Yes, Prime Minister

In this episode, Jim tries to block a section of a former prime minister’s book that depicts him unfavourably. His attempt to censor the passage creates the comic situations that drive the story. The political comedy stars Paul Eddington, Nigel Hawthorne and Derek Fowlds, whose performances keep the tone light and witty. He is determined to keep the offending paragraph out of public view, fearing the damage it could cause to his reputation. The episode uses sharp dialogue and situational humour to underline the lengths to which a politician will go to preserve a favourable image. Jim worries the exposure could tarnish his public standing.

In this episode, Jim sets out to reverse the balance of power with French officials concerning the Channel Tunnel border arrangements, seeking to outwit them at every turn. His efforts centre on diplomatic manoeuvring, aiming to expose the absurdities of the cross‑channel negotiations and to turn the tables in his favour. The narrative keeps a pace, with witty exchanges highlighting the bureaucratic quirks that underpin the dispute. The story unfolds as a political comedy featuring the talents of Paul Eddington, Nigel Hawthorne and Derek Fowlds, whose performances bring a distinctly British humour to the diplomatic skirmish. Together, the trio navigates the absurdities of international protocol, delivering jokes that poke fun at both sides of the Channel while maintaining a satirical edge.

In this episode, Jim tries to block a section of a former prime minister’s book that depicts him unfavourably. His attempt to censor the passage creates the comic situations that drive the story. The political comedy stars Paul Eddington, Nigel Hawthorne and Derek Fowlds, whose performances keep the tone light and witty. He is determined to keep the offending paragraph out of public view, fearing the damage it could cause to his reputation. The episode uses sharp dialogue and situational humour to underline the lengths to which a politician will go to preserve a favourable image. Jim worries the exposure could tarnish his public standing.

In this episode, Jim sets out to reverse the balance of power with French officials concerning the Channel Tunnel border arrangements, seeking to outwit them at every turn. His efforts centre on diplomatic manoeuvring, aiming to expose the absurdities of the cross‑channel negotiations and to turn the tables in his favour. The narrative keeps a pace, with witty exchanges highlighting the bureaucratic quirks that underpin the dispute. The story unfolds as a political comedy featuring the talents of Paul Eddington, Nigel Hawthorne and Derek Fowlds, whose performances bring a distinctly British humour to the diplomatic skirmish. Together, the trio navigates the absurdities of international protocol, delivering jokes that poke fun at both sides of the Channel while maintaining a satirical edge.

Jim catches wind of a substantial financial scandal unfolding in the City, a development that threatens to inflict serious damage on the government. Aware of the potential fallout, he concludes that the situation calls for immediate and decisive intervention. Determined not to let the crisis fester, he resolves to move swiftly, employing firm measures to contain the repercussions and protect public interest. His instinct drives him to act without delay, recognising that any hesitation could exacerbate the scandal’s impact on the authorities. Consequently, Jim prepares to launch a rapid response, aiming to curb the damage before it spreads further throughout the capital city.

Jim believes the existing arrangements are outdated and that reform could bring greater accountability to local councils, so he is intent on overhauling the current system of local government. Sir Humphrey, a senior civil servant, is wary that such changes would erode the entrenched influence of the civil service and undermine the stability he values. Fearing a loss of power, he looks beyond his usual contacts and turns to an unlikely ally, hoping this partnership will preserve the service’s position and protect its authority. Jim’s aim is to introduce a more responsive framework, whereas Sir Humphrey’s strategy is to secure backing that will neutralise the perceived threat.

Jim catches wind of a substantial financial scandal unfolding in the City, a development that threatens to inflict serious damage on the government. Aware of the potential fallout, he concludes that the situation calls for immediate and decisive intervention. Determined not to let the crisis fester, he resolves to move swiftly, employing firm measures to contain the repercussions and protect public interest. His instinct drives him to act without delay, recognising that any hesitation could exacerbate the scandal’s impact on the authorities. Consequently, Jim prepares to launch a rapid response, aiming to curb the damage before it spreads further throughout the capital city.

Jim believes the existing arrangements are outdated and that reform could bring greater accountability to local councils, so he is intent on overhauling the current system of local government. Sir Humphrey, a senior civil servant, is wary that such changes would erode the entrenched influence of the civil service and undermine the stability he values. Fearing a loss of power, he looks beyond his usual contacts and turns to an unlikely ally, hoping this partnership will preserve the service’s position and protect its authority. Jim’s aim is to introduce a more responsive framework, whereas Sir Humphrey’s strategy is to secure backing that will neutralise the perceived threat.

In this episode, Hacker ends up looking rather foolish after Sir Humphrey publicly announces that the Government intends to slash its support for the arts. The revelation catches Hacker off guard, leaving him embarrassed and exposed. As the news of the proposed funding reductions spreads, Hacker is forced to confront the uncomfortable reality that his own position is now under scrutiny. The sudden disclosure by Sir Humphrey highlights the precarious state of cultural financing, and Hacker is left to grapple with the fallout of the announcement. He finds himself scrambling to defend his stance, aware that any misstep could further damage his credibility.

Jim resolves to cut expenses by doing away with the Department of Education. His plan centres on eliminating the entire department as a means of saving money, and he is determined to see the bureaucracy removed. By opting to scrap the department, Jim hopes to achieve a reduction in public spending. The decision is presented as a straightforward financial move, with the sole purpose of trimming the budget. In his view, the most direct way to achieve the desired savings is to abolish the department entirely, thereby removing its associated costs from the national ledger. He believes that without the department, the freed‑up funds could be allocated to other priorities.

In this episode, Hacker ends up looking rather foolish after Sir Humphrey publicly announces that the Government intends to slash its support for the arts. The revelation catches Hacker off guard, leaving him embarrassed and exposed. As the news of the proposed funding reductions spreads, Hacker is forced to confront the uncomfortable reality that his own position is now under scrutiny. The sudden disclosure by Sir Humphrey highlights the precarious state of cultural financing, and Hacker is left to grapple with the fallout of the announcement. He finds himself scrambling to defend his stance, aware that any misstep could further damage his credibility.

Jim resolves to cut expenses by doing away with the Department of Education. His plan centres on eliminating the entire department as a means of saving money, and he is determined to see the bureaucracy removed. By opting to scrap the department, Jim hopes to achieve a reduction in public spending. The decision is presented as a straightforward financial move, with the sole purpose of trimming the budget. In his view, the most direct way to achieve the desired savings is to abolish the department entirely, thereby removing its associated costs from the national ledger. He believes that without the department, the freed‑up funds could be allocated to other priorities.