Thatcher loved because it suited her ideology:
> Adam Curtis, in his three-part TV documentary The Trap, criticised the series as "ideological propaganda for a political movement",[16] and claimed that Yes Minister is indicative of a larger movement of criticism of government and bureaucracy, centred upon public choice economics. Jay himself supported this:
>> The fallacy that public choice economics took on was the fallacy that government is working entirely for the benefit of the citizen; and this was reflected by showing that in any [episode] in the programme, in Yes Minister, we showed that almost everything that the government has to decide is a conflict between two lots of private interest – that of the politicians and that of the civil servants trying to advance their own careers and improve their own lives. And that's why public choice economics, which explains why all this was going on, was at the root of almost every episode of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister.[17]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister#Politics
> There is a division of opinions by political scientists. Some of them cite the series for their accurate and sophisticated portrayal of the relationships between civil servants and politicians,[40] and are quoted in some textbooks on British politics.[6] However, other political scientists considered it a reflection of the public choice model, which encouraged a "conservative agenda of balanced budgets and reduced government spending".[41] The Washington Post considered its "ideas were at the center of the Thatcher and Ronald Reagan administrations in Britain and the United States, which favored cutting government and shifting its functions to the private sector".[42]
She liked it because she could laugh at herself. It might have given a voice to her ideology sometimes, and rightly so because it was prominent at the time, but none of the characters giving voice to anything are sympathetic. They’re portrayed as tragically ridiculous players vying for power and positive public image who’ll drop their “principles” at the drop of a hat if it suits them. If pundits are worried about this or that argument given by a character on the show they’re just revealing their own insecurities about their political opinions.
> They’re portrayed as tragically ridiculous players vying for power and positive public image who’ll drop their “principles” at the drop of a hat if it suits them
This is exactly what the parent pointed out.
To make this even more clear, I made excerpts from the quote by Jay (creator of Yes Minister):
> this was reflected by showing that in any [episode] in the programme, in Yes Minister, we showed that almost everything that the government has to decide is a conflict between two lots of private interest [...]
> And that's why public choice economics, which explains why all this was going on, was at the root of almost every episode of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister.
So both series ("almost every episode") were clearly conceived and executed as propaganda, whether you like it or not.
See Jay's quote. The goal was popularizing the ideas behind "public choice" theory, more specifically the idea that individuals that form the government are necessarily self-interested, without working for the public good.
> It did a better job of showing how government works than the 6 o'clock news, and yet it was constantly funny and thought provoking. The acting was superb.
That makes it effective propaganda.
In case it's not clear, I'm not of the opinion that no one should watch Yes Minister, rather my position is that the specific propagandistic nature should be made clear upfront.
And that cynical portrayal of politics is itself part of the exact ideology that Thatcher tried to promote, so I don't really see why you think that contradicts OPs point. It's like the joke that Reagan used to repeat "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help". It wasn't an actual self-demeaning joke, the intention was to demean governance itself at every moment possible.
is there anyone not seeking temporal power? Are private sector shareholders on a quest for spiritual enlightenment or something? Is the board of Facebook filled with Zen Buddhists?
The notion that competing for petty status and power is somehow unique to administration and government is one of the consequences of shows like Yes, Minister. And actually yes, we should be less cynical of civil servants and politicians. A pathological disregard of them has, for example, significantly worsened one of the worst public health crisis in decades.
And actually yes, we should be less cynical of civil servants and politicians
Donald Trump appreciates the support.
A pathological disregard of them has, for example, significantly worsened one of the worst public health crisis in decades.
Please let us all know which ones to pay attention to-I’d like to heed only the ones that can make testable predictions, and agree to quit if they get enough of those wrong.
YM was created & distributed by the BBC, a government apparatus staffed by the same civil servants and politicians that the show is ostensibly propagandizing against. How effective could it possibly be, and still make it on the air?
Putting aside the fact that if that were true Thatcher would still be lampooning herself, the show isn’t purely cynical about government. In the show the rank and file in the public service are full of competent, well meaning, and principled people. The show is cynical about those who rise to the top and the system that tramples the well meaning, however, that is a very bipartisan sentiment in every country with free speech rights.
It had a brilliant and ideologically diverse writing team meaning no side was singled out. The principal actors were comedy geniuses. Plus, the writers eventually revealed they had political insiders feeding them material [1]. Apparently similar things to the Arab embassy security room bar scene actually happened!