarity and her support/love of Jim, but all she can really achieve is to keep him from falling off the wagon entirely, so that he can go back to his work as a cog in the gears of government.
One of the best episodes.
As a civil servant this is so true. But it's right - government can't pick sides otherwise you get chaos.
@Johannes Liechtenauer Been thinking about that. Its the corruption that is the cause of all problems, not morality and such dilemmas. What you think about idea of requiring politicians and civil servants only to have their job and no connections what so ever to private market, so their job is their only job and they have upper pay limit on that, no freebies or extras. Those who do this to be honest in that case shitty, low paying, highly monitored job, then do it for the people and not for self gain. Those who do get punished full extent of the law and investigation can be launched by collecting X number of names and jury is made of populous chosen at random.
Personally i think its the corruption what ruins what ever system we have built. What ever it is the socialistic, capitalistic, democratic or dictator in nature, some of course being far easier to become corrupt than others.
@Johannes Liechtenauer ok calm down love 😅
@Johannes Liechtenauer difference between now and 40 years ago is apparent, they were strictly apolitical then, they are political appointees and private industry-on-secondment these days. Much shabbier. But I rather think our civil servants then as now would have been largely Europhile and would have acted in the same negative, evasive, damaging way then as now. And they will end up in the House of Lords as reward.
government is chaos the chaos it claims anarchy brings government is the rich eating the poor the few leading the many a prison of manipulation. fearing the unknown an staying a slave huh cowardice an ignorance is the only things keeping government a float. indeed all government types think means before ends otherwise ud turn anarchist were terrible with means but anarchy is inevitable.
@loki katzbalger white people fucking up a country is not anarchy lol
One day I will watch one of these videos and think to myself, at least that is not happening today.
Yes one day it may happen.
Humphrey actually makes a good point people miss. Being extreme on anything is bad, no matter what it is.
I’m a moral man.... but why does Sir Humphrey sound so correct to me!🤔
I mean it isn't an intrinsically immoral position. The potential morality of your actions are constrained by your ability to act, implementation is often as important as the aim itself.
With that said, lies tend to destabilise in the long term, principle and many measures of morality make structures predictable and trustable.
One way of conceptualising what morality is for is a long term stable way of living for a group of people.
Morality is not like logic, a system of perfectly consistent statements that can be expected to never contradict. Moral principles, on the other hand, frequently do end up contradicting each other. We constantly run into situations where two moral principles are in conflict, and any action to uphold one requires abandoning the other.
bawhahahahahahaha "some sort of government health warning on the rifle butts!" = BRILLIANT
This is one of my favorite bits from this show.
Beautiful, just beautiful
Well written and beautifully acted. Quality doesn't date.
Exactly right. It's about stability in a country.
Beyond perfect! 😊
Pure genius!
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
*1984?
And fear is the biggest export of the usa..
Literally Thomas Hobbes vs. John Locke
Brilliant reductio ad absurdum and excellent reparte make this series a refreshing watch over and over again.
Love him or hate him, Humphrey is the kind of man you want batting on your side.
This is so brilliant.
I love seeing these clips
"Whiskey priest not in this episode"
The Patrician of Ankh Morpork must have been tutored by Humohrey.
I agree with Sir Humphrey.
Sir Humphrey makes some important points here
This is so relevant still!
I was too young to understand this when it was screened.
It’s probably very true about civil servants in government. I think a lot of them have to bite their lip about their own principles and political biases and put their heads down and get on with serving the government that happens to be in power, Pink green turquoise or violet- whatever shade of the political spectrum the government might be.
A Masterpiece.
Nothing has changed in all these years. Sir Humphrey is right.
This is very Close to Truth from what I have see not just UK but world wide too !
Sheer Brilliance. A Rare Comedy Gem.
Beyond brilliant!
brilliant!!
2:06--If I didn't know better, I would say that that smirk was the prequel to House of Cards.
That is one of the many great comedies from the BBC when it was the independent BBC for the people. How far that corporation has fallen.
Democracy...beautifully defined by Sir Humphrey.
Humphrey is sucj an incredibly well protraited and acted character.
I know what I'll be watching on Prime for the next few weeks.
Wonderful example of boom microphone dialogue recording from the pre-lav era.
The tension was so real, i forgot this is a comedy show.
Sir Humphrey is right about his place. It should be up to the ministers alone to decide policy and up to civil servants to carry out said policy. Unfortunately, these days civil servants appear to be the ones who decide policy and the ministers doggedly agree. Civil servants are not elected and largely not accountable. They should not have as much political influence as they do and Sir Humphrey understands this.
