Fuck Yeah Minister

James Hacker: Speaking with my parliamentary hat on, I don't think it would be a very good idea; on the other hand, with my Cabinet hat on, I think perhaps it would be a good idea. But there again, with my Party hat on, I can see there could be arguments on both sides.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: I see, and which hat are you talking through at the moment?

Bring back our TV show Sir Humphrey? Yes, Prime Minister!

Sarah Chalmers/1 June 2012

When the burning political issues of the day include whether or not to heat a pasty, it is easy to see why some people think modern Britain resembles an episode of Yes, Prime Minister.

What better time, then, to revive the Bafta-winning TV show of the Eighties.

Ministers do not believe they exist unless they are reading about themselves in the newspapers.

“

—	Jonathan Lynn, Antony Jay

[Hacker has just learned about a brand new hospital with a staff of 500 administrators, but no doctors, nurses or patients from his driver]

Jim Hacker: Humphrey I’m appauled!

Sir Humphrey: So am I, minister!

Jim Hacker: The incompetence of it all. The stupidity!

Sir Humphrey: I agree. I can’t think what came over you!

Sir Humphrey: Minister. I have come to the conclusion that you were right.
JimHacker: Are you being serious, Humphrey?
Sir Humphrey: Yes indeed, Minister. I am fully-seized of your ideas and have taken them on board and I am now positively against discrimination against women and positively in favour of positive discrimination in their favour - discriminating discrimination of course.

Jim Hacker: "Math has become politicized: If it costs 5 billion pounds a year to maintain Britain's nuclear defences and 75 pounds a year to feed a starving African child, how many African children can be saved from starvation if the Ministry of Defence abandoned nuclear weapons?"

Sir Humphrey: "That's easy: none. They'd spend it all on conventional weapons."

I turned to the matter of Israel. I pointed out that both sides were to blame, that the Middle East situation is a tragedy created by history, and that morally speaking we shouldn’t condemn either without condemning both.
Humphrey didn’t agree, which was no great surprise. ‘Surely’, he argued, ‘it’s a question of maintaining our relationship with the Arabs. The power of Islam. oil supplies.’
I tried to get him to understand. ‘Humphrey, I am talking about right and wrong!’
He was shocked. ‘Well, don’t let the Foreign Office hear you,’ he advised me with sudden vehemence.
I felt that I ad to give him a basic history lesson. I reminded him that we in Britain are the flagbearers of democracy. We keep the torch of freedom alive. Our great duty, nay, our destiny, is to resist aggressors and oppressors and maintain the rule of law and the supremacy of justice. We are the trustees of civilisation. [This was, presumably, the Churchillian outburst which Sir Humphrey Appleby had feared - Ed.]
Humphrey agreed. Well, he had to! And he proposed a compromise: if I insist on an even-handed approach, the Foreign Office might agree to abstaining on the Israel vote, so long as we authorise a powerful speech by our man at the UN attacking Zionism.
I wasn’t sure this was such a great idea either. ‘Surely we should use the debate to create peace, harmony and goodwill.’
‘That would be most unusual’,replied Humphrey, eyebrows raised. ‘The UN is the accepted forum for the expression of international hatred.’