Hacker Wants a Smoking Ban | Yes, Prime Minister | BBC Comedy Greats
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 พ.ย. 2022
- PM Jim Hacker wants to ban smoking and his Cabinet Secretary Sir Humphrey is not happy about it.
Subscribe: bit.ly/BBCComedyGreats
WATCH MORE:
Yes, Prime Minister: bit.ly/CGYesPrimeMinister
Yes, Minister: bit.ly/CGYesMinister
Live at the Apollo: bit.ly/2L9SAuA
Only Fools and Horses: bit.ly/CGOnlyFoolsAndHorses
Like us on Facebook!: bit.ly/ComedyGreatsFacebook
Welcome to BBC Comedy Greats, home to the best comedy from the BBC! Whether you're a fan of the classics or if stand up comedy is more up your street then check out our hand picked playlists full of the funniest clips by the best performers. From Only Fools and Horses to Live at the Apollo we can guarantee plenty of awesome Comedy Greats.
This is a commercial channel from BBC Studios. Service & Feedback www.bbcstudios.com/contact/co...
#comedy #comedyvideo #yesminister #yesprimeminister - ตลก
"Cigarettes kill 100,000 people a year and what for?"
"4 billion pounds."
Hacker was such a perfect example of a good character arc. He went from a naive, reasonably patriotic MP who wanted to go into politics to do some good, and only gained his ministerial and indeed prime ministerial position due to a perceived naivety and lack of position on any subject, and then became this cynical and competent minister and especially prime minister who truly knew how to play the game and indeed played it well.
Sir Humphrey really did teach him well.
It's depressing because of accurate it is to real life.
@Henry Reed We haven't had a competent PM for ages. If we did we wouldn't have the highest inflation we've seen in decades. Competent PMs can work around Global and National Issues.
@@idleishde6124 I'm not talking about competent leaders.
I'm talking about one's who's apathetic to people in general.
Economic Inflation can be rectified....The African and asian population inflation in Britain will be tough to solve...
@@THINKincessantly what's that supposed to mean? The African and Asian population inflation.
“They’re government stati-……they’re facts.”
I love when he catches himself right before shooting himself in the foot.
When a fictional PM is more competent and has better intentions than the latest string of real ones
and a hundred times smarter
Actors are well trained and good at their jobs, unlike…..
But they HAVE banned advertising and raised tobacco taxes sky high.
@@tombarter3287
Yes, but according to the plans as described in this episode. They could never ban smoking outright because of the financial hole it would leave so the plan was always to do it incrementally. So they banned advertising and then brought in the health warnings on the packaging years later, then screens over the products in shops etc. This episode is over thirty years ago and we're still decades away from eliminating tobacco use entirely.
I would say it is very difficult to evaluate the last few PMs' character just from their public decisions.
The title is misleading: Hacker _doesn't_ want a smoking ban in this episode, he just uses his apparent support of the proposal to manipulate the Treasury. Hence the title, _The Smokescreen_
The repartee, sorry I do need your pardon for one can only call it sparkling wit outside France, on display from the episode titles downwards was just off the richter.
By this time Hacker is wise to their games
"I foresee all sorts of unforeseen problems"
"If I could foresee them then they wouldn't be unforeseen"
For anyone outside the UK, smoking is banned indoors in public places, cigarette advertising is banned, including at point of sale, and the taxes on cigarettes are sky high
Yes but when this sketch was aired none of what you’ve explained was active… the pro tobacco lobbying was still going strong. A few public spaces such as trains & stations had a ban and advertising was prohibited by then but it was no where near demonised as it is now, full smoking ban was 2007.
@@jamesdelatour2266 Yes. I was a lad in the 70s and 80s. How times have changed. I always hated smoking, but I am pleasantly surprised how the majority of people now don't want it in their public spaces. It is definitely for the better - mainly because of the harm 2nd hand smoke can do to innocents.
What? Its banned indoors in the UK too and has been for years.....
@@jamesdelatour2266 Yes? No....its been banned indoors in the UK for many years...
@@dontbewoke full smoking ban was 2007… decades after this show aired.
