Having worked in the UK civil service, I can confirm that Yes Minister is essentially documentary and not entertainment...
@hagamapama5 жыл бұрын
Why can't it be both?
@richardlloyd25895 жыл бұрын
hagamapama Defintiely both. Whitehall farce at its best.!!
@233kosta4 жыл бұрын
@@richardlloyd2589 Would you rather have politicians running the place?
@richardlloyd25894 жыл бұрын
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.
@233kosta4 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@Adara0074 жыл бұрын
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.
@yuchenglin57993 жыл бұрын
Thanks Kybele, you have provided us with a bit of new information about the honourable actor. Just wondering how underrated the comment is.
@annatamparow49173 жыл бұрын
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!
@leemav51363 жыл бұрын
Thank you for sharing this with us.
@trooperdgb97223 жыл бұрын
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.
@MatthewPegg3 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@iainballas9 ай бұрын
"Well, almost all government policy is wrong... but frightfully well carried out!" I love it so much.
@captainnoob4Ай бұрын
Love it and dread it at the same time.😂
@airbornebovine3 жыл бұрын
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."
@tolep3 жыл бұрын
That was just a silly joke. Didn't fit in this otherwise serious documentary.
@iandhr17 жыл бұрын
"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.
@adelarsen97766 жыл бұрын
Vote UKIP
@taxdyke6 жыл бұрын
iandhr1 Brilliantly stated!
@Bobsbud1006 жыл бұрын
iandhr1 BRILLANT, my Dad use to watch this, God rest his soul.
@Anolaana6 жыл бұрын
But "Frightfully well carried out!" (2:55)
@AmySavage66 жыл бұрын
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.
@christinesavage7253 жыл бұрын
Question: "Who should lie?" Answer: "Sleeping dogs, Minister." The most clever line uttered by Sir Humphrey!
@Varvitski2 жыл бұрын
It's a line that I would like to have had Bernard deliver, to which an amused Humphrey would agree.
@gerardjagroo2 жыл бұрын
And most ominous!
@bronzeblues77952 жыл бұрын
Pure gold
@piotrd.48502 жыл бұрын
@@Varvitski Massive win here :D
@shezh959710 ай бұрын
you probably went to Cambridge
@beaconterraoneonline4 жыл бұрын
I’d consider Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister the best television produced.
@bernardliu85264 жыл бұрын
I agree, heartily. This show is perfect in every aspect !
@jahmulugu44254 жыл бұрын
Wait r they two different shows?
@chyoli62204 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@paulbrennan76624 жыл бұрын
The late lady Margaret Thatcher would agree with you ..She felt that yes Minister was the best show on Television ....
@jahmulugu44254 жыл бұрын
@@chyoli6220 oh wow I get it now! Them a genius!!
@seamusoflatcap6 жыл бұрын
One of my favourite bits. "Will I end up as a moral vacuum?" "Oh, I hope so Bernard. If you work hard enough."
@Herman474 жыл бұрын
That last part needs to be emphasized: "only if you work hard enough."
@dancingdan19946 жыл бұрын
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
@temudzjin6 жыл бұрын
grtyuj That's really sad and hilarious at the same time.
@jeremytang51165 жыл бұрын
Ikr my uni degree for nothing
@tobyruncorn25 жыл бұрын
that is why the study and practice of theatre is so important.
@inditsnotdenon9225 жыл бұрын
Uni is waste eh
@ksec66315 жыл бұрын
Well it is arguably the best Politics's Documentary in modern history.
@emmanuela7528 Жыл бұрын
“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.
@Robert-hz9bj7 ай бұрын
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...
@Pawel_Malecki5 жыл бұрын
- 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?
@peterchiu17695 жыл бұрын
It is too real
@Jordan-Ramses5 жыл бұрын
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.
@quizzical3425 жыл бұрын
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.
@blueberry18745 жыл бұрын
like with alan partridge, sometimes the guy who adds in the laughs misses a joke or two
@TheRivrPrncess4 жыл бұрын
@@Jordan-Ramses Obviously you have not investigated all organized religions or gotten to know people who truly practice what God and Jesus taught.
@Kronos9215 жыл бұрын
Sir Humphrey Appleby - Lawful Neutral Personified.
