@@Hositrugun The name escapes me, but it was an interview regarding one of the former Australian MPs criticizing then-exiting PM Julia Gillard in regards to how certain lines of legislation in the federal government were allowed to pass and run policies regarding the degree of criminality of how money and authority were so easy to change hands despite being, in the eyes of the typical man, theft, bribery and all-round illegal. This was in 2012.
No it’s because it’s based on thousands of years of legal presidents stacked on top of each to appease many different stakeholders. Of course every once in a while a great man comes along and makes a major adjustment or two as well.
@TheRenaissanceman65 I think he might have said 'CE' as in Common Era. (As if a British statute could be BCE, but I suppose it enhances the officialese.)
@TheRenaissanceman65 I think that's added for comic effect. Statutory Instruments don't normally have letters at the end. If there's more than one they are usually referred to as "(No 2)" or "(No 3)" and soon.
38 years after this aired, the Rhodesia Solution being used so elegantly by Mi6... MI6 failed to make clear to the foreign secretary that a “high risk agent” operating overseas had probably engaged in “serious criminality” until it was pointed out by an independent regulator last year. The spy agency was asking the minister - either Dominic Raab or his predecessor, Jeremy Hunt - to renew authorisation of the agent’s activities despite the apparent criminality without being “expressly clear” as to what had happened. Six months previously the agent, likely to be an undercover informant, had been sent some “red lines” by MI6. The agent was told if they were breached, it would “result in the termination” of the informant’s relationship with the spy agency. But when renewal of the agent’s authorisation was sought from the foreign secretary, MI6 “did not make expressly clear” that the “‘red lines’ had probably been crossed” - until the ambiguity was noted by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner (Ipco). Many details are withheld from the account, which is highlighted in 2019 annual report of the Commissioner, and it is not clear if approval was ultimately granted by the minister. All the report said was that MI6 responded to the concern about its authorisation request “by updating” the Foreign Office. Spectacular
It was downgraded to a licence to hurt slightly until he retakes a training course. It could have been worse and reduced to a licence to tickle, the lowest grade of licence that is actually granted to all UK citizens automatically (read the fine print in a UK passport).
@@davesy6969 i can't decide whether bureaucrats should be hunted or protected. as sir humphreys said the civil service is about survival to the next century where politicians worry only about the next election. his other speech about serving 11 governments was simultaneously horrifying and hilarious.
I like it when Bernard is in his element. All his goofiness just vanishes. Plus watching him and Humphrey work together like a well-oiled machine is especially pleasing to my inner bureaucrat.
Your "inner bureaucrat"? Sounds very uncomfortable to me! Possibly fatal! Have you considered seeing a psychiatrist? Or a priest - I hear exorcism is back in fashion in the Catholic church.
+DieFlabbergast It's actually surprisingly easy to fall down the bureaucratic rabbit hole when you start doing something that needs to be formally organised and structured. The temptation is always there to foster an infinitely complex system and record every single tiny detail of the daily goings on of whichever kind of operation one is supervising/modernising/reorganising/etc. I myself took a dabble into quality management a while ago and caught myself nearly doing that on more than one occasion. It's easy to blame the bureaucrats, but if someone as disorganised and generally chaotic as myself ends up nearly going down the path of ridiculous bureaucracy where none is needed - imagine how easy it is for a normie to fall for it!
Suuure, you're laughing, but as a law student in the UK I can inform you that the construction of that letter isn't at all dissimilar to actual British legal and political documents.
To make it plain and simple...these guys go to Oxford and Cambridge to learn more of the words in the English dictionary, to basically say simple things in words most never learned because most people didn't go to Oxford and Cambridge. So with this skill they make non-comprehensible documentation basically to "kick" someone's mind off the document if one attempts to read it, so to shield themselves from you looking into their dirty business. Personally in my opinion..if my teacher had Humphrey as a student she would give him very high marks on language but very low on literature. Why is that. Because of his very rich knowledge of English words, but literature is all about placing them in the most aesthetic perfect order to depict a meaning as clearly as possible. But as Jim said in this video., he always makes things as unclear as possible. Funny thing is he knows that, but the uneducated Jim can't tell the difference:P
Yes that's the point of Humphrey's long rambling statements. You can sort of follow what he's saying, but with deliberation his phrasing of the issues causes significant problems in the comprehension of these matters... in other words he's making sure you can't understand what he's talking about.
The government is like a sausage. Everybody likes a good sausage with their breakfast, but most people prefer not to think too much about how sausages are made.
My professor in Public Administration specifically suggested we watch Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister as extracurricular activities, so we'd be ready for public service. Notably, he also thought that establishing law was always, in the end, a question of controlling the armed forces, and that 'pessimist' was just a negative way of phrasing 'knows what is really going on'.
As long as the great British sausage can remain free of the interference from Brussels and any attempt to make it conform to some "Euro-sausage" standards or be labeled as "high fat offal tubes".
Bernard was the punch line in that entire scene. Everything else got a giggle but when Bernard piped up with "including the red terrorists" I lost it. Such a underrated character played by a magnificent actor, may he RIP.
"You excel yourself Bernard!" Yes you did. RIP Derek Fowlds. So sad all three are now no longer with us, but their wit and comic timing will keep us smiling for years to come.
More than years. This series has scarcely aged in relevance in over four decades. I predict we'll still be laughing and crying over it when this century draws to a close.
A smudged letter to the Acting PM written in very faint ink: "My attention has been drawn on a personal basis to information which suggests the possibility of certain irregularities under Section 1 of the Import, Export and Custom Powers Defense Act 1939C. Prima facie evidence suggests that there could be a case for further investigation to establish wether or not inquiries should be put in hand. Nevertheless, it should be stressed that available information is limited and relevant facts could be difficult to establish with any degree of certainty." James Hacker, Minister for the Department of Administrative Affairs.
This is from near the end of the third season/serries of Yes Minister, he wasn't Prime Minister yet, just the Minister of Administrative Affairs. After this they made a 90 minute special called Party Games in which Humphrey manipulates things so Hacker can become PM, and the following seasons/serries were retitled to Yes Prime Minister.
@@jesseberg3271 oh, now I get this, he's to send a letter to 10 Downing Street and it's to arrive while one PM is leaving and the other is moving in! It can be assumed that the letter (from himself to himself) gets lost in the transition.
Except he didn’t know that the pm was stepping down until an emergency cabinet meeting the very same episode and the pm didn’t have plans of stepping down until then either ( his reason for stepping down is given in the episode as waiting long enough so that Roy the home minister didn’t get the job of the pm. Rob was fired in the episode for drunk driving). So they mention the acting pm as he would be the effective pm as the real pm goes abroad for some sort of conference.
Derek Fowles ("Bernard") had the most difficult but important part to play, being required to sit and listen to Sir Humphrey and Hacker jousting for long periods before delivering the knock-out line. Sadly Derek Fowles passed away recently (January 2020) aged 82, the last survivor of this wonderful trio who made us laugh and wonder in equal parts at the machinations of British government in the '80s. "We shall never see their like again".
@@diamondaxe4133 Derek Fowlds was younger than the other two but lived to a greater age. Paul was 10 years older than Derek but died of cancer at the age of 68 in 1995. His declining health meant that he was almost always seated in the final two series of this show. Sir Nigel was 8 years older than Derek but died of a heart attack in 2001 at the age of 72.
I do believe we will. The times often make the comedy, and it certainly looks like Britain is headed for the darkest days of the seventies again, but with Johnson reprising the role of Thatcher.
I admired Nigel Hawthorne's ability to rattle off the long, meaningless speeches which so befuddled Hacker. It may be due to great editing but I always felt that his monologues were just as difficult to learn as anything Shakespeare wrote.
@@jonathanfraser321 They say he was accustomed to it because, as someone who had worked in the theatres, he was used to memorizing Shakespearean lines.
@TheRenaissanceman65 sometimes you wrire a comment as a video plays and as you press send the autoplayer has loaded up a new video and posts the comment on the wrong video.
@Spice Boy - It's true that Sir Humphrey often successfully manipulates Jim Hacker but have a look for an episode called "The Key" where he oversteps the mark and is put in his place. It's hilarious.
What I loved about Yes, Minister was the sheer joy and enjoyment you could feel that these 3 had acting together. They really had the most fantastic comedy timing together, absolutely superb😁😁😁😁
Sometimes a group of actors just has _that_ perfect chemistry. These three had chemistry, ample chemistry. Terrific actors, great timing and the x factor.
After an appropriate normalization interval, considering all the points of reference, ex post facto sine qua non, with deliberate and measured progress not exceeding the capability of the machinery of state to manage with due influence and oversight.
ejcmoorhouse Maybe not the show itself, but certainly its reputation. She "requested" that the two leads of the show Hacker (Paul Eddington) and Humphrey (Nigel Hawthorne) do a small impromptu scene with her in front of an audience of mostly press. The whole thing was PR stunt, and a bad one at that. There are debates to this day over who wrote the script to that scene, but it has to be said to be one of the worst comedy scripts in history.
To Eleglas: I saw the sketch and thought it very funny. Then again, I am not prejudiced against her. I lived through the era before and during that of Margaret Thatcher and the miners' strike - the short working week, the power cuts, the shortages. Something had to be done to stop this, and she did it. It's fashionable to 'hate' Mrs. Thatcher, these days, but usually by people who have no idea what they are talking about, and cannot think for themselves.
I spent more than 20 years drafting letters for Ministers. Much of them contained medical and scientifc jargon. So it was easy to confuse a minister. This is of great assistance to civil servants as it helps confuse the public too, and let us get on with running the country.
@@sampuatisamuel9785 why would you think so? Ensuring basic public ignorance regarding gov't workings has been a foundational to governance for centuries.
Almost all the scenes were played in front of a live audience. They were afraid that the government would prevent the show from airing claiming it was 'boring' or 'too complicated' for the average British viewer to understand. By having a live audience they proved that the show was funny enough to air.
@Usuário Sarcástico Well, that might've been the excuse. The British Government is not fond of programs attempting to be clever at their expense, and does have the authority to cancel those that attempt such. It is for this reason, in fact, that footage from the Houses of Parliament cannot be shown on Last Week Tonight.
My American landlord became a fan of this show while I was living there and loved the inner machinations. Despite the fact that US politics do the same thing but much more bluntly and without finesse, the subtlety of the tactics drew sharp attention to them.
I remember watching this on PBS as a kid. I loved the both shows. I never realized until an adult how realistic it was. These series should be mandatory for government classes.
Fun fact: Section 1 of the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defense) Act 1939 (c.69) contains nothing about arms or bomb-making equipment. The closest it gets is declaring that the Board of Trade has the ability to restrict the import of ships and aircraft.
