Nothing ever really changes in politics.
Forty years on from our hit show Yes Minister, it's clear that the old adage "politics is for losers" remains as relevant today as it was back then. Our original series was praised for its prescience, but the reason it continues to resonate with audiences four decades later is that the underlying dynamics of power and politics have remained unchanged.
Writing the sequel Yes, Prime Minister in 1986, I embarked on a fascinating exercise: tracing the evolution of British politics through old news stories from 1956. The findings were stark - nothing had changed much since then. The same scandals, the same corruption, the same abuse of power.
Take last month's controversy surrounding education secretary Bridget Phillipson. Her promise to protect freedom of speech and academics was met with skepticism by many, including three Nobel laureates who accused her of dereliction of duty. In a shocking twist, insiders revealed that some officials in the department were actively obstructing efforts to implement the proposed legislation - an all too familiar scenario from our own Yes Minister days.
In reality, politicians are often driven by more than altruistic motives. When they climb the greasy pole of power, they may find themselves supporting policies they no longer truly believe in, simply because it's expedient to do so. This is a grim reminder that politics can be a dirty game, with winning and losing serving as the ultimate motivators.
As we once observed in our show, politicians are often caught between their genuine ideals and the unglamorous realities of power. It's a tough balancing act, one that requires sacrifice and compromise - but not necessarily principle or conviction.
The latest revival of our classic series, I'm Sorry, Prime Minister, continues this tradition of satire and social commentary. By poking fun at the absurdities of politics, we hope to remind audiences that there's still much to be learned from our attempts to improve society for all. But make no mistake: at its core, our show is about the insidious power games played out behind closed doors, where politics meets backroom deals and cynical self-interest.
Forty years on, Yes Minister remains as relevant as ever - a scathing critique of the machinations that shape our democracy from within.
Forty years on from our hit show Yes Minister, it's clear that the old adage "politics is for losers" remains as relevant today as it was back then. Our original series was praised for its prescience, but the reason it continues to resonate with audiences four decades later is that the underlying dynamics of power and politics have remained unchanged.
Writing the sequel Yes, Prime Minister in 1986, I embarked on a fascinating exercise: tracing the evolution of British politics through old news stories from 1956. The findings were stark - nothing had changed much since then. The same scandals, the same corruption, the same abuse of power.
Take last month's controversy surrounding education secretary Bridget Phillipson. Her promise to protect freedom of speech and academics was met with skepticism by many, including three Nobel laureates who accused her of dereliction of duty. In a shocking twist, insiders revealed that some officials in the department were actively obstructing efforts to implement the proposed legislation - an all too familiar scenario from our own Yes Minister days.
In reality, politicians are often driven by more than altruistic motives. When they climb the greasy pole of power, they may find themselves supporting policies they no longer truly believe in, simply because it's expedient to do so. This is a grim reminder that politics can be a dirty game, with winning and losing serving as the ultimate motivators.
As we once observed in our show, politicians are often caught between their genuine ideals and the unglamorous realities of power. It's a tough balancing act, one that requires sacrifice and compromise - but not necessarily principle or conviction.
The latest revival of our classic series, I'm Sorry, Prime Minister, continues this tradition of satire and social commentary. By poking fun at the absurdities of politics, we hope to remind audiences that there's still much to be learned from our attempts to improve society for all. But make no mistake: at its core, our show is about the insidious power games played out behind closed doors, where politics meets backroom deals and cynical self-interest.
Forty years on, Yes Minister remains as relevant as ever - a scathing critique of the machinations that shape our democracy from within.
, and it's all about who can get ahead, even if it means sacrificing their principles or values in the process. It's crazy how some politicians will just go along with whatever is popular or easy to implement, even if they don't really believe in it anymore 
.
.
. It's just human nature to want power and control, even if it means bending or breaking the rules a little (or a lot). But what really gets me is when politicians start making promises they can't keep, just to get elected 
.
. And I'm glad they're still making people laugh and think about the state of our democracy 
.
u no what im sayin? politics r 4Ever gonna b about who's got da power & who's not 
. i mean, look @ bridget phillipson & her edu sec spot 
. ppl r still skeptical 'bout her promis 2 protect free speech & all dat jazz 
. an d then u got da insiders goin behind-the-scenes, blockin efforts 2 implement new laws 
. its like, whats changed 4eva? 
. it jus shows how politics r still all bout da game 
rather dan what's rite or wrong 
Still can't believe how little has changed in politics over the past 40 yrs 
. The whole thing just feels like a big dirty game where people are only out for themselves and don't really care about what's best for everyone 
... meanwhile, insiders are like "obstructing efforts" 
. We need some real change, not just more of the same old cynical backroom deals 
But honestly, it's kinda depressing 
. Can't we just get leaders who are genuinely passionate about making a difference? 
And those Nobel laureates were all over her like a bad rash... guess they weren't impressed with her empty words