Menu
Ireland's political and cultural magazine
July 2021 61
say its perspective is unwarranted?
Perhaps reflecting discomfiture at allegations
of cynicism over democracy, Armando Iannucci
who wrote much of the series (tellingly, unlike Yes
Minister, much of it is also improvised) he went
on to better the cynicism in the movie, The Death
of Stalin, where everyone is evil not just awful.
The tone of the two series reveals the trajectory
of public discourse.
Sir Humphrey is urbane, proud of the excellent
classical education he has received. He discreetly
mocks his minister for only having attended the
LSE.
Malcolm yells: “Feet o the furniture you
Oxbridge twat, you’re no (sic) in a punt now”. to
show the contempt for the values of the previous
generations.
The UK certainly now lives in the testosterone-
fuelled, profanity-laden hyper-aggressive
mendacity of The Thick of It. The toxic working
environments created by Gordon Brown’s
outbursts of temper, Priti Pattel’s bullying and
Dominic Cummings’ “Career Psychopathy” are
perfectly captured in this Season 3 exchange:
Robyn:Right, um, Jamie. Look, I just have to say
at this point that I do find him just a little bit
frightening.
Malcolm:Relax, he has never hit anyone. Or at
least, anyone he has hit has never had the balls
to take it to a superior.
In retrospect, the convoluted word play, the
classical references, the smooth, if hypocritical,
manners on show in Yes Minister are innocent.
Nobody in Yes Minister contemplated hitting
anyone.
Since these two great series, all political
drama, perhaps all drama, must choose which is
its model.
Countries too.
displays in this gentle exchange with Bernard
Wooley:
Sir Humphrey: . . . Bernard - what do you want?
Bernard: I want to have a clear conscience.
Sir Humphrey: A clear conscience?
Bernard: Yes!
Sir Humphrey: When did you acquire this taste for
luxuries?
It is merely a pose struck for eect to contrast
against the Minister’s feeble but sincere idealism.
For all their disagreements, each is motivated by
a genuine view of what is in the public interest.
By contrast, without exception, characters in
The Thick of It merely want to be seen to be doing
something.
In the 25 years between the series the
relationship between spin and policy has been
inverted so that policies have become the vehicle
for media manipulation.
One of the keys to The Thick of It is that no
character of any sort manifests sustained (or
perhaps any) decency, imagination or any
aspiration to public service or pursuit of the
common good. Everyone is venal, craven and
incompetent. And there is no sincerity, profundity
or gentleness from anyone. It is the ultimate
subversive and cynical perspective. Yet who can
I
n her 2016 Emmy acceptance speech, Julia
Louis-Dreyfus commented that: “Our show
started out as a political satire, but it now
feels more like a sobering documentary...”.
Political comedy has become more
dicult in recent years as the antics of the Donald
Trump and Boris Johnson administrations have
blunted the most eective weapon available to
satirists – exaggeration.
The enthusiasm with which both leaders
descended into farce challenged the imagination
of even the most vicious writer. However, the
clownishness was presaged in tv political
comedies long before reality caught up.
Two televisions shows in particular, spotlight
the change in British political culture over the
decades that led us to this point. Both BBC
comedies follow elected ministers, the Right Hon.
Jim Hacker, M.P. in the first, and, the Secretaries
of State for the Department of Social Aairs and
Citizenship (initially Hugh Abbot and later Nicola
Murray) in the other, in their tussles with ocials
who are ostensibly there to assist them.
Both Yes Minister and The Thick of It reveal the
puppeteers who control the giant egos that are
their ministers of the crown. The main foil for Jim
Hacker is the Department of Administrative
Affairs Permanent Secretary, Sir Humphrey
Appleby and for the successive hapless ministers
in The Thick of It is Malcolm Tucker, brutish
Director of Communications in Downing Street.
It all demonstrates the sidelining of ocials
and the rise of political appointees. When Yes
Minister first aired in 1980, it was entirely
inconceivable that Sir Humphrey would let a mere
political advisor influence, let alone dictate, how
his department was run. Those advisors who
fleetingly appear in Yes Minister are discreetly
shafted by the civil service. By contrast, the
Permanent Secretary of DOSAC, or any other
senior civil servant of any other department,
never feature in The Thick of It..
During the Blair years, Alastair Campbell, on
whom Tucker – one of the greatest ever television
characters – is based, was acknowledged to
wield power and influence over government
departments, but at least this was exercised with
discretion. While he was working at Number 10,
Dominic Cummings revelled in the public display
of his power over civil servants and ministers.
Discretion never bothered Cummings.
The second feature that we can see from just
outlining the premise of each show is the moral
bankruptcy of contemporary politics. Typical is
the apparent weary but droll cynicism Hacker
The tone of the two brilliant
series reveals the trajectory
of public discourse.
Yes,
Minister
By J Vivian Cooke
In The Thick of it
MEDIA
62 July 2021
C
M
Y
CM
MY
CY
CMY
K
2014-04-03-Village-Ad-HighRes.ai 1 03/04/2014 20:32
