MPs will be immediately trying to hang the civil service for telling them this was a good idea. Don't expect legal action. Do expect buck passing.

▲

travisgriggs 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

I wish there was a modern day version of "Yes, [Prime] Minister" for this kind of stuff. It's like the episodes could write themselves by the week.

▲

averageRoyalty 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

In Australia we have a show called "Utopia" that does fill this gap reasonably well. Australian politics are close enough to the UK that it'd probably translate well enough to be enjoyable.

I've heard many government workers say that it's funny but they can't watch it, as it's so accurate it's depressing.

	▲	k1t 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Just seconding a vote for Utopia (2014), and also its (better!) predecessor The Hollowmen (2008).

▲

crinkly 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Well having worked for the government in an ancillary security role about 20 years ago on contract, I don't think they could produce a parody notably worse than reality to use as a contrast. Today, I suspect it is worse.

Hire an expert they said. From the pool of experts they had heard about through contacts in the civil service. None of whom have any industry or real world experience. At best, someone was on an industry eating and drinking with the right people panel. I was there for 3 months and crawled back to my previous job cap in hand, bruised and educated.

It was long enough ago that I can away with rounding errors of months on my CV thank goodness...

	▲	btilly 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		It is worthy of note that most of the incidents in Yes, Minister were based on things that really happened. At some level it was more curation than invention.

▲

pjc50 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

"The Thick Of It", but even that's quite old now.

Political satire is kind of dead in an age of unironic stupidity.

▲

edent 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Not really. I was a civil servant and gave advice on this.

Civil servants aren't there to say whether a policy is good, sensible, or a vote-winner. The CS policy profeasion is there, in part, to advise on risks. Ministers decide whether to accept those risks.

There were plenty of people (like me) who would have pointed out the various risks and problems. Some of which caused policy to change, and some were accepted.

I don't think I've ever seen in recent years the CS be blamed for something like this.