Satire and Gulliver's Travels

Hello, you're listening to the Arts and Ideas podcast with me, Matthew Sweet. The satirist and Harvard mathematician Tom Lehrer, who died last year, liked to say that he'd given up writing comic songs about nuclear war, air pollution, and Nazi rocket scientists in the US space program because satire became obsolete in 1973 when Henry Kissinger received the Nobel Peace Prize. But Lehrer also encouraged rumors that he died years ago so people wouldn't try to book him for gigs that he didn't want to do. Whether he was sincere or not, pronouncing the death of satire has become a common way of expressing dismay with politics and the idea that its actors and their actions are too outrageous or ludicrous to parody. But maybe we should tear up the death certificate. Perhaps the problem of satire is that it's too alive. That we've moved from, say, that moment in 1963 when the comedian Willie Rushden shocked her nation by impersonating Harold McMillan on the BBC to one in which everyone's a satirist. By the time we get to the Friday or Saturday night satire shows, a lot of the jokes have already been done on social media. This all sounds a bit serious, doesn't it? Let's welcome the guests. So who's here? Well, you may have heard Jan Ravens giving her Kenny Badenock on dead ring as a couple of hours ago. And here she is again, like the girl who ran to the other end of the screen photo. Welcome Jan. Thank you. Rosie Holt is with us too. A performer whose identity has become wound up with the fictional MP of that name that she embodies as if Warren Mitchell was actually called Alf Garnett. She's going to Edinburgh this summer with a show called Churchill's Irrinal Standing Room Only, I assume. Tom Peck is in the studio too. He's parliamentary sketch writer for the Times, and he hates the phrase, "A febrile atmosphere." How's the temperature of the studio for you tonight, Tom? Positively barmy. And partly to avoid that regrettable situation on the news night bench, where the guests are packed so tightly that their bum seem to touch, we have two more guests on lines. Andrew Hunter Murray, the protagonist of Radio 4's The Naked Week is on the Zoom. Hello, Andrew. You're in Southworld, I think, to talk about your new novel, Bad Deeds. Yes, I am. I'm here for slaughter in South world, a crime book festival. And I'm sorry not to be there in person. I hope you're the last girl left at the end. And our new generation thinker Sean Parkinson is in our Dundee studio. Sean is a performance artist who's deeply engaged with the cultural history of mushrooms, which we're going to discover are key skills for decoding the satire of Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels published anonymously 300 years ago. Welcome, Sean. Yes, it's a pleasure to be here. Thank you. Is this a good historical moment to be a satirist, Rosie? I think so. I mean, I suppose that's what Jonathan Swift said, isn't it? I mean, I think, but I think there's certainly a lot going on. There's a kind of gluttony of news, and it's always that there's more and more of it every way you look. So, yeah, I think there's certainly a lot to work with. Andrew, an auspicious moment to be a satirist? So, I think, I think SATA, as you said, people often say, "Well, it doesn't work anymore, does it?" And my answer is always, what do you mean work? If the answer is if working is bringing down the government, then actually that's not the job. That's not the gig at all. The point is to make a point in a way that hopefully, amuses and detains to present a perspective. And, you know, we're in a target rich environment at the moment, I would say. That Willie Rushden impression that I mentioned caused a real stir. Because I think that Harold McMillan was perceived as a serious and dignified figure in Rushden made him look ridiculous. But, Jan, what happens to satire in an age that doesn't quite seem to value seriousness and dignity? I think we value serious and dignity even more. I mean, and I think, you know, the whole sort of outcry about the McMillan impression was because of the climate then, which, you know, there was a great sort of culture of deference, and it had only, you know, T-W-3, beyond the fringe, T-W-3, all that stuff had only just started. So, the beginning of the 60s was when really, you know, satire, the satire boom, as it's known, as you know. But, I mean, before that, you know, there was, everybody was just kind of, oh, you know, the politicians are right, the doctors are right, there was, everybody was very deferential. And I think, you know, I think it does, as Andy said, satire doesn't have to bring down the government, you know, it's like, there's a Jessica Mittford quote, you know, it's like, you don't have to, you know, bring down the government, you know, it's along as you embarrass the guilty. And, and I think there's something very joyous about embarrassing the guilty. I think there's something very joyous for all of us to kind of join together in taking the Mickey out of these people who were supposed to be telling us what to do. And there's something very sort of communal and joyful about that. So, there seems to be right at this historical moment, Tom Peck, a lot of leading politicians who seem immune to embarrassment, who are kind of already comic figures, and who are already funny. That is true. And it's, when we, we're going to sort of mourn the death of satire or discuss whether or not prematurely, in my view, it is dead. I think Jan makes the correct point that what's changed is the deferential nature of society, not satire or the way that it's done, more