Sir Nigel Hawthorne was superb as Humphrey Appleby! When in the 80s during my teens, I wrote to him to express my appreciation for his acting n the role and he wrote back . The letter was typed on type writer and signed by hand. I'd never expected a reply let alone one that was personal, so that made my day and increased my respect for Hawthorne. He was a very kind, intelligent and generous man and a brilliant actor.
Kybele Kordax One up on you! He was a real gentleman, like Sir Alec Guinness and Sir Derek Jacobi. After having watched The Madness of King George by the then Royal National Theatre, went backstage to have my programme autographed, had brought a gift to thank him for all the wonderful work put in in all five series, next day, a handwritten note of thanks was delivered. He respected all fans!
So was Paul Eddington. While he was playing Sir Joseph Porter in a 1987 Sydney production of HMS PINAFORE , the officers from HMAS SYDNEY attended the show... were invited backstage, and presented with signed (and personalised) advertising posters from that production.
That’s why we in the States have a solution to this problem. Our government policy is just as wrong, but it’s carried out with exceeding levels of incompetence.
233kosta Can’t remember the name of the episode, but they did one on “real democracy. Neither politicians, nor civil servants would be able to ride rough-shod over the electorate.
@@richardlloyd2589 More easily enforced if you have a well-armed, politically aware and competent electorate. Britain has none of those. I do believe there was a British man who once said that the people deserve their leaders or something along those lines.
I can't believe that all 3 of them passed away. But they left behind something so great that will never get old, out of date or be irrelevant. Thank you, Gentlemen. Sleep well.
Disappointed that it cut off one of my favourite lines: Jim: "Would you be surprised say...if an aircraft carrier turned up in the Central African Republic?" Humphrey: "I for one would be very surprised Minister, its a thousand miles inland."
And all parliaments and departments - but I fear only a few will get the message - and none will see any humor in it - yet they will twit about it and demand answers...
@@jahmulugu4425 Well, "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" is the same show with the same actors. The reason they changed the name of the show is because the Minister became the Prime Minister.
Sir Humphrey's lecture at the end...just wow. So right on the spot for all career civil servants. "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" is a master-level course on western democracies.
PraxeoLiberty It is equally critical, if not more so, of the civil service, and bureaucracy in general. The cynic in this scene, after all, is Humphrey, not Hacker.
"Bernard, I have served eleven governments in the past thirty years. If I had believed in all their policies, I would have been passionately committed to keeping out of the Common Market, and passionately committed to going into it. I would have been utterly convinced of the rightness of nationalising steel. And of denationalising it and renationalising it. On capital punishment, I'd have been a fervent retentionist and an ardent abolitionist. I would've been a Keynesian and a Friedmanite, a grammar school preserver and destroyer, a nationalisation freak and a privatisation maniac; but above all, I would have been a stark, staring, raving schizophrenic." One of the best lines in the series.
It's also the speech that IMO crystallizes the need for a neutral civil service. It acts as a moderator so our society doesn't follow the swingometer quite so slavishly as our parliaments do. That truly would mean chaos as sir Humphrey often says.
"Well, almost all government policy is wrong, but.......frightfully well carried out". To me, this is the scariest line in cinema that I know of. Delivered expertly as well.
@@jdrancho1864 Not really. As horrific as it was, it was not at all well, or efficiently carried out... and thank God for THAT small mercy... It could have been FAR worse if it had been "frightfully well carried out".
@@trooperdgb9722 that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. You might be interested in watching 'The Conference", either the one with Kenneth Branagh, or the earlier one with subtitles.
“Selling arms to terrorists is wrong…” “…either you sell arms or you don’t. If you sell them, they’ll inevitably end up with people who have the cash to buy them” Humphrey is clear-eyed about how the system works and his role in it. He knows who he is, never pretending to be anything else. Hacker is one of those people who believes he’s fundamentally a good person, holding the “we do bad things for good reasons” angle. Sometimes it’s simple: either you sell arms, or you don’t.
One thing I liked about this episode was the ending, with Hacker getting very drunk at home and lamenting how he's become a "moral vacuum." Neither he, nor the episode, writes any of this reality off. Hacker comes to understand that he's part of an unjust system, and he doesn't pretend that he is absolved of his participation in it...
It's strange but scenes like this one have taught me more about politics and the workings of governmental organisations than my three years in a political science course
I enjoyed this line because it works on two levels. He's basically saying the civil service does a good job of carrying out government policies, even when they are wrong. But using "frightfully well carried out" adds an extra element suggesting just how terrible the results can be.
@@brentkeller5209 I think the Minister has good ideals, but when push comes to shove he acts in self interest often compromising his ethics. I was once told by a very intelligent man that ethics are meaningless unless put to the test. And whenever the minister is seriously tested he compromises. Sometimes however he wins out over Humphry and I really delight in watching those episodes.
If you study politics deeply, you’ll come to the disappointing conclusion that most of what Sir Humphrey says is essentially correct-at least within the context of a career bureaucrat. Their job carries the same frustrations as that of the military and police: they’re given tasks that are essentially impossible to carry out in any sane way, along with a long list of contradictory and illogical rules to follow in the process. So they make the best of it.
He’s also right about government’s purpose. Governments were never designed to carry out good since if that was the case then governments would be ineffective on practical grounds. Practicality must guide governments and the only small justifiable good they can do is the maintenance of order and that sometimes means doing immoral actions.
@@alexanderthegreat445 Depends on what is meant by good. The moral good can be defined only in reference to some object. Good, to whom? Or good, to what? The government should not be making these moral decisions. If the government decides that the rightful beneficiary of the good is the state, then all statist practices are the good. If the good is what is good for the Aryan race, then Hitler was good. Such is the essential issue with legislating morality, especially with the ends justifies the means mentality. He is quite right in saying that there is no difference in the ends and the means. Poor means will always lead to poor ends, regardless of what consequentialists may claim from their ivory towers. The rightful place of government is to act as the monopoly and regulator of the use of retaliatory force. That is to say, they should punish the initiation of force, whether through breaking a contract or actual physical force or otherwise. In the times where retaliatory force is used by a private individual, it must be judged whether or not that force was justified. Anything further than this is the use of force in itself, which is always a problem of ends justifing means.
@@brutusthebear9050 It also depends on what is meant by poor. Because your statement about consequentialism also works towards intentionalism. Morally righteous actions, can be interpreted as being poor given the context and vice versa. I would, for example, interpret lying as a morally wrongful act. But if the lie is to protect innocent people, I would see the end (protecting innocent people) connected to the means (of lying) to be more substantial than the means itself. I aggree so far as to say that means and ends are inseperable. Means always lead to ends, else they are no means. But I consider the ends to be more significant than means due to their potential to have long lasting impact. Of course I would have to add that there is a certain degree of proportionality connected to this statement. Consequentialism is often misinterpreted as finding it morally neutral (or even good) to burn down an entire village in order to give a child their teddybear back. A true consequentialist would look at the proportionality of their means towards an end. The only problem with this is that the actor is in charge of weighing the two, so it has the potential of becomming misguided when the actors in question are hungry for power/wealth/anything really. But that is more a question of bounded rationality than consequentialism.
@@mrid5850 In your example, you are not the one doing a moral action. You are preventing an immoral action. Morality only pertains to life, and so actions which are divorced from normal reality are not moral issues. In this case, neither lying nor telling the truth is moral. There is no morality in an emergency for the reason I stated above. It is your choice. Lying in normal life is immoral, though, because it is faking reality. If you fake reality, you cannot live your life according to reality. Therefore, Lying is against your life. Therefore, Lying is immoral. If you lie to "gain" a job, then you have faked reality to obtain something you didn't deserve. You may think this is a good thing for you, but you have destroyed your self esteem and have created a situation where you must continue to fake reality. A consequentialist, ironically, would ignore the real consequences of Lying and say that if the lie is beneficial, the ends justify the means. But as in my example, the means are the ends. You fake reality, that is what you have done, and that is the end. Any gain is based on this false reality, and therefore loses its status as a value. Just as stealing cannot be done to gain value, only material. The most common "moral test" which consequentialists love is the trolley problem. The trolley problem is entirely divorced from reality, it is an emergency situation. Therefore, it is not a moral question, but a personal one. There is no good or bad answer to it, because there is no good or bad. It gets a bit more complicated when you add people you value into the mix, in which case you should save the people you value over someone you do not know, but once again this is not moral. I bring this up because it actually is argued as a test of morality, unlike your strange village-burning example.
