UKC

Humour is a powerful weapon. Why isn't it being deployed at the moment when we need it more than ever?
Spitting image is my point of reference here, the writers and puppet designers got the measure of a lot of the politians of the time - think of how Tebbit and Thatcher were portrayed. It was on TV in a mainstream slot and I reckon was a positive influence. Now there's nothing.
Does nobody want to do it or is it harder to get it on the telly now?

In reply to pasbury:
As far as I can recall, Spitting Image did naff all to Thatcher and Tebbit except confirm their image and give us the odd giggle. However, it skewered the career of David Steel to the point where he didn't have one for very long after it had started.

The trouble with satire these days is that people take themselves so seriously that they'd probably become litigious about it and some of what has gone on is, tragically, beyond parody.

T.
Edited for spelling. It's late...

In reply to pasbury:
Because somewhere and somehow, someone will be offended by it.


There was a satire programme on recently, similar to Spitting image, but it wasn't just about politics. And it was utter turd.

In reply to Bootrock:

They always were, and it never stopped people doing it. However, as I said...

T.

In reply to Pursued by a bear:



True! But nowadays they have Twitter and other such stuff to kick up a fuss and make a racket and create a storm of kneejerk reactions.

It's not about who's right anymore, it's about who's loudest.

In reply to pasbury:


Maybe it's nobody is deferential towards politicians anyway these days so there is nothing "on a pedestal" to undermine?

In reply to pasbury:

And then this...

http://www.suffolkgazette.com/features/opinion/fake-news-facebook/

In reply to pasbury:

Surely it's because politics has gone beyond the realms of satire It's now so ridiculous that if people from only 20 years ago witnessed our current politics, they would dismiss it as an overly ham fisted parody.

In reply to pasbury:
It's all online with things like newsthump, Rochdale Herald etc

In reply to The New NickB:
Is the Daily mash sufficient for our needs? It hits the spot so often.

I would love to see their stories read on the telly by Moira Stewart; expletives and all.

In reply to Bootrock:

So we need a good one instead. One bad example doesn't invalidate the whole genre.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Are you serious? In case you hadn't noticed; our representatives in parliament are still responsible for governing us, we elected them and they are accountable. Same as it was in the 80s.

In reply to pasbury:

Last true satire program was Monkey Dust on BBC 3 in the mid 2000's. Political and social.
It seems as if modern society, especially younger people, are completely detached from the world. The don't really care anymore.
Private Eye still sells well but it def a niche market.

In reply to pasbury:

Not totally current, but did you see The Thick Of It?

I liked 10 o'clock Live too - not just satire, but actual debate and interviews by David Mitchell (who can do pretty much no wrong).

Frankie Boyle's election stuff? There's no shortage, you just have to look - it might not all be to your taste, but let's be honest, you're a bit older than you were in the 80s...

In reply to pasbury:
We've moved to a post-satirical age for sure, Brexit was just the warm up...

Anyway less about the satire and more about the people's revolt against the 1%, shame it has had to be via a lurch to right what?

In reply to Removed User:

Agree. No matter what you invent, events trump it. I started writing a novel 18 months before
the Savile f*cked the fan. Now I keep my imagination in check.

In reply to Bootrock:


Rubbish. Frankie Boyle has made a career out offending people, has been very successful for it and is now a brilliant, intelligent voice.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I was taking the mick.

In reply to pasbury:

Look up Jonathan Pie on YouTube. I wish The Thick of It would come back...

In reply to pasbury:

Charlie Brooker is usually pretty much on the money - Black Mirror, Weekly Wipe.

In reply to pasbury:


Are you going to address my point?

In reply to pasbury:

Satire was made redundant this year, got its P45 framed and now sits in a vest and tracky bottoms watching reruns on Dave murmuring to itself 'now that's a lovely leg, I haven't got anything against your left leg, problem is neither have you'

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Armando Iannucci gets bombarded these days by messages about how prescient that show was, when it was supposed to be satirical. I think he became a bit depressed about the whole thing.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/jun/12/thick-of-it-return-rul...


That show was just awful. Basically a liberal leaning echo chamber, only memorable for Jimmy Carr's tax avoidance sketch and for all the wrong reasons.

In reply to pasbury:

My mind is already doing overtime trying to picture a splitting image series staring Kim Jung, Putin, Jeremy Corbyn, and Donald Trump. Lots of rich pickings there.......

In reply to planetmarshall:
A lot of people seem to miss satire completely. Look at comments on satirical items on Facebook. People think it's real and don't see any of the underlying points. Very quickly it escalates into
"You know it's satire don't you?", "Yes, but it's true." - and then the arguments start...

Look at the thread here about Donald Trump and Jonathan Pie. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

There's a lot of people looking to have their wacky and extremist view of the world confirmed.

The best satire was Alf Garnet and we know, even back then, that the racist West Ham supporters actually agreed with him and had no idea they were the actual brunt of the comedy. Which makes it even funnier really.

It's not a new thing.

