History Headscratchers / TheThickOfIt

** Also, there is an argument that the Daily Mail cynically panders to the excesses of its readers without necessarily believing everything it is willing to print. Adam could be much less authoritarian right-wing than his readership (and some of his journalists) in his personal views, but is freely willing to print such material because it sells and, well, as previously mentioned he's a cynical asshole with no seriously functional moral compass.

** Also, this one is just down to practicality and RuleOfDrama; we can't meet ''everyone'' in the department in this fictional depiction, because that's potentially hundreds or even thousands of other characters and extras they have to consider. Some roles that would be present in a government department you just have to take on faith are floating around the place somewhere, we just don't see them because the story isn't about them and doesn't have the space or time to focus on them. TheMainCharactersDoEverything for a reason.

* Am I correct in thinking that the lead up to the Inquiry was: 1. Malcolm forced Nicola to call for the Inquiry 2. Nicola promised Malcolm that the Inquiry would fuck him over. 3. Malcolm assured Nicola that the Inquiry couldn't possibly fuck him over as badly as it will fuck her over. 4. [[spoiler: The Inquiry fucks Malcolm over pretty badly in which case how did he not foresee this?]]
** Because Malcolm is incredibly confident that it won't possibly lead back to him. We've seen before that he can underestimate or not entirely forsee or predict everything that's thrown his way; Most of the series shows him reacting to DoSAC's fuck-ups and generally doing a stellar job of correcting them, but that's with ''time'' to do so. Throw him in front of an Inquiry where he thinks he has his bases covered and then nail him with [[spoiler: the photograph of the leaked medical documents]], and it's not something he can counter in his usual fashion.
** That's not ''quite'' correct: Nicola never specifically said the ''inquiry'' would fuck Malcolm over, just that he and Dan would find out what it was like to have her "pissing into [their] tent." Even at the time, when she still might have thought she had a chance to regain power, it was a vague, empty threat. And although Malcolm eventually did end up [[spoiler: getting fucked by the inquiry]], that was none of Nicola's doing. [[spoiler: By the end, they'd both basically been beaten beyond hope of any recovery.]]
** At the time Nicola and Malcolm had that exchange, the inquiry was ONLY supposed to be about Tickel. It would only have implicated anyone who supported the key worker housing selloff or generally treated Tickel like crap [[spoiler: and drove him to suicide]]: definitely Peter and possibly Nicola, Fergus, and the Coalition advisors. Malcolm never predicted that Peter would try to deflect blame from himself by saying "the real story" was the leaking of Tickel's medical records ([[spoiler: a ploy that ended up working out perfectly for him; the Goolding Inquiry spent more time on leaking than the Coalition's policy or treatment of Tickel, so Peter came out of it smelling like roses]]). And Malcolm also didn't know the PM would broaden the inquiry to encompass the whole "culture of leaking"--which potentially implicated Malcolm along with everyone else ([[spoiler: and eventually brought about his downfall]]). It's hard to see how he could have predicted it; this broader version of the inquiry took everyone by surprise.

** Was this really out of character? OK, Glenn is the most moral character on the show in the sense that he actually HAS some principles (which many TTOI characters, e.g. Ollie and Adam, plainly lacked). But he wasn't above lying or insincerity, and his principles always took a back seat to the priority of keeping his job, at least until [[spoiler: he resigns in the last episode and delivers his TheReasonYouSuckSpeech to his colleagues]]. His switch to a new party in Season 4 is seemingly motivated by job security concerns. At the time of the e-mail scandal, keeping his own job meant helping Hugh keep his, even if it meant shifting blame for something Hugh said to someone like Terri, whose reputation he didn't have a stake in. He didn't even stay mad at Hugh for cynically using his own son as an example to get out of a tight spot during the Select Committee's questioning; in the Specials, he's right back in Hugh's corner, trying to secure a place for him in the new cabinet. If he's willing to make moral compromises like this in matters affecting his own family, why should we expect him to go out of his way (or defy Hugh) for Terri? In later seasons, we see him shamelessly sucking up to Nicola, Fergus, and the Goolding inquisitors, [[spoiler: and even lying under oath.]] He may have enough scruples to feel remorse about these compromises of integrity, but still goes through with them.

** Although he almost definitely leaked the records, Malcolm probably wasn't expecting to face punishment. He justifiably took it for granted that others summoned to the inquiry bore a more direct responsibility for [[spoiler: Tickel's death]]. True, he leaked the guy's private medical info, but is that really as bad as selling his home out from under him, ignoring him, ridiculing him, and then evicting him from the place where he was squatting in protest? Compared to Peter (whose policy created Tickel's problems) and Nicola (who refused to criticize the Coalition for this until Malcolm had her cornered), Malcolm was practically Tickel's ally--certainly the only political figure who advocated making an issue out of the Government's appalling treatment of him. True, it was insensitive to leak Tickel's private medical history to score political points, and Malcolm's motives were probably cynical. But by leaking his records, Malcolm was arguably doing more to draw attention to Tickel's plight than anyone else in the Government or Opposition (and you could even defensibly say that Malcolm WAS using the leak to "show up hypocrisy... corruption... idiocy" in the Government, not to attack a "civilian" victimized by that Government). Moreover, the timing makes it pretty clear that Tickel's eviction, not the leak of his health records, was what [[spoiler: drove him to suicide]]. Maybe Malcolm got careless out of cockiness, but it's also possible that he considered the health records leak insignificant next to how the Coalition had been treating Tickel, and the last thing he expected was that the inquiry would pursue the matter, let alone use it to pin the blame for Tickel's [[spoiler: suicide]] on him.

*** The Glenn/Ollie equivalent in ''Series/YesMinister'' was Frank Wiesel, who appeared for a few episodes in the first series. He was Hackett's political advisor, and clashed with the civil servants (Humphrey and Bernard) when it came to policy. We see this, albeit in a minor fashion, when Glenn and Ollie clash with Terri about making policy "on the hoof".

*** For what it's worth, in a deleted scene from the episode where Peter Mannion (in opposition) visits the DoSAC offices, he meets with a couple of men whom we've never seen before. They appear to be quite important, and one of them could have been the Permanent Secretary. It would be appropriate for the PS to meet with Mannion, who could potentially become his boss after the next election.

** It's actually a reference to the British satirist/politician Screaming Lord Sutch, who was once the leader of the Monster Raving Loony Party, an actual political party in Britain.

** Adam's personal politics have very little to do with it. He is repeatedly demonstrated in Series 4 to be one of the least principled characters in the entire series (which is saying quite a lot), so presumably he simply decided that a job in politics no matter the party was worth more to him than a job as a newspaper editor (plus it would get him out of Malcolm's direct firing-line). And whatever the real life alignment of Fergus' party - since none of the parties in the show are ever explicitly identified - it's clear that by the time Series 4 starts, they are essentially heavily implied, likely due to a mixture of the coalition itself and people within the party itself like Fergus who care less about political alignment and more about trying to advance their own careers, to be a (barely) LighterAndSofter version of Peter's right-wing party...which wouldn't sit too badly with a former ''Mail'' editor at all. Plus, given the fact that the two have the only genuine friendship in the entire show, it's possible that he and Fergus are friends from way back and Fergus specifically brought Adam onto his team.

** Also, this one is just down to practicality and RuleOfDrama; we can't meet ''everyone'' in the department in this fictional depiction, because that's potentially hundreds or even thousands of other characters and extras they have to consider. Some roles that would be present in a government department you just have to take on faith are floating around the place somewhere, we just don't see them because the story isn't about them and doesn't have the space or time to focus on them.

** Was this really out of character? OK, Glenn is the most moral character on the show in the sense that he actually HAS some principles (which many TTOI characters, e.g. Ollie and Adam, plainly lacked). But he wasn't above lying or insincerity, and his principles always took a back seat to the priority of keeping his job, at least until [[spoiler: he resigns in the last episode and delivers his [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheReasonYouSuckSpeech "The Reason You Suck" Speech]] to his colleagues]]. His switch to a new party in Season 4 is seemingly motivated by job security concerns. At the time of the e-mail scandal, keeping his own job meant helping Hugh keep his, even if it meant shifting blame for something Hugh said to someone like Terri, whose reputation he didn't have a stake in. He didn't even stay mad at Hugh for cynically using his own son as an example to get out of a tight spot during the Select Committee's questioning; in the Specials, he's right back in Hugh's corner, trying to secure a place for him in the new cabinet. If he's willing to make moral compromises like this in matters affecting his own family, why should we expect him to go out of his way (or defy Hugh) for Terri? In later seasons, we see him shamelessly sucking up to Nicola, Fergus, and the Goolding inquisitors, [[spoiler: and even lying under oath.]] He may have enough scruples to feel remorse about these compromises of integrity, but still goes through with them.

