Quote: Tim Walker @ February 11 2011, 5:02 PM GMT

Yes, but a significant part of the reason that what happened in the sub-prime mortgage market etc. was able to affect the strength of British banks, was the financial deregulation introduced by both Clinton and Blair (with Brown's enthusiastic support). This, coupled with massive public overspending (based largely on ideological rather than practical principles) is the reason UK plc is economically f**ked. "Global factors" may be a convenient get-out-of-jail card, but it doesn't actually excuse the actions of the Treasury under Labour's command.

View original

Yep. The banks f**ked themselves up, but they did so with a) the enthusiastic support of Clinton, Blair and Brown, and b) under a system which Gordon Brown designed and over which he presided and boasted of. His position as chancellor meant that he had ultimate responsibility for our banks' part in it; either way, it happened under Labour's watch, so they can't honestly wash their hands of it.

The massive defecit and fiscal mess the country is now in was created entirely by Labour. They hold 100% of the responsibility for it. And it's that mess that's left us unable to adequately cope with the fallout from the banking crisis. Spending all of the country's money, as Gordon Brown did, meant that there wasn't any left when we needed to give banks some help. And now leftie commentator after Labour MP after student politician is allowed, on everything from 10 O'Clock Live to Question Time to talk about the two issues as one and the same, and without a hint of irony, self-awareness or honesty, refer to the bankers having caused the defecit.

Sickening. And as Tim said, Labour do it every flipping time. Is it any wonder Tory Governments have to cut public spending?

Quote: Aaron @ February 11 2011, 5:10 PM GMT

The banks f**ked themselves up, but they did so with a) the enthusiastic support of Clinton, Blair and Brown, and b) under a system which Gordon Brown designed and over which he presided and boasted of. His position as chancellor meant that he had ultimate responsibility for our banks' part in it; either way, it happened under Labour's watch, so they can't honestly wash their hands of it.

The massive defecit and fiscal mess the country is now in was created entirely by Labour. They hold 100% of the responsibility for it. And it's that mess that's left us unable to adequately cope with the fallout from the banking crisis. Spending all of the country's money, as Gordon Brown did, meant that there wasn't any left when we needed to give banks some help. And now leftie commentator after Labour MP after student politician is allowed, on everything from 10 O'Clock Live to Question Time to talk about the two issues as one and the same, and without a hint of irony, self-awareness or honesty, refer to the bankers having caused the defecit.

Sickening. And as Tim said, Labour do it every flipping time. Is it any wonder Tory Governments have to cut public spending?

View original

Stop making me agree with you you big bloogy tory

Quote: Nat Wicks @ February 11 2011, 4:51 PM GMT

Now obviously I don't speak for anyone but myself, but for me it's all about status. For example I would not make fun of a group of people who have a history of systematic oppression. I also wouldn't make fun of someone who is disabled, for that same reason- I don't think you should perpetuate negative stereotypes which are in reality very harmful. For most people Richard Hammond is comparitively high status: He's a well off, middle class white male, living in one of the most powerful and influential western Countries with a prime time TV show. Taking a swipe at RH and others at that level is maybe more 'pricking at pomposity', rather than attacking a society or person who has suffered great hardship and oppression.

It's not black and white, but that's my feelings on the difference. You should always aim to swipe upwards.

View original

Some fair points. I do partly agree. But there's got to be a point where they stop and think about the stance they're taking, and how they're presenting themselves. In a case such as this, Brooker's coming across so righteous, high-and-mighty, so principled... and then without blinking, just drops it entirely? I dunno. Just doesn't feel right.

As for the comments themselves, eh, how many people in this country know that much about Mexico? I'm certainly not aware of any stereotypes of Mexicans - I just thought the Top Gear comments were quite amusing, absurdist if you will. I'm certainly surprised about the outcry.

Quote: Nat Wicks @ February 11 2011, 5:06 PM GMT

I worked for Northern Rock, in the Savings call centre on the day it all went to shit. I came into work, which was surrounded by news reporters. The wall boards which told you how many people were in the queue wouldn't work because there were too many people.

