Jim Davidson doesn't seem to have caught on in North America. So it was necessary to go to YouTube to get a taste (and a bad one) of what passes for his wit.
He seems like a geriatric version of that third-rate comedian at a Trump rally in 2024 whose disparaging remarks about Puerto Rico created controversy.
It's doubtful that Davidson would be that popular among America's own far-right loonies in the MAGAsphere. His "hang the paedos" bit would be taken as a direct attack on The Orange One himself. And his comment "I don’t like the idea of scroungers and ponces" could be seen as a dig at Trump's nepo baby offspring.
Just as Trump attracts has-been musical performers like Vanilla Ice and Kid Rock, Nigel Farage is apparently collecting dilapidated comedians whose utterances are funny only to those of a shared bigotry.
Fine and insightful writing, here. Only marred, very slightly, almost imperceptibly, by the setup, which lends obviously loyal colour to the subsequent analysis.
What I mean is, I am no fan of Jim Davidson or the ilk into which he's rightly lumped. But not all 70s comedy was as readily suggested here. The Two Ronnies? A tricky conundrum for the self-righteous Gen-Z hyper-feminist trans-liberal whatever identity. Genuine and beautiful creative talent ("Mastermind": answering the question before last?), which was also part of the cringe-worthy seventies leering at scantily dressed woman and mocking of (high-camp) homosexuality. (The talent that also brought the wonderful Barbara Dickson to prime time.) Must be an anomaly. All the rest were working-class Tory misogynists, right? Purpose served. No dog-whistling here.
This is the point. The self-yadayada leftists are locked in as much of a time warp as those on whom they waste indicatively increasing time by attacking. But they totally refuse any form of self-reproach. Their assumed righteousness as Olympic torch carriers of future morality shades any possibility of critique. And, generally, because of its relative youth, the dyed-in-the-Lyocell "left" fails to experience the temporal tide widely enough to see its causes and effects, actions and reactions. But not all – and NH is too good an analyst and writer not to at least correct for that. But the identity pervades: there is no editorial possibility—seemingly no desire—to reflect in a way that could sway a more mature or moderate audience. The left still thinks the "non-left" is the "far right" without noticing or accepting that it has almost come full circle to join them.
And that's disappointing because it is the only way to de-escalate the stoked alienation of one group against another group. NH is right in his observation, however. Laughter is surely a mild orgiastic proxy to temporarily mollify the burden of conscious separateness. But, as such, it is common to everybody. The suggestion, consummately coloured here, is that the existential condition of loneliness only afflicts those ageing away in social uselessness by the seaside—obviously racists and bigots—rather than global game-changers drowning in seas of self-imposed troubles on the Metropolitan line.
There's also the unexplored irony that their celebrated perniciously misguided icon of neoliberalism is the very cause of their predicament. Just like the left, they brought it on themselves, and, like the left, are still supping the Kool-Aid. Or maybe both left and right are so deep in their furrows of identity all they can do is keep on keeping on digging. (Was it the left or the right—or America—that cast "class" into obloquy? Everyone is equal now. Aren't they just?)
How do you reconcile why I can take similar pleasure in watching (plucked from the air) Stephen Fry, Sandi Toksvig, Shappi Khorsandi, Ricky Gervais, Rob Brydon, and Julian Clary but not Jimmy Carr, Ben Elton, Jo Brand (maybe), Jack Whitehall, Jason Manford, or (somehow) Dara Ó Briain?
There are certain facts about certain people and groups thereof. Certain facts proscribed by identity politics. What distinguishes the former list from the latter? Perhaps, most importantly, the humility to laugh at (or satirise or mock) everybody including oneself. The latter, relatively speaking take themselves more seriously. And, as I despise cats, so I can't stand smug-faced Jimmy Carr.
So, I don't think NH's analysis is ultimately valuable. Because what it fails to spot is that it's not about leftist morality vs right and the bigotry of a dying old guard. It's about comedy conveyed with acid and comedy conveyed with love. (Gervais might squirt plenty of acid but underneath it there is a resigned and shared benevolence). Ronnie Barker was surely a Thatcherite but bore no class delusions nor contempt for those he played or parodied. It was always done with kindness. (Would making a feature from someone's speech impediment be acceptable today? Why not?)