Obviously the example of selling weapons to terrorists is extreme but the principle still applies.
As a matter of principle, civil servants don't resign on a matter of principle.
Is it bad that I actually agree with Sir Humphrey's opinion about government - that it's not about morality, but about stability, preventing anarchy and chaos, and just making sure that society keeps going?
Humphrey’s opinion is spot on about the role of the civil service (or similar government bureaucracies), but the whole point of a democracy is for the people to have representatives to force the bureaucrats away from projects that we consider unacceptable. Stability isn’t everything: North Korea’s government is extremely stable, being the only soviet-style regime to survive the 1990s essentially unchanged, but obviously it’s not a place any of us would want to live, nor would its means be acceptable to any of us.
@@CHR1SZ7 That's very true. Thank you for that.
@@CHR1SZ7 I'm not sure that it actually is; there's a huge amount of behind the scenes violence in that system. The real genius is what the British state has done since 1689, but might be slightly losing its grip on right now, and what the German one seems to have built since 1945; stability without executing the awkward squad with anti-aircraft guns or running the entire country as a prison.
"Either something is morally wrong or it isn't. It can't be slightly morally wrong" A statement that I must fundamentally disagree with. There are moral absolutes. But they are rare. Most things are an intangible mess of grey moral shades.
@Jacob Zondag A Woman breaks into a pharmacy to get medicine she can't afford when her husband runs out of insulin. A life is saved, but a theft was committed. Not exactly clear cut.
@@dorkmax7073 thats not a grey area of morality. Example you provided is morally right but lawfully wrong.
@@arimoarola2392 let me add to that:
the Insulin that the Wife stole, is actually already ordered by someone else's (could be children, elderly, or anyone) who also need those Insulin badly. and since the Wife stole those Insulin, now someone else is dead.
in the end, which life is more important? the Husband's? or someone else's?
As Norman Schwarzkopf said.. "It's never difficult to know what the right thing to do is but the right thing is not always easy to do." in the case put forward here there is no right answer hence the moral ambiguity... Actually one of the best discussions of this you will ever see is Al Pacino's monologue towards the end of"Scent of a Woman" during Charlie's trial at the school assembly...
Live in a slum and society looks down on you.
Own a slum……
It's about governance, not about ideology. Morals, hah!
Almost all government policy is wrong, but frightfully well carried out.
Series is absolute masterpiece. It goes far out from the frame of comedy, I heard that Margaret Thatcher called it a "documentary" and many other people do, I myself agree on that. That is real, detailed profile of real diplomacy and real politics and they are so shamefully cynical. But of course, as Sir Humphrey said, otherwise all will fall to chaos.
Humphrey is right. Government is about stability. It’s the individual person like you and me that handles our morals and our interpretation of good and evil.
He was amazing and awesome and so funny
Yes Minister is better than a degree course in politics.
His smirk 😼
I'd been wondering where I'd heard someone say "there's no difference between means and ends," but I never could seem to find the quote.
It's actually rather profound, if you think it through to the end.
If you want to achieve some end, the means that you use will dictate the ends you will get. If you use means of justice, treating people fairly and all in the right fashion; you will create the end of a just society regardless of your individual intentions. If you use unsavory means, you will create unsavory ends regardless of your intentions.
A man who desires to create a utopia and lies, kills, and blackmails to do it; will create a corrupt and in the last resort totalitarian society, though his intention was a perfect civilization.
The means are the seeds of ends, and as the Lord said; whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. (Galatians 6:7)
So means and ends are, at the end of the day, the same things.
He means that there are no ends. Things just keep going and their job is to manage it
@@matheuscerqueira7952
Admittedly my comment was more in regards to what I wound up getting from the quote than about this clip from yes minister.
@steve gale
If I found the right references, Aristotle was saying that we do not deliberate about ends; only means. Unless there's a reference I didn't find I don't think Aristotle was saying that the result is the same no matter what is done. But I don't know, I could be wrong about what he meant.
@randomguy8196
It depends on the nature of the trolley problem, and how it is formulated. But ultimately I would avoid judging such a point without knowing both what someone chose and why they chose it, in detail. I still stand by the statement that means are the seeds of ends, and that if you want just ends you must choose the most just means at your disposal in order to attain them.
I'm actually siding with Humpry on this one. Throughout history people have believed in ends over means, and used it to justify terrible things. I'm a man of means over ends. Doing the right thing is the right thing, even if you think the outcome will be bad. You're more likely to be wrong about what the outcome might be, than about judging if the right thing is the right thing.