@PavarottiAardvark5 жыл бұрын
He's certainly an interesting character to discuss the alignment system with. I certainly feel he veers into Lawful Evil on several occasions.
@HaydenLau.5 жыл бұрын
@@PavarottiAardvark And the minister is Neutral Good
@brentkeller52095 жыл бұрын
@@HaydenLau. Yeah, more neutral who feels he should be NG but frequently does the wrong thing out of fear or greed.
@motioneccentrica4 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@mistershadier85774 жыл бұрын
Tina Yael Severinovna M. Technically I don’t think I’ve seen him “break” the Law only “bend” it
@RamblinRick_7 жыл бұрын
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.
@patbateman20887 жыл бұрын
It is so brilliant. I adore how accurately critical it is of government
@MrBandholm7 жыл бұрын
Critical but not hateful... And they really made a timeless classic in those two shows!
@adelarsen97767 жыл бұрын
It's a training documentary.
@johncronin95407 жыл бұрын
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.
@MrBandholm7 жыл бұрын
Cynic, perhaps... Another word (that I am sure Humphrey would prefer) is realist.
@horsenuts18314 жыл бұрын
Written 40 years ago, and it gets more and more accurate.
@maxmustermann95873 жыл бұрын
It explains the function of civil servants, so it was accurate even 2000 years ago.
@user-os6fx6mu1e2 жыл бұрын
Nah ..you just notice it more, as you start indulging in the matters of politics. It is as accurate as it was 30 years ago.
@Speed0012 жыл бұрын
Just like the Onion and the Simpsons purportedly.
@glynbrain10835 жыл бұрын
2:48 - "Well, almost all government policy is wrong, but frightfully well carried out!"
@RahulKumar-ng2gh4 жыл бұрын
what's the meaning of second part
@Codex77774 жыл бұрын
It's the civil servants who draft and enact the government's policies. He was essentially praising the civil service. Himself in particular. :)
@BlackOmegaOne14 жыл бұрын
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.
@Johnston2124 жыл бұрын
@@RahulKumar-ng2gh it means that it is implemented extremely well
@devonseamoor3 жыл бұрын
@@RahulKumar-ng2gh I believe that Mark Fentz' comment answers your question.
@FueledByAdobo036 жыл бұрын
Humphrey, we are talking about GOOD AND EVIL. (Humphrey): Ah, Church of England problem!
@SpectatorAlius5 жыл бұрын
The irony is that the Church of England hasn't been interested in choosing good over evil in decades!
@95DarkFire5 жыл бұрын
@Conrad Wolf Can confirm, lost it.
@branflakes123414 жыл бұрын
That one really got me 😂
4 жыл бұрын
@@SpectatorAlius Simply consider divorcefor Henry 8, versus everyone else.
@barkingdoggai4 жыл бұрын
The Church of England is the baby of that 400 lb. hog, Henry VIII. They hardly know the difference between good and evil.
@rfichokeofdestiny3 жыл бұрын
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.
@alexanderthegreat4453 жыл бұрын
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.
@brutusthebear90503 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@bung_chow3 жыл бұрын
@@brutusthebear9050 beautifully worded!
@mrid58503 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@brutusthebear90503 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@thebeatnumber4 жыл бұрын
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.
@shyguypro98762 жыл бұрын
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.
@ClickBeetleTV2 жыл бұрын
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.
@doltBmB Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@FreakyTeeth Жыл бұрын
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.
@loone31002 жыл бұрын
“We’re talking about good and evil.” “Ah Church of England problem.” LMAO
@ramansrinivasan8580 Жыл бұрын
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.
@wholeNwon6 жыл бұрын
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.
@Jordan-Ramses5 жыл бұрын
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.
@rob59185 жыл бұрын
@@Jordan-Ramses "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.
@richardlloyd25894 жыл бұрын
I’m sure someone (famous) said, “In order to protect it, the truth has to be wrapped up in a tissue of lies.”
@summersevening4 жыл бұрын
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.
@ian_b4 жыл бұрын
@@summersevening Arms can also protect lives and overpower dictatorships. Without arms from the USA, Europe would have been a stable empire run by Hitler.
@the-chillian7 жыл бұрын
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.
@albertxiong96317 жыл бұрын
ChrisC Or I would say no need for election
@johncronin95407 жыл бұрын
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.