Fun fact. You missed the key purpose of Section 1 being the ability to create secondary legislation to control the import or export of goods. The bit about ships and aircraft was only one of the five clauses in that section. In terms of obfuscation there are thousands of pieces of secondary legislation created each year. As this show was set around 40 years after the Act was made, this letter has directed the reader to hunt through a minimum of 40,000 documents to find what is being referred to.
@@zarabada6125 I am further impressed by your knowledge of this obscure bit of legislation. The full name of the act, you could just look up but this post suggests you actually are familiar with this piece of legislation. How come?
@@joshuarosen6242 No, I wasn't familiar with this particular one but part of my work involves making sure my colleagues are compliant with other UK laws (both Acts and secondary legislation from those Acts). The laws all follow the same style, so once you are familiar with one or two, you can read and understand almost any other Act.
@@zarabada6125 That's interesting and thank you for the explanation. Genuine expertise is so conspicuous on RUclips because of its rarity so it's a pleasure to read a well-informed comment.
As a lawyer, I love how Bernard--who studied Classics at one of the two universities in Britain--snaps off the correct statute and section of British law as though his life up to this point had been dedicated to military export law.
"And what's more I could tell she was a spy because when I claimed Oxford, Cambridge and Hull were the country's foremost universities, she failed to spot my deliberate mistake!" "Yes, you're right; Oxford is a complete dump!" -- Blackadder the Fourth.
This show is remarkably well written. One of the best written shows of all time. So well written in fact, that it can cause some people to confuse fiction and reality.
I love Humphrey so much. He completely sums up my ethos of doing quite a lot to do nothing at all, while also exerting himself thoroughly to make other people shoulder all the things that his department are meant to be making someone else do.
Yes, I watch him too sometimes. But not just in conversations with Sir Humphrey. I was watching him when Mr. Hacker was in an argument with the administrator of a hospital with no patients.
All three are gone now....but they left us a legacy that we can still enjoy and laugh out loud, not at any slapstick, but at the intelligent and witty humour, delivered by excellent comedic timing and pure acting talent.
Unless your thesis is in Political science, you better hope you have a lecturer who does... (If in pol sci, this would be poor for a Masters, but ideal for a Doctorate)
Rather more low key, was my Dad's dealings with Min of Ag in the 1970's... his observation was that this show was pretty accurate in how the show is run. Probably still is.The ties may have changed.
From what little I saw of the new show, the cast was the least of its problems. It was the writing that was abysmal. To say that it wasn't even a shadow of the old show's brilliance would be an insult to shadows everywhere.
I suspect that the real trouble with the new show, is that the original is the single best TV-show ever made. It was original as hell, relevant to a degree that is hard to fattom and the cast is arguably one of the most impressive (for its size) any tv-show has ever had, in share quality.
The only little issue I ever had with this masterpiece of a show is that surely exchanges like this would make Jim realise how Humphrey operates I know it's part of the joke that he never does but it always comes to mind
No, Hacker has a pretty solid idea hiw Humphrey operates. The problem is that Humphrey Appleby is useful, and not going anywhere. So you can't just ride roughshod over him beause you might need him later.
Hacker knew from the first episode how Humphrey works, he was told by his predecessor after all. Problem is that knowing is, after all, only half the battle. Finding a way to undo each individual scheme of Humphrey's still takes tremendous effort, even knowing that there are always schemes.
@@NATIK001 Yeah, pretty much. He gets a pretty good tutorial in Episode 4 ('Big Brother') from his predecessor on how Sir Humphrey actually works, and how he uses his techniques to stall and otherwise make things he doesn't like go dead in the water. Even knowing exactly how Humprey works, it matters very little, because Sir Humprey knows how to turn it into a choice between a rock and a hard place, so that when push comes to shove, Hacker has very little choice but to go along with Sir Humphrey, which is the genius bit. Even if Hacker somehow manages to outmaneuver Sir Humphrey, in the earlier series of 'Yes, Minister' there was always the figure of Sir Arnold that could be relied upon to ultimately outmaneuver Hacker if needs be. The only time Hacker actually manages to outmaneuver Sir Humphrey is also in 'Big Brother', which is again done in a pretty good way, and shows the only way to actually outmaneuver Sir Humphrey in such a way that even Sir Arnold cannot really frustrate matters.
Whenever I see this show I'm quite fascinated how well the role of Bernard Woolley is written. As a supporting actor his time on this show is limited. But when his time comes, his sentences are the cherry on the cake.
_"And then you smudge it all over."_ It's like he's reciting a damn recipe. A recipe of political doublespeak, and like any sugary dessert its bad for you, but delicious to consume if handled by the right chef. Like Sir Humphrey.
One thing I really loved about this show is that it could be enjoyed by all, whether young, old, rich, poor, left, right, tertiary educated or in primary school.
Now! After all these years of watching this amazing series ' with the best actors we have ever had can we not do the same again??? Even Maggie loved this, so at a time when days felt black, it was loved by so many? Oh now its 2019 and things are far much worse, to its shame. I long to be back when Hacker gave the finger.
Hawkeye knows Ah the good old days ten months ago when you could use expressions like ...when days “ felt black....”. Now it’s non PC. ..felt dark? Not too sure about that one either
Many of things happening in Yes, Minister are still pertinent to today's events. Some people say, the series was ahead of it's time. I disagree. i say times never changed.