When I saw this episode in 1982/83 I thought it was funny and enacted brilliantly. 40 years later when I saw this clip again, my mind was blown to bits. The utter truth laid bare that Government is not about right or wrong, rather to stay on for as long as possible by any means. If we were to mute the laughter track, it is a seriously brilliant moment of dark comedy, and now in year 2022, almost 40 years later downright scary.
I have always seen this series (Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister) as being without peer. And these two extraordinary actors were a major reason for that! But the writers! To make even one episode of this extraordinary series is surely a sublime effort of creativity - basically unequaled by any other pretender. But to make a whole string of 38 of them, each well-nigh perfect, is an achievement of intelligent creativity on the level of Einstein's contribution to physics. Hats off to Jay and Lynn!
R.I.P Nigel Hawthorne, Paul Eddington and Derek Fowlds who played Sir Humphrey Appleby, Rt. Hon Jim Hacker and Bernard Wolley respectively. Actually hard to believe that the BBC was once capable of producing such brilliance.
The best series of satire and comedy. And all it took was roping in three middle aged men . No slapstick comedy ... no foul language and no obscenity of any kind. Hilarious , funny, Satirical through brilliant scripting.
>no obscenity of any kind. I wouldnt count on that, they are British after all. There are quite likely hundreds of slang words and double-speak, mostly about homosexuals.
- Humphrey, we're discussing right and wrong. - You may be Minister, but I'm not. It would be a serious misuse of government time. Why no one laughed at this marvellous one?
It's a good point. You can discuss good and evil all day long and not get anything done and nobody is better off. He spoke the simple truth that it would be a misuse of government time. Organized religions have talked about good and evil their whole existence and nobody is better for it.
The problem is each line is so perfectly phrased and beautifully delivered - and so quickly, that if you`d taken the time to laugh you`d miss each pearl as it was said.
As always - absolutely brilliant. Very few series compare with this one and its follow-on : Yes Prime Minister. I was distraught when Paul Eddington (Minister & PM) died in 1995, and when Nigel Hawthorne (Sir Humphrey) died in 2001. The loss of two magnificent actors. Thank goodness Derek Fowlds (Bernard) is still alive at 79.
After one paricularly difficult meeting where we had no answers the Minister said “that was a good meeting” when I said we had no answers he said “we came out alive!”
Save us from civil servants who embrace an ideology, they become the government within government. Sir Humphrey is right, civil servants have no business making policy just implementing it. Policy is the job of politicians who can be held accountable by the electorate.
@@allisondoak9425 to whom are you referring. I should point out that Boris Johnson is a journalist, or at least a newspaper columnist. I will admit that our unfortunate involvement with the EU can be traced back to a number of former prime ministers, in particular Edward Heath and John Major both of whom in my opinion grossly mislead the uk electorate about the nature of the organisation the uk was tricked into joining, ably assisted by Tony Blair. It is a great pity for the uk that Charles de Gaulle did not manage to keep Britain out of the common market. Though there may be some truth in the theory, that we joined with the intention of destroying it or at least controlling it.
@1rst with all this state control language, in sounds as if it has been written by a communist, and that system failed. I think the changes needed should simply address the the more iniquitous practices of the banks and markets. Certainly any laws or rules that stop the uk protecting its home producers and manufactures must be removed or circumvented. Priority must be given to local producers. This is the first step in fighting globalisation, which is the root of most of the worlds problems. The link between what the banks can lend and what they receive from savings must be reestablished. This will significantly reduce the leverage they apply to their assets. Hedge funds should be made illegal or be tightly regulated. It should be also be illegal for speculative investors (vulture funds) to take control of a company using the value of the assets from that company. The uk government must stop the sale of uk assets, infrastructure and critical technology companies. This should be done both in the national interest of defence, but also the economy. Foreign owners should not be allowed to acquire control of any of the UK's means of production. The French protect their interests, so must the uk.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Intending well is no guarantee of a good outcome. It's the most well-intentioned laws that have the most harmful effects often. Look at prohibition of alcohol in the US. Or the war on drugs. Every attempt at a Utopia has turned out to be almost the exact opposite. For Mice and Men.
@@Dragon-Believer "It's the most well-intentioned laws that have the most harmful effects often." Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 - Gave local police the right to steal you possessions without evidence, USA PATRIOT Act (2001) - Introduced draconian government powers and removed civil liberties, all under the excuse of "protecting" civilisation. I often wonder how much more protection civilisation can take before it is destroyed.
The reality is selling arms destroys people’s lives, destabilises countries, empowers dictatorships - and from a selfish perspective, backfires on us in the long term.
@@summersevening Arms can also protect lives and overpower dictatorships. Without arms from the USA, Europe would have been a stable empire run by Hitler.
absolutely bloody brilliant, "no minister...home office problem" "who should lie?...sleeping dogs minister?" "tourists?..foreign office problem" the best show ever to show people how government, thinks and acts in democratic country
Humphrey's last speech tells us exactly why he must regard the means and the ends as identical. The means are exactly his job. The ends? That (in theory) is why there are elections, to choose the people to decide on them. If the civil service were to focus on ends, then there would be no need for the government.
ChrisC Oh, he very much has ends, though he rarely discusses them with the Minister. Those ends are the preservation and increase of the power of the civil service (usually through manipulation of the ministers they are supposed to serve). The only bad ends to Humphrey, as he states in another discussion, are loose ends. Humphrey rather likes Hacker, because he is somewhat hapless, and thus is easily manipulated -- most of the time. Occasionally Hacker does get the best of Humphrey. That tension between elected officials and the civil service is the central theme of both series, and both were brilliantly written and acted. It's a little sad that Nigel Hawthorn got so much acclaim, often at Paul Eddington's expense. (The two often were both nominated for the same awards. Hawthorne won every time). I am not trying to take anything away from Hawthorn's brilliance, with those long monologues. But they would not have been nearly as funny without Eddington's facial reactions as his character tries to figure out just what Humphrey is saying. Eddington was the perfect straight man.
I keep coming back to Yes Minister episodes like this one every year, and each year it seems equally if not more relevant! In fact it represents bureaucracy at all levels so perfectly, even in modern 21st century private companies! A true classic !
It’s pretty amazing how they’re able to introduce true moral greyness to Humphrey’s character by the end of the scene despite him seeming so morally abhorrent at the beginning of the scene. He’s a great embodiment of the idea of bureaucracy, both why people hate it and why it is ultimately necessary.
I have worked in government service most of my life, and Sir Humphrey is absolutely correct that in order to survive a career spanning decades, one needs to be able to dissociate one's personal opinions and beliefs from carrying out the laws of the land and the policies of the duly elected according to the ethics of the profession. It's not easy, but it's necessary to the maintenance of a government that subordinates itself to the will of the electorate.
@@ClickBeetleTV It's amazing how you subhuman insectoids always have hollow lip service to pay to the concept that what you are doing is evil but never are able to produce even the vaguest reason why that evil is actually necessary.