@the-chillian7 жыл бұрын
Yes, that's why I said "in theory".
@JimWhitaker4 жыл бұрын
@@johncronin9540 And those occasional times when Hacker "wins" are part of the brilliance of the whole two series.
@justinjozokos16993 жыл бұрын
One of the most insightful comments I've read recently
@arunavio3 жыл бұрын
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.
@gdj62983 жыл бұрын
Three middle-aged men who happened to be brilliant actors.
@helenheeney22842 жыл бұрын
@@gdj6298 couldn't agree more brilliant
@stylembonkers1094 Жыл бұрын
No token blacks, women, homosexuals, transgender, Muslims.
@monabostrom83573 жыл бұрын
I remember laughing in all the right places the first time this was aired in my country🇫🇮. Now, it sends chills down my spine.
@davidtherwhanger6795 Жыл бұрын
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.
@DoubleGauss6 жыл бұрын
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.
@michaelbootes48225 жыл бұрын
D-Gauss to a point but here he’s trying to talk the minister out of moral duty
@Codex77774 жыл бұрын
@Michael Bootes - As humphrey says, "you either sell arms, or you don't..."
@Herman474 жыл бұрын
Are you worried about going to hell, D-Gauss?
@kascally4 жыл бұрын
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.
@cogidubnus19534 жыл бұрын
@@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...
@nigeljohnson98204 жыл бұрын
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.
@jalpat22724 жыл бұрын
there are good reasons why UK or EU as whole at sorry states today.
@nigeljohnson98204 жыл бұрын
@@jalpat2272 but you have decided to keep the details to yourself. Very wise:-).
@allisondoak94254 жыл бұрын
Stop electing people who can’t write then
@nigeljohnson98204 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@nigeljohnson98204 жыл бұрын
@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.
@WeeWyllie3 жыл бұрын
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!
@stephenolan55392 жыл бұрын
The writers cheated. They wrote about real events as if they were fiction.
@exceltraining6 жыл бұрын
well, WHO should lie ? ......sleeping dogs, minister ? brilliant
@brandonholmes84854 жыл бұрын
What did he mean by that? I didn't get the joke.
@mistershadier85774 жыл бұрын
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
@markywellsboy21824 жыл бұрын
"Let sleeping dogs lie" Don't upset the status quo. A very clever and subtle play on words of the phrase.
@mickytc4 жыл бұрын
Given the current situation this comment not only aged well it aged like a fine wine.
@compleategamster33044 жыл бұрын
Brandon Holmes its also a favourite phrase of Robert Walpole, the first Prime Minister of Great Britain
@orlandonelthorpe90273 жыл бұрын
A comedy that never ages - extraordinarily insightful and totally hilarious
@faitharnold46432 жыл бұрын
Actually, it's a little too close to reality to be funny. Humor requires a certain element of incongruity.
@orlandonelthorpe90272 жыл бұрын
@@faitharnold4643 Hi Faith, you're clearly not British, or you'd understand! 😉
@Skaitania6 жыл бұрын
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.
@charliecussans76385 жыл бұрын
The deeper question is if that system is worth maintaining.
@Skaitania5 жыл бұрын
@@charliecussans7638 Of course. But to stay with the allegory: don't abandon the ship unless you have a new one...or swim really well.
@jalpat22725 жыл бұрын
@@charliecussans7638 and how we guarantee the new system dont create two problems by giving solution for answering previous one question.
@GradyPhilpott4 жыл бұрын
In other words, what we Americans now call the "Deep State."
@GodwynDi4 жыл бұрын
@@GradyPhilpott Because it stepped away from Humphrey's position of staying apolitical, and starting making judgments on the policy.
@2escapees19473 жыл бұрын
Having worked close to Ministers in the Ministry of Defence I can testify how accourate this programme was all of the time.
@2escapees19473 жыл бұрын
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!”
@ejkalegal314511 ай бұрын
Where are the emergency bunkers located?
@pooletrainboy6 ай бұрын
@@ejkalegal3145 Dunno we flogged them all to the Russians, probably.
@umedavk20117 жыл бұрын
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.
@leopold75624 жыл бұрын
Not any more, sadly. Hopefully they are making a new series in heaven.
