Brilliant!

How we could do with the Daily Show equivalent in the UK, can you imagine a British news/topical/satirical TV programme doing something similar about the Jubilee?

Instead we have Britain’s take on satire, Have I Got News For You………..

No body would put it on here. Such is the ludicrous sycophantic nature of the pro royalty establishment. Even the BBC has gone insane. As for Morgan, what a tosser. He ejaculates over Royals and Brooks. Tells you all you need to know about him.

I would say most people in the UK are for it but that doesn’t mean we’re not highly embarrassed by these relic ball lickers who are so hopelessly out of touch with the real world Britain today trying desperately to revive an awe for elite privilege.

Like Morgan or not he is normally a smart enough guy but expose him to a whiff of regalia and he becomes a schoolgirl fan of how he would love to be treated himself….so far he’s only got as far as the stiff upper lip and that may be the result of a silent unnoticed stroke.

Brilliant stuff from Jon & John, as is to be expected.

But what’s with all the ‘no British comedian would dare’… were none of you on Twitter over the weekend?! Check Danny Wallace, Danny Baker, Dara O’Briain (yeah, Irish, i know), Caitlin Moran or Lauren Laverne (off the top of my head) Even David Baddiel was funny.
And what platform is there for comedians on TV to do anything of the sort. There is no daily political comedy show on ove rhere, if you hadn’t noticed…! Jon Richardson & others were fairly scathing on last week’s 8 out of 10 Cats, though that was before we’d even seen any of the mess over the weekend.
At least wait til this week’s episodes of the News Quiz and HIGNFY have been shown before complaining that no British comedian has tackled the subject!

@1

I’d say the closest that the UK has to JS is 10 o’Clock Live which unfortunately is only on for a few weeks at a time. HIGNFY used to be great but it seems to be too much about the personality hosting it (similar to Never Mind the Buzzcocks).

It amazes me that he talks about the fact that CNN doesn’t have breaking news on the plane crash and cut away from the boring flotilla, but forgets to mention the fact that there isn’t a section on the news everyday concerning the fact that many, many people die round the world everyday due to poverty and war, maybe he should remind his audience of this and stop using the Jubilee as comic fodder. If he really wanted to point out that there are tragic incidents going on around the world maybe he could show people the coverage which is usually on american news which concerns complete and utter shit and then show the people an image of a molested abused child or some figures on how many people are homeless in america as opposed to taking away from the service of a woman who has worked tirelessly for 60 years working harder than many people today, and though you may not agree with the monarchy (nor do I) you could at least show some respect. Also in regard to the point about the austerity, it should also be noted that if not for the failing of american banks the world would not be in such a predicament. The celebrations are also a way in which to help unify the country in a time of austerity, where patriotism in this country is not based on yocals flying a flag or burning a Koran, but on the shared recognition of a woman who has devoted her life to serving this country, helping with trade and despite what people would say about the money spent on the upkeep of the royals the money brought in by tourism and from her travels and public relations is invaluable.

Guessing someone’s never seen the daily show before.

They regularly rip on the news networks for ignoring international news in favour of ‘fluff’, and it being a show that’s on daily, (there’s a clue somewhere even if you haven’t seen the show), they’re doing just that with the events of that day, the jubilee, and the air crash disaster.

They’re not saying ‘don’t cover it’, they’re saying, maybe, just maybe some news could be squeezed into the day around 24 hours of Piers Morgan’s fat smug face.

I’m all for the Queen, I feel there’s too many hangers on, and the royal list could stand to be trimmed a bit, but I have nothing against the Jubilee, the Queen, or her direct relatives. But, you don’t get to be in a position of power in Britain unless you can handle a bit of a ribbing, everyone gets made fun of.

Hell, the only reason we put up with Prince Philip, is that he is comedy gold, and I just hope he gets cured of his infection by a wide range of oriental, indian, and african medical staff, just to see if he can resist saying something offensive even while they’re trying to help him.

Brilliant. As a British subject – not citizen, note – I was sickened by the fawning over these inbred parasites.

PJ: you were born in a now-independent then-British colony before 1947 and never claimed either British or the successor state’s nationality? Because those are the only people who are British subjects. Like, I suspect, most of the people who comment on this site, I’m a British citizen.

(Christ knows where people dredge up the archaic villager about ‘subjects’ from…)

No jubilee parties in Scotland and we had glorious weather. Time for all this rubbish to stop.

Ho ho ho ho…’hilarious’ GLIBERAL satire from John Stewart. You liberals are sooo ‘witty’ especially about things you don’t understand. You know the price of everything and the value of nothing and that is why you will never inspire a million people to turn out on a wet Monday.

