Nicola gets put out of her misery. I was cheering. Of course, I know that Dan Miller is going to turn out to be a major ass, right?
By the way, can anyone give me some more background on last week’s line: “You’ve turned into the wrong Mitford sister.” The only Mitford sister I know anything about is the one who wrote essays on “U” and “non-U” vocabulary. Was it Jessica?
No, that was Nancy Mitford, and she was one of the nice ones. Unity and Diana Mitford notoriously associated with the Nazis and with British Fascists.
Episode 4 was a peach. It may be that I just don’t have as much invested in the coalition people, or that the coalition episodes are not being written by Armando, but they don’t grip me in quite the same way.
What I do like is Malcolm’s machinations. I like him slowly, slowly turning Ollie into a mini-Malcolm. Notice how he is treating him as an almost equal? I like Nicola melting down and Ben Swain getting shafted.
One wonders though, surely a straightforward Dan Miller coronation is not a satisfactory end to this. Does Mr. Tucker have one last spectacular throw of the dice left in him before we wave them all goodbye?
So he was saying that Emma was becoming a fascist by playing along with Stewart’s touchy-feeliness? That doesn’t sound right, somehow.
Or a Nazi. (In line with his “Mind Kampf” remark)
No new episode this week?
It skipped a week in the UK due to a Beatles Anniversary tribute night on BBC2. Episode 5 is on Saturday 13th October.
Don’t read too much into it. “Mitford sisters” is (slightly old-fashioned) comedy shorthand for “could have gone bad”, that’s all. The precise historical details of how certain Mitford sisters did actually “go bad” are beside the point.
Ah.
I think he probably meant that she was collaborating with the enemy.
Just saw the latest episode. Was pretty good except I think Malcolm is being underused.
Have a question, though. In an early episode Hugh greeted the announcement of an inquiry with relief presumably because an inquiry would bury and obfuscate the matter. But now an inquiry is a threat. An I missing something?
I think traditionally inquiries in British politics have been a way for an issue to be sidelined for a couple of years. The press don’t bother to report much of the evidence as it’s given, and when the official report eventually comes out, most people have forgotten about the issue and the government is under no obligation to implement any of its recommendations.
However in the last few years there have been a couple of inquiries into political culture where the evidence has been quite scandalous and widely reported - amongst others there was the parliamentary expenses one before the last election and there is the ongoing Leveson inquiry into the methods of the press.
Some of these inquiries have been made into successful dramas, and it looks like the writers of The Thick of It want to have a go at doing their own one. You saw all the politicians, advisers and civil servants swearing the oath at the end there - they’re all going to be cross examined at the inquiry and whatever they say will be at the top of the news. Reputations and careers are at stake and they’re all bricking it.
There’s also a distinction between internal enquiries - conducted within the Department where proceedings can be kept secret and the final report strictly controlled - and public enquiries, which are open to the press, with independent reports published at their conclusion. The second kind are far more feared by the politicians and civil servants concerned.
“I don’t recall to that.” – Is that a thing now?
Inquiries can grind on for years, by which time the government which may/may not be criticised will have probably left office anyway and the persons culpable have left public life. The Chilcot Enquiry into the decision to participate in Gulf War II is an example - no one knows when it will come to its conclusions, and already no one of any importance cares.