*** Or maybe (and I myself doubt it, but what the hell, Alternative Character Interpretation) he's a Bunny-Ears Lawyer extraordinaire. Maybe he is actually good, but he treats people who aren't politicians so poorly you forget it, and the reason why he wasn't even making an effort was because the first time our "heroes" were from [=DoSAC=] (a department so low he can't even be bothered) and then they're the Opposition, so who cares. Again, I doubt it, but the second time he appeared his only problem was the lack of social skills. Which, still, in his job is a ''big'' problem.

** The "thesis" of ''Yes, Minister'' was that unelected career civil servants (like Sir Humphrey) were too powerful because they held an information advantage over elected legislators/cabinet ministers (like Jim Hacker), and that was why the latter could never get anything done. The "thesis" of ''The Thick of It'' is different: It's that, in the new media environment, both permanent civil servants (like Terri) and elected legislators/cabinet ministers (like Cliff Lawton, Hugh, and Nicola) are at the mercy of spin doctors and image-makers (like Malcolm, Jamie, initially Stewart, and "the Fucker"). Terri is the closest equivalent to Sir Humphrey in this new scenario, and like him, she has job security, isn't accountable to the electorate for getting things done, and can be a "blockage" (or at least the ministers and advisors find it easy to scapegoat her for this). But in terms of power to set things in motion (or stop them), she's obviously got much less than Malcolm.

*** Agreed, until Robin shows up the department appears to consist entirely of Hugh, Glenn, Ollie and Terri. There must be more people in a government department and presumably the Permanent Secretary is somewhere among the rest of them. Terri's role appeared to be doing what the Minister told her (as the Director of Communications, she was naturally frequently needing to take directions from him in regards to what would be communicated) whereas presumably the Permanent Secretary was off being in charge of the other civil servants and acting largely autonomously. As much as the classic comedy lover in me would have loved to see a conversation between a Sir Humphrey expy and Malcolm Tucker (SesquipedalianLoquaciousness vs. SirSwearsALot), it's really no more unusual that the role didn't appear on ''Series/TheThickOfIt'' than the fact that there were really no equivalents to Glenn and Ollie on Series/YesMinister.

** Assuming that the Baroness is similar to her inspiration, [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayeeda_Warsi,_Baroness_Warsi Baroness Warsi]], then it was probably to do with inappropriate use of parliamentary expenses; Baroness Warsi was caught up in the 2012 parliamentary expenses controversy.

** Assuming that the Baroness is similar to her inspiration, [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayeeda_Warsi,_Baroness_Warsi Baroness Warsi]], then it was probably to do with inappropriate use of parliamentary expenses; Baroness Warsi was caught up in the 2012 parliamentary expenses controversy.
* Is Malcolm a recovering alcoholic? He noticeably squirms when Nicola asks what his favourite drink is, Ollie's whiskey question in the last episode sounds rather barbed, I'm pretty sure he's never seen drinking alcohol, and the real-life political figure he's based on (Alastair Campbell) is. Have any fo the writers commented on this?

** Given that the British government / civil service is hardly free of {{Nepotism}} and his rather posh airs, it's incredibly likely that John Duggan has a powerful friend or relative in a high enough place to get him set up in a pretty cushy job that he otherwise doesn't merit and can't be easily kicked out of. He'd be far from the first or last.

** Given that the British government / civil service is hardly free of {{Nepotism}} and his rather posh airs, I assume that John Duggan has a powerful friend or relative in a high enough place to get him set up in a pretty cushy job that he otherwise doesn't merit. He'd be far from the first or last.

** Assuming that the Baroness is similar to her inspiration, [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayeeda_Warsi,_Baroness_Warsi Baroness Warsi]], then it was probably to do with inappropriate use of parliamentary expenses; Baroness Warsi was caught up in the 2012 parliamentary expenses controversy.

* Does anyone want to take a stab at what was going on with The Baroness Sureka?