View original

Oh dear! That must have been one hell of a day.

That was also the day I first heard of Northern Rock.

Quote: Aaron @ February 11 2011, 5:18 PM GMT

Some fair points. I do partly agree. But there's got to be a point where they stop and think about the stance they're taking, and how they're presenting themselves. In a case such as this, Brooker's coming across so righteous, high-and-mighty, so principled... and then without blinking, just drops it entirely? I dunno. Just doesn't feel right.

View original

I get the impression from reading and watching Charlie Brooker that he probably sees 'mean' humour in the way I do. It can be fine so long as the targets are purpsosefully selected and justifiable.

As for the comments themselves, eh, how many people in this country know that much about Mexico? I'm certainly not aware of any stereotypes of Mexicans - I just thought the Top Gear comments were quite amusing, absurdist if you will. I'm certainly surprised about the outcry.

I'm surprised you haven't heard all of those stereotypes before, although admittedly they're quite rare in England, and generally perpetuated by the US media. There's a long runnign stereotype about Mexicans being lazy and feckless, when in reality I think we all recognise the huge numbers of Mexican immigants moving to America to work and earn a living. The stereotypes aren't nearly as harmful in the UK purely for the fact we don't particularly have a history of Mexican nationals moving to the UK.

Quote: chipolata @ February 11 2011, 4:55 PM GMT

But they ain't in power any more and it would be a strange satire show that ignored who was and focussed on a bunch of chancers who are at least 4 years from possible re-election.

View original

Quite - but the point being made is not that this or any other programme or commentator should necessarily focus on Labour, but that they should be getting far more attention than they currently do. The sum total of attacks on Labour are on Ed Miliband's appearance and personality. Hardly fitting, given that it's not even a year since they lost power, leaving the country in a financial catastrophe that they now deny.

On the issue of any left-wing bias contained in 10 O'Clock Live, I find myself rather agreeing with the view that any satirical show should (mainly) target the government of the day. It doesn't just make political sense, it makes comedic sense - there's bigger and better laughs to be had from targeting those with the actual power. The question I'd ask is why Channel 4 didn't feel the need to make a big, political comedy show during all those Labour years? Sure, they made the Rory Bremner shows, but they were never really meant for mass appeal, their target audience being those already with a fair degree of political nous.

You may say that, in TV commissioning terms, the Tories/Coalition are a more saleable target and that it's easier to make jokes about them. Thing is, there were an immense number of potential comedy targets during the Blair/Brown years, but the broadcasters tended to give them a relatively soft ride - they barked at Labour politicians, but didn't bite in the way they enjoy trying to eviscerate Conservative politics.

In the final reckoning, however, any debate is fairly futile. I'm somewhat comforted by the fact that (in Britain at any rate) satire and lampooning doesn't tend to affect the results of elections anyway. Let them have their rants and make their jibes - we'll at least get some empty laughs - but in the final reckoning all this satire generally counts for shit.

Quote: Aaron @ February 11 2011, 5:21 PM GMT

Oh dear! That must have been one hell of a day.

That was also the day I first heard of Northern Rock.

View original

Yep- that was only days before I went off on stress leave Haha.

I did save the bank £3.7 in investments that day though.

Quote: Tim Walker @ February 11 2011, 5:24 PM GMT

On the issue of any left-wing bias contained in 10 O'Clock Live, I find myself rather agreeing with the view that any satirical show should (mainly) target the government of the day. It doesn't just make political sense, it makes comedic sense - there's bigger and better laughs to be had from targeting those with the actual power. The question I'd ask is why Channel 4 didn't feel the need to make a big, political comedy show during all those Labour years? Sure, they made the Rory Bremner shows, but they were never really meant for mass appeal, their target audience being those already with a fair degree of political nous.

You may say that, in TV commissioning terms, the Tories/Coalition are a more saleable target and that it's easier to make jokes about them. Thing is, there were an immense number of potential comedy targets during the Blair/Brown years, but the broadcasters tended to give them a relatively soft ride - they barked at Labour politicians, but didn't bite in the way they enjoy trying to eviscerate Conservative politics.