Bernard's one liners are always brilliant, "your wish is my cooperation" 😂
Derek's delivery and timing reminds me of DHP's Niles in Frasier. A sidekick who ties the whole show together, without them it wouldn't have been so great shows by far.
I love the Soviet Spy jab, considering how Humprhey would feel about such accusations...
I took it to mean Humphrey *did* think Hacker was a spy, implying the Civil Service was fine with a compromised PM as long as they thought they could still run circles around him
The PM would be a terrible spy, since no one tells them anything.
Yup. Humphrey had cleared people who were Soviet spies because they were all “one of us”.
Love how Hacker gradually learns to play with Humphrey like Humphrey plays with him.
If you ignore ethical side of things, Sir Humphrey makes quite a compelling argument backed by facts and statistics.
That is something I both love and am terrified by about his character - he is very cynical, but he is usually correct. Obviously he has his own agenda, but when it comes to the human nature and the nature of governing, he has seen it all and he knows how people think and act. And his verdict is rarely approving, but also rarely wrong.
My sentiments exactly. You can’t really fault his argument that all those people dying prematurely are saving the treasury considerable sums of money in pensions and social care whilst boosting the coffers in tobacco taxes!
remember , his are facts, the PM has statistics
Provided of course those statistics are true (which they are no doubt in-series
I am a huge fan of 'Yes (prime) Minister' series and i know this is a comedy :) - so keep that in mind reading this below:
I am not quite sure that they are THAT compelling. I mean people don't live forever just because they don't smoke. Which means not every one of the 110k deaths would go away which makes the 'pensioner' problem somewhat smaller. (household, car accidents, other illnesses...)
also it has been proven that smoking has multiple ways to cause cost to the NHS. Which were not considered in the direct costs. various children sicknesses living with smoking parents or in fact the measurably lower / slower brain development in the womb of a smoking mother.
And then the secondary implication which this statistics simply does not factor in:
people who die from smoking related issues, are tend to do it on a different timeline. But rarely on the first day of their pension. Dying earlier removes all the taxes, consumption, innovation.. etc : economic activities of the person dying. I mean a dead person wont ever go to a restaurant again, won't buy a ticket to a sporting event and of course rarely would by milk to make sure the skeleton gets enough calcium.
And of course while they are on NHS services (when they not about to die) they are not actively producing anything for the economy, which is a net loss already. (sickleave and such)
this is such a complex system that 'pension vs direct-nhs cost' is anything but factual.
besides as we can see many countries went through banning smoking in public events / pubs / restaurants etc. and none of those countries collapsed.. or at least not because of that... khm... lettuce.
so in fact Sir Humphrey's argument is exactly what a tobacco company would want to push, but if you start adding the numbers together on all around the problem, it gets less and less compelling.
Simplifying the topic down to two factors and thus only two numbers, is something a 6 years old would do. the actual mathematics around the topic is incredibly more complex.
However it is far more easier (this way) to deliver it in comedy :)
I truly feel that Sir Humphrey's catchcry should be "if you can't blind them with brilliance,baffle them with bullshit!" British comedy is simply the BEST!!
Aussie Kim
*was the best
"Statistics! You can prove anything with statistics."
"Even the truth."
"Ye- No!"
In the State of Victoria, Australia the then Premier (John Cain) imposed a tax on tobacco with the funds going to the 'Quit' campaign. The more people smoked the more funds the campaign had to assist those who smoked to stop.
Fascinating! Is that scheme still going?
@@a1990hussain Not sure if that specific scheme is going, but I can say that there's certainly no televised cigarette advertisements during e.g. sporting events (I'm not sure if this extends to logos on sports uniforms or only televised ads though and I can't recall the last time I actually saw a non-televised cigarette ad that was not a 'quit smoking' ad.
The writing and acting are solid gold. Nothing, not even Only Fools and Horses or Fawlty Towers come close to this intellectual masterpiece. Although perhaps if Jim Hacker had encountered a blow-up sex doll or Sir Humphrey had clobbered Bernard over the head with a tea tray, YM and YPM would've won many more awards.
