MovieChat Forums > The New Statesman (1987) Discussion > Not a patch on Yes Minister...

Not a patch on Yes Minister...

posted 15 years ago by joeymcjoe
5 replies | jump to latest

Anyone who thinks this is funnier than Yes Minister either doesn't know about real politics and the civil service, or just prefers slapstick in-your-face comedy. That isn't an especially bad thing; everyone has different views and is entitled to them.

What I wanted to do is to warn those who liked Yes Minister and were thinking of trying this... to have low expectations. I've heard that "The Thick of it" is a much better political satire. Spend your hard earned cash on that before this-and after the collection of Yes Minister/Prime Minister

[–] Mrs_Twelvetrees 15 years ago

I don't agree. I'm a big Yes (Prime) Minister fan and have recently discovered The New Statesman and loved it! I like to think of The New Statesman as a cross between Yes Minister and Believe Nothing.

Darling, We're the Young Ones
Hammersmith Hardwoman #11

[–] stuartcork7 14 years ago

I believe the key is to not compare them. Yes, Minister- was a comedy 'about' parliamentary politics. The new statesman was a comedy 'set in' parliamentary politics.

Although I only watched the New statesman when it was originally aired- I don't recall too much of it actually involving political issues, more it was about the life of B'stard.
Yes, minister was strictly about the politics, specifically the way the civil service tried to keep the country running, and at the same time keep the politicians out of the way.

As I believe Sir Nigel Hawthorne put it- "the government is there to conduct politics, it has nothing to do with governing the country. That is what we (the civil service) are here for."

"I'm not really me. Thats me there- that pile of albino mouse droppings!"

[–] trinity-destler 12 years ago

Yes Minister was a realistically scathing political satire, Statesman is far more over the top and much better described as a farce. It was never about politics in general and went for its timely, specific targets with reckless abandon. Compare the obvious parody of contemporary figures in the Statesman with Yes Minister's carefully never mentioning which party Hacker was in- that show was about all bureaucracy, not one regime or ideology. The New Statesman is still a great political black comedy, much blacker than YM ever was, but it was a response to its own time. However, in the end it probably has as much to say to as wide an audience because, though the references are dated, the greed and decadence it skewers have not disappeared and are as ripe for mockery as ever.

I wasn't born when Thatcher was PM, but I still find it hilarious.

Anyway. Didn't an episode of The New Statesman parody the opening of Yes Minister with the drawings and the theme or am I going mad? I was sure it did, but I can't find it now. I can only find the episode that ends with Alan's "Yes, Minister" in obvious shout-out.

"It's that kind of idiocy that I empathize with." ~David Bowie

[–] NothingButTheBest 11 years ago

I like both, but they are both different.

Yes Minister is more clever I feel in that it feels real. The New Statesman is more surreal and false.

I prefer Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister but that is just my personal preference.

The world is your lobster.

[–] moxey (141) 6 years ago

I prefer this by far, it's much funnier and more enjoyable to me, but they're both so completely different in style and tone why even compare them? Not every satire has to be subtle and realistic.