I thought so myself until I saw the full context of the quote. In isolation the quote sounds like being too stupid to act. In context it's about deliberately frustrating a policy they don't believe in.
There's another good part in this episode. Earlier part. "But you see the problem? If the PM gets into one of his ghastly patriotic Churchillian moods he might intervene. All that pro-British defending democracy nonsense. He must understand that ONCE YOU START INTERFERRING IN THE INTERNAL SQUABBLES OF OTHER COUNTRIES, YOU'RE ON A VERY SLIPPERY SLOPE. Even the Foreign Secretary's grasped that." Goodness, imagine if the White House watched this TV series at a regular basis. 🤣🤣🤣
In case anyone is wondering what the answer to the questions are: 1) The Upper Volta has become Burkina Faso. Located in Western Africa South of Mali and North of Ghana 2) The capital of Chad is N'Djamena 3) French is the official language of Mali. Bambara is the most widely spoken. 13 of the indigenous languages have the legal status of national language. It is estimated there might be more than 80 separate languages spoken throughout the country 4) The President of Peru is currently (as of the 2nd of May 2020 ) Martín Vizcarra. During Yes Prime Minister this was Alan García who served from 1985 to 1990 and then 2006 to 2011. Since the book sets Yes Prime Minister at 1984, the President at the time could be Fernando Belaúnde Terry who served from 1980 to 1985. 5) Cameroon does not have a national religion. However, its three main religions are Christianity (69%), Islam (21%) and Traditionalist (6%)
I got the Cameroun one almost right. Well, not difficult, because almost all of Africa is converted by Islam and Christianity, with a small part sticking to ancestral Paganism.
@Aleksa Petrovic La francophonie est à certains égards une chose fort amusante : on fait tout pour qu'elle soit aussi dénué d'importance que possible, mais les gens comptent sur la France (quand ce n'est point la Russie ou un prétendu sauveur providentiel tel que Donald Trump) pour "sauver le monde" de la période de crise continuelle qu'ils sentent confusément sans pour autant parvenir à l'identifier. :|
Some of the episodes are based on things that have actually happened. The hospital gag or the diplomats drinking alcohol in Saudi Arabia (or wherever it was).
Sir Nigel Hawthorne. Probably one of the greatest comedy talents of all time. A master of timing and all delivered with nothing so much as a raised eyebrow.
Absolutely, I laugh hard at YM and YPM material that I've viewed a hundred times. A once in a lifetime confluence of elements that contributed to, as you state, 'arguably one of the best...' The best IMO.
Imho nothing comes close. Other sitcoms are based on stupid shit like an office or friends or roomates. YM and YPM are based on politics and internal workings of government. The writing and acting is miles ahead of anything else. 🐐 Comedy
You need a First-class degree from Oxford. That's rather difficult. But you still can try to become a MP, since hacker got a third from LSE. And, avoid the Cambridge, you may will be connected with or defected by Soviet.
@@user-cf8zu1qy3bI know a fair few civil servants - including my sister, who went to Loughborough - and you definitely don't need a degree from Oxford. I mean yes, perhaps that makes it significantly more likley that you'll get to be Cabinet Secretary, but still not necessary. The cabinet Secretary before last went to the LSE.
I thought they were joking, until it turned out the US presidential candidates couldn't tell the name of the president of Mexico. You literally only have two neighbors and you forgot one of their names.
That's what happens when information is prioritized. Being ready to tell you who the president of Mexico is at any given time isn't particularly important. Neighbor or not
@@TWE_2000 It may be ok for random citizen to have no idea who Mexico president is. They will most likely never interact with him anyway so they do not need to care. But for people who do, like president, it shows ignorance.