that it was, I mean, I mean, I'm a political sketch writer. My job started in the 18, 1700s and it existed because then it was considered, it was parliamentary privilege. You weren't allowed to quote what politicians said in the House of Commons. You couldn't write down the words that they said. So, the people created these sort of made them into characters and tried to sort of paint the written pictures of what was happening in there. Now, obviously, you don't have to do that anymore. And the idea that that was ever a thing, that the idea that we were that deferential seems laughable. We're obviously not deferred to anymore. We're a lot less deferential than when Tom Lehrer considered satire to be dead. But it categorically does not mean that it's dead in any way, shape awful. So, how does it have to change in an era when, as I said, there are politicians who already seem to kind of contain within them a sense of ridiculous. President Donald Trump is a funny man. Yes. No, he, well, is he funny? I guess so. I mean, I agree with what Jan says. I think also it's cathartic, isn't it? I think it's cathartic. It's a way of kind of expressing your anger at what's going on. So, I think it's a very important tool. Yes, there are funny figures, but I don't think that means that they're off limits. I think you can, it gives you more of a challenge, maybe, to go more extreme with it. And I don't think Donald Trump knows he's funny. No. I think he, I mean, he doesn't mind any way that he gets attention. He just wants to be in the news cycle all the time. I don't think he knows he's funny. He don't think his audience find him funny. I think that maybe we, one thing that people constantly say now, and especially to me and around me is this idea that, you know, this is why people voted for Brexit or you take them making out of him and then you just make them stronger. Like, you know, you're just helping their case. I mean, I mean, for example, the Sesame Lake, I've UK reboots, I think it's been really, really funny. I think Nigel, I think if they really went for Nigel Farage, Nigel Farage wouldn't really mind at all. He would consider it to be liberal elite, Ramona's or what have you going after him and the sort of the rebel types who now vote reform? It would sort of g them on. And it would, it would serve his sort of divisive purposes, if you like. But I don't, I just choose to spend my life not worrying about that sort of stuff because otherwise you'd go mad. You have to, you, you choose to your victims are and you go for them. The idea of being, being victims though does imply that they can be wounded in some way. Andrew Hunter Murray. Well, I, I think the most telling thing is how many people have no sense of humor about themselves. And this includes lots of people we've been saying are very funny, you know, Donald Trump can make people, he can make an audience laugh. Nigel Farage can make an audience laugh. They don't have a sense of humor about themselves. And that's wonderful. I think that is all the evidence you need that it works. But there are some politicians, I think, who, who seem to be more vulnerable, I mean, Tom, you mentioned that, that sat in a night live UK hasn't paid much attention to Nigel Farage. It's paid a lot of attention to Keir Starmer, hasn't it? And perhaps there are some politicians who seem more, you know, more capable of, of, of receiving the damage that satire can, can inflate. Well, I mean, in my specific case, I very much feel that it's my job to hold the, hold the holding time to account is, is too pompous. But I tend to go after whoever is in government, rather than whoever is in opposition, principally because the people who are in opposition, they tend to appear in the limelight only sort of at a time or a moment of their choosing, whereas it's government ministers who have to front up things that have gone wrong or they have to face down questions because, because they've been caught out. And that, I find that to be a much richer seam for me. And it's not necessarily to do with the personalities involved. It's merely to do with the job they're doing at any given time. And I think that's why you find Saturday night live UK going for Keir Starmer, as I think might people, might, people might consider Farage who is sort of a richer, more colourful character and therefore an easier person to satirise. That's not always the case. I mean, Boris Johnson is the classic example who was essentially satirising himself on purpose for 10 years. So he's not, he's not the great - Right, gift to satirists that people. - And how conscious was that part of his sense of himself, do you think? It's sort of insulated to himself, perhaps, against, but criticism by kind of being amusing already. - Oh, huge. I mean, I think it's reasonably well-known that that famous picture of him when he suspended on a zip wire over Victoria Park during the Olympics. I mean, I've been told that he asked for the zip line operator for extra weights to be put in his harness. - Are you great at that? - Knowing what would happen. - And he would deliberately screw things up and, you know, deliberately do speeches where he seemed to go completely wrong and then he'd do that speech again. And he'd actually go completely wrong in the same place for kind of comic effect. - Well, he's sort of creating the narrative, isn't it? I would be really interested to see what SNL did if it was satirizing Nigel Farage, because what you don't want to do is make him lovable, which is, I mean, George Forek is on SNL. It's, he makes Kirsten were quite, sort of, much more likable and