@Emma #10:

No jubilee parties in Scotland and we had glorious weather.

None at all?

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/104554-street-parties-and-afternoon-teas-as-scotland-celebrates-queens-jubilee/

@11 Paul

No, cause it’s not as if a million liberals and other people would turn out to protest against a pointless and ill considered war in Iraq is it….

…. oh wait…

People of all parties and none are in fact quite capable of examining the supposed value of the monarchy and what it represents and finding it to be a pointless anachronism thanks.

The tub thumping cheer leading of the supine media is only to be expected, and of course there are plenty of sheep to be led as the mass hysteria after the death of Diana amply demonstrated…. however that shameful and embarrassing episode ought to be a great example of just how brittle and superficial the love of the masses for the monarchy is.

We do know the value of the monarchy and it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. The only thing it inspires in large parts of the population is indifference.

@12 Robin

One swallow doesn’t make a summer. the number of street parties etc was embarrassingly small for the supporters of the monarchy in Scotland. It is (thankfully) possible to be totally unaware in Scotland that the jubilee is even happening. Monarchists in Scotland are about as common as Tories thankfully…..indeed they are often one and the same, which probably accounts for it.

You won’t find many Scots who are in the least enthusiastic about the royal family as individuals, or indeed as an institution, even if they thing the present Queen is OK and does a fairly good job.

Jon stewart is a twit. Nothing he says or does is very funny to be honest.

A pretty dull way to end what otherwise would have been yet another concise and intelligent criticism to one of the most stupid ideas of humankind: Monarchy.

however that shameful and embarrassing episode ”

I’m a Monarchist but I agree that her funeral was a disgrace. The Queen Mother’s funeral was a much more dignified event.

I’m a proud Brit and I cannot stand the monarchy. Well done Jon Stewart. I may try and put something about the Jubilee in my next stand-up although I’m sure all the sycophants will boo me off stage.

We need Jon Stewart on out screens in the UK.

Since More 4 took him off their has been no humour like this and we are in dire need of it.

Regarding the street parties in scotland, 60 took place, most of which were organised by the orange order and payed for by Glasgow council.

We need Jon Stewart on out screens in the UK.
Since More 4 took him off their has been no humour like this and we are in dire need of it.
Regarding the street parties in scotland, 60 took place, most of which were organised by the orange order and payed for by Glasgow council.

What a fucking pile of shit, Loudmouth American cunt can kiss my arse.

Also the Jubilee can kiss my cunt as well, piers morgan can can just go fuck himself i would not piss on him if he was on fire!!

A disappointing diatribe delivered through a mist of ignorance taking no account of the depth of feeling of this cultural issue. First and last time I listen to this ignorant, rude idiot.

Brilliant, we needed something like this. All we’ve had is wall to wall enforced coverage on all our national news outlets on both TV and Radio.

Apart from the shops and pubs trying to cash in no one really cared about it, but we will be told over and over again that we did!

TWAT!

22 I take it you are a parody. No you are a pro monarchy , sense of humour lacking tosser. Goes for 6 as well.

Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant. It’s over, thank the lord. An entire long weekend of the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family flashing their jewels and cash at the serfs. Jeez.

Not a sniff of a street party in my Scottish neck of the woods, thank heaven, and not even a fragment of bunting.

Sadly, the CNN coverage was far better than the BBCs! which kept giving historical footnotes about bridges and whatnot, instead of letting just enjoy the rain on the Thames and the flotilla.

Excellent- this is the only coverage that I’ve seen of the whole fiasco. I stayed in for two days without turning on the tv or radio, just so I could miss it all. Celebrating 60 yrs of the queen sponging off the taxpayer? I don’t think so.

@24. Lu

Nice reference to John Cooper Clarke

Nice idea – but what a dick-head

Pretty amusing, as a Brit i would say i didn’t really take much notice of the Jubilee but it seemed like a bit of a shambles. The weather here is terrible here as well, four consecutive days of sun is a rarity.

Also, for anyone wanting a UK satire news show just check out The Day Today and Brass Eye. It’s a shame Chris Morris doesn’t do more, the guys a genius.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3BO6GP9NMY

Can I just point out that there was a pro-republic protest last Sunday, the largest in recent times and the collective media of Britain and I presume the world ignored it. When they did mention it they drastically reduced the size of it.

Ridiculous ceremonies like this and the royal wedding during a time of austerity is a disgrace. There is no logical argument for the continuation of this farce of a system. Any income brought in through tourism is considerably less than the amount it costs to keep the monarchy. Further a president could do any of the roles the Queen does.