In reply to pasbury:

Erm HIGNFY, satire at its best (sometimes) and on the primest of prime time slots. Even has politicians on from time to time. Boris was one of the best presenters because he took the piss and was happy to have the piss taken out of himself. If only Angus Deaton was still in the chair, he was the best by far.

I also remember Spitting Image with some fondness. Remember Rod Stewarts large arse or the dusty old Lords? Like HIGNFY now it was much better in the earlier seasons and over time becomes tired.

In reply to Removed User:



And the irony here is so many of those leasing the revolt are in the top 3-10%.

Mixing up satire and irony here though.

In reply to planetmarshall:


That was good, yes. But do you honesty expect topical comedy to be politically balanced rather than left wing? Do you know what right-wing comedy looks like? Apart from racist jokes, I don't.

In reply t:

I loved this satirical piece on the issue...
http://newsthump.com/2016/10/16/world-enters-post-satire-era/

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Kenny Everett, surely?

youtube.com/watch?v=FqOh4z2ASdk&

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Yes, it takes the piss out of the infamous smug self righteous sanctimonious virtue signalling bien pensant pinko liberal Islington elite. Given their power and influence and the pedestal they have given themselves to sit on, they are perfect targets for satire.

As I said, elsewhere, left wing comedy is justified on the often spurious grounds that it is "punching up". Satirising the above group is doing exactly that.

The bureacratic, PC, jobsworth public sector is another obvious target ("Clare in the community" has a good bash at this)

Come top think of it the Jeremy Hardy and his chums clique of BBC "comedians" would be quite a good target.

PS. Other cliches can be provided on request

In reply to Postmanpat:
Let's have some then, post up some links. (Clare in the Community is right-wing comedy?). You listing cliches does not, for me anyway, constitute either comedy or satire!

In reply to pasbury:

Surely the actual news is now the satire?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Oh, there's not much of it! That's the problem. I think it's a vicious circle of commissioning editors who either wouldn't get the joke or have never seen such humour and therefore believe it wouldn't work, and comics who don't do it because it won't get commissioned. And then of course in luvvie circles it would all be a bit tricky. Might kill the social life.

Incidentally, Jezzer Corbyn is a gift to comedy so I look forward to Jeremy Hardy and Mark Steel et al making the most of him.........

In reply to pasbury:

Newzoids? Not as funny as spitting image admittedly

In reply to Postmanpat:

Stewart Lee, while not exactly what I'd call 'politically balanced', did an excellent send up of Radio 4 comedy - paraphrasing: "where pitch and rhythm are considered acceptable substitutes for content and wit".

youtube.com/watch?v=QVUhSLl1DAQ&

There's nothing wrong with satire being left wing - the problem is when it deliberately shies away from taking on legitimate targets precisely *because* they're left wing. That was the problem with Ten o'Clock Live, and is why HIGNFY and Stewart Lee are so much better at it.

* Edited when I found the Stewart Lee clip.

In reply to pasbury:

Like the tortoise and the hare, satire made a strong start but while it pauses for a short nap the real world has overtaken it.
jk

In reply to pasbury:

This podcast by Malcolm Gladwell on "The Satire Paradox" is really interesting

http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/10-the-satire-paradox

"In the political turmoil of mid-1990s Britain, a brilliant young comic named Harry Enfield set out to satirize the ideology and politics of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. His parodies became famous. He wrote and performed a vicious sendup of the typical Thatcherite nouveau riche buffoon. People loved it. And what happened? Exactly the opposite of what Enfield hoped would happen. In an age dominated by political comedy, “The Satire Paradox” asks whether laughter and social protest are friends or foes. "

In reply to planetmarshall:

The good thing about 10 o'clock Live was that they'd get on politicians and David Mitchell would interview them in a way that was entertaining. He didn't "shout them down" or do any of the things that "the left" are supposed to do, he interviewed them, much more politely than that prick off Newsnight (not the charming Evan Davies, who's improved the show ten fold). But as bluntly as was appropriate for the audience (yoof).

In reply to r0b:

Harry Enfield is probably my favourite comedian. So many brilliant characters.

These days it's all panel shows for comedians. That Mitchell and Webb look was a good attempt at traditional character sketch comedy, but IMO, Harry Enfield was the master.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Yes; I don't really see what being deferential has to with it or whether we are actually less deferential now than we're in the 80s. Perhaps 60 years ago it was a bit more risky to put on the likes of That Was The Week That Was but the function of that satire is the same as today's.

In reply to pasbury:

Agreed. With Craig David back in the U.K., where's Avid Merrion when you need him...

In reply to pasbury:


That's more like it. The point of satire is surely to undermine people who are generally deferred to. So if the media and uncle Tom Cobley treats them like dickheads all the time the satire loses its bite. I think in the 1980s there were still the remnants of the deference that TWTWTS undermined.

But it's just a thought.

In reply to Postmanpat:

The irony being that many of these comedies that mock traditional left wing stereotypes, such as Claire in the Community, SW12, the social worker one with Jo Brand and Alan Davies, are not right wing writers or comedians mocking these supposed sacred cows of the left, they are generally fairly left wing people mocking the supposed sacred cows.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:


I think HIGNFY is a prime example of what happens to satire. It starts out fresh and exciting, but over time it tends to become:
(a) an increasingly accepted part of "the establishment" that it is supposed to be skewering [hence BoJo chairing HIGNFY, and increasing his popularity as a result], and
(b) lazy and sneering.