Sir Humpry doesn't give a shit about the electorate. Sir Humphrey's only real loyalty is to making whatever version of the truth that best serves his selfish, vain agenda to appear better than he really is, seem genuine to those who are in positions of actual authority, and Hacker knows it. Hacker has even used it to make Humphrey his bitch on many occasions, and likewise Humphrey has used Hacker's selfish cowardly desire to dodge responsibilities he doesn't genuinely have the spine for accepting, to make Hacker his bitch. Carrying out policy is one thing. Obscuring, distorting and subverting policy out of some selfish, cowardly desire to advance and perserve your own career and those whose hands feed you, is absolute corruption. Would an inquiry have resulted in the government being embarrassed? Perhaps. But it would definitely look bad if the other countries found out that the British were willfully ignoring their enemies getting their hands on their weapons. An inquiry would have proved that the British were being serious about stopping monsters getting their hands on their weapons. The only things that keeping quiet about it would result in, are the monsters being monstrous and the wallets of politicians and greedy industrialists growing fat, and Humphrey would be able to dodge being judged as unable to control Hacker by his selfish, vain peers in the civil service. There's no excuse here, Humphrey is simply a selfish, cowardly, snobbish con-man who doesn't give a damn about serving the country, only his entitled, terrified of losing face and control ego.
And the monologue about contradictory policies being issued one after the other? It does give one pause. When I started watching Yes Minister I felt very frustrated about Humphrey's delaying tactics but then I came to the realization that if the minister really had had the power to enact policies every time he opened his mouth he might have caused a lot of damage. For one thing, such absolute power would have currupted him making him a tyrannical dictator. Also, the minister is obviously clueless about a lot of issues, after all no one can be an expert on everything. Therefore, the inefficiency of the system reflects its democratic nature, or at least, it better reflects the fact that society is composed of millions of people, and the rules regulating the life of millions of people should change only after a considerable effort, and not just because some politician says so in the heat of the moment.
"Almost all government policies are wrong, but frightfully well carried out." After living through the pandemic, this rings home truer than I ever could imagined...
The best preparation I had for becoming a reporter in Washington was memorizing all the _Yes, Minister_ episodes. Different country and constitution, but all the same rules applied.
The genius of this is that it combines comedy and a deadpan seriousness which makes you think and the absence of canned laughter at the moment when Jim Hacker refers to means and ends is simply stunning.
"the absence of canned laughter..." ...is down to the fact that this was shot in front of a live studio audience (as practically all BRITISH comedies are)!
Yes, I know that which makes it all the better (coming from an acting background). It doesn't however deter from the professionalism of the cast involved. @@marvinc9994
Unfortunately, that can quickly bring you to an 'I as only obeying orders' moment. As Thoreau put it: 'Why has every man a conscience, then?' There are limits and nobody can switch off their capacity to care. Civil servants have committed suicide due to cognitive dissonance and emotional distress.They have leaked information about blatant lies. They have internally crippled projects that they strongly objected to, on every part of the political spectrum.
@@michaelbootes4822 Not really...he's going as far as a loyal civil servant could or should...possibly crossing the line, to warn the minister of the political risk he's assuming...he's actually trying to save his minister's neck...
A brilliant scene, one of the best in the series. In moments, the back and forth about morality, order and chaos is tonally possibly the most serious the series ever got, and you can tell the audience didn’t quite know whether to laugh or not . Utterly superb.
The philosophical discussion here bears an uncanny resemblance to the conversation between Arjuna (Minister Hacker) and Krishna (Sir Humphrey) in the Bhagavad Gita. Same questions over morality of action, same advice on dispassionate execution, in the interests of - not morality, which changes with the season, but stability, which is the main purpose of civilisation. Nigel Hawthorne, and the rest are just marvellous, even with their timely pauses.
This is probably one of the most brilliant explanations of Max Weber theory of modern bureaucracy and the notion of “bureaucratic indifference”, a notion too often misunderstood - indifference perceived nowadays as a negative feature, while Weber praised it as a necessary feature of modern bureaucracy: processes should move forward through public administration regardless of the personal consideration of the involved bureaucrats. This video is even more necessary today, as the dominant XXI culture of “meaning” and supreme values is a great interference on the proper management of public and even corporate world. Nowadays , even the most humble civil servant of private employee is bombed with a blatant series of messages of “for a greater good” “work with a purpose” “make a difference in the world”, etc. Not only this generates a necessary long term frustration the gap between rethorics and reality being such an unmountable difference but eventually hinders the good functioning of any public or corporate body. Sir Humphrey here is not cynical at all. On the contrary, he fully grasps the difference between politics and policies , and the roles of politicians and civil servants, and how that apparent detachment on ends privileging the means is ultimately not only the positive thing to do in terms of functioning bureaucracy, but also the democratic thing to do - as it does not bring his personal political preferences to the processes, as he is not an elected official, charged with that purpose, but a civil servant, an operator.
This series was ans is,one of the finest and most insightful television programs ever made ! If you want to know how government and the bureaucracy REALLY operate, just watch YES, MINISTER and YES, PRIME MINISTER.
The fine point being: There is an important difference between a government employee and a politician. Sir Humphrey is employed to keep the ship afloat, ensure it doesn't sink in a storm and that everyone on board is fed and safe. The politican has been elected to steer the ship...often into aforementioned storm. Sir Humphrey just attempted some preventative maintenance. Governments come and go, but the system stays the same. And Sir Humphrey IS the system.
This clip reminded me of a time when I had to give a company director some good and bad news. I asked him what he wanted first, the good or the bad. His reply was "Give me the good news, you deal with the bad".
I sooo miss my first job which was in Somerset House in The Strand in The Civil Service from 1971-1973. The highlight of the day was the Biscuit Trolley both in the morning and afternoon breaks. With a long lunchtime, as well we even fitted in a little bit of work to fill in the time between breaks. HALCYON DAYS....
I did an internship at a government department in the seventies. Ah yes the tea trolley. It was always a treat when there was jam rolley polley left over from lunch.
@@tim2015 I had an even better 16 years in a Nationalised Industry with a monopoly and got a redundancy on 31/12/79. After a 2 year break after my,um, strenuous efforts,it was Local Government to keep the work to a minimum but then in October 1995 ,I thought it was time to start my own Business and it is amazing how that concentrates the mind, wonderfully. That finished, after 20 wonderful years as it was my main pastime and I did it for a for Business and I began another one in 2015, which I still do @ 70 years. I still miss the biscuit trolley though and last week went on a Cruise up and down The Thames and sailed past.....Somerset House:)
I love watching Bernard during this discussions because he knows exactly what Humphrey is going to say before he says it and knows exactly what Hacker will say in return. Then he plans the conversation so well he can get his perfectly timed quip in there for comedic effect. Truly exceptional screenwriting.
Brandon Holmes sleeping dogs means leaving things as they are but Humphrey is saying how Hacker should tell the Sleeping Dogs aka leave things as they are or tell someone who won’t change things
I remember my father watching Yes, Minister and then Yes, Prime Minister back in the day, when I was to young to understand politics, on any level. Yet, now, a few decades later, I find alot of the commentary made then still stands today.
I can understand why you would say that but it wasn't amazing at all at the time! It's stated purpose was "to inform, educate and entertain" and they lived up to it. That was what the BBC was like up until there was a campaign by certain politicians in league with the likes of Murdoch to neuter and destroy it. It was a great British institution which was widely admired and trusted around the world. It was also secretly listened to by many in occupied Europe during WW2. That's how they followed the progress of the War in their own language. "It also wasn’t uncommon for someone to be arrested and sentenced to hard labour, or even given a one-way ticket to a concentration camp" for even listening to it! It's broadcasts also contained coded messages to the Resistance. Many learnt of their liberation from the BBC. Just for example "This is London. We repeat: Montgomery has just now announced that all German troops in the Netherlands, northwest Germany and Denmark have surrendered.”
Expertly played and so well-written. Just a delight and a willingness to really go hard on the topic. You really believed that Hacker had reached a line "this further, no further; absolutely wrong" and that in turn forced Humphrey into an even more ardent revelation of his true philosophy -- as Hacker notes. Then you bring in Bernard to show that Humphrey wasn't just being a dogmatic blowhard but rather completely pragmatic in the reality of national government run by democratic representatives. Woven together so sweetly and performed with delight by all.