In a time when we should be striving towards meritocracy and cultural equality we have this. Can a Muslim be the head of state of Britain? A catholic? No. I’m British, I love my country, this royalist crap sickens me.

I was there , 200 yards from Tower Bridge. protesting with Rebublic, stopped from protesting from main area of protest agreed with Police. Shame you had no one with an ear to the ground and thus missed the strong resistance and protest to end this undemocratic, unelected head of state in order to give rise to a true Democracy. All you need to do is ‘Google’ Republic. You would have a had a far more interesting and topical story. Oh hum

@Graydon Robson #32:

Can I just point out that there was a pro-republic protest last Sunday, the largest in recent times and the collective media of Britain and I presume the world ignored it. When they did mention it they drastically reduced the size of it.

That one gets you “victim” of the week.

I read two national broadsheets; the protest was covered in both of them; it was also covered on the BBC website, with video. “Ignored” may be overstating the case.

As for the size of the protest; how many do you say attended?

Numbers attending the anti-Monarchy demonstration are irrelevant. The Sun is the most read so-called newspaper in the country. It’s still a pile of crap.

And history will judge those of us on the side of equality and against hereditary privilege to be right.

Sadly, “panem et circenses” works very well in Britain: http://andreasmoser.wordpress.com/2012/06/06/panem-et-circenses-in-britain/

Strange… can’t be viewed from my location (UK)… anyone else had trouble viewing?

@Andreas Moser:

So, you don’t trust the great British public to understand the important issues, and you consider that they are easily bribed and fascinated by baubles.

Tell me: was this intended as an argument for or against democracy?

@Murray #35:

I assume that your comment was intended as an answer to mine.

Graydon raised the issues of media coverage and numbers attending – if you don’t like them being raised, criticise him.

And who here is – in the abstract – against equality and in favour of hereditary privilege? Why cast the argument in such apocalyptic terms?

@ Robin Levett

I assumed Andreas was just publicising his blog and doing some backlinking to a list of his blog posts. I suppose needling the left is good sport to some observers of this farce of a Jubilee weekend, and not as risky as antagonising Daily Mail readers and the Home Counties.

@Suzanne #40:

There’s a genuine argument to be had about the place of a hereditary head of state in a functioning democracy subject to the rule of law as compared with an elected head of state, and how any change would affect both the functioning of the democracy and the rule of law; and there is a separate argument to be had about pageantry associated with the head of state, whether hereditary or otherwise. As I’ve said elsewhere on this site, I’m not wedded to the monarchy; but I’m not sure that the alternatives offered will actually improve the position. It is not enough simply to say we must get rid of a hereditary head of state because it’s undemocratic to have one; indeed it is arguably undemocratic to do so if, as appears to be the case, a significant majority of the electorate actually want it to stay.

Nor is it enough to say that we’ll get rid of the monarchy without saying what we’ll put in its place.

The problem I have with Republic is that their argument boils down to “hereditary = bad”, and they seem unprepared to allow facts to get in the way of a good rant.

@ 37 Dan

“Strange… can’t be viewed from my location (UK)… anyone else had trouble viewing?”

Videos on LC hardly ever seem to work for me (also UK).

@41 Robin

“Nor is it enough to say that we’ll get rid of the monarchy without saying what we’ll put in its place.

The problem I have with Republic is that their argument boils down to “hereditary = bad”, and they seem unprepared to allow facts to get in the way of a good rant.”

Not sure I accept that argument. Whilst currently there is a huge majority in favour of retaining the monarchy, much of that is likely to be in the person of the current monarch. There is nothing to say that will always be the case; the very sudden and chilling change in public attitudes in the aftermath of Diana’s death was surely a salutary lesson to supporters of the monarchy that public support cannot be taken at face value.

If at some future date the balance is much more equal, why is it incumbent on those opposing monarchy and the hereditary principle to present a detailed plan with every i dotted and every t crossed? It is up to the people to decide what alternative they deem fir…. either directly or through their elected representatives.

Your line reminds me of the specious arguments being put forward by supporters of the Union in the Scottish referendum debate, that it is incumbent on the SNP to have every detail of what happens post 2014 in the event of a yes vote. In practice, any future debate as to whether the monarchy should be abolished or not needs to deal with the main event first; the detail about what replaces it comes afterwards.

@Galen10 #43:

If you abolish the monarchy, you rip a huge bleeding chunk out of the heart of the fundamental governance arrangements of the nation. If you’re going to do that, you’d damn well better have a plan to replace it. Get it wrong, and you can end up with not only a less workable system, but a less democratic one; and/or one less amenable to the rule of law. Since the whole thrust of the change is to increase democracy, Republic does have a burden of explaining how they want to replace the monarchy, so that we can judge whether democracy will indeed be increased by the change.