A quote from Brian Logan in The Guardian (2017): 'But when it comes to changing people’s minds, let alone how they vote, Sayle is more doubtful. “My stuff is obviously very leftwing, but I was never trying to persuade people. That wasn’t the purpose of it.” If anything, it was more of a “bonding exercise”, he says, with people who felt the same way.'
And the only thing funny about leftist icon, Alexi Sayle, was his occasional facility for coming unhinged. At other times, like Ben Elton, he was performatively up himself. To bond with his clique. Like Jim Davidson. And like the latter—plausibly with the exceptions of "Nasty" and "Bambi", which are excellent—The Young Ones has aged quite poorly. In fact, worse than Davidson: it can't even approximate its present-day comparable social grouping (students).
No one ever changed minds by aggressively and diametrically rallying for the opposition. They have done so by facing the same direction as those they seek to influence. And that, at the very least, means acknowledging that they do, genuinely, on certain topics, have a plainly valid point.
I stopped regularly reading the Guardian a few years ago when it disappeared up its arse over so-called trans rights and the sixty-nine best ways for interracial quadriplegics to reach orgasm. My decision is vindicated daily. The Observer is trying to take itself more seriously but presently gushing its guilt all over Andy Burnham. What does the New Statesman want to be? More of the same? Or a cognac and wood-panelled critical persuader of higher brow?
It has the writers—NH is among them—but it risks falling short from caution, loyalty, and lack of self-critique, unnecessarily, and with only reinforcing repercussions.
At the end of the day, in the spirit of unity in which I preach, the traditional political extremes remain characterised by one common trait. They're just not funny anymore. (Were they ever?)
GB News newspaper review is quite handy and unique on late night tele after BBC News 24 spiked their version which had some of same people. Their panel always has a left leaning commentator, the best being Benjamin Butterworth. One of few places not infected by brainless anti-zionist virtue signalling imo
What if..... the voters of Clacton voted tactically and opted for Clown Binface, and not Dummy Farage?
Big Upset and huge embarassment all round. Essex Man and Essex Girl will have made their point.
Jim Davidson doesn't seem to have caught on in North America. So it was necessary to go to YouTube to get a taste (and a bad one) of what passes for his wit.
He seems like a geriatric version of that third-rate comedian at a Trump rally in 2024 whose disparaging remarks about Puerto Rico created controversy.
It's doubtful that Davidson would be that popular among America's own far-right loonies in the MAGAsphere. His "hang the paedos" bit would be taken as a direct attack on The Orange One himself. And his comment "I don’t like the idea of scroungers and ponces" could be seen as a dig at Trump's nepo baby offspring.
Just as Trump attracts has-been musical performers like Vanilla Ice and Kid Rock, Nigel Farage is apparently collecting dilapidated comedians whose utterances are funny only to those of a shared bigotry.
Fine and insightful writing, here. Only marred, very slightly, almost imperceptibly, by the setup, which lends obviously loyal colour to the subsequent analysis.
What I mean is, I am no fan of Jim Davidson or the ilk into which he's rightly lumped. But not all 70s comedy was as readily suggested here. The Two Ronnies? A tricky conundrum for the self-righteous Gen-Z hyper-feminist trans-liberal whatever identity. Genuine and beautiful creative talent ("Mastermind": answering the question before last?), which was also part of the cringe-worthy seventies leering at scantily dressed woman and mocking of (high-camp) homosexuality. (The talent that also brought the wonderful Barbara Dickson to prime time.) Must be an anomaly. All the rest were working-class Tory misogynists, right? Purpose served. No dog-whistling here.
This is the point. The self-yadayada leftists are locked in as much of a time warp as those on whom they waste indicatively increasing time by attacking. But they totally refuse any form of self-reproach. Their assumed righteousness as Olympic torch carriers of future morality shades any possibility of critique. And, generally, because of its relative youth, the dyed-in-the-Lyocell "left" fails to experience the temporal tide widely enough to see its causes and effects, actions and reactions. But not all – and NH is too good an analyst and writer not to at least correct for that. But the identity pervades: there is no editorial possibility—seemingly no desire—to reflect in a way that could sway a more mature or moderate audience. The left still thinks the "non-left" is the "far right" without noticing or accepting that it has almost come full circle to join them.
