6 ms·

From across the pond... Yes Minister and the follow up series Yes Prime Minister are the most rewtchable TV shows I've ever seen. When it was originally on air,

From across the pond... Yes Minister and the follow up series Yes Prime Minister are the most rewtchable TV shows I've ever seen. When it was originally on air, it's said that the prime minister at the time, Margaret Thatcher, loved it. And it's still absolutely relevant and witty today.

JimTheMan 5y ago
I second that. The Yes Minister series is brilliant.
throw0101a 5y ago
> When it was originally on air, it's said that the prime minister at the time, Margaret Thatcher, loved it. And it's still absolutely relevant and witty today. Thatcher loved because it suited her ideology: > Adam Curtis, in his three-part TV documentary The Trap, criticised the series as "ideological propaganda for a political movement",[16] and claimed that Yes Minister is indicative of a larger movement of criticism of government and bureaucracy, centred upon public choice economics. Jay himself supported this: >> The fallacy that public choice economics took on was the fallacy that government is working entirely for the benefit of the citizen; and this was reflected by showing that in any [episode] in the programme, in Yes Minister, we showed that almost everything that the government has to decide is a conflict between two lots of private interest – that of the politicians and that of the civil servants trying to advance their own careers and improve their own lives. And that's why public choice economics, which explains why all this was going on, was at the root of almost every episode of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister.[17] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister#Politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister#Politics > There is a division of opinions by political scientists. Some of them cite the series for their accurate and sophisticated portrayal of the relationships between civil servants and politicians,[40] and are quoted in some textbooks on British politics.[6] However, other political scientists considered it a reflection of the public choice model, which encouraged a "conservative agenda of balanced budgets and reduced government spending".[41] The Washington Post considered its "ideas were at the center of the Thatcher and Ronald Reagan administrations in Britain and the United States, which favored cutting government and shifting its functions to the private sector".[42] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister#Reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister#Reception
- nyokodo 5y ago
  > Thatcher loved because it suited her ideology She liked it because she could laugh at herself. It might have given a voice to her ideology sometimes, and rightly so because it was prominent at the time, but none of the characters giving voice to anything are sympathetic. They’re portrayed as tragically ridiculous players vying for power and positive public image who’ll drop their “principles” at the drop of a hat if it suits them. If pundits are worried about this or that argument given by a character on the show they’re just revealing their own insecurities about their political opinions.
  - nsajko 5y ago
    You're entirely missing what the parent is talking about. Your point that "none of the characters giving voice to anything are sympathetic" is irrelevant. On the other hand: > They’re portrayed as tragically ridiculous players vying for power and positive public image who’ll drop their “principles” at the drop of a hat if it suits them This is exactly what the parent pointed out. To make this even more clear, I made excerpts from the quote by Jay (creator of Yes Minister): > this was reflected by showing that in any [episode] in the programme, in Yes Minister, we showed that almost everything that the government has to decide is a conflict between two lots of private interest [...] > And that's why public choice economics, which explains why all this was going on, was at the root of almost every episode of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister. So both series ("almost every episode") were clearly conceived and executed as propaganda, whether you like it or not.
    - Veen 5y ago
      Do you consider Armando Ianucci’s shows to be following the same ideological agenda as Thatcher too. He ridicules politicians just as much, but I think he’d find the comparison surprising.
      - nsajko 5y ago
        You seem to have misunderstood me: I'm not talking about any specific politician or ideology, I'm talking purely about the quote by the creator of the two shows.
nyokodo 5y ago
> Yes Minister and the follow up series Yes Prime Minister are the most rewtchable TV shows I've ever seen. It had a brilliant and ideologically diverse writing team meaning no side was singled out. The principal actors were comedy geniuses. Plus, the writers eventually revealed they had political insiders feeding them material [1]. Apparently similar things to the Arab embassy security room bar scene actually happened! [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister

JimTheMan 5y ago

I second that. The Yes Minister series is brilliant.

throw0101a 5y ago

> When it was originally on air, it's said that the prime minister at the time, Margaret Thatcher, loved it. And it's still absolutely relevant and witty today. Thatcher loved because it suited her ideology: > Adam Curtis, in his three-part TV documentary The Trap, criticised the series as "ideological propaganda for a political movement",[16] and claimed that Yes Minister is indicative of a larger movement of criticism of government and bureaucracy, centred upon public choice economics. Jay himself supported this: >> The fallacy that public choice economics took on was the fallacy that government is working entirely for the benefit of the citizen; and this was reflected by showing that in any [episode] in the programme, in Yes Minister, we showed that almost everything that the government has to decide is a conflict between two lots of private interest – that of the politicians and that of the civil servants trying to advance their own careers and improve their own lives. And that's why public choice economics, which explains why all this was going on, was at the root of almost every episode of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister.[17] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister#Politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister#Politics > There is a division of opinions by political scientists. Some of them cite the series for their accurate and sophisticated portrayal of the relationships between civil servants and politicians,[40] and are quoted in some textbooks on British politics.[6] However, other political scientists considered it a reflection of the public choice model, which encouraged a "conservative agenda of balanced budgets and reduced government spending".[41] The Washington Post considered its "ideas were at the center of the Thatcher and Ronald Reagan administrations in Britain and the United States, which favored cutting government and shifting its functions to the private sector".[42] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister#Reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister#Reception

nyokodo 5y ago
> Thatcher loved because it suited her ideology She liked it because she could laugh at herself. It might have given a voice to her ideology sometimes, and rightly so because it was prominent at the time, but none of the characters giving voice to anything are sympathetic. They’re portrayed as tragically ridiculous players vying for power and positive public image who’ll drop their “principles” at the drop of a hat if it suits them. If pundits are worried about this or that argument given by a character on the show they’re just revealing their own insecurities about their political opinions.
- nsajko 5y ago
  You're entirely missing what the parent is talking about. Your point that "none of the characters giving voice to anything are sympathetic" is irrelevant. On the other hand: > They’re portrayed as tragically ridiculous players vying for power and positive public image who’ll drop their “principles” at the drop of a hat if it suits them This is exactly what the parent pointed out. To make this even more clear, I made excerpts from the quote by Jay (creator of Yes Minister): > this was reflected by showing that in any [episode] in the programme, in Yes Minister, we showed that almost everything that the government has to decide is a conflict between two lots of private interest [...] > And that's why public choice economics, which explains why all this was going on, was at the root of almost every episode of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister. So both series ("almost every episode") were clearly conceived and executed as propaganda, whether you like it or not.
  - Veen 5y ago
    Do you consider Armando Ianucci’s shows to be following the same ideological agenda as Thatcher too. He ridicules politicians just as much, but I think he’d find the comparison surprising.
    - nsajko 5y ago
      You seem to have misunderstood me: I'm not talking about any specific politician or ideology, I'm talking purely about the quote by the creator of the two shows.

nyokodo 5y ago

> Yes Minister and the follow up series Yes Prime Minister are the most rewtchable TV shows I've ever seen. It had a brilliant and ideologically diverse writing team meaning no side was singled out. The principal actors were comedy geniuses. Plus, the writers eventually revealed they had political insiders feeding them material [1]. Apparently similar things to the Arab embassy security room bar scene actually happened! [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister