Some Political Thrillers to Watch

I've been taking a short break from blogging recently as I stumbled across the US version of a political drama - House of Cards. This is the American version of BBC trilogy which aired in 3 parts from 1990 to 1995. Since I blog about political stuff, I thought it wise to direct readers to some excellent political dramas that are definitely worth watching. If there are more or I stumble across others, I'll advise in future blog entries.

Here's what I recommend, no I'm not going to recommend West Wing or some other type of soap opera. I don't want too much of that mushy love stories, it has to feature some cold hard politics, some comedy and some documentaries.

 

 

This is probably the best place to start. Yes Minister is a 38 part series that aired in 1980s, covering the exploits of Jim Hacker, MP and his long running battle with the Civil Service led by Sir Humphrey Appleby. Coming into office with high ideals, he's stifled at each turn by Sir Humphrey, who doesn't welcome change by meddling politicians. Despite this, Sir Humphrey on promotion as Cabinet Secretary (The Head of the Civil Service) devises a plan to ensure Hacker becomes Prime Minister, since he can be 'house-trained' and the series then becomes - Yes Prime Minister. Although a comedy, it does offer an insight into politics and things that politicians can do- eg: influencing policy to make themselves electable, conducting surveys to show support for policy (The Grand Design), tackling difficult questions - you don't answer the question, but attack it, by ask another until the original question is minimised or forgotten and 'playing the man, not the ball', in order to remove a potential threat.

 

Here's a clip from about 'leading questions' and below one from 'The Grand Design"

 

 

You'll have to scour Youtube to find a user who's uploaded the complete series, but it's best to start with Yes Minister and work your way up to the final episode. Margaret Thatcher herself was a fan of the series. I also recommend reading the book, as it gives a better understanding.

 

 

This trilogy is a dark political thriller about the exploits of the Chief Whip, Francis Urquhart (pronounced err-kurt) and his evil plot to become Prime Minister and how he deals with challengers and threats to his rule. It begins in 1990, with the fall from power of Mrs Thatcher, and the Conservative Party's election of a replacement. After securing another election victory, Urquhart expects promotion but is rebuffed. He is furious and plots the PM's downfall and decides to seek the office himself, although it seems unlikely as his position as Chief Whip is merely a party enforcer with no real executive power. However the Chief Whip is responsible for party discipline and he knows the 'misdeeds' of his colleagues, which he uses to good effect with the help of a young female reporter. It comes in 4 parts, so I'll leave you to it, as it's much better to watch it and see whether he succeeds. It's easy enough to find on Youtube:

 

This is part 1/4 of House of Cards (UK) and the series next moves on 'To Play the King' (below)

 

 

Urquhart is forced on the defensive, when a new King comes on the throne and ignores convention by actively involving himself in politics and in doing so, openly supports the Opposition in order to remove Urquhart and his party from power. Also in 4 parts, this 1993 production culminates in the 1995 edition - 'The Final Cut"

 

 

This is a clip from the Final Cut, it's easy enough to find all 4 episodes, just follow on from To Play the King or look up a user - 'Thatcherite Scot". He has all 12 episodes under the title - A Nasty Prime Minister. This series marks Urquhart's final years as PM, as he tries to surpass Margaret Thatcher's record of 'longest serving PM' and features the 'funeral' of Mrs Thatcher. It gained quite some controversy because Mrs Thatcher was very much alive in 1995. (btw she isn't the longest serving PM - just the 7th, but the longest post-war PM and the longest since Lord Liverpool).

 

 

This is the American version, which follows the British lines. Set in present day Washington, DC, it follows the exploits of Francis Underwood, the Majority Whip of the Democrat Party. The Majority Whip is the 3rd highest position in the House of Representatives (the lower Chamber of Congress) when the party has a majority in House. Majority Whip -Majority Leader-Speaker. When the party doesn't have a majority it's obviously number 2 (known as Minority Whip-Minority Leader), but it's ahead of the other important offices in the House - such as Chairman of the Ways and Means, Appropriations, Foreign Relations, Defense etc. It's an influential position no less, as the Whip controls members of his own party and can influence them in which way to vote. Unlike the UK, American Congressman are not bound by party discipline and may vote for or against any Bill, but generally they tow their party's line. (You'll need a bit of understanding of the political structure in the US to follow all this)

 

 

 

Anyway FU (that's the initials of both Urquhart and Underwood, and it was chosen appropriately), has helped the US President win an election and was promised to be nominated as the next Secretary of State. As usual, this does not occur and he's asked to remain in the House as he's 'needed there.' FU considers it a betrayal and vows revenge on the President by first working to skew the new nominee for the position. Again a pretty reporter in an attempt to move up the ladder enters the picture and Underwood uses her to further his political ambitions. Will he succeed? Well there's a marathon 26 episode on Netflix and you can watch it on www.watch-tvseries.net beginning with Episode 1. Kevin Spacey plays Underwood and you know it should be good. They are planning a 3rd series in 2015.

 

 

Edward Gough Whitlam (now 98), was Australia's 21st Prime Minister from 1972 to his surprise dismissal on 11th November 1975 (Remembrance Day). He led the Labour Party to victory in the 1972 General Elections after an absence of 23 years. In his short time in office, he enacted I think 27 major policy changes that has shaped Australian politics since. Now why do I find it relevant to talk about Whitlam? Well if Singapore ever has a change of government, it will do the Opposition a lot of good to study the Whitlam Years, about how a new Government can and should take office after replacing a long seated one, and what mistakes it must avoid and also what dangers that lurk and can come to bite it and unseat it. Whitlam's 3 1/2 year 'reign' has it all. He abolished conscription, got Australia out of the Vietnam War, introduced policies for higher education, gave the Aborigines their land rights back and a slew of polices that have not been discarded even until today. He also was the 1st Aussie PM to realise that Australia's future lies with Asia and not the West. He was a close personal friend of Malaysia's 2nd PM, Tun Abdul Razak. 

 

 

 

However and this is the lesson for a future Workers Party or other Opposition Govt, he made 1 fatal flaw - he wanted to do and undo too many things too fast. Labour Govts like a policy of tax and spend, and he failed to reel in spending and the country faced an economic crisis. He managed to win re-election in 1974 (Australian Govts serve on a 3 year maximum term), but the defeated Liberal Govt found a new and tough leader in Malcolm Fraser, who would use every opportunity to bring down Whitlam's Govt. In mid to late 1975, Whitlam's Govt got embroiled in a 'Loans Scandal' that left it weak politically since spending was left unchecked. Australia has 2 Houses - The House of Representatives which has elected Members of Parliament and the real seat of power and the Senate, which technically can block Bills, but never has blocked a 'Supply, Budgetary or Money' Bill. Ignoring convention, a State Premier appointed a Liberal Senator in 1975 after the Labour one died. Convention dictated that a deceased member is replaced by one of the same party. This measure meant that the Opposition Liberal Party had a wafer thin majority in the Senate, although being well outnumbered in House.

 

 

 

Given Labour's growing unpopularity, Fraser engineered to block 'Supply' by refusing to pass the Budget in October 1975 in the Senate despite the House confirming it. An impasse arose with Fraser wanting the country to go to the polls in December, but Whitlam refused and condemned the measure as an attempt to bypass the will of Parliament. It became a 'case of who'll blink first' as time was running out, if the Budget wasn't passed by mid-November, public sector workers won't get paid with Christmas just round the corner. Fraser applied improper pressure on the Governor General (GG), Sir John Kerr and Kerr improperly consulted Fraser. By convention, the GG as the Queen's Representative and de-facto head of state, must only take the advise of his Ministers and the counsel of his Prime Minister, his principal advisor, except in extra-ordinary circumstances, usually when the Govt did not possess a majority in the House. This clearly wasn't the case. Instead he consulted Fraser and other leading figures, including the Chief Justice and the former Solicitor General (of the Liberal Party). The Chief Justice advised Kerr to dismiss Whitlam if he couldn't procure Supply. This advise was improper, despite being the top judge, the CJ cannot advise the GG, he can only rule in a court of law comprising other members of the Supreme Court. In fact, in 2 earlier cases against the Govt, the CJ ruled against the Govt but was defeated by a majority of the other members of court.

 

 

 

Kerr kept Whitlam in the dark, and gave no warning of his intentions. Instead he arranged for a meeting with Fraser on the morning of 11th November 1975, and asked him whether he would agree to pass Supply and thereafter advise for a dissolution, so that the country could go to the polls. Fraser agreed, knowing full well that the Senate in fear of being blamed for the impasse, was on the verge of passing the Supply Bill anyway. Unbeknownst to Whitlam (about Fraser's meeting), he arranged an audience with Kerr that morning, advising him to dissolve half the Senate seats. Kerr brushed him aside and dismissed his Govt, thereafter commissioning Fraser as caretaker PM.  

 

 

The Bills were passed and Fraser recommended the dissolution of Parliament and advised for writs of election to be dropped. While the paperwork was being drawn, the House angered by this 'coup de etat' passed 2 motion motions - a no-confidence vote against Fraser and a confidence vote in Whitlam. The Speaker arranged a meeting with the GG, to advise him of this, but was told to report at 4.30pm. He was kept delayed until the paperwork was done and signed by Fraser and the GG, leaving the GG's secretary to announce the dissolution on the steps of Parliament. A fuming Whitlam took over the microphone and gave the memorable quote: 'Well may we say God save the Queen, because nothing will save the Governor General.'  Read the 1975 Australian Constitutional Crisis here.

 

 

 

Despite the blatant act in removing an elected Govt, Fraser managed to win the December elections on the back of Labour's failed economic polices. Whitlam tried once more 3 years later but was defeated again and Fraser would only be 'dethroned' in 1982 by Bob Hawke. But he was right about the prophecy on Kerr, who became a vilified figure and regularly had his car pelted with eggs and stones and kept his public appearances to a minimum. He took to the bottle and when he appeared drunk during a Melbourne Cup (Australia's top horse race) presentation and made a fool of himself, he was forced to resign from office.

 

 

 

Although changes have been made to the Australian Constitution, the powers of the Senate to block Bills and the Governor-General to dismiss an elected Govt with a majority in the House remain. However the general thinking remains that Kerr was wrong to exercise his powers in the manner he did and it's unlikely that any GG would act in a similar way. Even when Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard were embroiled in a power struggle during Labour's latest stint in power, the GG, Quentin Bryce resisted the temptation to intervene despite them not having a majority in the House. Still the manner in which Labour under Whitlam campaigned and won power - he became Leader in 1967, lost 2 elections but gained in strength before finally winning in 1972 with the slogan 'It's Time,' is something the Workers Party and others should look at. Moreso the changes he introduced have some relevance to Singapore, and of course his mistakes, which they must avoid. Finally, for the GG, they might have to rule under a President with close ties to the PAP and who under our Constitution, can deny them funds from the reserves or refuse to sign Supply Bills and retains the power to dismiss them, even if they have a working majority in the House.

 

 

You can watch a number of videos about the Dismissal on youtube. There's one 5 part series, called 'The Dismissal' and another entitled the "Whitlam Years', as he explains his policies and take on his unfair dismissal.

 

Anyway, these are a number of videos on political drama, from comedy, to dark thrillers and real life drama. I hope you will watch some if not all of them and see how much of it is relevant to our own political scene here in Singapore, or just for entertainment.