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.

After living in the UK for just over 30 years, I have come to the conclusion that one of the ways the British cope with their corrupt politicians is by laughing at them. Although this method helps makes coping with the worst excesses of the British class system bearable, I wonder if it might inadvertently stifle true political progress in the UK? Certainly Boris Johnson is one of the most terrible, lying corrupt Prime Ministers Britain has had for well over a century. Yet so much of his appeal to the voting public is he was able to play the fool and make people laugh. Although I enjoy British humour very much, I do hope that one day the Brits come to realise that the amount of corruption in their political system probably rivals some of archetypal African nations to which so many Brits feel superior in relation to their "mother of all Parliaments".

Time for some more Blackadder. The last time I cited Blackadder on this website was all the way back in June when the days were warm and long. That particular set of sketches was taken from the final series of Blackadder which was set in World War I. This Blackadder is set around the time of George the 3^rd and this historical context created lots of opportunities for the very clever comedy writers of Blackadder to create a series of master sketches. These wonderful sketches have brought many people much joy over many years and have raised the spirits of those who are feeling the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune".

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.

So Philomena Cunk aka (Diane Morgan) is a bit of an acquired taste. The concept of the character is that of someone with very little education producing a documentary. The series covers many varied topics including history, science, philosophy, music and politics. In this particular episode, she explores the computer and the history of its development. Part of her USP is to ask experts in the field rather basic questions which sometimes can almost seem profound in their simplicity (or stupidity) although of course, in this context, it is for comedic effect. In some ways, it reminds me of the ancient philosopher Socrates who was said to upset the learned men of his time by constantly asking why. The harsh reality, of course, is that by constantly asking "why" one is led to what is known as the infinite regress where we all are forced to the limits of human knowledge and left with that uncomfortable realisation that none of us really understand at all the strange reality in which we happen to find ourselves.

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.