Спорт
"Legislative protocol is deliberately confusing because if people could make sense of it, they'd never let us get away with it"
Who said that?
@@Hositrugun The name escapes me, but it was an interview regarding one of the former Australian MPs criticizing then-exiting PM Julia Gillard in regards to how certain lines of legislation in the federal government were allowed to pass and run policies regarding the degree of criminality of how money and authority were so easy to change hands despite being, in the eyes of the typical man, theft, bribery and all-round illegal. This was in 2012.
No it’s because it’s based on thousands of years of legal presidents stacked on top of each to appease many different stakeholders. Of course every once in a while a great man comes along and makes a major adjustment or two as well.
You underestimate how little people care
@@maknavickaswhy would a quote about the legislature actually be about the head of state?
"That's most unclear."
"Thank you, minister."
That was precisely the quote I would have extracted ;-)
@@MrA5htaroth Same here. Glad that I checked the other comments, first.
Welcome back to the current agenda. Nothing changed. Nor will it
There is "political theory". This show documented "political practice".
I love that the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939 is a real piece of legislation, and is in fact, still the law of the land.
That's what made this show so impactful, even to this day: it's TRUE.
@TheRenaissanceman65 I think he might have said 'CE' as in Common Era. (As if a British statute could be BCE, but I suppose it enhances the officialese.)
@TheRenaissanceman65 damn, this could have been the new gold/blue dress controversy.
@TheRenaissanceman65 I think that's added for comic effect. Statutory Instruments don't normally have letters at the end. If there's more than one they are usually referred to as "(No 2)" or "(No 3)" and soon.
@@ianmalone9870 If it was British then it would be either BC or AD, none of that CE/BCE nonsense. The UK is officially a Christian country.
"Including the red terrorists" LOOL
I love the little laugh he affords himself straight after.
LattiMonstaaa I KNOW better'n to be drinking whilst watching Yes, Minister.
brilliant...the finest comedy ever. So sublime.
'You excel yourself Bernard'
@@Nyckname Your nose thanks you for that!
Well, it has the virtue of being true.
38 years after this aired, the Rhodesia Solution being used so elegantly by Mi6...
MI6 failed to make clear to the foreign secretary that a “high risk agent” operating overseas had probably engaged in “serious criminality” until it was pointed out by an independent regulator last year.
The spy agency was asking the minister - either Dominic Raab or his predecessor, Jeremy Hunt - to renew authorisation of the agent’s activities despite the apparent criminality without being “expressly clear” as to what had happened.
Six months previously the agent, likely to be an undercover informant, had been sent some “red lines” by MI6. The agent was told if they were breached, it would “result in the termination” of the informant’s relationship with the spy agency.
But when renewal of the agent’s authorisation was sought from the foreign secretary, MI6 “did not make expressly clear” that the “‘red lines’ had probably been crossed” - until the ambiguity was noted by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner (Ipco).
Many details are withheld from the account, which is highlighted in 2019 annual report of the Commissioner, and it is not clear if approval was ultimately granted by the minister. All the report said was that MI6 responded to the concern about its authorisation request “by updating” the Foreign Office.
Spectacular
And so James Bond had his licence to kill revoked.
@@davesy6969 No, this is exactly how Mr Bond gets away with blowing shit up in various foreign countries
It was downgraded to a licence to hurt slightly until he retakes a training course. It could have been worse and reduced to a licence to tickle, the lowest grade of licence that is actually granted to all UK citizens automatically (read the fine print in a UK passport).
@@davesy6969 i can't decide whether bureaucrats should be hunted or protected. as sir humphreys said the civil service is about survival to the next century where politicians worry only about the next election. his other speech about serving 11 governments was simultaneously horrifying and hilarious.
@@jessestreet2549 I believe Humphrey’s said that politicians care about survival past Friday evening instead of the next election
I like it when Bernard is in his element. All his goofiness just vanishes. Plus watching him and Humphrey work together like a well-oiled machine is especially pleasing to my inner bureaucrat.
Neaka
"to my inner bureaucrat" lol
Your "inner bureaucrat"? Sounds very uncomfortable to me! Possibly fatal! Have you considered seeing a psychiatrist? Or a priest - I hear exorcism is back in fashion in the Catholic church.
+DieFlabbergast It's actually surprisingly easy to fall down the bureaucratic rabbit hole when you start doing something that needs to be formally organised and structured. The temptation is always there to foster an infinitely complex system and record every single tiny detail of the daily goings on of whichever kind of operation one is supervising/modernising/reorganising/etc.
I myself took a dabble into quality management a while ago and caught myself nearly doing that on more than one occasion. It's easy to blame the bureaucrats, but if someone as disorganised and generally chaotic as myself ends up nearly going down the path of ridiculous bureaucracy where none is needed - imagine how easy it is for a normie to fall for it!
I hate it when people deliberately use a 't' instead of the correct 'p' at the end of that word!
Suuure, you're laughing, but as a law student in the UK I can inform you that the construction of that letter isn't at all dissimilar to actual British legal and political documents.
+Aidan Harris hell, I think Antony Jay was a civil servant for a while. maybr J.Lynn. not sure.
To make it plain and simple...these guys go to Oxford and Cambridge to learn more of the words in the English dictionary, to basically say simple things in words most never learned because most people didn't go to Oxford and Cambridge.