Comedy was never so well written or performed. There was a real pathos, if that’s the correct word, in this scene. The only other thing that comes to mind as being so profound, is the last 10 minutes of the final episode of Blackadder Goes Fourth.
I love Sir Humphrey, my late grandfather was a Civil servant most his life. Not only did he look like Sir Humphrey but he was like him. When I went on a vacation with them when I was 6 he had a schedule for every single day. Museum's, memorials even when and were we should eat lunch and dinner. Even if we came for dinner he would change into an evening suit. Except when he had promised to take care of us, if it was at 4 we should come and we came early he would be in his office till 4 and then change to normal clothes. I absolutely loved the guy.
This was THE best-written comedy show of all time, with THE best casting. I doubt it will ever be bettered.....and without a single knob joke throughout its entire run.
I just love how Hacker brings Sir Humphrey & Bernard along with him... The ending of the last series of 'Yes Minister' when Sir H says.. 'Yes... Prime Minister' Brought a lump to my throat
I'm from India originally but have lived in NYC for most of my life. I have no idea how I encountered this clip but it made me watch the entire Yes, Minister series as well as Yes, Prime Minister. The internet can be a wonderful thing. Even in 2020 this is relevant, not just for a UK audience. There was one line in Yes, Prime Minister where Humphrey is saying that the Soviets could develop a missile defense system that could destroy the existing UK submarine defense system. Jim asks "by when," and Humphrey says "2020," and the audience always laughs. this scene always makes me smile
He may have been right about USSR but could not have known that it would be succeeded by the kleptocratic dictatorship known as RF who definitely can't. Corruption, incompetence and drunkenness far in excess of the USSR.
Sir Nigel Hawthorne was superb as Humphrey Appleby! When in the 80s during my teens, I wrote to him to express my appreciation for his acting n the role and he wrote back . The letter was typed on type writer and signed by hand. I'd never expected a reply let alone one that was personal, so that made my day and increased my respect for Hawthorne. He was a very kind, intelligent and generous man and a brilliant actor.
Thanks Kybele, you have provided us with a bit of new information about the honourable actor. Just wondering how underrated the comment is.
Kybele Kordax One up on you! He was a real gentleman, like Sir Alec Guinness and Sir Derek Jacobi. After having watched The Madness of King George by the then Royal National Theatre, went backstage to have my programme autographed, had brought a gift to thank him for all the wonderful work put in in all five series, next day, a handwritten note of thanks was delivered. He respected all fans!
Thank you for sharing this with us.
So was Paul Eddington. While he was playing Sir Joseph Porter in a 1987 Sydney production of HMS PINAFORE , the officers from HMAS SYDNEY attended the show... were invited backstage, and presented with signed (and personalised) advertising posters from that production.
@@trooperdgb9722 And when he did the same show in Brisbane he got his diagnosis of that horrible form of skin cancer which ended his life.
"Well, almost all government policy is wrong... but frightfully well carried out!"
I love it so much.
Love it and dread it at the same time.😂
Once upon A time
That’s why we in the States have a solution to this problem. Our government policy is just as wrong, but it’s carried out with exceeding levels of incompetence.
Unfortunately it's not even well carried out anymore
Describes the holocaust to a T.
Having worked in the UK civil service, I can confirm that Yes Minister is essentially documentary and not entertainment...
Why can't it be both?
hagamapama Defintiely both. Whitehall farce at its best.!!
@@richardlloyd2589 Would you rather have politicians running the place?
233kosta
Can’t remember the name of the episode, but they did one on “real democracy.
Neither politicians, nor civil servants would be able to ride rough-shod over the electorate.
@@richardlloyd2589 More easily enforced if you have a well-armed, politically aware and competent electorate. Britain has none of those.
I do believe there was a British man who once said that the people deserve their leaders or something along those lines.
I can't believe that all 3 of them passed away. But they left behind something so great that will never get old, out of date or be irrelevant. Thank you, Gentlemen. Sleep well.
Disappointed that it cut off one of my favourite lines:
Jim: "Would you be surprised say...if an aircraft carrier turned up in the Central African Republic?"
Humphrey: "I for one would be very surprised Minister, its a thousand miles inland."
That was just a silly joke. Didn't fit in this otherwise serious documentary.
@tolep its what's we call being sarcastic
@@tolep Serious Documentary.? surely you joke. !
@@mavisemberson8737 Black Mesa and their shenanigans...
Sir Humphrey and Weyoun have striking similarities. Even expressions.
Question: "Who should lie?"
Answer: "Sleeping dogs, Minister."
The most clever line uttered by Sir Humphrey!
It's a line that I would like to have had Bernard deliver, to which an amused Humphrey would agree.
And most ominous!
Pure gold
@@Varvitski Massive win here :D
you probably went to Cambridge
This program should be mandatory viewing in schools. It is as timely today as it ever was.
And all parliaments and departments - but I fear only a few will get the message - and none will see any humor in it - yet they will twit about it and demand answers...
Sadly, I doubt any kids in schools nowadays have the vocabulary to comprehend half of one of Sir Humphrey's monologues.
Add to that "Utopia" and "The Hollowmen'. If you never saw either I encourage you to do so posthaste!
For comprehensive education?
It'd be lost on them
I’d consider Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister the best television produced.
I agree, heartily. This show is perfect in every aspect !
Wait r they two different shows?
@@jahmulugu4425 Well, "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" is the same show with the same actors. The reason they changed the name of the show is because the Minister became the Prime Minister.
The late lady Margaret Thatcher would agree with you ..She felt that yes Minister was the best show on Television ....
@@chyoli6220 oh wow I get it now! Them a genius!!
Sir Humphrey's lecture at the end...just wow. So right on the spot for all career civil servants.
"Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" is a master-level course on western democracies.
It is so brilliant. I adore how accurately critical it is of government
Critical but not hateful... And they really made a timeless classic in those two shows!
It's a training documentary.
PraxeoLiberty It is equally critical, if not more so, of the civil service, and bureaucracy in general. The cynic in this scene, after all, is Humphrey, not Hacker.
Cynic, perhaps... Another word (that I am sure Humphrey would prefer) is realist.
"Bernard, I have served eleven governments in the past thirty years. If I had believed in all their policies, I would have been passionately committed to keeping out of the Common Market, and passionately committed to going into it. I would have been utterly convinced of the rightness of nationalising steel. And of denationalising it and renationalising it. On capital punishment, I'd have been a fervent retentionist and an ardent abolitionist. I would've been a Keynesian and a Friedmanite, a grammar school preserver and destroyer, a nationalisation freak and a privatisation maniac; but above all, I would have been a stark, staring, raving schizophrenic."
One of the best lines in the series.
Vote UKIP
iandhr1 Brilliantly stated!
iandhr1 BRILLANT, my Dad use to watch this, God rest his soul.
But "Frightfully well carried out!" (2:55)
It's also the speech that IMO crystallizes the need for a neutral civil service. It acts as a moderator so our society doesn't follow the swingometer quite so slavishly as our parliaments do. That truly would mean chaos as sir Humphrey often says.
"Well, almost all government policy is wrong, but.......frightfully well carried out". To me, this is the scariest line in cinema that I know of. Delivered expertly as well.
describes the holocaust to a 'T;.
@@jdrancho1864 Not really. As horrific as it was, it was not at all well, or efficiently carried out... and thank God for THAT small mercy... It could have been FAR worse if it had been "frightfully well carried out".
@@trooperdgb9722 that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.
You might be interested in watching 'The Conference", either the one with Kenneth Branagh, or the earlier one with subtitles.
@@trooperdgb9722 Indeed. And, as we can see today, Germany is still slowly sliding towards fascism, and still incredibly inept at it.
@@karry299 While the U.S. and U.K. are already deep in it. Since a long time :D
One of my favourite bits.
"Will I end up as a moral vacuum?"