@jajones-ford22264 жыл бұрын
Derek Fowlds died in January 2020. They are all gone now, but not forgotten.
@BlastbeatsLOL2 жыл бұрын
@Paul Mathews Fewer*
@rey_nemaattori2 жыл бұрын
"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...
@trustwithin71882 жыл бұрын
Definitely 😜
@RagnellAvalon Жыл бұрын
they were well carried-out where you live? They sure weren't here in Australia
@michaelwilson7924 Жыл бұрын
@@RagnellAvalon Well carried out according to Public Servants
@johnarmstrong26793 жыл бұрын
What a brilliant show. Loved Humphreys comment "Government is not about good and evil, that's the province of the Church of England "!
@chrislyne3773 жыл бұрын
When I was younger I always saw Humphrey as the enemy. As I get older I find I often agree with him...
@2sridhark6 жыл бұрын
Ha, ha. "Who should lie?" "Sleeping dogs, Minister"!
@Alexander.Harrdarrzarr.6 ай бұрын
"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.
@1984senna3 жыл бұрын
Why can't TV shows be this well written anymore?
@paulprescott791311 ай бұрын
They wont , it might wake the people up.
@johnbanks47613 жыл бұрын
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
@NJGuy19732 жыл бұрын
"This is a matter of good and evil!" "Church of England problem."
@eamonahern74952 жыл бұрын
The conclusion of this scene just goes to show how clever the writing really was and how well the actors played their part
@foobarbazbaa55985 жыл бұрын
Almost all government policy is wrong... but frightfully well carried out.
@James-kd1kp2 жыл бұрын
Nope, all of it. End governments. End central banks.
@foobarbazbaa55982 жыл бұрын
@@James-kd1kp You're right. If something it not working perfectly best to just pull it up by the roots. Your car breaks down? Scrap it. Leaky roof? Just burn down the house.
@idleonlooker10784 жыл бұрын
Another superb, polished, display by Sir Nigel Hawthorne - one of the greatest performers of the modern era. R.I.P Sir Nigel. 👍
@ukporkpie78294 жыл бұрын
All government policy is wrong, but frightfully well carried out! Wonderful writing
@tommurphy40946 жыл бұрын
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.
@JimWhitaker4 жыл бұрын
Totally agree about both. Particularly Blackadder because it was so different from the whole of the previous work.
@rickyyoung4 жыл бұрын
I know it's 'Newer' but the Sherlock and Watson skit from That Mitchell and Webb look kinda hits home
@abdulsufan37503 жыл бұрын
I totally agree..
@maxmustermann95873 жыл бұрын
I think _"Comedy"_ is the wrong term. _Real Life Satire_ is much more fitting.
@leifvejby80233 жыл бұрын
I wouldn't exactly call it comedy - more like documentary, but you are right
@Isleofskye6 жыл бұрын
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....
@yairmottes66225 жыл бұрын
@@philsimmons9391 lol :)
@mscott39185 жыл бұрын
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.
@ravey993 жыл бұрын
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.
@RagnellAvalon Жыл бұрын
These office scenes were shot in front of a live audience, no canned laughter needed.
@marvinc99946 ай бұрын
"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)!
@ravey996 ай бұрын
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
@yutehube44688 ай бұрын
When you look back at this it's amazing that it was on the BBC. I think it outfoxed even their filters.
@williamdonnelly2243 жыл бұрын
"Almost all government policy is wrong, but frightfully well carried out." LOL
@ruberthablackman39495 жыл бұрын
One of my favorite scenes and very relevant in today's political climate. The more things change the more they remain the same.
@johnkealy2238 Жыл бұрын
Probably the greatest scene from the entire series! It says so much on so many issues!!!
@mircobars8404 жыл бұрын
This is, on many levels, a piece of art.
@rozz63987 жыл бұрын
Sir Humphrey Appleby, firmly holding the middle ground!
@MrBandholm7 жыл бұрын
You could say, he is holding no ground at all... Because it is not his ground to hold.
@Mrjmaxted02916 жыл бұрын
No he isn't, he's simply abstaining from holding any ground at all.
@mdhj677 ай бұрын
The honesty is brutal.
@johnkealy41647 жыл бұрын
A fantastic scene and it only gets better the more you watch it!
@williamdrijver4141 Жыл бұрын
Superb level of craftsmanship. Best comedy series of the past 50 years!