So with this skill they make non-comprehensible documentation basically to "kick" someone's mind off the document if one attempts to read it, so to shield themselves from you looking into their dirty business.
Personally in my opinion..if my teacher had Humphrey as a student she would give him very high marks on language but very low on literature. Why is that. Because of his very rich knowledge of English words, but literature is all about placing them in the most aesthetic perfect order to depict a meaning as clearly as possible. But as Jim said in this video., he always makes things as unclear as possible. Funny thing is he knows that, but the uneducated Jim can't tell the difference:P
unclejoeoakland They were speech writers for the government. Everything in the whole series went on, and I believe still does.
Yes that's the point of Humphrey's long rambling statements. You can sort of follow what he's saying, but with deliberation his phrasing of the issues causes significant problems in the comprehension of these matters... in other words he's making sure you can't understand what he's talking about.
Wow really? So tell me is it very hard in Kings college. Does one need to be super human or would you place it in the "alright" category
I learned more about the workings of government from this show than all my years in University studying political science.
The Hollowmen is an amazing modern australian version of this show. Also one to learn a lot from although a little less serious.
The government is like a sausage.
Everybody likes a good sausage with their breakfast, but most people prefer not to think too much about how sausages are made.
no no no! the quote is
"Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made."
My professor in Public Administration specifically suggested we watch Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister as extracurricular activities, so we'd be ready for public service.
Notably, he also thought that establishing law was always, in the end, a question of controlling the armed forces, and that 'pessimist' was just a negative way of phrasing 'knows what is really going on'.
As long as the great British sausage can remain free of the interference from Brussels and any attempt to make it conform to some "Euro-sausage" standards or be labeled as "high fat offal tubes".
Once you get over this show's humorous nature it's actually quite horrifying, due in no small part to it's accurate portrayal political maneuvering.
Decidedly not funny when you realize the effects of these things being done for real.
The strongest comedy is basically life itself.
Army humour is far darker than this, and just as accurate.
No, not really. Our countries are jokes, and I take pleasure in laughing about it all the same.
@@particleman5893 But the acts of those countries have real serious implications for real people's lives.
This! 💯
Bernard was the punch line in that entire scene. Everything else got a giggle but when Bernard piped up with "including the red terrorists" I lost it. Such a underrated character played by a magnificent actor, may he RIP.
Thank you, Bernard! 😎
"You excel yourself Bernard!" Yes you did. RIP Derek Fowlds. So sad all three are now no longer with us, but their wit and comic timing will keep us smiling for years to come.
A belated accolade too for the writers Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn.
Sadly, Antony Jay is lost to us too now.
But in concert what an immortal combo.
More than years. This series has scarcely aged in relevance in over four decades. I predict we'll still be laughing and crying over it when this century draws to a close.
A smudged letter to the Acting PM written in very faint ink:
"My attention has been drawn on a personal basis to information which suggests the possibility of certain irregularities under Section 1 of the Import, Export and Custom Powers Defense Act 1939C. Prima facie evidence suggests that there could be a case for further investigation to establish wether or not inquiries should be put in hand. Nevertheless, it should be stressed that available information is limited and relevant facts could be difficult to establish with any degree of certainty."
James Hacker, Minister for the Department of Administrative Affairs.
*glances note*
Whatever. It’s probably not important. 🗑
“And then you smudge it all over.” 😜
@@crazyman8472And deliver it to 10 Downing when the PM is at an overseas summit.
'...and then you smudge it all over.' Cracks me up me every time.
Wonderful writing, wonderful acting - eternally great comedy.
the hand gesture is what makes the delivery :D
"That's most unclear"
"Thank you Prime Minister!"
This is from near the end of the third season/serries of Yes Minister, he wasn't Prime Minister yet, just the Minister of Administrative Affairs. After this they made a 90 minute special called Party Games in which Humphrey manipulates things so Hacker can become PM, and the following seasons/serries were retitled to Yes Prime Minister.
@@jesseberg3271 oh, now I get this, he's to send a letter to 10 Downing Street and it's to arrive while one PM is leaving and the other is moving in! It can be assumed that the letter (from himself to himself) gets lost in the transition.
Except he didn’t know that the pm was stepping down until an emergency cabinet meeting the very same episode and the pm didn’t have plans of stepping down until then either ( his reason for stepping down is given in the episode as waiting long enough so that Roy the home minister didn’t get the job of the pm. Rob was fired in the episode for drunk driving). So they mention the acting pm as he would be the effective pm as the real pm goes abroad for some sort of conference.
These instructional videos are hilarious.
LOL
The Canadian Government uses them exactly for that purpose. I suspect it is not alone.
This when you realise that this show is a documentary and not a comedy
Derek Fowles ("Bernard") had the most difficult but important part to play, being required to sit and listen to Sir Humphrey and Hacker jousting for long periods before delivering the knock-out line. Sadly Derek Fowles passed away recently (January 2020) aged 82, the last survivor of this wonderful trio who made us laugh and wonder in equal parts at the machinations of British government in the '80s. "We shall never see their like again".
82?? Really! I always thought he was so much younger than them both.
@@diamondaxe4133 Derek Fowlds was younger than the other two but lived to a greater age.
Paul was 10 years older than Derek but died of cancer at the age of 68 in 1995. His declining health meant that he was almost always seated in the final two series of this show.
Sir Nigel was 8 years older than Derek but died of a heart attack in 2001 at the age of 72.
