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 for change of comedy genre. The two Ronnies are the type of comedians that you could safely take you neighbourhood monk to and they would probably not be offended. Ronnie Barker was very gifted at coming up with clever ideas for sketches and this one, while not a play on words, is nonetheless clever in its execution. It also has a nice little punchline to bring the sketch to a fitting conclusion

Last week I cited a Mash report sketch which contained an appearance from Michael Spicer who has his own Youtube series called the Room Next Door. The premise of this comedy is he is pretending to be a hidden media advisor speaking into the earpiece of hapless politicians to help them get through their interviews. Probably one of the most hapless politician of all time is the former Prime Minister of the UK whose tenure lasted all of 45 days after she managed to crash UK Sterling and the economy. In this sketch, Spicer is trying to navigate Truss through an interview with Laura Kuenssberg which of course, as with all Truss interviews, did not go at all well even though she did try to throw her Chancellor under the bus ("it was all Qwasi's fault!").

So here is my crazy take on the British as an Aussie immigrant, hahem, I mean expat living in England. This is my hypothesis that aims to explain everything British. The population is dominated by four phenotypes:

1. The Innovator
2. The Gossip
3. The Bad Manager
4. The Comedian

The innovators are incredible. The level of British genius at the top never ceases to amaze me and explains how the Brits were able to change the world through science and technology. A few favourites of mine are Sanger, Newton, Turing and Penrose. The gossips are those who either read the Daily Mail and take it seriously or write rags like the Daily Mail. They are important at making sure the manager phenotypes retain power.

The Bad managers are those that do real damage to Britain and sadly they don't just occupy councils, parliament and the lords, but they occupy pretty much every large business and organisation in Britain from the NHS to the Universities to the middle management of many MSEs and multinationals in the UK. I could write volumes on this lot but if you live in the UK, you only have to experience the omnishambles of the current Tory party to know what I mean. Yet I will point out two subtle symptoms of this group that some may have missed. If you were an innovator trying to write a three year research grant, the compulsory inclusion of a detailed 3 year Gantt chart, along with building some artificially large research consortium, are symptoms that the manager phenotypes have got control of your discipline.

The second characteristic is excessive accounting based on them projecting their own dishonesty onto the rest of the population. Yes we must make them spend hours filling in detailed financial reports on their grant expenditure every few months because, if we had that money, of course we would syphon it off for our own personal use. Braverman is an ugly specimen of this trait when she talks about cracking down on those at the bottom cheating the tax payer by claiming universal credit while she puts over £100k through on MP expenses.

And now we come to most interesting phenotype of all: the comedians. Britain produces by far the best comedians in the world and it is in times of deep political crisis that their work goes into overdrive. What the Managers don't realise is they owe as much to the comedian phenotype as they do to the gossip class because British comedy gives the suffering populous a safety valve to dissipate their anger and rage. Without the comedy phenotype, I think the Brits would be more like the French with much more violent protest to the current shitshow of manager phenotypes that have infested the Tory party. If you have read this far then you deserve a lovely taste of the British humour that is being generated at this bleak time in British politics.

Diane Morgan plays a famous character in the UK comedy scene called Philomena Cunk. While searching for funny comedy sketches for this section of my website, I came across this Youtube video of her working her craft as a stand up comedian. One of the interesting things about stand up comedy, is that comedians definitely inject their own unique characters into their routines. It is clear from Cunk and Morgan's routine in this little clip that she would be a person with an incredibly dry wit which completely permeates her whole character.

In fact, to give you a feel of Diane in a real life situation, I have also included this interview of her with her director Charlie Brooker. It is clear from some of the statements that Charlie makes, that he really doesn't have the first idea of what makes Diane tick. Sixteen minutes into this video Brooker says "Philomena is sort of on some unknowable level like or horse or something...It's hard to know what her inner life is or is that just me" To which Diane replies: I wouldn't say it was an absence of character"

Well since it is the Christmas period, and as we begin 2023, I thought I would end of the Christmas season with the Morecambe and Wise Christmas show 1978. As a child the highlight of Christmas day was my parents putting on the TV at around 7 pm to watch the Morecambe and Wise Christmas special. Looking at it again all these years later, much of the humour is now very dated (although there are still some clever bits that will make you laugh) which raises the interesting idea of how even our comical taste is culturally influenced.

In many ways this is because the world has changed so completely since the 1970s and perhaps this is one of the most disorientating thing about living in the 21^st century. I often wonder if we could have performed an experiment in the 1970s, where we took humour from the 1930s and replayed it, whether it would look as dated as these sketches do now? I suspect not.

Happy new year!

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.