@@TWE_2000your so-called point is absurd... not knowing who the leader of your neighbouring country is shows a shocking lack of concern for what's going on 🤦🏻♂️ nevermind his name, but the fact that you don't know his name OBVIOUSLY indicates you don't know his politics and by extention anything that's going on in said country. to not know or care what's going on in one of only two neighbouring countries is utterly asinine for anyone who intends to be head of state! and it raises serious questions about why they want to be head of state if they don't even care what's happening in bordering nations... it's mindblowing. it also smacks of insanely polarised and partisan politics and their emphasis on image and deception, that the person in question is clearly obsessed with over actual achievements and results.
stage 1 of covid 19 nothing is gonna happen continue life as normal stage 2 somthing might happen but we should not panic and let it ruin our economy and way of life stage 3 okay maybe we should pick up the slack but how much help can we really do at this point not much we can do to solve the problem stage4 we could have massivly cut down on the death rate if we have acted earlier but its to late now
Yeah in the UK the government didn't even try to prevent the spread of covid 19, airports were open with no checks or isolation requirements, insanity, now we have to sit in our houses while the elite carried on flying in and out of the country.
I read that in the beginning, seeking ideas, the writers went to a major newspaper and asked to review newspaper from 20 years ago. Reading them they were astounded to discover that the things happening 20 years ago were still happening. Today we discover that the things spoken about here are still with us today. In politics little changes other than the names.
@@ookland81 On having live audiences in filming of Yes Minister, the producers later admitted it to be an insurance policy against a likely displeased administration shuting down the production.
The sad thing is, it makes a good point. Sir Humphrey is frequently presented as equally self interested as Hacker though 100 times better at getting his way. But think about whether that's a bad thing. Politicians care the most about the next election (politics is about surviving till friday, government is about surviving the century), which means they can't be expect to consider the longer view. Even worse they have at most whatever experience they've gained while in the office they're in. I mean take Priti Patel, 11 months experience as the exchequer secretary, 15 months as the minister for employment, 17 months as the secretary of state for international Developement, she's only been in her current role for 23 months. Would you consider someone who's been driving a bus for less than two years, experienced? Even if they've had 11 months on a moped, 15 months experience with a boat, and 17 months with a car? Now imagine that in all of them cases they've also had someone in the vehicle trying to make sure they don't fuck up, and yet, inevitably, they still have fucked up multiple times, oh and they were only allowed to drive any of the above because of a popularity contest. Would you feel safe getting onto that bus with them, without someone supervising them? Would you feel safe even if they were supervised? Now imagine that instead of bent lampposts, it's entire economies, it's health funding, it's education, it's country wide effects. Bang that lamppost was water security in Cornwall. Crunch that caused teachers to leave the profession and now there's 40 students per class intead of only 30. Would you be able to trust such a person, unsupervised to not simple do whatever is the thing which makes them survive until friday, even if that thing is outright stupid (whether in the short or long term) to someone with experience of the details?* Would you trust such a person to look after your pension, when they only have to care about it for 4 years? Now that, that's terrifying. The sad thing is, it's kind of necessary to have someone who knows their shit. Doctors do it all the time, informed consent, in order for the patient to make the best decision they have to be informed by the doctor. Often the available courses of action is, let whatever's happening continue, sometimes with symptomatic treatment available, or do this specific thing to treat it**. In government though the doctor can't regularly afford to let the patient make the stupid decision. *Here's a fun fact, if you're on a motorcycle and your handle bars start violently slamming from side to side, what do you do? Take 2 seconds to think about it, no more. If you're instinct was to brake, congratulations, you've just made the situation worse and the likelyhood of you crashing has increased. Running a country is much, much, more complex than riding a motorcycle. What about if someone's having an asthma attack, lots of fresh air right, that's the logical decision to help them isn't it? Are you sure? Was that breath into a paper bag a myth or I mean, surely making someone breath their own co2 over and over again won't help them, right? ** I mean look at chemo. Pretend you don't have any idea what that is. A doctors says, we want to poison you until your nails and hair fall out, until you puke your guts out, and you'll feel so rotten you'll wish you were dead. Without context, would you vote for that? How many Humphrey's do you think it took to get Boris to agree to that first (and subsequent) lockdowns and how many lives did they fail to save because of how the politician, thinking about friday, didn't think it was a vote winner.
The fun of this episode is that Hacker figures out a way to go around the stalling Foreign Office and sir Humphrey. And it also has Luke, their 'plant' in the prime-minister's office. Who I also spotted in the Netflix-serie "The Queen".