I do believe we will. The times often make the comedy, and it certainly looks like Britain is headed for the darkest days of the seventies again, but with Johnson reprising the role of Thatcher.
I admired Nigel Hawthorne's ability to rattle off the long, meaningless speeches which so befuddled Hacker. It may be due to great editing but I always felt that his monologues were just as difficult to learn as anything Shakespeare wrote.
@@jonathanfraser321 They say he was accustomed to it because, as someone who had worked in the theatres, he was used to memorizing Shakespearean lines.
"Once you start interferring in the affairs of other countries, your on a very slippery slope!"
As relevent today as it was back then.
@TheRenaissanceman65 sometimes you wrire a comment as a video plays and as you press send the autoplayer has loaded up a new video and posts the comment on the wrong video.
And still today.
Sir Humphrey is the real master of this game, but whenever Bernard opens his mouth, I am sure I am going to laugh on something.
+Spicy Boy Ahh, poor Bernard, he's one of the civil service crowd for the most part but he struggles with an unfortunate tendency toward common sense.
Wet behind the ears for sure...at the tender age of 40+
Bernard gets all the best lines in the series.
@Spice Boy - It's true that Sir Humphrey often successfully manipulates Jim Hacker but have a look for an episode called "The Key" where he oversteps the mark and is put in his place. It's hilarious.
Bernard knows what Sun readers want.
The chemistry between these three actors, along with brilliant writing makes this show amongst the best ever seen on TV IMO.
What I loved about Yes, Minister was the sheer joy and enjoyment you could feel that these 3 had acting together. They really had the most fantastic comedy timing together, absolutely superb😁😁😁😁
Sometimes a group of actors just has _that_ perfect chemistry. These three had chemistry, ample chemistry. Terrific actors, great timing and the x factor.
This comedy series was second to none, and terrifyingly true... on prima facie evidence.
When all the facts are gathered... in the fullness of time.
When the moment is right. At the appropriate juncture. When the requisite procedures have been completed.
After an appropriate normalization interval, considering all the points of reference, ex post facto sine qua non, with deliberate and measured progress not exceeding the capability of the machinery of state to manage with due influence and oversight.
This was one of Margaret Thatchers favourite programmes.
Until she ruined it...
How did she ruin the show? She ruined a lot things but not this.
ejcmoorhouse Maybe not the show itself, but certainly its reputation. She "requested" that the two leads of the show Hacker (Paul Eddington) and Humphrey (Nigel Hawthorne) do a small impromptu scene with her in front of an audience of mostly press. The whole thing was PR stunt, and a bad one at that. There are debates to this day over who wrote the script to that scene, but it has to be said to be one of the worst comedy scripts in history.
Eleglas I still doubt she harmed the reputation, that makes for a fun footnote in the shows history.
To Eleglas:
I saw the sketch and thought it very funny.
Then again, I am not prejudiced against her.
I lived through the era before and during that of Margaret Thatcher and the miners' strike - the short working week, the power cuts, the shortages. Something had to be done to stop this, and she did it.
It's fashionable to 'hate' Mrs. Thatcher, these days, but usually by people who have no idea what they are talking about, and cannot think for themselves.
I spent more than 20 years drafting letters for Ministers. Much of them contained medical and scientifc jargon. So it was easy to confuse a minister. This is of great assistance to civil servants as it helps confuse the public too, and let us get on with running the country.
Jonathan Fraser I sincerely hope that you are being facetious
Sorry Im not permitted to reveal government secrets
@@sampuatisamuel9785 why would you think so? Ensuring basic public ignorance regarding gov't workings has been a foundational to governance for centuries.
@@siggylloyd3566 like the way they lie about corona virus
@@jonathanfraser321 That reply made me laugh loud enough to scare my dog.
like the fact you can even hear the BBC documentary film crew laughing in the background. If this wasn't so real, I'd say it was an 80's sitcom.
Almost all the scenes were played in front of a live audience. They were afraid that the government would prevent the show from airing claiming it was 'boring' or 'too complicated' for the average British viewer to understand.
By having a live audience they proved that the show was funny enough to air.
harr harrr :)
@Usuário Sarcástico Well, that might've been the excuse. The British Government is not fond of programs attempting to be clever at their expense, and does have the authority to cancel those that attempt such. It is for this reason, in fact, that footage from the Houses of Parliament cannot be shown on Last Week Tonight.
100th like
My American landlord became a fan of this show while I was living there and loved the inner machinations. Despite the fact that US politics do the same thing but much more bluntly and without finesse, the subtlety of the tactics drew sharp attention to them.
Don't underestimate American bureaucracy. Some of it is clumsy but a lot of it is very deft and just as occluded as this.
... your landlord hasn't heard of HBO's Veep?
I remember watching this on PBS as a kid. I loved the both shows. I never realized until an adult how realistic it was. These series should be mandatory for government classes.
Fun fact: Section 1 of the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defense) Act 1939 (c.69) contains nothing about arms or bomb-making equipment. The closest it gets is declaring that the Board of Trade has the ability to restrict the import of ships and aircraft.
All the better. If someone goes there in an effort to make sense of that muddled communication, they'll see nothing worthy of further attention.
Fun fact. You missed the key purpose of Section 1 being the ability to create secondary legislation to control the import or export of goods.
The bit about ships and aircraft was only one of the five clauses in that section.
