Once again this sketch is a classic from the Armstrong and Miller series. Quick tip for those who are considering how to conduct a job interview. When your prospective employer asks you what do you see are your faults make sure you answer something like you find it hard to take breaks because you are so passionate about your work. 😉

It has been often observed by historians that the Brits, unlike many other cultures (here's looking at you France 😀), never appear to rise up in full mutiny against their government. Of course British politicians and too many of the British public assume this is because the British government has been generally more functional than most other ruling institutions and a lot less corrupt. This believe however is surely utter fantasy and this fantasy has been aptly demonstrated by the utter chaos of the last 3 years with Britain being subject to one of the most dreadful governments in living memory, lead by a narcissistic liar who is up to his ears in corruption and enabled by a complicit cabinet of individuals who appear not to possess anything resembling a functioning conscience or talent.

So what is the secret to the lack of British ire against a ruling class that often makes their lives miserable and, in more extreme circumstances, even costs them their very lives (UK covid death statistics combined with people now dying at home because they can't get an ambulance to them in time to save their lives)? My conjecture is it is British comedy that takes the mick out of its immoral ruling class. I wonder if such mockery, by British comedians, acts as some sort of national safety valve that lessens the rightful anger that many Brits feels against those who treat them as serfs that deserve nothing more than to be exploited.

If my conjecture is correct, then it should be talents like Matt Green that receive a knighthood from de Feffel Johnson rather than non-entities such as David Frost whose greatest claim to fame is achieving a form of "Schrodinger's cat" Brexit where his own deal is simultaneously his unique achievement yet one that now needs complete reneging through a parliamentary bill which, if acted upon, amounts to breaking international law.

So last week I shared a comedy video which was a parody of de Feffel's resignation speech. This week we of course now must be subject to the spectacle of those who supported Johnson's car crash vying to replace him. Given that Johnson created a strong evolutionary selection pressure to reward those who were least likely to present any threat to his leadership into cabinet positions, the choice the country has, in relation to the field of possible Tory replacements, is (as the LBC radio presenter James O'Brien stated) a bit like trying to chose a portaloo toilet at the Glastonbury festival.

Thankfully, probably the worst three in Johnson's cabinet of infamy had enough sense not to run and this of course included Nadine Dorries the minister for culture. Sadly over her tenure, Nadine has sadly demonstrated why she would never, in a million years, get a cabinet position under any other Prime Minister who had even a modicum of public duty in his body. Yet for comical effect, the comedian Sooz Kemper imagines what it would be like if Nadine had decided to run to replace Johnson as PM and what her campaign launch speech might have looked and sounded like. Enjoy.

Time to move onto some stand up comedy. I begin with Peter Kay who has produced some masterful material over his career capturing the many foibles of human existence. In this particularly funny segment, Kay picks up on the common problem we all have (especially as we get older) of completely mishearing lyrics.

I find this sketch particularly interesting as a physiologist because it also demonstrates how our brains can be so easily tricked if we are presented contrary information about the content of what we are hearing. Kay tells the audience what he wants them to hear and then mouths the incorrect lyric over the song and incredibly this is exactly then what you here. The most dramatic demonstration of this is in the song "We are family where he suggests they are singing "just let me staple the vicar". The correct lyrics are "just let me state for the record". If you play this part of the sketch and focus on the correct lyric of "just let me state for the record" you will actually correctly hear the correct words. Quite incredible really.

Time for another sketch from Armstrong and Miller. In their comedy series, they developed thematic sketches and one of their themes was the hapless educational historian who examines "priceless" historical artefacts only to accidentally destroy them through some odd mishap. A very simple but effective comedic theme.

A nice little thematic compilation of sketches by Armstrong and Miller exploring the age old dynamics (fluid or turbulent?) of couples. Some quite funny punch lines in this set.

One of my favourite shows on TV in the 80s was Alas Smith and Jones. Thankfully I also had the pleasure of seeing them in concert when they toured Australia. This sketch goes all the way back to when the Channel Tunnel was under construction and is a classic dig at two particular weaknesses in English culture: 1) poor upper management and 2) terrible workmanship. Sadly if you spend any time living in the UK you will experience both. While there are great trades people in the UK they are sadly not in the majority. Rather a sizeable number are absolute cowboys who do terrible work if they ever complete it in the first place.

Likewise the standard of British management in my experience can also be pretty poor. I have now worked in universities and for both small and large companies and for some mysterious reason the more dysfunctional and incompetent a person is the more likely it seems that they will end up rising to a very senior position. I guess this phenomenon is so common that academics have even tried to give it a name. The Peter Principle was first proposed in 1969 in a semi-satirical book by Laurence Peter and Raymond Hull and was actually based on Peter's research into the operations of hierarchical organizations. Yet I think the modified version of this principle, first proposed by the author of the Dilbert cartoons (Scott Adams) is even closer to the truth. The Peter principle states that individuals in an organisation are promoted to the point where they reach a level of incompetence that prevents them from being promoted further while the Dilbert principle goes one step further stating that individuals are promoted because of their incompetence.