@@Samplesurfer The thing is they don't show the after effects of the intervention on the island in the rest of the show. In real life however there are consequences to, as Sir Humphrey put it "interfering in the internal squabbles" of others. Cases in point:- VIetnam, Afghanistan (British, Soviet, and American), and Iraq. Also Ukraine. Make no mistake, the Ukraine War will a much greater impact in much shorter time period than the entire period from WW2 till the start of the Ukraine War. Ironically, it was the American beraucrats that pushed for this war rather than politicians.
@@bilalbaig8586This comedy is from the 1980s. The actual 'event' was the invasion of Grenada, a British Commonwealth member by Ronald Reagan, who "replaced" a more left wing oriented new government there. It was feared the new Grenada government would get closer with Cuba, (Castro), Nicaragua (Sandinistas) and Panama (Noriega). The British and in particular Queen Elisabeth were very unhappy with the American decision to invade Grenada, as they did nothing to put a brake on this arrival of a new 'left wing government' and it's approach to the countries the USA had a beef with. What you hear in this fragment is 'the foreign policy view' and is a joke on the Thatcher government, who didn't intervene in Grenada, as they had been talked out-of-it by the British Diplomats and then, without a warning the USA invaded Grenada. Just to give you a taste of how not close that Special Relationship of UK-USA every time the Americans had a different view.
@@Samplesurfer I did not know that. Thanks for the info. Although considering that this is South America the US stance is not all that surprising. The Monroe Doctrine is alive and well. In the show, it felt a bit jarring that the Americans would keep the British out of the loop especially in the situation of a Middle Eastern country.
@@bilalbaig8586 "The Americans, invading a commonwealth country? The palace will hit the roof!" ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-1gjln4gaeeg.html It's in the next scene of this episode, also on RU-vid.
_"In practice , this presents no problem. If pressed, the FO looks at the matter again, and comes up with the same view. If the Foreign Secretary demands options, the FO obliges him by presenting three options, two of which will be (on close examination)_ [NOTE TO SELF: such close examination cannot be allowed to happen] _exactly the same. The third will, of course, be totally unacceptable, like bombing Warsaw, or invading France._ [NOTE TO SELF: what if the Foreign Secretary chooses the _third_ option? what is the FO supposed to do then? this plan is obviously needs to be revised in light of recent developments]"
If he chooses option 3 then you topple the government and get a new guy to choose again and repeat until you get the right answer. Simple really. Sir Humphrey would be dissappointed.
I assure you my name is Samuel. I just thought the vitriol with which you approached Mr. Chump was strange. I think it’s even stranger that you use the word defraud. Fraud implies some kind of swindling or financial advantage, but I hardly see what you or me or anyone else who uses their real name loses out on. Unless you wish to familiarize yourself with the real names of the people on this comment page, but perhaps not. I’ll admit I’ve never much been interested in whether or not a thing is childish, that’s your worry I suppose. I don’t really care about strangers. Their choices are their problems. But when I meet them, I think I lose nothing by approaching them with a bit of softness. If that doesn’t make me too much of an infant in your book. I also wonder what you think about history or literature or any other field dating back more than a hundred years where humans have expressed condolences and feelings of kinship for dead people they’ve never met.
@MichaelKingsfordGray I have no idea what you're going on about, but it sounds like you need a doctor. My sudo name is taken from two Laurel and Hardy films- "Chump At Oxford" and "Saps At Sea". With so much to be 'afraid' of in the MSM what with climate change, Brexit, Coronavirus. It's never ending the stuff that is going to kill us so it is nice to watch lighthearted stuff on RU-vid even if we do come across pricks like you making nonsensical comments.
Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister are the two best sit coms ( or were they documentaries ! ) ever made for British tv. Modern day so called comedy leaves me cold.