As I’ve said upthread, I’m not wedded to the monarchy; but simply abolishing the monarchy and replacing it with a presidency with all the same powers is a recipe for constitutional gridlock at best. Two powers will explain the point. Take a party politically elected president whose party becomes a minority party in a finely balanced Commons; s/he does not want to hand over government to the Opposition, so calls upon the minority party leader in the Commons to form a government. At the same time, s/he lets it be known that if the Commons tries to force the majority party leader upon him/her, s/he will simply refuse the Presidential Assent to all legislation passed under such a government.

If that is an increase in either democracy or the rule of law, I’m a banana.

At present, that would never happen – (i) the monarch is constrained by convention and (ii) such an action would lead to a constitutional crisis in which the monarchy would indeed be abolished. A politically-elected president, however, has democratic legitimacy of his/her own, and may well be tempted to force the issue in this way.

Interesting that by 8th June the Jon Stewart piece appears to have been blocked. Thought this kind of thing only happened in other countries, which are constantly being persuaded by the UK to be free and democratic.

@ 44 Robin

What if we enshrine in law that the president is obliged to recognise a government formed by a majority of MPs?

Oops nearly forgot. Strange that many other countries have a monarch as Head of State, but don’t seem to need the endless list of aristocrats, toadies, and hangers on. For example, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain. Such systems tick all the boxes of a constitutional monarch without the extravagance of our system.

@ 45

“Interesting that by 8th June the Jon Stewart piece appears to have been blocked. Thought this kind of thing only happened in other countries, which are constantly being persuaded by the UK to be free and democratic.”

Nah, it also happens in countries that have intellectual property law, like this one. Unless you’ve got evidence that the piece has been blocked for reasons of denying free speech.

@44 Robin

Oh do calm down and get a sense of perspective! If a decision is taken to abolish the monarchy at some point in the future, it is most unlikely to involve the storming of Buckingham Palace and heads on pikes.

Any new system will not simply be a non-hereditary monarch. A UK president will be non-executive, and will have even fewer of the vestigial (tho effectively un-usable) powers currently retained by the monarchy. There is ZERO chance of an elected president (whether directly or indirectly elected) facing down the sovereign parliament and trying to impose the government of his or her choice over the heads of the people. That has to be one of the grossest straw men I’ve seen for a long time.

Any system put in place instead of a monarchy will involve checks and balances: any President who goes off the rails and tries to start acting in an executive manner would be impeached… none of this is rocket science, and the details of which system we would have, and what powers the President would or would not have are up to the people and /or Parliament to decide.

None of your hysterical scenarios are plausible, any more than the dire predictions of Unionist propagandists in Scotland about the sky falling down the day after a yes vote in the Scottish referendum in 2014 are plausible. Stop the chicken licken act and we might take your views more seriously.

@Galen10 #49:

Oh do calm down and get a sense of perspective! If a decision is taken to abolish the monarchy at some point in the future, it is most unlikely to involve the storming of Buckingham Palace and heads on pikes.

That has to be one of the grossest straw men I’ve seen for a long time.

I couldn’t have put it better myself.

So you wouldn’t think it likely that President Blair would refuse to call on Nigel Farage’s successor to form a government in coalition with the BNP, and instead call on Ed Milliband to form a minority government in coalition with the rump of the Con-Lib parties?

Any system put in place instead of a monarchy will involve checks and balances: any President who goes off the rails and tries to start acting in an executive manner would be impeached…

One would hope so – but my point remains that it is perfectly possible for an apparently democratic system to throw up undemocratic results, and for an apparently undemocratic system to throw up democratic results. The current arrangements for a constitutional monarchy monarchy are not sufficiently bad that any superficially more democratic system would necessarily be an improvement. Indeed, any democratic deficit in the system at present does not result from the monarchy; so any replacement system should be scrutinised to see that it does not produce a worse – ie less democratic – result.

… none of this is rocket science, and the details of which system we would have, and what powers the President would or would not have are up to the people and /or Parliament to decide.

Indeed – but we are not in a situation where it is critical to make the change; so there is no reason why the details – which will affect whether the proposed replacement is better or worse than the current arrangements – cannot be thrashed out and thought through.

@50 Robin

“So you wouldn’t think it likely that President Blair would refuse to call on Nigel Farage’s successor to form a government in coalition with the BNP, and instead call on Ed Milliband to form a minority government in coalition with the rump of the Con-Lib parties?”

