Quite possibly true I know one MP who spent years as a local councillor and while he was honest enough he hadn't a clue on the work of the Department he was political head of. When he got to Westminster he was on the defence committee and got a fair number of foreign trips but there's no reason to believe he knew anything about defence either .
@@rhysjaggar4677 What to say! My cousin is an Engineer who joined Civil Services and is posted in MHA. I don't think his engineering is being used in the department.
Absolutely true. The MPs are just the results of a popularity contest held every 4 or 5 years. After that, they spend most of the next 4 or 5 years trying to ensure that they can win the next round of popularity contest again.
Most of the problems of the world are well understood and the solutions are also known. What gets in the way of anything being done is vested interests.
What's worse is that it was written about the 1970s, when the common person was more intelligent, better educated and less mind controlled than the common person of today.
@@ALoonwolf no - the educated person of the 1970s was more intelligent better educated and less mind controlled than the educated person of today except in the understanding of technology
No joke: putting aside whether British Leyland's metric was cash or strike days, private businesses rely on cash sales and the value of those sales is counted as their contribution to GDP; government has no such metric, and thus everything they spend is counted as a contribution to GDP. Ergo, the more they spend, the greater their contribution to GDP.
@@Drchainsaw77 The deadweight-loss of taxation is Econ 101, but we have to acknowledge that _some_ public-sector works do actually contribute to GDP; road-building for instance is a contribution, whether publicly- or privately-owned, it's just that a private road-owner's income would need to exceed his cost or he'll go bankrupt, whereas a public-sector road's contribution is just assumed to be whatever was spent to build and maintain the road. It may be a net loss to GDP, but not nearly as much as spending the cash on Gender Studies professors.
@@nemo6686 Can't argue with any of that; I would just add the fact that even in the case of roads and bridges, it's by definition more wasteful and costly for the government to do it.
There is a joke about three rich men out on a walk in the countryside. One of them says to the other: I'll give you a million if you eat that cow turd over there. Loving money, the man goes and gobbles up the turd. A few minutes later they pass another turd, and now the second man turns to the first and says: I'll pay _you_ a million if you eat _that_ turd. And, liking money, of course he does, when the third man starts laughing. Asked why he is laughing, the third man explains: You both are eating shit for free, but at least the GDP has gone up by two million!
What really annoys me is current politicians trying to waffle and patronise the public - particularly that clown Johnson - as if this programme had never aired. Don't they know?
Obviously being a television show, there is a certain amount of license taken. But if the general concept is true, wouldn't the civil servants in Humphry's position realize that the money they get to pad their department beyond its true needs has to come from the tax payers? And that all this empire building in the civil service just makes the lives of their fellow citizens a little more difficult?
Ah, sweet summer child. I wish that I could still live in such a blissful state of innocence and naivete. Of course civil servants are aware that bureaucratic bloat makes the public's lives more difficult. Your mistake is assuming that they care.
@@bezretmet No, I'm not talking about a moral compass. I'm simply referring to their being able to realize that we are all human, and we're all in this together.
Ok? That’s a nice opinion you have. Why didn’t you watch Monty Python instead? Seems like your happiness would have been better served watching something you enjoy over complaining that you didn’t.
I added this clip over a decade ago for a university presentation and for years and years no one (rightfully) looked at this.... Now in the space of about a month, it's gone from ten views to at this moment 53k... what the fuck?
"Saving money irresponsibly"
The one thing at the center of everything that no one talks about.
Like not funding stockpiles of PPE equipment. Or cutting money on the CDC.
"The MP's have no training whatsoever, we have to do the job for them"
*nervous laughter*
Quite possibly true I know one MP who spent years as a local councillor and while he was honest enough he hadn't a clue on the work of the Department he was political head of. When he got to Westminster he was on the defence committee and got a fair number of foreign trips but there's no reason to believe he knew anything about defence either .
The Civil Servants have no training either: just look at incompetent Arts Graduates thinking they can develop policy on science and technology.
@@rhysjaggar4677 What to say! My cousin is an Engineer who joined Civil Services and is posted in MHA. I don't think his engineering is being used in the department.
Absolutely true. The MPs are just the results of a popularity contest held every 4 or 5 years. After that, they spend most of the next 4 or 5 years trying to ensure that they can win the next round of popularity contest again.
@randomguy8196 Most politicians are MPs.
Humphrey is the embodiment of true neutral, a man who knows all the problems with the world but believes any attempt to solve them is utterly futile.
Most of the problems of the world are well understood and the solutions are also known. What gets in the way of anything being done is vested interests.
@Ant Zee Or in other words, any attempt to solve them is utterly futile
That does not make Humphrey neutral. Futility is a philosophical stance and, like any other philosophy, is open to question, debate and challenge.
But also a man full of privilege and upholding the status quo
Activity as a substitute for achievement - not just a politician thing.
Me @ work when there's no customers and the only job left is cleaning the coffee machine... Wiping the counter until someone else does it :)
Yes, applies to any number of fwit managers in large corporations
As 48 year old American, I am wholly pleased that I discovered this gem.
"suppose everyone went around saving money irresponsibly" 😂
Bernard as the straight guy for these guys to bounce the ludicrity off is excellent.
Bernard Woolley was such a useful tool in this diamond of a program ! Bernard playing the man in the street to Sir Humphrey's civil servant.