Different styles of comedy. Essentially physical comedy versus cerebral/verbal comedy. Monty Python, Fawlty Towers, Black Adder, The Young Ones, Dad's Army all had very strong elements of physical comedy. Yes Minister/Prime Minister had almost no physical comedy .. apart from one episode when Sir Humphrey was deliberately locked out of the PM's office and had tried to sneak in through the window, which was probably one of the funniest moments of the entire series 😂
Different types of comedy. But obviously anyone who thinks this is better than only fools. Then that program is way above your head. And I enjoy both. Only fools is way out in front.
You're not even comparing apples with oranges , more like apples with ice cream. This is satire , OFAH was a sitcom. This was written for the middle classes , OFAH for the working classes. Totally different and both brilliant.
In 2001, Phillip Morris published a study in Czech Rep in which they tried to prove that smokers' early mortality and cigarette-tax revenue outweighed the costs of health-care and lost tax revenue from early death. Almost like they quoted from this show.
A study done by KPMG, if my memory is correct.
Absolute world class scenario and acting. And still valid in 2022. Masterful series!
Truly elite level comedy!
The writers were brilliant, the execution by the actors first class.
Rather a pity that the BBC does not produce programmes like this anymore.
They don't have the spine or the writers
It's hard to find writing this sharp and actors who can embody their roles so completely. Every intonation and pause so finely executed for maximum comedic effect.
@@nicholashylton6857 👍
You're right, but in the 2000's we got Armando Iannucci. His writing in The Thick Of it, and in the spin-off movie In The Loop, stands up extremely well against Jay and Lynn. Malcolm Tucker (Peter Capaldi) simply chews the scenery as the psychopathic Scottish spin doctor from No. 10. Veep is also surprisingly good for an American remake.
Nowadays the world is all about puerile and classless humour.
"to discourage anti-smoking" that line sounds like the way some referenda are worded, to confuse voters. "Are you in favor of disallowing the reversal of a non-...." etc etc until you don't half know what you are voting for, or against.
Well put 😁
It's "to discourage anti-smoking _speeches_ by ministers". That seems perfectly clear.
A lot of this brilliant series is still just so applicable in 2022 and probably beyond.
Yes, well we will never get truly great comedy like this again. And a lot of the reasons for that is because the way society is in 2022.
Wonderful hilarious satire. Outstanding 🤣🤣🤣
Thank you for your cigarette paper.
How ironic that proposals made by a fictitious Prime Minister in a comedy show have all come to pass. Smoking has now become an anti social habit. People now actually apologize for being a smoker, especially if they need to go away and have a "drag".
I smoked for nearly 15 years. And boy am I glad I stopped. Cigarette smoke stinks. Your clothes smell sour all the time and so does your hair not to mention it’s expensive as hell. But I do admit smoking is one of the few really nice things in life as well. A nice summer day. A good glass of beer and a cigarette in your mouth. I miss it
I had no idea smoking is an act of patriotism.
When the last thirty plus years of adminitrations competency is taken into account from what they were commissioned to do and what they actually did, the only consistant competent staff at Downing Street has evidently been the Chief Mouser...
Brilliant series, well written..
Fantastic piece of Comedy 😂😂
6:25 "- I had drinks at the Soviet embassy. That doesn't make me a Russian spy.
- ....Well, ... oh! Not?" 😂
Whast that a refference to allegations about prime minister Harold Wilson?
Humphrey has more respect for the Pm than when he was a minister. Backs down and changes quickly.
Power. The PM has power to make changes. A minister needs to beg to influence changes.
PM can fire the cabinet secretary, the minister can't do the same to his undersecretary.
@@qichen85 can they actually fire them?
@@kb4903 Yes. While it is not exact the cabinet secretary, just last year (2023), the UK PM Rishi Sunak fired the home secretary Suella Braverman.
Mind you, the actual situation is actually quite complicated. Generally, PM and Minister tread careful when it comes to firing undersecretaries and department secretaries because political offices and civil service are two separate tracks.
While the political office (PM, ministers) technically has higher authority, the civil servants are the ones that actually runs most of the operation and the PM firing the home secretary will be viewed as an outsider attacking one of their own.
This is just not the fight you'd like to see.