"Oh, I hope so Bernard. If you work hard enough."
That last part needs to be emphasized: "only if you work hard enough."
“Selling arms to terrorists is wrong…”
“…either you sell arms or you don’t. If you sell them, they’ll inevitably end up with people who have the cash to buy them”
Humphrey is clear-eyed about how the system works and his role in it. He knows who he is, never pretending to be anything else.
Hacker is one of those people who believes he’s fundamentally a good person, holding the “we do bad things for good reasons” angle.
Sometimes it’s simple: either you sell arms, or you don’t.
One thing I liked about this episode was the ending, with Hacker getting very drunk at home and lamenting how he's become a "moral vacuum." Neither he, nor the episode, writes any of this reality off. Hacker comes to understand that he's part of an unjust system, and he doesn't pretend that he is absolved of his participation in it...
Humphrey is a shmuck who excuses his own culpability in evil by hiding behind truisms.
It's strange but scenes like this one have taught me more about politics and the workings of governmental organisations than my three years in a political science course
grtyuj That's really sad and hilarious at the same time.
Ikr my uni degree for nothing
that is why the study and practice of theatre is so important.
Uni is waste eh
Well it is arguably the best Politics's Documentary in modern history.
This will go down in history as one of the best TV shows ever, right alongside Blackadder.
2:48 - "Well, almost all government policy is wrong, but frightfully well carried out!"
what's the meaning of second part
It's the civil servants who draft and enact the government's policies. He was essentially praising the civil service. Himself in particular. :)
I enjoyed this line because it works on two levels. He's basically saying the civil service does a good job of carrying out government policies, even when they are wrong. But using "frightfully well carried out" adds an extra element suggesting just how terrible the results can be.
@@RahulKumar-ng2gh it means that it is implemented extremely well
@@RahulKumar-ng2gh I believe that Mark Fentz' comment answers your question.
"Never set up an enquiry unless you know what the outcome will be"
Never has a truer statement been made.
I agree.
I remember laughing in all the right places the first time this was aired in my country🇫🇮.
Now, it sends chills down my spine.
The way you know these conversations are happening in government offices all over the world ever day. And that last speech. It is all a bit chilling.
Sir Humphrey Appleby - Lawful Neutral Personified.
He's certainly an interesting character to discuss the alignment system with. I certainly feel he veers into Lawful Evil on several occasions.
@@PavarottiAardvark And the minister is Neutral Good
@@HaydenLau. Yeah, more neutral who feels he should be NG but frequently does the wrong thing out of fear or greed.
@@brentkeller5209 I think the Minister has good ideals, but when push comes to shove he acts in self interest often compromising his ethics. I was once told by a very intelligent man that ethics are meaningless unless put to the test. And whenever the minister is seriously tested he compromises. Sometimes however he wins out over Humphry and I really delight in watching those episodes.
Tina Yael Severinovna M. Technically I don’t think I’ve seen him “break” the Law only “bend” it
Humphrey, we are talking about GOOD AND EVIL.
(Humphrey): Ah, Church of England problem!
The irony is that the Church of England hasn't been interested in choosing good over evil in decades!
@Conrad Wolf Can confirm, lost it.
That one really got me 😂
@@SpectatorAlius Simply consider divorcefor Henry 8, versus everyone else.
The Church of England is the baby of that 400 lb. hog, Henry VIII. They hardly know the difference between good and evil.
If you study politics deeply, you’ll come to the disappointing conclusion that most of what Sir Humphrey says is essentially correct-at least within the context of a career bureaucrat. Their job carries the same frustrations as that of the military and police: they’re given tasks that are essentially impossible to carry out in any sane way, along with a long list of contradictory and illogical rules to follow in the process. So they make the best of it.
He’s also right about government’s purpose. Governments were never designed to carry out good since if that was the case then governments would be ineffective on practical grounds. Practicality must guide governments and the only small justifiable good they can do is the maintenance of order and that sometimes means doing immoral actions.
@@alexanderthegreat445 Depends on what is meant by good. The moral good can be defined only in reference to some object. Good, to whom? Or good, to what? The government should not be making these moral decisions. If the government decides that the rightful beneficiary of the good is the state, then all statist practices are the good. If the good is what is good for the Aryan race, then Hitler was good.
Such is the essential issue with legislating morality, especially with the ends justifies the means mentality. He is quite right in saying that there is no difference in the ends and the means. Poor means will always lead to poor ends, regardless of what consequentialists may claim from their ivory towers.
The rightful place of government is to act as the monopoly and regulator of the use of retaliatory force. That is to say, they should punish the initiation of force, whether through breaking a contract or actual physical force or otherwise. In the times where retaliatory force is used by a private individual, it must be judged whether or not that force was justified. Anything further than this is the use of force in itself, which is always a problem of ends justifing means.
@@brutusthebear9050 beautifully worded!
@@brutusthebear9050 It also depends on what is meant by poor. Because your statement about consequentialism also works towards intentionalism. Morally righteous actions, can be interpreted as being poor given the context and vice versa. I would, for example, interpret lying as a morally wrongful act. But if the lie is to protect innocent people, I would see the end (protecting innocent people) connected to the means (of lying) to be more substantial than the means itself.
I aggree so far as to say that means and ends are inseperable. Means always lead to ends, else they are no means. But I consider the ends to be more significant than means due to their potential to have long lasting impact.
Of course I would have to add that there is a certain degree of proportionality connected to this statement. Consequentialism is often misinterpreted as finding it morally neutral (or even good) to burn down an entire village in order to give a child their teddybear back. A true consequentialist would look at the proportionality of their means towards an end. The only problem with this is that the actor is in charge of weighing the two, so it has the potential of becomming misguided when the actors in question are hungry for power/wealth/anything really. But that is more a question of bounded rationality than consequentialism.
@@mrid5850 In your example, you are not the one doing a moral action. You are preventing an immoral action. Morality only pertains to life, and so actions which are divorced from normal reality are not moral issues.
In this case, neither lying nor telling the truth is moral. There is no morality in an emergency for the reason I stated above. It is your choice. Lying in normal life is immoral, though, because it is faking reality. If you fake reality, you cannot live your life according to reality. Therefore, Lying is against your life. Therefore, Lying is immoral. If you lie to "gain" a job, then you have faked reality to obtain something you didn't deserve. You may think this is a good thing for you, but you have destroyed your self esteem and have created a situation where you must continue to fake reality. A consequentialist, ironically, would ignore the real consequences of Lying and say that if the lie is beneficial, the ends justify the means. But as in my example, the means are the ends. You fake reality, that is what you have done, and that is the end. Any gain is based on this false reality, and therefore loses its status as a value. Just as stealing cannot be done to gain value, only material.
The most common "moral test" which consequentialists love is the trolley problem. The trolley problem is entirely divorced from reality, it is an emergency situation. Therefore, it is not a moral question, but a personal one. There is no good or bad answer to it, because there is no good or bad. It gets a bit more complicated when you add people you value into the mix, in which case you should save the people you value over someone you do not know, but once again this is not moral. I bring this up because it actually is argued as a test of morality, unlike your strange village-burning example.
When I saw this episode in 1982/83 I thought it was funny and enacted brilliantly.
40 years later when I saw this clip again, my mind was blown to bits.
The utter truth laid bare that Government is not about right or wrong, rather to stay on for as long as possible by any means.
If we were to mute the laughter track, it is a seriously brilliant moment of dark comedy, and now in year 2022, almost 40 years later downright scary.
It's not a laughter track, like most BBC comedies, it was recorded in front of a live audience.
I have always seen this series (Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister) as being without peer. And these two extraordinary actors were a major reason for that!
But the writers! To make even one episode of this extraordinary series is surely a sublime effort of creativity - basically unequaled by any other pretender. But to make a whole string of 38 of them, each well-nigh perfect, is an achievement of intelligent creativity on the level of Einstein's contribution to physics. Hats off to Jay and Lynn!
