ecopolst I found this series searching the web for political drama. Watching it is a very positive experience.Filmed in 2011 or so the setting is UK in the present time. Lots of unfortunate events happen at one time. The 4 part series is about the political reaction to those events. Happenings and reactions are realistic enough to be relevant although cutting it fine on the dramatic side. Most relevant modern popular political topics are in the series, like terrorism, government surveillance, political infighting and moneys effect on politics.Minuses are few, the biggest one being the series being way too short and compact :) Other minuses are ambiguities here and there and some minor connections between people and issues that seem a bit strange.Acting is overall good. To me especially Gabriel Byrne playing the leading role does well.In short this is must see if you like political drama.

antony-1 As my summary suggests, this was a bit of a mixed bag.The show is by no means perfect. It plays to some very old stereotypes in these situations... that everyone is very posh, in it for themselves, that women have to be aggressive and man-like. The moustache-twirling is used to very high degrees.It of course also takes very broad and simplistic positions on many topics, as it is only a four episode series.But at its core is an interesting mystery/political thriller, and a good mix of dynamics between government, big business and the banks. Gabriel Byrne is great and distracts from some of the narrative issues well, and delivers West Wing–like speeches at times, and supporting actors such as Ruth Negga provide good turns even if their roles are limited.One review commented that it was made for stupid 14 year olds, which is the classic way of putting down others by saying if you like it you are clearly a stupid child. However, that reviewer takes things far too seriously. Commenting that in a national tragedy a deputy prime minister wouldn't waste his time going to speak to local residents just shows that he was looking for issues within the first five minutes of the show.If you crave reality, or accuracy to minute detail, then this show isn't for you. It's fiction at the end of the day. Realistic it isn't, but it does give food for thought and is an entertaining mini series.

Oneillmike Good cast and exciting plot. I think that in order to raise the excitement and make Tom Dawkins more vulnerable they gave him no friends or allies at all. It seems he had no one in the intelligence or military services that he could trust and was constantly fed bad or no information. He was very isolated and this was not really believable, as was his inability to protect the GCHQ girl who was helping him. I thought he was Prime Minister ! Having made those criticisms I was entertained and I thought Byrne was excellent as was the supporting cast. Nice to see Stephen Dillane on the box again. The good guy lost so any chance of a follow up series ?

Flossie Cat Back in 1987 Channel 4 led the UK in cutting edge dramas. Last week we got episode one of "Secret State", allegedly 'loosely' based Alan Plater's superb adaptation of Chris Mullin's book "A Very British Coup". What a difference. The premise was good, a Bhopal style disaster in Teeside, the casting included some of Britain's finest talent, and the production values were very good.All this was completely wasted by a script that was puerile, full of clichéd soundbites, and by lousy directing and a cast of stock characters that would have made it into Michael Green's "The Art of Coarse Acting". We had a gonad crunching ambitious female politician, a smarmy yuppie-type ambitious politician, a drunken journo/ex-spook who knows where the metaphorical and possibly literal bodies are buried, and a young feisty journo who pops up with information nobody else has ever heard of.Has Mr Jones never watched "Yes Minister" or "The Thick of It"?His opening scenario was ludicrous. In real life the deputy PM would not be sitting in a local school hall being harangued by angry residents. That thankless task would have gone to some junior underling at the Energy Department. Nor does a pathologist have the power to withhold bodies from being released for burial, that authority lies with the Coroner. If a pathologist had serious concerns about unexplained toxins in body tissue s/he would have consulted their colleagues in the Home Office. Nor would said pathologist be telephoning the Deputy PM as if that individual was the only person with authority in the entire governmental system.Given the apparent assassination of the PM by a possible terrorist plot how did Ms Kane (alias Gina McKee) manage to get past security to speak to the Deputy PM at aforementioned PM's memorial service? Come to that, where WAS the security?And why was the head of Intelligence doing her own surveillance work? Does she not have an entire government department dedicated solely for that purpose?The whole thing seemed to be aimed at not very bright 14 year olds. Do the TV networks really think the viewing public is that dumb? For shame Channel 4. You've exchanged your credibility for dumbed down broadcasting. You have the temerity to advertise dross like this as 'Drama' while your schedules are chock full of freak shows, crass talent shows, and the dregs of society being filmed in their 'natural habitat' in what passes for "reality" television.