Do sit down Bernard.
These days, UK ministers last about eleven days in office.
I like how Bernard's drink is from a bottle but Humphrey's is from the decanter....
Humphrey gets the good stuff.
useful chat, Bernard, good job it never took place 😂
As always with these clips, both painful and hilarious. Bonkers that this isn't written specifically about UK politics today.
What's worse is that it was written about the 1970s, when the common person was more intelligent, better educated and less mind controlled than the common person of today.
In many ways it's still about politics today, and not just in the UK. It's just a shame it isn't watched widely anymore
@@ALoonwolf politics doesn't really change, only the dates do.
@@ALoonwolf no - the educated person of the 1970s was more intelligent better educated and less mind controlled than the educated person of today except in the understanding of technology
@@ALoonwolf Evidence for such claims? Literacy rates? General knowledge? Level of education? Intelligence tests?
No joke: putting aside whether British Leyland's metric was cash or strike days, private businesses rely on cash sales and the value of those sales is counted as their contribution to GDP; government has no such metric, and thus everything they spend is counted as a contribution to GDP. Ergo, the more they spend, the greater their contribution to GDP.
@Ne mo This, despite the fact that everything taxed away and spent is at the expense of the GDP, it does not _add_ to it.
@@Drchainsaw77 The deadweight-loss of taxation is Econ 101, but we have to acknowledge that _some_ public-sector works do actually contribute to GDP; road-building for instance is a contribution, whether publicly- or privately-owned, it's just that a private road-owner's income would need to exceed his cost or he'll go bankrupt, whereas a public-sector road's contribution is just assumed to be whatever was spent to build and maintain the road.
It may be a net loss to GDP, but not nearly as much as spending the cash on Gender Studies professors.
@@nemo6686 Can't argue with any of that; I would just add the fact that even in the case of roads and bridges, it's by definition more wasteful and costly for the government to do it.
There is a joke about three rich men out on a walk in the countryside. One of them says to the other: I'll give you a million if you eat that cow turd over there. Loving money, the man goes and gobbles up the turd.
A few minutes later they pass another turd, and now the second man turns to the first and says: I'll pay _you_ a million if you eat _that_ turd. And, liking money, of course he does, when the third man starts laughing.
Asked why he is laughing, the third man explains: You both are eating shit for free, but at least the GDP has gone up by two million!
@@Drchainsaw77 Tell me more about how by definition British Rail became cheaper and more efficient after privatisation.
Useful chat Bernard. Good job it never took place.
Humphrey pouring himself a different drink from a different, more expensive, bottle than Bernard is a nice touch
"Saving money irresponsibily", my God the writing is so good
I am learning politics just by watching these videos
What really annoys me is current politicians trying to waffle and patronise the public - particularly that clown Johnson - as if this programme had never aired. Don't they know?
Humphrey would eat today's lot for breakfast and would still have room for elevenses. At least Jim gave him a bit of a run for his money.
Truth hidden in comedy
Indeed, Sir!
Discretion is the better half of Valor
Fantastic. Activity VS Productivity
1:21 Molly Walle, this is so true it hurts.
I'm not even talking about politicians.
British Leyland measuring its success by its losses. How true. Unfortunately there were too many losses
How true
Watching in 2021.. brutually honest...😂
The frequency of employee turnover within a year dictated the lunatic sphere of management health.
Why for God's sake, must Humphrey have his Scotch with ice?
It's so American.
Algorithm
Sir Humphrey is right though they (government) own the money the thing the concept the idea everything
It's just too close to reality
Silly hats. How objective!
One day, I'd love to meet some English & Scottish Lords & Ladies in a more official capacity .... ;-)
Obviously being a television show, there is a certain amount of license taken. But if the general concept is true, wouldn't the civil servants in Humphry's position realize that the money they get to pad their department beyond its true needs has to come from the tax payers? And that all this empire building in the civil service just makes the lives of their fellow citizens a little more difficult?
Ah, sweet summer child. I wish that I could still live in such a blissful state of innocence and naivete. Of course civil servants are aware that bureaucratic bloat makes the public's lives more difficult. Your mistake is assuming that they care.
@@kapparomeo Why wouldn't they care? They're human too.
@@spectrum7virkeytroni define human. if you define human by having a moral compass or not booooy are you out of touch
@@bezretmet No, I'm not talking about a moral compass. I'm simply referring to their being able to realize that we are all human, and we're all in this together.
@@spectrum7virkeytroni yeah sounds pretty moral vs no moral to me. they think it's every man for himself
Is Sir Humphrey wrong in his assessment?
No.
Morally? Yes.
The way of the Jews!!!
not as funny as Monty Python
No this is much more funny
Ok? That’s a nice opinion you have. Why didn’t you watch Monty Python instead? Seems like your happiness would have been better served watching something you enjoy over complaining that you didn’t.
I added this clip over a decade ago for a university presentation and for years and years no one (rightfully) looked at this.... Now in the space of about a month, it's gone from ten views to at this moment 53k... what the fuck?
Algorithms :)
Recommendations come and Recommendations go.
Also, TH-cam is on another YPM binge. Last time happened roughly 2 years ago.
Us uni students were under lockdown for nearly 6 months in the last 12 months. We went spelunking and found this.
why all these reaction video after all these years???