The writers cheated.
They wrote about real events as if they were fiction.
R.I.P Nigel Hawthorne, Paul Eddington and Derek Fowlds who played Sir Humphrey Appleby, Rt. Hon Jim Hacker and Bernard Wolley respectively. Actually hard to believe that the BBC was once capable of producing such brilliance.
The best series of satire and comedy. And all it took was roping in three middle aged men .
No slapstick comedy ... no foul language and no obscenity of any kind.
Hilarious , funny, Satirical through brilliant scripting.
Three middle-aged men who happened to be brilliant actors.
@@gdj6298 couldn't agree more brilliant
No token blacks, women, homosexuals, transgender, Muslims.
>no obscenity of any kind.
I wouldnt count on that, they are British after all. There are quite likely hundreds of slang words and double-speak, mostly about homosexuals.
“We’re talking about good and evil.”
“Ah Church of England problem.”
LMAO
... and so nothing that can't be sensibly wrapped up over a cup of tea.
A comedy that never ages - extraordinarily insightful and totally hilarious
Actually, it's a little too close to reality to be funny. Humor requires a certain element of incongruity.
@@faitharnold4643 Hi Faith, you're clearly not British, or you'd understand! 😉
- Humphrey, we're discussing right and wrong.
- You may be Minister, but I'm not. It would be a serious misuse of government time.
Why no one laughed at this marvellous one?
It is too real
It's a good point. You can discuss good and evil all day long and not get anything done and nobody is better off. He spoke the simple truth that it would be a misuse of government time. Organized religions have talked about good and evil their whole existence and nobody is better for it.
The problem is each line is so perfectly phrased and beautifully delivered - and so quickly, that if you`d taken the time to laugh you`d miss each pearl as it was said.
like with alan partridge, sometimes the guy who adds in the laughs misses a joke or two
@@Dragon-Believer Obviously you have not investigated all organized religions or gotten to know people who truly practice what God and Jesus taught.
As always - absolutely brilliant. Very few series compare with this one and its follow-on : Yes Prime Minister. I was distraught when Paul Eddington (Minister & PM) died in 1995, and when Nigel Hawthorne (Sir Humphrey) died in 2001. The loss of two magnificent actors. Thank goodness Derek Fowlds (Bernard) is still alive at 79.
Not any more, sadly. Hopefully they are making a new series in heaven.
Derek Fowlds died in January 2020. They are all gone now, but not forgotten.
@Paul Mathews Fewer*
What a brilliant show. Loved Humphreys comment "Government is not about good and evil, that's the province of the Church of England "!
Having worked close to Ministers in the Ministry of Defence I can testify how accourate this programme was all of the time.
After one paricularly difficult meeting where we had no answers the Minister said “that was a good meeting” when I said we had no answers he said “we came out alive!”
Where are the emergency bunkers located?
@@ejkalegal3145 Dunno we flogged them all to the Russians, probably.
Save us from civil servants who embrace an ideology, they become the government within government. Sir Humphrey is right, civil servants have no business making policy just implementing it. Policy is the job of politicians who can be held accountable by the electorate.
there are good reasons why UK or EU as whole at sorry states today.
@@jalpat2272 but you have decided to keep the details to yourself. Very wise:-).
Stop electing people who can’t write then
@@allisondoak9425 to whom are you referring. I should point out that Boris Johnson is a journalist, or at least a newspaper columnist.
I will admit that our unfortunate involvement with the EU can be traced back to a number of former prime ministers, in particular Edward Heath and John Major both of whom in my opinion grossly mislead the uk electorate about the nature of the organisation the uk was tricked into joining, ably assisted by Tony Blair. It is a great pity for the uk that Charles de Gaulle did not manage to keep Britain out of the common market. Though there may be some truth in the theory, that we joined with the intention of destroying it or at least controlling it.
@1rst with all this state control language, in sounds as if it has been written by a communist, and that system failed.
I think the changes needed should simply address the the more iniquitous practices of the banks and markets.
Certainly any laws or rules that stop the uk protecting its home producers and manufactures must be removed or circumvented.
Priority must be given to local producers. This is the first step in fighting globalisation, which is the root of most of the worlds problems. The link between what the banks can lend and what they receive from savings must be reestablished. This will significantly reduce the leverage they apply to their assets. Hedge funds should be made illegal or be tightly regulated.
It should be also be illegal for speculative investors (vulture funds) to take control of a company using the value of the assets from that company.
The uk government must stop the sale of uk assets, infrastructure and critical technology companies. This should be done both in the national interest of defence, but also the economy. Foreign owners should not be allowed to acquire control of any of the UK's means of production. The French protect their interests, so must the uk.
In the 80's the show was required viewing for an intro British PoliSci course at the University of Toronto. That's how accurate it was.
One desperately wishes to occupy the moral high ground with the Minister. It feels so good. And, yet, the reality is on Humphrey's side.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Intending well is no guarantee of a good outcome. It's the most well-intentioned laws that have the most harmful effects often. Look at prohibition of alcohol in the US. Or the war on drugs.
Every attempt at a Utopia has turned out to be almost the exact opposite. For Mice and Men.
@@Dragon-Believer "It's the most well-intentioned laws that have the most harmful effects often."
Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 - Gave local police the right to steal you possessions without evidence, USA PATRIOT Act (2001) - Introduced draconian government powers and removed civil liberties, all under the excuse of "protecting" civilisation. I often wonder how much more protection civilisation can take before it is destroyed.
I’m sure someone (famous) said, “In order to protect it, the truth has to be wrapped up in a tissue of lies.”
The reality is selling arms destroys people’s lives, destabilises countries, empowers dictatorships - and from a selfish perspective, backfires on us in the long term.
@@summersevening Arms can also protect lives and overpower dictatorships. Without arms from the USA, Europe would have been a stable empire run by Hitler.
Another superb, polished, display by Sir Nigel Hawthorne - one of the greatest performers of the modern era. R.I.P Sir Nigel. 👍
absolutely bloody brilliant,
"no minister...home office problem"
"who should lie?...sleeping dogs minister?"
"tourists?..foreign office problem"
the best show ever to show people how government, thinks and acts in democratic country
"This is a matter of good and evil!"
"Church of England problem."
Humphrey's last speech tells us exactly why he must regard the means and the ends as identical. The means are exactly his job. The ends? That (in theory) is why there are elections, to choose the people to decide on them. If the civil service were to focus on ends, then there would be no need for the government.
ChrisC Or I would say no need for election
ChrisC Oh, he very much has ends, though he rarely discusses them with the Minister. Those ends are the preservation and increase of the power of the civil service (usually through manipulation of the ministers they are supposed to serve). The only bad ends to Humphrey, as he states in another discussion, are loose ends.
Humphrey rather likes Hacker, because he is somewhat hapless, and thus is easily manipulated -- most of the time. Occasionally Hacker does get the best of Humphrey.
That tension between elected officials and the civil service is the central theme of both series, and both were brilliantly written and acted. It's a little sad that Nigel Hawthorn got so much acclaim, often at Paul Eddington's expense. (The two often were both nominated for the same awards. Hawthorne won every time).
I am not trying to take anything away from Hawthorn's brilliance, with those long monologues. But they would not have been nearly as funny without Eddington's facial reactions as his character tries to figure out just what Humphrey is saying. Eddington was the perfect straight man.
Yes, that's why I said "in theory".
@@johncronin9540 And those occasional times when Hacker "wins" are part of the brilliance of the whole two series.
One of the most insightful comments I've read recently
I keep coming back to Yes Minister episodes like this one every year, and each year it seems equally if not more relevant! In fact it represents bureaucracy at all levels so perfectly, even in modern 21st century private companies! A true classic !
It’s pretty amazing how they’re able to introduce true moral greyness to Humphrey’s character by the end of the scene despite him seeming so morally abhorrent at the beginning of the scene. He’s a great embodiment of the idea of bureaucracy, both why people hate it and why it is ultimately necessary.