And that's disappointing because it is the only way to de-escalate the stoked alienation of one group against another group. NH is right in his observation, however. Laughter is surely a mild orgiastic proxy to temporarily mollify the burden of conscious separateness. But, as such, it is common to everybody. The suggestion, consummately coloured here, is that the existential condition of loneliness only afflicts those ageing away in social uselessness by the seaside—obviously racists and bigots—rather than global game-changers drowning in seas of self-imposed troubles on the Metropolitan line.
There's also the unexplored irony that their celebrated perniciously misguided icon of neoliberalism is the very cause of their predicament. Just like the left, they brought it on themselves, and, like the left, are still supping the Kool-Aid. Or maybe both left and right are so deep in their furrows of identity all they can do is keep on keeping on digging. (Was it the left or the right—or America—that cast "class" into obloquy? Everyone is equal now. Aren't they just?)
How do you reconcile why I can take similar pleasure in watching (plucked from the air) Stephen Fry, Sandi Toksvig, Shappi Khorsandi, Ricky Gervais, Rob Brydon, and Julian Clary but not Jimmy Carr, Ben Elton, Jo Brand (maybe), Jack Whitehall, Jason Manford, or (somehow) Dara Ó Briain?
There are certain facts about certain people and groups thereof. Certain facts proscribed by identity politics. What distinguishes the former list from the latter? Perhaps, most importantly, the humility to laugh at (or satirise or mock) everybody including oneself. The latter, relatively speaking take themselves more seriously. And, as I despise cats, so I can't stand smug-faced Jimmy Carr.
So, I don't think NH's analysis is ultimately valuable. Because what it fails to spot is that it's not about leftist morality vs right and the bigotry of a dying old guard. It's about comedy conveyed with acid and comedy conveyed with love. (Gervais might squirt plenty of acid but underneath it there is a resigned and shared benevolence). Ronnie Barker was surely a Thatcherite but bore no class delusions nor contempt for those he played or parodied. It was always done with kindness. (Would making a feature from someone's speech impediment be acceptable today? Why not?)
A quote from Brian Logan in The Guardian (2017): 'But when it comes to changing people’s minds, let alone how they vote, Sayle is more doubtful. “My stuff is obviously very leftwing, but I was never trying to persuade people. That wasn’t the purpose of it.” If anything, it was more of a “bonding exercise”, he says, with people who felt the same way.'
And the only thing funny about leftist icon, Alexi Sayle, was his occasional facility for coming unhinged. At other times, like Ben Elton, he was performatively up himself. To bond with his clique. Like Jim Davidson. And like the latter—plausibly with the exceptions of "Nasty" and "Bambi", which are excellent—The Young Ones has aged quite poorly. In fact, worse than Davidson: it can't even approximate its present-day comparable social grouping (students).
No one ever changed minds by aggressively and diametrically rallying for the opposition. They have done so by facing the same direction as those they seek to influence. And that, at the very least, means acknowledging that they do, genuinely, on certain topics, have a plainly valid point.
I stopped regularly reading the Guardian a few years ago when it disappeared up its arse over so-called trans rights and the sixty-nine best ways for interracial quadriplegics to reach orgasm. My decision is vindicated daily. The Observer is trying to take itself more seriously but presently gushing its guilt all over Andy Burnham. What does the New Statesman want to be? More of the same? Or a cognac and wood-panelled critical persuader of higher brow?
It has the writers—NH is among them—but it risks falling short from caution, loyalty, and lack of self-critique, unnecessarily, and with only reinforcing repercussions.
At the end of the day, in the spirit of unity in which I preach, the traditional political extremes remain characterised by one common trait. They're just not funny anymore. (Were they ever?)
GB News newspaper review is quite handy and unique on late night tele after BBC News 24 spiked their version which had some of same people. Their panel always has a left leaning commentator, the best being Benjamin Butterworth. One of few places not infected by brainless anti-zionist virtue signalling imo