In terms of obfuscation there are thousands of pieces of secondary legislation created each year. As this show was set around 40 years after the Act was made, this letter has directed the reader to hunt through a minimum of 40,000 documents to find what is being referred to.
@@zarabada6125 I am further impressed by your knowledge of this obscure bit of legislation. The full name of the act, you could just look up but this post suggests you actually are familiar with this piece of legislation. How come?
@@joshuarosen6242 No, I wasn't familiar with this particular one but part of my work involves making sure my colleagues are compliant with other UK laws (both Acts and secondary legislation from those Acts). The laws all follow the same style, so once you are familiar with one or two, you can read and understand almost any other Act.
@@zarabada6125 That's interesting and thank you for the explanation. Genuine expertise is so conspicuous on RUclips because of its rarity so it's a pleasure to read a well-informed comment.
Humphrey's glee as he says "then you smudge it all over" after what he'd just said was already as clear as mud! Hawthorne was truly a brilliant actor.
As a lawyer, I love how Bernard--who studied Classics at one of the two universities in Britain--snaps off the correct statute and section of British law as though his life up to this point had been dedicated to military export law.
There are more than two universities in Britain, it is just that those two are the ones when one thinks prestigious universities.
@@artofthepossible7329 were not they just polytecnics until the lecturers unions demanded equality
@@Satters Officially, they are research universities. Polytechnics are purely STEM institutions while Oxbridge is more R&D based.
Well having seen Cambridge of never go there, Oxford was lovely in comparison, people were actually friendly.
"And what's more I could tell she was a spy because when I claimed Oxford, Cambridge and Hull were the country's foremost universities, she failed to spot my deliberate mistake!"
"Yes, you're right; Oxford is a complete dump!"
-- Blackadder the Fourth.
This show is remarkably well written. One of the best written shows of all time. So well written in fact, that it can cause some people to confuse fiction and reality.
Quite.
Bernard really nails it with "Including the red terrorists".
I love Humphrey so much. He completely sums up my ethos of doing quite a lot to do nothing at all, while also exerting himself thoroughly to make other people shoulder all the things that his department are meant to be making someone else do.
2:28 “That’s most unclear.”
“Thank you, Minister!” 😜
My former supervisor from England literally told me how to respond a disputing customer like the vague dipomatic letter Sir Humphrey was drafting.
Bernard, always with the snappy comeback in the end!
I love his one about multiplying divisions. Which you can't do, because it gets you right where you started. Unless the numbers aren't the same 😁
"You excel yourself" is a classic backhanded compliment and Sir Humphrey said it with such conviction.
I think that was a genuine compliment. Sir Humphrey didn't think of it, and he later asked Bernard about the exact law.
No Humphrey really was impressed.
One of my favourite things is the expression on Bernand's face while he's watching the other two argue.
Yes, I watch him too sometimes. But not just in conversations with Sir Humphrey. I was watching him when Mr. Hacker was in an argument with the administrator of a hospital with no patients.
One of the most brilliant television shows ever to be broadcast.
When the three of them work together they are an absolute power house!
All three are gone now....but they left us a legacy that we can still enjoy and laugh out loud, not at any slapstick, but at the intelligent and witty humour, delivered by excellent comedic timing and pure acting talent.
I watched this show often that I started writing my graduation thesis in a similar way. No one understands it...
LEts hope the professor does.
Unless your thesis is in Political science, you better hope you have a lecturer who does... (If in pol sci, this would be poor for a Masters, but ideal for a Doctorate)
@@EarlJohn61 Mine was more "quality management I.e. Iso" related. So yeah, kept re - drafting
Having written thesis before, sadly one of the whole points of a thesis is to write it in a complicated language that is hard to read.
Rather more low key, was my Dad's dealings with Min of Ag in the 1970's... his observation was that this show was pretty accurate in how the show is run. Probably still is.The ties may have changed.
What great actors.
The problem with the new show is it's pretty much impossible to top a cast such as this.
From what little I saw of the new show, the cast was the least of its problems. It was the writing that was abysmal. To say that it wasn't even a shadow of the old show's brilliance would be an insult to shadows everywhere.
I suspect that the real trouble with the new show, is that the original is the single best TV-show ever made.
It was original as hell, relevant to a degree that is hard to fattom and the cast is arguably one of the most impressive (for its size) any tv-show has ever had, in share quality.
leftcoaster67 What new show ?
Second that. 'perfect alignment of stars' - literally and figuratively
@@AndyK.1 A remake of this one.
Depressing and funny, Ive worked in government departments and those tactics are still used to this day!
The only little issue I ever had with this masterpiece of a show is that surely exchanges like this would make Jim realise how Humphrey operates
I know it's part of the joke that he never does but it always comes to mind
No, Hacker has a pretty solid idea hiw Humphrey operates. The problem is that Humphrey Appleby is useful, and not going anywhere. So you can't just ride roughshod over him beause you might need him later.
Hacker knew from the first episode how Humphrey works, he was told by his predecessor after all. Problem is that knowing is, after all, only half the battle. Finding a way to undo each individual scheme of Humphrey's still takes tremendous effort, even knowing that there are always schemes.