I have worked in government service most of my life, and Sir Humphrey is absolutely correct that in order to survive a career spanning decades, one needs to be able to dissociate one's personal opinions and beliefs from carrying out the laws of the land and the policies of the duly elected according to the ethics of the profession. It's not easy, but it's necessary to the maintenance of a government that subordinates itself to the will of the electorate.
@@ClickBeetleTV It's amazing how you subhuman insectoids always have hollow lip service to pay to the concept that what you are doing is evil but never are able to produce even the vaguest reason why that evil is actually necessary.
Sir Humpry doesn't give a shit about the electorate.
Sir Humphrey's only real loyalty is to making whatever version of the truth that best serves his selfish, vain agenda to appear better than he really is, seem genuine to those who are in positions of actual authority, and Hacker knows it. Hacker has even used it to make Humphrey his bitch on many occasions, and likewise Humphrey has used Hacker's selfish cowardly desire to dodge responsibilities he doesn't genuinely have the spine for accepting, to make Hacker his bitch.
Carrying out policy is one thing. Obscuring, distorting and subverting policy out of some selfish, cowardly desire to advance and perserve your own career and those whose hands feed you, is absolute corruption.
Would an inquiry have resulted in the government being embarrassed? Perhaps. But it would definitely look bad if the other countries found out that the British were willfully ignoring their enemies getting their hands on their weapons. An inquiry would have proved that the British were being serious about stopping monsters getting their hands on their weapons. The only things that keeping quiet about it would result in, are the monsters being monstrous and the wallets of politicians and greedy industrialists growing fat, and Humphrey would be able to dodge being judged as unable to control Hacker by his selfish, vain peers in the civil service.
There's no excuse here, Humphrey is simply a selfish, cowardly, snobbish con-man who doesn't give a damn about serving the country, only his entitled, terrified of losing face and control ego.
@@FreakyTeeth but how do you really feel?
And the monologue about contradictory policies being issued one after the other? It does give one pause.
When I started watching Yes Minister I felt very frustrated about Humphrey's delaying tactics but then I came to the realization that if the minister really had had the power to enact policies every time he opened his mouth he might have caused a lot of damage. For one thing, such absolute power would have currupted him making him a tyrannical dictator. Also, the minister is obviously clueless about a lot of issues, after all no one can be an expert on everything. Therefore, the inefficiency of the system reflects its democratic nature, or at least, it better reflects the fact that society is composed of millions of people, and the rules regulating the life of millions of people should change only after a considerable effort, and not just because some politician says so in the heat of the moment.
'Never set up an inquiry unless you know in advance what it's findings will be.' Now there's a motto our government lives by...
Probably the greatest scene from the entire series! It says so much on so many issues!!!
My mum was a civil servant basically her whole working life, and my god this series (and Yes Prime Minister) was so accurate, and SO timeless too!
"Almost all government policies are wrong, but frightfully well carried out."
After living through the pandemic, this rings home truer than I ever could imagined...
Definitely 😜
they were well carried-out where you live? They sure weren't here in Australia
@@RagnellAvalon Well carried out according to Public Servants
Superb level of craftsmanship. Best comedy series of the past 50 years!
My favourite episode is the Policy of Administration and the Administration of Policy: Sir Humphrey's explanation of the difference is priceless.
The honesty is brutal.
The best preparation I had for becoming a reporter in Washington was memorizing all the _Yes, Minister_ episodes. Different country and constitution, but all the same rules applied.
That's fascinating! Would love to know your take on Veep!
The joy this cast brings me is beyond measure. Stimulating and fun.
One of the best acted and written programs of all time. Brilliant.
The genius of this is that it combines comedy and a deadpan seriousness which makes you think and the absence of canned laughter at the moment when Jim Hacker refers to means and ends is simply stunning.
These office scenes were shot in front of a live audience, no canned laughter needed.
"the absence of canned laughter..."
...is down to the fact that this was shot in front of a live studio audience (as practically all BRITISH comedies are)!
Yes, I know that which makes it all the better (coming from an acting background). It doesn't however deter from the professionalism of the cast involved. @@marvinc9994
The conclusion of this scene just goes to show how clever the writing really was and how well the actors played their part
When I was younger I always saw Humphrey as the enemy. As I get older I find I often agree with him...
This is, on many levels, a piece of art.
A brilliant explanation of how government really works.
Humphrey is right. His job isn't to make policy or even to believe in them. That's for elected members of govt. Humphrey's job is to implement policy.
D-Gauss to a point but here he’s trying to talk the minister out of moral duty
@Michael Bootes - As humphrey says, "you either sell arms, or you don't..."
Are you worried about going to hell, D-Gauss?
Unfortunately, that can quickly bring you to an 'I as only obeying orders' moment. As Thoreau put it: 'Why has every man a conscience, then?' There are limits and nobody can switch off their capacity to care. Civil servants have committed suicide due to cognitive dissonance and emotional distress.They have leaked information about blatant lies. They have internally crippled projects that they strongly objected to, on every part of the political spectrum.
@@michaelbootes4822 Not really...he's going as far as a loyal civil servant could or should...possibly crossing the line, to warn the minister of the political risk he's assuming...he's actually trying to save his minister's neck...
Sir Humphrey previously served in the Indian civil service under the Viceroys and was seen in the Gandhi film by Attenborough.
Why can't TV shows be this well written anymore?
They wont , it might wake the people up.
Excellence is mistaken for elitism.
All government policy is wrong, but frightfully well carried out! Wonderful writing
A brilliant scene, one of the best in the series. In moments, the back and forth about morality, order and chaos is tonally possibly the most serious the series ever got, and you can tell the audience didn’t quite know whether to laugh or not . Utterly superb.
The philosophical discussion here bears an uncanny resemblance to the conversation between Arjuna (Minister Hacker) and Krishna (Sir Humphrey) in the Bhagavad Gita. Same questions over morality of action, same advice on dispassionate execution, in the interests of - not morality, which changes with the season, but stability, which is the main purpose of civilisation. Nigel Hawthorne, and the rest are just marvellous, even with their timely pauses.
This is probably one of the most brilliant explanations of Max Weber theory of modern bureaucracy and the notion of “bureaucratic indifference”, a notion too often misunderstood - indifference perceived nowadays as a negative feature, while Weber praised it as a necessary feature of modern bureaucracy: processes should move forward through public administration regardless of the personal consideration of the involved bureaucrats.
This video is even more necessary today, as the dominant XXI culture of “meaning” and supreme values is a great interference on the proper management of public and even corporate world. Nowadays , even the most humble civil servant of private employee is bombed with a blatant series of messages of “for a greater good” “work with a purpose” “make a difference in the world”, etc. Not only this generates a necessary long term frustration the gap between rethorics and reality being such an unmountable difference but eventually hinders the good functioning of any public or corporate body.
Sir Humphrey here is not cynical at all. On the contrary, he fully grasps the difference between politics and policies , and the roles of politicians and civil servants, and how that apparent detachment on ends privileging the means is ultimately not only the positive thing to do in terms of functioning bureaucracy, but also the democratic thing to do - as it does not bring his personal political preferences to the processes, as he is not an elected official, charged with that purpose, but a civil servant, an operator.
One of my favorite scenes and very relevant in today's political climate. The more things change the more they remain the same.
This series was ans is,one of the finest and most insightful television programs ever made ! If you want to know how government and the bureaucracy REALLY operate, just watch YES, MINISTER and YES, PRIME MINISTER.
Ha, ha.
"Who should lie?"
"Sleeping dogs, Minister"!
The fine point being: There is an important difference between a government employee and a politician. Sir Humphrey is employed to keep the ship afloat, ensure it doesn't sink in a storm and that everyone on board is fed and safe. The politican has been elected to steer the ship...often into aforementioned storm. Sir Humphrey just attempted some preventative maintenance.