@pix0465 жыл бұрын
Sir Humphrey is a sophist. Actually, what he said at the end made sense. You need an independent civil service.
@cheeseburger125 жыл бұрын
The problem is, a lot of people go into the civil service that aren't actually independent. And when your independent civil service isn't independent...
@cheeseburger124 жыл бұрын
@K. DV No. They are activists. Many...are overtly on the left. Their primary interest is advancing the left's adgenda.
@cheeseburger124 жыл бұрын
@K. DV That's being deliberately obtuse. The point of the civil service is that they would be neutral in carrying out their duties. In practice that's been completely false. they've pretty much been unfireable democrat activists. It's pretty much the spoils system except only for Democrats all the time.
@cheeseburger124 жыл бұрын
@K. DV I'm going to really miss your ignorant babbling nonsense. No, wait. I'm over it.
@skatemetrix4 жыл бұрын
I think you may have missed the whole point of Yes Minister- the Civil Service IS independent. It serves its own agenda and no one elses. At least back then in the 70s and 80s it did.
@charlottesykes8596 Жыл бұрын
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 😂
@DanielWright-np3fqКүн бұрын
This program should be mandatory viewing in schools. It is as timely today as it ever was.
@johnalexander928810 ай бұрын
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.
@nothajzl2 жыл бұрын
-Who should lie? -Sleeping dogs. that's so good 😂😂
@jajones-ford22264 жыл бұрын
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.
@davidstevens70183 жыл бұрын
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
@Jabber-ig3iw3 жыл бұрын
One of if not the best written sitcoms ever.
@paullacey39463 жыл бұрын
Sir Humphrey, as always, was correct in his final summing up.
@davidwison91935 жыл бұрын
"Oh I hope so Bernard, If you work hard enough!" ---- loved it!!!! Amazing show!
@lewishorsman22193 жыл бұрын
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.
@curtiscarpenter98813 жыл бұрын
Bring this back and it can be understood in every classroom.
@TheHansoost2 жыл бұрын
One of the best acted and written programs of all time. Brilliant.
@peternaylandkust36667 жыл бұрын
There is much truth in comedy. Government is not meant to be "moral", nor should its actions be in furtherance of a particular "moral" end. The role of government in society is to further the interests of the citizens, and to protect those same interests. The idea that government derives its authority from the consent of the governed was put forward by John Locke before it was immortalized by Thomas Jefferson. Government cannot proceed from the behest of the citizens and at the same time be the moral arbiter and authority for those same citizens. If government officials decree a position to be the "right" one, and the citizens differ, government would lack the competence to pursue that "right" position; if the citizenry declare a position articulated by government to be "wrong", it is the obligation of government to carry out the wishes of the citizenry, not pursue the "right" position in defiance of those wishes. Thus while Sir Humphrey is presented as cynical and comical, in large measure he is also correct.
@wholeNwon7 жыл бұрын
Translated from the Latin.
@johncronin95407 жыл бұрын
Peter Nayland Kust The problem is that the goals Humphrey has in mind often have little to do with the genuine interests of the citizens who elect the government. Humphrey, and most of the civil servants depicted in the two series are not only contemptuous of the citizens, they are even contemptuous of the ministers they are supposed to be serving, holding the firm belief that government is far too important to be entrusted to "mere" elected officials. That theme resonates through the series, where in one episode (a rare time Hacker gets the best of Humphrey) refers to the civil service as the "real opposition", not the minority party in Parliament. The series goes out of its way to never state just which party Hacker belongs to. In the pilot, which opens on election night, with Hacker and other candidates gathered to hear the results of the election, Hacker is wearing a white rosette, a color that is not affiliated with any major power in the U.K. In the episode I mention above, Hacker even seeks the help of his predecessor (and thus a member of the Opposition), and he is only too glad to help Hacker completely outmaneuver Humphrey. (I believe the episode is "Big Brother"). But to return to your main point, government DOES deal with moral issues. It's unavoidable. Even a minimalist view of maintaining order is a moral principle. Those who violate the law can be held accountable. Even the monarch is obliged to obey the law. That concept was brought about in England. One monarch was executed for violating it, and during the time of Locke, another King (James II), was essentially fired, (perhaps I should say "sacked"), and driven into exile. It was those ideas that informed Jefferson (and other American leaders) to follow those same Enlightenment principles in declaring independence, a century later. There are times when zealous citizens overreach in trying to legislate morality, without universal backing. Prohibition is an excellent example of this. Obviously many opposed it, and it's remarkable that 2/3 of both the House and Senate and 3/4 of the states passed it as a Constitutional Amendment. So it had to have broad support, at least for a while. But it actually caused more moral problems than it prevented, and was repealed only about a dozen years later. But we still have laws that have moral bases, such as laws against drunk driving (a law that the Minister once violated, in the bridge between the two series).