On the other hand, it is also understood that if the secretary steps out of the line (like being caught red-handed plotting against the minister), then the political office will have the justification to do the sacking. It is a matter of balance.
Look, if this sounded complicated, just think about this way: an navy officer of higher rank can't exactly just punish a junior office from the army, because that just invites inter-service rivalry. On the other hand, if the junior officer is caught with blatant disrespect to the senior officer, then they will got a justification that can ignore their different track.
@@kb4903 Of course, there is also the matter that the relative strength of political office and civil service changes all the time. Yes PM series is made in a time where the civil service was relatively powerful.
2:16 I love that part. I'm sure so many politicians consider human lives purely from the tax revenue and government expenses perspective. And of course, donations. One alway has to keep donations in mind.
I think programs such as this helped a lot to reduce smoking and other drug abuse. The impact must have been quite great, given the reach and audience of the program.
Fantastic scenario and play.
5:29 Somebody should write this in the comment 😂
'Is something a blur against freedom , simply because it can damage your wealth ? ' - Jim Hacker
Does anyone else break out a broad grin at sir Humphrey's verbosity?
Absolutely. It is one of the things to look forward to in each episode.
There is joy in watching a master at work. Most people use language to bludgeon an opponent into submission while Sir Humphrey uses language with skill and eloquence, a master artist in a room of finger painters.
1:14 its funny because we did this, and more, and still haven't eliminated smoking
It's massively reduced, and you have to take inflation into account.
It's massively reduced, and you have to take inflation into account for the real price hike.
Thank you for your rizzla 😂...(cigarette paper)
Humphreys role can be summen up as the person whos job is to «defend the indefencable» in a rational way
The real Prime Minister, when this was shown on television, said that this was the instructions for how to do her job. Mrs. Thatcher liked both Yes Minister, and Yes Prime Minister, as she said that it was teaching her how to get her work done, around all of the obstacles that the staff were putting in her way.
1:10. Just imagine if they really enacted a total ban on cigarette advertising, even at the point of sale, and made them hugely expensive to buy..........oh.......hang on.....they did it.
I don’t know how people afford to smoke buying cigarettes in the UK. Everyone I know, myself included, goes out of there way to buy duty free cigarettes to avoid paying £12 a pack.
@@jamesdelatour2266 One of the many reasons I'm glad I never picked up the habit....
I'd say a good 25% of fag packets I see nowadays are clearly illegal imports with colourful packaging and/or foreign health warnings.
Smoking should be legal, but only if you grow your own tobacco and hand-craft the papers. Really, I'm kind of torn. Smoking is bad, but anti-smoking campaigns are really obnoxious. Busybodies are obnoxious. I guess just don't smoke.
The difference between smoking and, say, alcohol or drugs is that the latter only harms you, whereas the former kills everyone around you. If you want to jump of a Goulding go ahead, but if you want to pull me of with you then we have a problem.
How about outlawing people born from a certain year from smoking?
NZ Government need to watch this
Funny how when countries do just as described, eg Australia where advertising is banned everywhere including the POS and the price is now high, smoking has dropped to 14%. Seems to work
No sane mind would support. .. ...
I support it 🤣
Then why are nicotine replacement therapies so goddamn expensive??It's actually cheaper to continue to smoke!!
5:28. He’s getting started.
ohhhhhhhh i miss it
Having tea at the russian embassy makes you complicit
My continuation to the final line:
And if you forsee unforseen consequences then they wouldn't be unforseen.
Good job it's now a reality. Sky high price, smoking bans in public, which has helped me quit the habit.
"Is every Tax rise a blow aginst freedom"
"That would depend on how big the tax rise is."
Regardless of the rest of his points. He definitely is right about this one. I dont like smoking and I never will touch a smoke in my life, but people should be able to make their own choices. If someone raises the cost of smokeing to $100 a pack. While it is true they aren't banning smoking outright. They are making it damn unaffordable for the vast majority of people.
Agreed - a targeted tax rise is literally adding a tax upon a possible choice someone can make, making that a choice a more costly one to make and actively discouraging making it as a result. It doesn't eliminate freedom, but it certainly attacks and diminishes it. I don't mind any tax that is targeted at recovering a government cost, but when the intent is explicitly to discourage a choice then there is no other way to see it than a deliberate attempt to constrain freedom.