Of course Humpry is about the wrong means, so yeah he'd go down to hell for this one.
He does make a good point, though. Every new government comes in with their own policies, often in opposition to the last government. Should all the civil servants resign when they're asked to carry out the opposite policies? That would be chaos. What you want out of a civil service is exactly what Sir Humphrey says - a body that will carry out the policies of any government in an even-handed way, regardless of what they are.
You're more likely to be wrong about what the outcome might be, than about judging if the right thing is the right thing." - if you're a consequentialist, then being wrong about the former means you were wrong about the latter. "Doing the right thing is the right thing, even if you think the outcome will be bad." - Getting a bad outcome means what you did was bad too.
@@ArawnOfAnnwn Only if you're a consequentialist. And I'm arguing that generally speaking consequentialism is arrogant, because we can't know the full consequences of our actions. As in, it's mathematically impossible to know. The world is chaotic, and people even more so.
Now certainly there are cases where we might have to do a short term evil, to do a long term good. And that can be the best course of action. But even then the short term evil doesn't become a good. It's still an evil, an evil you perhaps needed to do, but an evil nonetheless. Forgetting this means forgetting to improve yourself so that next time you find yourself in a similar situation you can lessen the short term evil you need to do for a long term good.
@@rutger5000 I mean, which is more arrogant - to try to estimate the consequences of an action (something we do all the time when trying to make all sorts of other decisions) and decide on its moral worth therein, or to believe you already know the moral worth of an action regardless of its consequences? The former may overestimate our ability to predict the future, but the latter involves a certainty in our ability to evaluate moral worth (and that too sans any tangible yardstick or test to hold us accountable). Which involves more hubris - believing you can guess the future, or believing you can always tell right from wrong?
Deontological ethics (like Kantianism) at least insists on you following a consistent principle, but it's also incredibly inflexible as a result. And keep in mind you could also just choose to decide right and wrong arbitrarily - if you choose to decide morality yourself, it doesn't have to be in a principled manner.
@@ArawnOfAnnwn Morality is far simpler than people make it out to be. Unless you're a psychopath you've got a conscience and you know right from wrong.
Ethical philosophy is only necessary when weighing a good vs an evil. Which is why most people hardly ever need it.
It also carries the danger to be used for rationalization. To comfort yourself to go against your conscience.
Amazing! How the writers foresee Pegasus 30 years ago!
brilliant wit
This is the way to run the government seriously.
Never before heard a brit, nor any native English speaker (who doesn't know a language that uses trills) roll Rs so masterfully.
0:15
The Scots are native speakers of English, and their dialects all have trilled Rs. Most native speakers in Britain use trills for emphasis; I do it myself, there is nothing unusual about it.
@@DieFlabbergast I know, but, as someone in the US, I've almost never heard it.
Sir humphrey is entirely correct.
Finest TV series created. Absolutely endearing and deeply annoying. Have the whole DVD set. Watch it often.
The dialogue with Bernard after demonstrates Sir Humphrey's reasoning - and why it is correct. Morality is the job of politicians - the civil service is simply there to enact whatever policy is decided by politicians. It is strictly neutral, and it has to be. As he points out, it has to enact policies that are diametrically opposed to each other and is duty bound to favour neiher side. It's like a doctor, who has to put aside their personal feelings about what is "right" or "wrong" about a particular patient - they are equally duty bound to treat a criminal the same way they'd treat anyone else. Sir Humphrey is not truly a moral vacuum, he simply does not let his personal feelings interfere with what he sees as his duty, but abiding to the code of Civil Service neutrality. The Minister he serves could be replaced by someone with completely different views, and Sir Humphrey would have to enact the new policies as dilligently as Hacker's.
Good un Mike.
.."almost all Government policy is wrong but frightfully well carried out..."
1:37 What a scary face, considering what he says is true today and still will be in the future.
If all the moral vacuums floating about ever got together, we'd have a tornado. Come to think of it, what does cause tornadoes?
I’m with Bernard on this one. 😬🙄
The difference between sir Humphrey and Bernard is that Bernard technically serves the minister, not the government as a whole.
Can’t remember which episode, but Sir Humphrey references this, Bernard has to walk the fine line between pleasing his minister and the civil service. “To prove his ability for the high office to which he aspires.”
When he became PM ,Jim was able to choose his PPS, but at the time Humphrey wasn’t happy about it.
And later on in “The Key” Humphrey pointed out to Bernard that long term prospects relied on pleasing the civil service, not the PM.