Governments come and go, but the system stays the same. And Sir Humphrey IS the system.
The deeper question is if that system is worth maintaining.
@@charliecussans7638 Of course. But to stay with the allegory: don't abandon the ship unless you have a new one...or swim really well.
@@charliecussans7638 and how we guarantee the new system dont create two problems by giving solution for answering previous one question.
In other words, what we Americans now call the "Deep State."
@@GradyPhilpott Because it stepped away from Humphrey's position of staying apolitical, and starting making judgments on the policy.
A fantastic scene and it only gets better the more you watch it!
One of if not the best written sitcoms ever.
This clip reminded me of a time when I had to give a company director some good and bad news. I asked him what he wanted first, the good or the bad. His reply was "Give me the good news, you deal with the bad".
this series should be made a world heritage and preserved in every form of media known to humankind.
I sooo miss my first job which was in Somerset House in The Strand in The Civil Service from 1971-1973.
The highlight of the day was the Biscuit Trolley both in the morning and afternoon breaks. With a long lunchtime, as well we even fitted in a little bit of work to fill in the time between breaks.
HALCYON DAYS....
@@philsimmons9391 lol :)
I did an internship at a government department in the seventies. Ah yes the tea trolley. It was always a treat when there was jam rolley polley left over from lunch.
... and now?
@@mscott3918 Sorry,I have been too busy over the last 5 years to reply so. lol
@@tim2015 I had an even better 16 years in a Nationalised Industry with a monopoly and got a redundancy on 31/12/79. After a 2 year break after my,um, strenuous efforts,it was Local Government to keep the work to a minimum but then in October 1995 ,I thought it was time to start my own Business and it is amazing how that concentrates the mind, wonderfully. That finished, after 20 wonderful years as it was my main pastime and I did it for a for Business and I began another one in 2015, which I still do @ 70 years.
I still miss the biscuit trolley though and last week went on a Cruise up and down The Thames and sailed past.....Somerset House:)
I wasn't even born when this was on TV, but I love it...... always makes me laugh cos it's not to far from the truth it's sad but true 😂
I only knew Nigel Hawthorne from the Mapp and Lucia series. What a fantastic talent he was.
I love watching Bernard during this discussions because he knows exactly what Humphrey is going to say before he says it and knows exactly what Hacker will say in return. Then he plans the conversation so well he can get his perfectly timed quip in there for comedic effect.
Truly exceptional screenwriting.
well, WHO should lie ?
......sleeping dogs, minister ?
brilliant
What did he mean by that? I didn't get the joke.
Brandon Holmes
sleeping dogs means leaving things as they are but Humphrey is saying how Hacker should tell the Sleeping Dogs aka leave things as they are or tell someone who won’t change things
"Let sleeping dogs lie"
Don't upset the status quo.
A very clever and subtle play on words of the phrase.
Given the current situation this comment not only aged well it aged like a fine wine.
Brandon Holmes its also a favourite phrase of Robert Walpole, the first Prime Minister of Great Britain
Never seen this show in my life, but this is one of the most informative clips I’ve ever seen.
"Oh I hope so Bernard, If you work hard enough!" ---- loved it!!!! Amazing show!
I remember my father watching Yes, Minister and then Yes, Prime Minister back in the day, when I was to young to understand politics, on any level.
Yet, now, a few decades later, I find alot of the commentary made then still stands today.
Back in the day we thought this was brilliant comedy, turns it it was a documentary
Sadly Derek has also passed away but their memories live on in DVD & you tube ; a big thank you for such great acting and humour
Bring this back and it can be understood in every classroom.
When you look back at this it's amazing that it was on the BBC. I think it outfoxed even their filters.
I can understand why you would say that but it wasn't amazing at all at the time! It's stated purpose was "to inform, educate and entertain" and they lived up to it. That was what the BBC was like up until there was a campaign by certain politicians in league with the likes of Murdoch to neuter and destroy it. It was a great British institution which was widely admired and trusted around the world. It was also secretly listened to by many in occupied Europe during WW2. That's how they followed the progress of the War in their own language. "It also wasn’t uncommon for someone to be arrested and sentenced to hard labour, or even given a one-way ticket to a concentration camp" for even listening to it! It's broadcasts also contained coded messages to the Resistance. Many learnt of their liberation from the BBC. Just for example "This is London. We repeat: Montgomery has just now announced that all German troops in the Netherlands, northwest Germany and Denmark have surrendered.”
Expertly played and so well-written. Just a delight and a willingness to really go hard on the topic. You really believed that Hacker had reached a line "this further, no further; absolutely wrong" and that in turn forced Humphrey into an even more ardent revelation of his true philosophy -- as Hacker notes.
Then you bring in Bernard to show that Humphrey wasn't just being a dogmatic blowhard but rather completely pragmatic in the reality of national government run by democratic representatives. Woven together so sweetly and performed with delight by all.
Comedy was never so well written or performed. There was a real pathos, if that’s the correct word, in this scene. The only other thing that comes to mind as being so profound, is the last 10 minutes of the final episode of Blackadder Goes Fourth.
Totally agree about both. Particularly Blackadder because it was so different from the whole of the previous work.
I know it's 'Newer' but the Sherlock and Watson skit from That Mitchell and Webb look kinda hits home
I totally agree..
I think _"Comedy"_ is the wrong term.
_Real Life Satire_ is much more fitting.
I wouldn't exactly call it comedy - more like documentary, but you are right
I love Sir Humphrey, my late grandfather was a Civil servant most his life.
Not only did he look like Sir Humphrey but he was like him.
When I went on a vacation with them when I was 6 he had a schedule for every single day.
Museum's, memorials even when and were we should eat lunch and dinner.
Even if we came for dinner he would change into an evening suit.
Except when he had promised to take care of us, if it was at 4 we should come and we came early he would be in his office till 4 and then change to normal clothes.
I absolutely loved the guy.
Great show & fabulous acting. The episode where Minister appoints a chain smoker to Minister of Health sticks in my mind.
Yes Prime Minister - Series 1, "The Smoke Screen" from January 23rd 1986
These are gold. Pure gold
Absolute gold. Aging like fine wine 🍷
This was one of the best documentaries on TV.
This is brilliant. Even so many years later. Some of the best lines of sarcasm were in these scripts.
Scenes like this one really alludes to Sir Humfrey being the real protagonist of the show. Truly a virtuous civil servant.
This was THE best-written comedy show of all time, with THE best casting. I doubt it will ever be bettered.....and without a single knob joke throughout its entire run.
Well, wait until SJW revisionists come after it like they came for Doctress Whybother ;)
A superb series - and 100% accurate then, and today. And probably in the future.
Sir Humphrey, as always, was correct in his final summing up.
This show is too good to be classified as pure comedy
Without doubt one of the best series ever made. Superbly written and acted.
Brilliant in Wit!
A highly intelligent series intertwined with humour!
Bravo 👏👏👏
It’s so well written and so well acted ... and so timeless
I just love how Hacker brings Sir Humphrey & Bernard along with him...
The ending of the last series of
'Yes Minister' when Sir H says..
'Yes...
Prime Minister'
Brought a lump to my throat
One of my favourites scenes in all five series of the programme. And despite the general chicanery of Sir Humphrey, he has a point!
I'm from India originally but have lived in NYC for most of my life. I have no idea how I encountered this clip but it made me watch the entire Yes, Minister series as well as Yes, Prime Minister. The internet can be a wonderful thing. Even in 2020 this is relevant, not just for a UK audience. There was one line in Yes, Prime Minister where Humphrey is saying that the Soviets could develop a missile defense system that could destroy the existing UK submarine defense system. Jim asks "by when," and Humphrey says "2020," and the audience always laughs. this scene always makes me smile
He may have been right about USSR but could not have known that it would be succeeded by the kleptocratic dictatorship known as RF who definitely can't. Corruption, incompetence and drunkenness far in excess of the USSR.