Remember Tom Lehrer: "Irreverence is easy — what's hard is wit. Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize."

In reply to pasbury:

What happened to satire?

Well, I'm willing to bet that part of it is the blasphemy law that the country has now self-adopted, with regards to the Islamic religion. It's now not considered acceptable to mock -- or even criticise -- Islam (witness Louis Smith), and owing to that people are wary of mocking anything.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


I'm willing to bet that this has absolutely no relevance here whatsoever.

In reply to DancingOnRock:



Maybe you're forgetting that 50% of the wealth is owned by the 1%. Slightly less ironic now eh?

In reply to Removed User:


Not at all.

That 10% hold 85% of the remaining wealth.

And percentages are very misleading.
1% is 70m people.
10% is 700m people.

In reply to pasbury:

We need Chris Morris on our screens.

In reply to Removed User:

Maybe you're forgetting that 50% of the wealth is owned by the 1%. Slightly less ironic now eh?

Not sure what affect the Distribution of Wealth in the entire world has on satire in the UK where everyone has access to a whole array of media devices...

In reply to DancingOnRock:






Ok in absolute terms then. Assuming all of your 11% live in the developed world, having a population in the region 1.3 billion, that stills leave us with about 550 million people who are not doing too well out of the currently deal. Enough for a working class revolt?

In reply to Removed User:
Not really. It's a media induced revolt. Gullible people are being led to believe that it's terrible that the rich people control everything and they're keeping the poor people poor.

Mathematically it looks bad but only if you don't understand maths.

If of 10 people in the room, 9 have £10 each but one has £11. Those 9 people are below average. There is some really bad social spin going on. The real issue is that if the 'working class' really were concerned about global poverty they'd stop shopping at Sports Direct and Primark, but really they're in the top 20% so the bottom 80% is of no cencern to them, they'd rather complain about the 1%. Hence the irony and their belief that the satire they watch is actually the truth.

That's the reason satire isn't used much, as I said earlier, people miss satire completely.

.

In reply to DancingOnRock:
I provided those numbers in context of the developed world for a reason. I assumed, as you have, that global poverty is not high up the working class agenda in the West. But that still leaves 550 million people who have less than 15% of the distributed wealth compared with their peers in developed nations. These are the people working full-time, requiring tax credits, unable to afford homes and generally unable to get by with a reasonable level of affluence. You idea that this is a media induced revolution is only partially true, you need unrest to work with, and the reasons for that unrest are tangible.

You remark about averages is a red herring as we are considering distributions here.

In reply to Removed User:

As if by magic:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/social-mobility-hampered-by-mutu...

In reply to DancingOnRock:

this is the best description of the English class system that i have read: “The posh hate the poor, the poor hate the posh, everyone hates the middle-classes but not as much as they detest themselves.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Yes very humerous as ever from the Mash, but not addressing my point at all. How was the Trump victory media solely induced by a media that was overwhelmingly pro-Clinton? With Brexit it is less clear cut, but the underlying reasons are the same.

In reply to Removed User:

Because the media are far more subtle than that. The media place blame on certain groups of people (immigrants, benefits cheats, multi millionaires not paying taxes), people are taken in by it (because of course it's always someone else who is to blame for your problems)

Then all the politicians have to do is repeat what the people now believe and hey presto, they're in.

It's all lies and it's all being driven by people who aren't even British and already have more money than we could possibly imagine. Frightening.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


I don't really care if the likes of Murdoch & The Daily Mail owners/editors (washes out mouth) are rich and or foreign - I do care that they push their foul agenda without much check.

In reply to pasbury:

I just find the foreign part extremely ironic.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

In the US the top 1% control a third of the wealth and the top 10% control three quarters... hardly like your example is it.

In reply to Offwidth:

It was hardinicus's example. If you take 1% 'controlling' 50% of the wealth, then that's the accepted global figure.

What's more concerning is that the average global anual income is below £1,000.

I don't exactly know what 'controlling' means though. I control an awful lot of money each day and some of it is mine, it doesn't stay mine for very long and the rest of it is moving around fairly rapidly.

The biggest fallacy is that there is a fixed amount of money and that it's all sitting in rich people's bank accounts which stops poor people having it in theirs.

Governments just increase the amount of money to match what is required and it's all moving from one person to the next all ten time. So it shouldn't be a matter of making rich people poor, we should be making poor people rich.

.

In reply to pasbury:

Spitting Image was shite. The New Stetesman was class.

In reply to pasbury:

True there doesn't seem to be any decent satire out at the moment. From the past we had "Spitting Image", "Not the nine o'clock", the superb "Brass Eye", "That was the week that was" and even "Monty Python" could be regarded as satire in its way.

There is still satire in other media of course "Private Eye" being the obvious one and political cartoons still do the rounds.

In reply to pasbury:

Ah yes I had forgotten the Daily Mash. Good one!