@Grandfinal436 жыл бұрын
I mean that is literally your opinion, thats the thing about Political science right and wrong depnd on your belief. Therefore I would argue that Government as an elected representative of the people should also have the view of deciding what is right or wrong. The Libertarian apporaoch for which you seem to suggest is way too simplistic especially for a modern globalised world
@saoirsedeltufo74366 жыл бұрын
Peter Nayland Kust but often government is vital in taking the first step forwards, in progressive policies the voting public may disagree with at first but later move with the times (e.g. civil rights for various groups). The point of electing a government is realising that the public is generally to ignorant to solve problems so the government is there to solve problems on their behalf. This is the thing with referendums like Brexit, an ignorant mass can force through something which will have a serious negative impact on a country
@AximandTheCursed5 жыл бұрын
The best comedy is usually derived from the truth of life and times. I fear we are delving into the old separation of Church and State argument here, with the Church being considered, somewhat arbitrarily as the moral authority, and the state as the bastion of order that it its supposed to represent. One side judging and condemning, with the the other lawmaking and enforcing. In an ideal situation, that is how the model was supposed to work, but life itself is so rarely cut and dried. Comedy was, and hopefully still is, a check and balance measure against both.
@kenle210 ай бұрын
Imagine turning the concept of: "I was just following orders" into comedy.
5 жыл бұрын
This show is too good to be classified as pure comedy
@saltcots89854 жыл бұрын
One of my favourites scenes in all five series of the programme. And despite the general chicanery of Sir Humphrey, he has a point!
@krishnanunnimadathil8142 Жыл бұрын
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.
@foreignofficeclub58153 жыл бұрын
These shows were probably the best representation of English politics ever allowed. Still completely relevant today
@allenjenkins79474 жыл бұрын
"Almost all Government policy is wrong, but frightfully well carried out. "
@stephenphillip56566 жыл бұрын
"One man's 'Terrorist' is another man's 'Freedom Fighter' ". It all depends on which side of the argument (or rifle barrel) you view it from.
@patthonsirilim57394 жыл бұрын
i rather not view it from any side all its a never ending question of right and wrong i rather just sell them arms to be honest to both side of the coin
@jameswatsonatheistgamer4 жыл бұрын
@@patthonsirilim5739 Exactly. It's good for us. That we sell them our weapons. They are going to do what they plan on doing anyway. So Their money is better in our economy.
@2adamast3 жыл бұрын
It was the Reagan years, his Freedom fighters became another president's terrorists.
@timonsolus3 жыл бұрын
Indeed. To the German soldiers given the job of maintaining order in occupied France, the ‘Resistance’ were terrorists who were disobeying the last order of their own pre-war government, which was to surrender (cease resistance) to the German army.
@2adamast3 жыл бұрын
@@timonsolus It's more complex than that: it's an armistice, thus more a cease fire. And it's not their own pre-war government but a new military junta. For communists and others their status was problematic even if they were not part of the _résistance_
@markc89562 жыл бұрын
"Never set up an inquiry when you don't know what the outcome is going to be"... Boris,is that you?
@fredrikhelland81947 ай бұрын
Scenes like this one really alludes to Sir Humfrey being the real protagonist of the show. Truly a virtuous civil servant.
@poispetit9973 жыл бұрын
this series should be made a world heritage and preserved in every form of media known to humankind.
@markgigiel27224 жыл бұрын
There's more truth in a comedy skit than there is in the real world and government. As an American, I applaud this.
@paullacey39464 жыл бұрын
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.