Excellent writing, delivered and timed brilliantly by these great actors. I'm a little bit distracted by how much Donald Pickering looks like Tony Benn here, which makes it all the more surreal. Anyone else see the physical likeness?
actually they have been doing this for at least 800 years so it is working haha beside the show is base on the civil service informants that they interviewed and base the satire of
Mostly the problem is that they actually PREFER that politicians be that way, because it gives THEM all of the actual power (which Humphrey flat out says in another episode). Rather than trying to help them become different, or sort out the wheat from the chaff, they would rather exploit stupid and short-sighted politicians and undermine or ignore the ones who try and make positive changes. They aren't any better than politicians themselves; they are just smug in their superiority.
Yes and no. They are right about people in general. Every idiot here have an idea about what politicians are all like despite never been one or work closely with one. The same ways politicians does not know all the affairs needed to do the jobs the public voted them for, we, as humans, all made generalizations and overestimation of our knowledge. The technocrats know more about their jobs than the public and the idiots the public voted for. However, the elected idiots are more susceptable for being held accountable for their mistakes. What about these guys? Occasionally, there will be competent politicians and there will be shit technocrats. Which is why absolute monarchy got abolished. An technocrat destroy a country much worse than a politician ever could. Can anyone be certain that the person who rose through the rank is not in the same situation as the politician (knowledge-wise) in the first place?
Sort of. Geology was a rather insurmountable obstacle, as was needing the co-operation of the [rather ill equipped and badly led] French for a landward offensive in the west. Similar issue in 1945... fighting the USSR as well was called "Operation Unthinkable" for a reason, due to the amount of time and lives required to stop the Germans alone. (that; and using The Bomb wasn't an appealing option either)
@@jimtaylor294 I dont think the Polish would like operation unthinkable to be carried out at all. If the Soviet successfully hold back the western advance at the Oder, and they find out the Polish were collaborating with them, they will face even harsher opression from the soviet. If the soviet have to retreat back to Moscow, they would do another round of scorched earth tactic on Polish soil (on which there were hardly anything left to burn after the Germans retreat)
@@minhducnguyen674 Aye; though I guarrantee there's a fair number of Poles that'd claim it would've been worth it... they having a bit of a Britain & France relationship with Russia; that's roughly as long & even more brutal too.
@@jimtaylor294 Guess it can't get worse given that their country already get razed 2 time over when the front line moved through it. Can't be afraid of losing thing when there isn't much left to burn. But if the Soviet get pushed back just enough, they might get splitted into 2 parts once more. Like they said " be careful what you wish for".
@@minhducnguyen674 Aye. In another timeline; the border between west & east might have ended up in Warsaw, rather than Berlin. At least if the Russian Civil War & the Korean War are any gauge. (Communism having an irritating habit of outlasting western politicians' dedication to destroying them) Poland got a rather large chunk of Germany in ours though; which must have Adolf's ghost seething XD.
Upper Volta is now Burkina Faso. They speak French in Mali. Cameroon doesn't have a National religion, there's christianity, islam and traditional beliefs. How am I doing?
They don't have a national religion (very few countries outside of Europe and the Middle East do. Something to do with separating Church/Mosque and the Government.), but they do have a predominant religion and that would be Catholicism.
oh, indeed. Somewhere in the series there is an episode in which Sir Humphry defends the Munich agreement saying it was the right thing to do. According to him- not listening to the FO (Foreign Office) resulted in 6 year war, millions of deaths and destruction of a continent.
If you're suggesting that the UK Government could have extended the treaty post 1997 I'd be interested to know why the Chinese would have acceded to the request?
Thatcher tried and she was riding on the success of Falkland. There is a good reason why after the conversation with Deng Xiaoping, she walked out almost with her knees on the ground. China isn't Argentina. But hey, if you don't enjoy to stay in HK, you can always leave and see if UK will actually take you. China certainly won't mind you take the next boat out of the place.
The four-stage strategy was how the political class acted every time something obnoxious emanated from Brussels, and would still given the chance. As time goes by this seems less like satire and more like a fly-on-the-wall documentary.
1:40 All they want to know is: who are the Goodies and who are the Baddies.. Insert „Are we the Baddies?“ sketch ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-hn1VxaMEjRU.html