In the final reckoning, however, any debate is fairly futile. I'm somewhat comforted by the fact that (in Britain at any rate) satire and lampooning doesn't tend to affect the results of elections anyway. Let them have their rants and make their jibes - we'll at least get some empty laughs - but in the final reckoning all this satire generally counts for shit.

View original

Pre-ZUNCT-ly.

Quote: Tim Walker @ February 11 2011, 5:24 PM GMT

satire and lampooning doesn't tend to affect the results of elections anyway. Let them have their rants and make their jibes - we'll at least get some empty laughs - but in the final reckoning all this satire generally counts for shit.

View original

Exactly. It's of no political consequence. It's just making ourselves feel better by moaning.

The way I see it, if Labour f**ks up in some way in opposition in a manner that makes it into headline news, then of course they'll joke about it. As it is, the opposition statements always come after government policies get announced or discussed, so it's the policy that's the news and therefore the subject of ridicule on a programme of this sort.

I dig the show a lot, though I still think the timing needs to be honed & the table discussions with multiple guests could be done away with.

I got bored reading all this thread but I did see some quotes about people being worried this show has a left-wing bias. In watching last night, I had worries too. Not because a media outlet with a left-wing bias is a bad thing (in a media that has a very strong right-wing bias) but because in a media with a very strong right-wing bias, any programme that doesn't attempt to even pretend it's a bit even-handed is going to get the very strongly biased right-wing media slagging it off for being unrepresentative and biased.

Good luck to our democracy.

And to Egypt's (P.S. as long as the people vote for the ones we want)

Do the terms Left Wing & Right Wing mean all that much anyway? It's a bit simplistic.
I'm not even sure how they are precisely defined, although I'd be interested to see.
You might read the Daily Mail but not want to kill alll Gypsies
And you might read the Guardian but be ever so sexist when down the pub with your friends.

Not the greatest examples, I'll give you that.
But I do get confused with it all.

Quote: Steve Sunshine @ February 12 2011, 1:52 AM GMT

Do the terms Left Wing & Right Wing mean all that much anyway? It's a bit simplistic.
I'm not even sure how they are precisely defined, although I'd be interested to see.
You might read the Daily Mail but not want to kill alll Gypsies
And you might read the Guardian but be ever so sexist when down the pub with your friends.

Not the greatest examples, I'll give you that.
But I do get confused with it all.

View original

Actually Steve, they are the greatest examples. Which is probably why you - typical centre-right-leftist-not-fussed - picked exactly these to illustrate your great/mediocre/irrelevant/sorry point (delete those that do not apply*)

*unless you're a Cyberman, that would be dangerous.

Quote: Griff @ February 12 2011, 1:54 AM GMT

I've lost interest in this show now. It's not terrible or anything, I just can't be bothered to remember to watch it.

View original

It's because it's too long. I guarantee you, Griff, the same material in 40 mins and you would watch. Okay, think about watching.

Quote: Badge @ February 12 2011, 2:06 AM GMT

Actually Steve, they are the greatest examples. Which is probably why you - typical centre-right-leftist-not-fussed - picked exactly these to illustrate your great/mediocre/irrelevant/sorry point (delete those that do not apply*)

View original

I'll keep my deletions to myself thankyou.

Quote: Tim Walker @ February 11 2011, 4:45 PM GMT

The very same people who, until relatively recently, f**ked up public spending and the economy in general, are asking to be given another chance.

View original

Off Topic Warning:
Bratishka, no government ever plans for a sudden economic slump. Perhaps they should, but they don't. You are just trotting out a tired Tory libel here.

If you want to slam them for thinking they had 'abolished boom and bust' or taking steps to regulate the city sooner, I think I can meet you half way.

Quote: Tim Walker @ February 11 2011, 4:45 PM GMT

Every time Labour are in power they manage to screw-up on the economy.

View original

Really? My Mum and Dad seem to think that the time of the '64 Wilson govt was a pretty good time to be alive - and if your taste is for austerity not prosperity, how about Atlee's 1945 administration?