@@NATIK001 Yeah, pretty much. He gets a pretty good tutorial in Episode 4 ('Big Brother') from his predecessor on how Sir Humphrey actually works, and how he uses his techniques to stall and otherwise make things he doesn't like go dead in the water. Even knowing exactly how Humprey works, it matters very little, because Sir Humprey knows how to turn it into a choice between a rock and a hard place, so that when push comes to shove, Hacker has very little choice but to go along with Sir Humphrey, which is the genius bit. Even if Hacker somehow manages to outmaneuver Sir Humphrey, in the earlier series of 'Yes, Minister' there was always the figure of Sir Arnold that could be relied upon to ultimately outmaneuver Hacker if needs be. The only time Hacker actually manages to outmaneuver Sir Humphrey is also in 'Big Brother', which is again done in a pretty good way, and shows the only way to actually outmaneuver Sir Humphrey in such a way that even Sir Arnold cannot really frustrate matters.
Makes a University 'Political Science' course look like a kinder-garden class
Yes minister is as relevant today as it was in 1980...brilliantly written comedy, based around the workings of government.
Having worked in government, these episodes should be part of mandatory induction training program for all public servants and Ministers of the Crown.
Most of today's inductees probably lack the range of vocabulary to understand what they're being shown.
One of the best sketches of the entire series , but love it all , and not a swear word in sight for the whole series . Absolutely Wonderful
Humphrey is at his best when it comes to playing the system.
Whenever I see this show I'm quite fascinated how well the role of Bernard Woolley is written. As a supporting actor his time on this show is limited. But when his time comes, his sentences are the cherry on the cake.
I love the moments where Humphrey agrees with Bernard before realising what he’s said
One of the most intelligent comedies I have ever watched.
_"And then you smudge it all over."_ It's like he's reciting a damn recipe. A recipe of political doublespeak, and like any sugary dessert its bad for you, but delicious to consume if handled by the right chef.
Like Sir Humphrey.
I hope I can perhaps one day master the art of doublespeak.
3 legends , all departed. Left their marks in this world. RIP.
‘including the terrorists’
genius
Ah, yes... the Rhodesia solution. That might come in rather handy during preparation for one of the interminable staff meetings we have at work. ;-)
"Including the red terrorists."
😂
And Bernard's face when he said it 😂
the chicky smile after he says "then you smudge it all over" you are the devil Humpy!
Such glee on his face 🤣
Never use one word when ten will do 😊
"Completely trapped. I can't tell the PM, I can't not tell the PM." :-)
This show was a blast! I've got to suggest my local PBS station air it.
"including the red terrorists"
LOL
That show was the best political satira ever made and the real state of mind of politicians.
Bernard's encyclopedic knowledge of the law didn't come up often, but when it did...
Yes Minister was and still is Brilliant, and often true to life, loved by everyone.
Probably not the civil service.. I assume it's like looking in the mirror for them
@@LamZL1 the writers new people in government and based many scripts around real life.
Sorry knew people
Possibly my favourite show of all time. Hilarious, interesting and I learned SO much about politics from it.
It is been so long since I watched clips of yes minister. Thanks for making my night.
One thing I really loved about this show is that it could be enjoyed by all, whether young, old, rich, poor, left, right, tertiary educated or in primary school.
Even the Red terrorists.
Bernard (Derek Fowlds) had fantastic comedic timing in this show imo.
Bernard, you excel yourself!
This series is gold. They don't make them like they used to.
"Including the Red terrorists."
Oh, Bernard, you'd been doing so well.
I like how Bernard says "Rho-da-desia" Solution.
Isn't that a glitch in the recording?
It's probably part of an in joke about obfuscation.
That entire sentence is synced incorrectly to the track.
Looks at description
“Category: Sports”
How appropriate XD
Well politics is the origional blood sport
I think it refers to classical Opera.. Macbeth made a really nice tackle...
Just recently discovered this show. It’s so brilliant.
exactly why this show is classic, timeless and spot on about politics of any year/decade
Sadly all 3 geniuses are gone. This was sitcom at it's very best
great show
I need to watch more of this show. It seems to be the most accurate depiction of modern democracy ever made.
So many comments not sure it has already been said, but that transition was amazing.
This is really the funniest show ever.
I just love the way he says "pencil".
One of my favourite series ever !!
I love this show!
Wait, this is a comedy? I thought its a documentary.
It makes documentaries seem unrealistic
It IS a documentary.
It just camouflages as comedy.
A HAHA there, and aHAHA here, Everywhere a HAHA. Old macdonald held an office, EIEIO.
More relevant today than ever. Such a great show
Gold standard of comedy.
They do’nt make them like this anymore.
A real Sir Humphrey masterpiece !!
"And then you smudge it all over" 🤣
this is actually beautiful
I love this show. Hacker's my favourite minister
What a marvelous series.
Yes Minister is the best show EVER and totally timeless
Brilliant... gonna see if this series is available somewhere.
Now! After all these years of watching this amazing series ' with the best actors we have ever had can we not do the same again??? Even Maggie loved this, so at a time when days felt black, it was loved by so many? Oh now its 2019 and things are far much worse, to its shame. I long to be back when Hacker gave the finger.
Hawkeye knows Ah the good old days ten months ago when you could use expressions like ...when days “ felt black....”. Now it’s non PC. ..felt dark? Not too sure about that one either
Hilarious! That last line is an absolute killer!!!
I just watched Demolition Man and was slightly disturbed to hear Sir Humphrey Appleby utter the words "Taco Bell".
It's OK, if you watch the version released outside the USA, then he says "Pizza Hut."
Many of things happening in Yes, Minister are still pertinent to today's events. Some people say, the series was ahead of it's time. I disagree. i say times never changed.