@piotrd.48504 жыл бұрын
Well, wait until SJW revisionists come after it like they came for Doctress Whybother ;)
@richardharrold97364 жыл бұрын
@tugatomsk ironically, I think a SJW version would end up being remarkably similar. Yes Minister is a story of essential human nature, and even if you replace Hacker with the wokest of left-wingers, the civil service never changes.
@cisium11842 жыл бұрын
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.
@bluefish7042 жыл бұрын
These are gold. Pure gold
@bandiceet4 жыл бұрын
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.
@MichaelAndersen_DK3 жыл бұрын
This is brilliant. Even so many years later. Some of the best lines of sarcasm were in these scripts.
@viviennepopek2 жыл бұрын
An absolute gem of a series! Thank you for uploading 💖
@johkul38402 жыл бұрын
Applicable in 2022 still...
@BarterTom2 жыл бұрын
"Good is a point of view, Minister."
@christophertalbot74325 жыл бұрын
I hadn't seen this part before; hilarious, but utterly true; every word - don't set up an enquiry unless you already know the answer etc.
@karanveersingh63676 жыл бұрын
"Government health warning on weapons " ha ha ha ha ha
@colinp22384 жыл бұрын
It may yet come to be.
@paulthompson89964 жыл бұрын
"Never set up an enquiry unless you know in advance what its findings will be" - governments still follow this today. Cameron's big mistake (from his point of view, not mine) is that he held a referendum on EU membership without knowing for certain what the result would be. That mistake cost him his job.
@meneither38344 жыл бұрын
So basically the goal of an enquiry is to legitimize a decision not to enquire.
@paulthompson89964 жыл бұрын
@@meneither3834 No, I just think that they already know what they want to say when they undertake such enquiries, and they fit the 'evidence' to that rather than the other way round. Also, I think it is worth realising that the people who undertake such enquiries - 'the great and the good' - also want to make a name for themselves, so they try and say something 'controversial' or memorable so that their report will be remembered ie 'The Macpherson report' or 'The Scarman report'. It's like the Windrush scandal. I (and many of my ex-colleagues) could have told you very easily what happened there, it was the inevitable result of putting people that didn't know what they were talking about, and no experience of the job, into senior positions within Immigration Enforcement. It was nothing to do with the government. But, that's not going to get the headlines is it? They had already decided before they started that it was all to do with the 'hostile environment' and anybody who said otherwise would be sidelined. Bear in mind in that example they would have been talking to the very people (ie middle and senior managers within Immigration Enforcement) who caused the problem in the first place. They're hardly like to say that they were the problem are they? Much easier and quicker to blame it all on the government, which is what the enquiry team want to hear anyway.
@colinp22384 жыл бұрын
It's like market research only the surveys that they find agree with their policies are published.
@stephenphillip56564 жыл бұрын
D C's mistake was *thinking* that he knew what the result would be... and using "Project Fear" tactics to try and influence the public's reactions in that referendum. The EU's mistake was throwing D C a few crumbs from their table and telling him it was all a wonderful result of his bargaining powers.
@colinp22384 жыл бұрын
@Boodysaspie If they had not there would have been no referendum. It just shows how far out of touch the Government is with the people it "represents".
@comictanker3 жыл бұрын
Never seen this show in my life, but this is one of the most informative clips I’ve ever seen.
@strafrag14 жыл бұрын
Great show & fabulous acting. The episode where Minister appoints a chain smoker to Minister of Health sticks in my mind.
@johnking51744 жыл бұрын
Yes Prime Minister - Series 1, "The Smoke Screen" from January 23rd 1986
@mili32123 жыл бұрын
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
@alexhall63754 жыл бұрын
It’s so well written and so well acted ... and so timeless
@mstitek76792 жыл бұрын
The older I am, the more I am on Humphrey's side. The idea of government trying to do "good" is actually frightening me.
@StonyRC2 жыл бұрын
There is a terrifying logic in what Sir Humphrey says.
@mistag38607 ай бұрын
Bottom line - there is no cure, running a country cant be completed, like a task, and all paths may run ill, due to nature, other peoples, the utter intransigence of humanity and the general chaos that life is for everyone. Sir humphrey was depressingly right, and we must soldier on. Bae systems still doing awfully well at home and abroad, live long and prosper.
@lovetippi3 жыл бұрын
there was a time when acting and writing had magic and depth and actors were wonderfully charming