No, because a future President would be constrained either by what the constitution said he could do, or what parliament had said he could do, and/or what the people would tolerate. You continue to posit a much more executive French or US style presidency than would in fact pertain in any UK system; in practice a UK president would operate within strict bounds, shorn of the vestigial powers available to the monarchy; in short, they would not be in the position to act in the way you suggest.

“The current arrangements for a constitutional monarchy monarchy are not sufficiently bad that any superficially more democratic system would necessarily be an improvement.”

Nonsense; the alternatives we are discussing are by definition “superior” to a hereditary monarchy which encapsulates much of what is wrong with British society and our crypto medieval system of government. Your argument (such as it is) would have militated against previous changes….. no doubt you’d have been with those arguing against earlier changes to the system. The fact that our current system bars women in favour of younger brothers or indeed Catholics from becoming monarch is a fairly clear indication that something is rotten in the state of …. Britain.

Whatever system eventually replaces monarchy is not simply “superficially” more democratic, it is so by its very nature. The potential for results like those you discuss above are relatively easily solvable, and in any case you fail (of course) to highlight the potential pitfalls of some future nut-job who lucks out by becoming monarch (Edward VIII anyone…?) using their position in a way which could be much more detrimental to the national interest than is the case in your imagined future.

“Indeed – but we are not in a situation where it is critical to make the change; so there is no reason why the details – which will affect whether the proposed replacement is better or worse than the current arrangements – cannot be thrashed out and thought through.”

There is every reason why finalising the details can and should be deferred until after the basic decision is made. You continually maintaining otherwise with no evidence doesn’t make it more convincing. Just as is the case for Scottish independence, they detailed constitutional and political questions need to be addressed afterwards, as there are many potential solutions. No one party or movement in either case would have all the answers, and the solutions adopted would depend on the situation at the time.

Thus just as it is stupid to expect the SNP to give chapter and verse now about what would happen on a range of issues post independence (issues which are NOT within their gift), the exact nature and powers of a President of the UK in the future would need to be finalised at the time, not years in advance when nobody knows what the situation on the ground will be.

I agree we are not currently in a critical situation where it is necessary to make the change; thus it would be ridiculous to expect the alternative to the current system to be defined in every detail now.

@Galen10 #51:

“So you wouldn’t think it likely that President Blair would refuse to call on Nigel Farage’s successor to form a government in coalition with the BNP, and instead call on Ed Milliband to form a minority government in coalition with the rump of the Con-Lib parties?”

No, because a future President would be constrained either by what the constitution said he could do, or what parliament had said he could do, and/or what the people would tolerate.

So no difference there between the presidency that you envisage and a monarchy.

Whatever system eventually replaces monarchy is not simply “superficially” more democratic, it is so by its very nature.

No, and this goes to the heart of the argument. What is it that the monarch does that requires more democratic legitimacy than the monarchy currently has (it tends to be taken as given that if a referendum were held tomorrow on a question “monarchy or presidency?”, monarchy would win hands down)?

You could argue for example that judges should be elected not appointed and that that would be inherently more democratic than the current situation; but you’d be wrong, because the effect upon the rule of law would be overwhelmingly negative.

By convention the monarchy exercises very little real power (indeed I struggle to identify any) otherwise than on the advice of the Prime Minister, who commands a majority in the House of Commons. There is no democratic deficit here.

The fact that our current system bars women in favour of younger brothers or indeed Catholics from becoming monarch is a fairly clear indication that something is rotten in the state of …. Britain.

I don’t know about being a clear indication of anything of the kind; but I’d stand behind a reform that removes that gender and religious discrimination

Your argument (such as it is) would have militated against previous changes….. no doubt you’d have been with those arguing against earlier changes to the system.

Grow up.

Robin, A monarchy is un-democratic simply because they are there for no other reason than being lucky in the lottery of birth. It’s disgraceful that in 2012, in austerity Britain, that a family can be allowed such wealth and privilege paid for by the British tax paying public purely for being lucky in said lottery of birth.

An elected head of state would be exactly that, ELECTED. This current shower supposes that they are there by some mythical, fantasmical “ordainment by god”. What a complete and utter joke this system is.

As Galen correctly pointed out:

“Whatever system eventually replaces monarchy is not simply “superficially” more democratic, it is so by its very nature.”

I find it hilarious that you tried to argue against this point. Of course a new system to replace monarchy would be more democratic. On the one hand we have the option of an elected head of state, kept strictly in check by Parliament and the will of the people, key word there “ELECTED”. On the other hand we have monarchy, a group of over-paid leeches and their many clingers on, none of them ELECTED or CHOSEN by the people. That in itself makes monarchy wrong.

The boat was probably doing a 180, not a 360…….

-J