Last week I posted a recurring sketch by Harry Enfield and Chums about a gormless upper class English character called Tim Nice-But-Dim. Yet parodying the upper class in Britain has always been part of British comedy and this next clip is a classic example taken from the comedy group Monty Python. Monty Python is a bit of an acquired taste and I can imagine that some will not enjoy this sketch although I think it gets better as the skit progresses.

I grew up in Australia and when I first moved to the UK just shy of 30 years ago I used to think that the Australian view of the British being in the grips of a class system was over-stated. Sadly however, I have come to realise the sad truth that the British class system, while being completely anachronistic for the 21^st century, is still very much alive and well. The most disturbing modern incarnation of it at present is the current Tory party under Alexander Boris Pfeffel Johnson who single-handedly has brought into sharp focus all that is wrong with a system that allows some of the most intellectually and, more importantly, morally challenged individuals into the heart of government where their actions make the majority of folk poorer and where horrendous policies are enacted to appeal to the darker demons of our nature including xenophobia and racism.

One Youtube comment under this clip which brought a wry smile to my face was the following It's interesting how as time passed, this marvellous sport has developed into something that the entire world gets pure entertainment value from and has been renamed to 'British Government'.

One of the great things about Monty Python was they often captured the strange foibles of our humanity by writing them large in their brilliant comedy movies. "Life Of Brian" was no exception. While this movie was controversial at the time, because a substantial number of people saw it as antichristian, the movie was full of little titbits of humour that mocks the way we all sometimes behave as fallen humans. I particularly enjoy this little sketch as it reminds me of an unhelpful habit, which often seems to plague the more left wing among us, of splitting off from one another. The most painful example of this, at the time of writing this post, is the MP Dianne Abbott publicly announcing that she thinks Keir Starmer (the current leader of the UK labour party as of May 2022) should resign if it is found that his takeout dinner with Hartlepool campaigners broke the law in relation to the lockdown rules that were place in the UK at the time the takeout occurred (April 2021). While I guess her comments are technically fair, given the constant infighting in the labour party between the more left and central wings of the party, it does often feel as though both factions of the party would rather the Tories were in power than the labour party of which they are a part if it is the wrong faction of the party.

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 posted a compilation of sketches by Armstrong and Miller which captured the sometimes strange dynamics that occur in "high powered" workplaces full of alpha male (and sometimes female) middle managers and their underlings all vying for patronage from their boss. The Armstrong and Miller show often ran the same sketch each week developing it little by little each time. If you want to see how the striding man character developed during their comedy series then look at last week's post

The sketch below is the final instalment of the Striding Man and I guess the moral of the story is no matter how successful you are inside your workplace, there is always a chance it could all come crashing down in a moment. I guess this even applies to CEOs who can find themselves fired by their boards. Having said that, I think most CEOs know that even if they get fired they will walk away with a gigantic severance payment and into another CEO role in another large company such is the old boys revolving network that seems to exist at that level.

In week 23 I posted some material from the series the IT crowd which was a brilliant series that screened in the naughties. Although all the episodes were very funny, two that were exceptionally good were "Are we not men?" (a nice reference to Devo there) and "The work outing". I have already cited the first bit of the work outing in September last year so now it is time for the next instalment. For the context of where this sketch starts, click here to watch part I.

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.