@@j.a.b.nijenhuis8124 Protecting people from themselves is a very big heading, and the springboard for most villainous motivations for any story where control is the goal of the villain. I've never been particularly convinced on the merits of positive liberty, though like everything it exists on a spectrum.
But, despite things like parenthood, love, hunger, exhaustion, pain, fear, deadlines, etc, all being factors that constrain our ability to make fully autonomous choices, we would hardly thank the government for taxing them in an effort to somehow make our decision-making more free. The factor constraining our ability to make choices honestly doesn't change at all, and now the government is profiteering from it at the same time as adding further, entirely artificial and external, constraints. No liberty is restored, just further removed by something fully imposed from beyond ourselves.
I agree in principle there is a line where the government has good cause to protect its people from harm, and that line is incredibly difficult to draw cleanly. Most laws that exist to protect people from harm by other people are standing in the correct spot, but harm from themselves? Most of them, while well intentioned, fall outside that line and stray too far into the realm of oppression, imo, which is exactly the thing we formed governments to seek protection from. There is a good argument to be made about children, and about making sure people are well informed of the risks associated with their possible choices, but after that I'm very much in favour of letting people poison themselves however the heck they like. It's not like we are all born immortal if only we didn't ruin it for ourselves.
What did the PM say at 6:05? Couldn’t catch that 😂
Perhaps I could have a precis (summary) of that.
One of the writers also wrote the film my cousin vinnie just as a FYI.
You know that whoever runs this account is old cause they didn't take out the high pitched mosquito noise in the background 😅😅
Naturally Humphrey and his real world analogues found a way to raise massive taxes on smoking (and drinking) without banning them at all whilst projecting an image of banning them all but entirely.
Why is this convincing me that tobacco regulation should be lifted in order to increase government revenue thereafter public services.
Especially the dying early part god knows were are going to have a problem with a old population pyramid in the future therefore a much high pensioner per productive worker ratio.
2007.this happened
5:46
“A commercial drug kills half a dozen people and we get it withdrawn.”
Those were the days !
This just happened again
Anti smoking legislation would never work...
2:47 Not these days, evidently.
As the prime minster says , eetend to agree. The rationing o especially foods towrd right weight's fr heights. The war ends.
I'm guessing Sir Humphrey turns out to have stock in a tobacco company or something?
Back when comedy required a 🧠. Now it just requires beer.
Lol
🇬🇧Howdy !
My British Brothers should have a British Comedy appreciation month or two and re-air classics such as these to raise awareness of what you guys are losing culturally and quickly...
Culturally and quickly, what are you talking about.
I smoke, and I see the oppression of my brothers and sisters in cigarettes be levelling up every two weeks...but yes we try to be better this actually is doing
they did it in australia a packet of 25 cost $53 dollars
Shame that they did that
@@robinhoodsherwood2646 Agreed. Should be higher.
Lives don't matter profit does. This is how it is.
And right here we have the answer as to why we need pandemics and lockdowns. Wonder if we had never banned smoking to the extent we have? Also fits right in with the overwhelming the NHS now the tax revenue has reduced so that the insurance based American model can be imposed. Aren't politicians wonderfully creative folks!!
I remember these tobacco arguments back in the 1980's. Everyone said that the govt wouldn't discourage smoking because of the tax receipts. It was a dirty secret. Credit to Labour for having the bottle to ban smoking in public places.
To be fair, Ireland did it first, and the sky didn't fall...
Evergreen
MARGARET AND MICHAEL JAMES YOUNG TAKE YOUR MEDICATION. OK.
They'll be talking about banning petrol and diesel next.
They should be banning you from having children
That ships already sailed mate🤣🤣
Is Thalidomide the killing commercial drug he is talking about?
Just goes to show the civil service isn’t working in the national interest and needs to be destroyed
its not real, its a comedy programme
This is exactly what happened in Australia. Sky high taxes for tobacco and liquor, ban all advertising.
The writing and logic is far below the level of Yes, Minister.
Explain?