Maybe it's driven by the UK's libel laws, and lack of a First Amendment?
In the US, the media can report on powerful people, then claim protection from the US constitution.
In the UK, there is no such protection, so reporting facts about powerful people is a dangerous business. Instead, the strategy is to turn the events into a satire. One has to walk a fine line with the satire. It has to be realistic enough that the audience can have an inkling about who is being referred to. At the same time, it has to ridiculous enough that no powerful person will be prepared to turn themselves into a laughing stock by claiming that the satire is actually refers to themselves, which would be the implication of a claim of libel.
Interesting that the British have basically been doing this for hundreds of years. In medieval times, the court jester could speak freely and criticize the king in a way no others were allowed to.
I dunno. In many cases it's quite clear who is being referred to. House of Cards opens with Thatcher being deposed. A later season has the Princess Diana character (who like in real life, divorced her husband) saying that she was threatened with being murdered if she spoke out.
The main character in The Thick of It, Malcolm Tucker, was based on the spin doctor for the Labour government at the time. Later seasons reflected the current UK government structure.
Worth noting that the laws aren't the same throughout the UK - you can have situations where Scottish newspapers publish stuff that can't be published in England.
We don't have the concepts of libel and slander here in Scotland, it's defamation and works fairly differently (IANAL) so we don't have the crazy cases you see in English courts.
In the US, the media can report on powerful people, then claim protection from the US constitution.
In the UK, there is no such protection, so reporting facts about powerful people is a dangerous business. Instead, the strategy is to turn the events into a satire. One has to walk a fine line with the satire. It has to be realistic enough that the audience can have an inkling about who is being referred to. At the same time, it has to ridiculous enough that no powerful person will be prepared to turn themselves into a laughing stock by claiming that the satire is actually refers to themselves, which would be the implication of a claim of libel.