personable than he appears. I think Nigel Farage would be, it'd be trickier because there feels a lot more danger in some of the things Nigel Farage is saying. - But he has George Forek as think he of George Forek as on SNL UK's impersonation of Kirstama. He has identified these verbal ticks that do seem to be kind of undermining. I feel that there is a kind of, Stama has a kind of sensitivity. He seems like a woundable figure, Andrew. - Yeah, I mean. - He is woundable, I think. He's like, he's sorry to interrupt. I just, I think he's got all these kind of, I mean, I think he's actually sort of, you know, it seems like quite vulnerable to me. And, you know, Duncan was beyond dead ringer, sort of, does this thing of light? He's like a mum. You know, at the end of a journey, listen, we've been going for 17 hours. And all life hard is mummy this, mummy that, when you all just shut up. And it is this sort of beleaguered mother that he is. And, I mean, I think, you know, there does come a point when you're satirizing people, which I came to with Theresa May, where, you know, you're who's, you know, a lot of whose policies I didn't agree with, wanted to satirize, but towards the end of her career, you know, she seemed. - Sympathetic. - Well, not, well, ill, actually. I mean, you know. (all laughing) - Same thing. - She seemed very vulnerable and very mentally vulnerable. And I think, you know, a lot of the way she was treated during the Brexit negotiations was, you know, had strong sort of misogynistic elements. And, you know, I think she, I was glad, when she was like, you know, aren't you upset that Theresa May's, you know, if I was going, no. No, actually quite relieved. I was a bit worried about it. - And the great pleasure of seeing you perform dead ringers at the recording last night. And before the recording, Janet, made some observations that I think made a good case for the Labour government's difficulties being somehow bound up with the idea that some of its leading members seem unable to speak from the diaphragm. - Yes, they've all got this miserable, utter-doidal voice as Keir Starber with his miserable, utter-doidal voice. Rachel Reeves, the gift that keeps on taking, she's got this miserable, utter-doidal voice. So then you've got a millibad and an Angela Reiner with the Northern miserable, utter-doidal voice. And I did sort of opine that I thought it might be because, you know, the Labour Party's kind of like a nursery school where there's always a cult going around. (all laughing) - Now, it is more than a joke or is there a thesis here? Something about the way that politicians are eased with themselves, expressed themselves. - Well, I think it's an extraordinary thing. I mean, and Theresa May was another case in point of that. The way politicians present themselves, I don't know why they don't pay more attention to it. - Yeah. - Because their, you know, their voice is so important and not, I mean, Keir Starmer looks worried all the time. I want to say, lighten up. You know, raise your eyebrows, smile. You know, reassure us that it's all gonna be all right in the end. And I think if he didn't look so worried, we wouldn't be so worried. - Maybe he doesn't think he is gonna be all right in the end. (laughing) Well, at least he should look at what he does. - Andrew, what do you make of that? - Yes. - Well, I think we're definitely past the point whether we should be debating whether Keir Starmer is woundable or not. I think Jan's absolutely right. As an electorate, we are quite vibes based. An electorate's respond very well to someone who appears to want the job and appears to enjoy doing the job. But I do think about quite frequently to a column that was published by Hugo Rifkin, a Timeswriter, just after the election. And he was saying, right, we all like Keir Starmer now. I wonder what is going to be the thing that we're all sick of in a few years' time. I think he was probably a bit out on the timings. I think he would, I think he thought it would take a bit longer than it has done. But basically, all politicians contain within themselves the seeds, the elements which the electorate gets sick of after a while. So there was a bit of a worry that, you know, after the kind of grotesque carnival parade of weird conservative ministers that we'd had, that satirists would somehow struggle to make do with, you know, a much more bland and technocratic seeming labor line up. I don't think that's been the case at all. And that's because people bring themselves with them. And, you know, 300 years ago, one of the main original satire cases was a cartoonist who drew the King of France Louis Philippe looking like a pair. He looked a little bit like a pair. But his reaction to that slight insult was so extreme, he banged up Philippe on the cartoonist. And, you know, eventually everyone was drawing the King as a pair. And that became the dominant, it was a very early meme, basically. So I think that is sort of an encouraging thing. I mean, I've made it sound like bullying, but actually the point is whether the people in power can take a joke. So, Dr. Erin's, I think, an important corrective force, powerful, it's not as powerful as institutions which went to reign and authority, but it has a more of the table. Picking out equality, on dead ring, as I sense, you often look for an idea that captures a politician without it necessarily being a precise thing that they actually do or say. I mean, Kenny Badenock, as far as I know, has never actually described herself as a low energy weirdo. - No. - This has become a catch, right? But now she's not just a low energy weirdo, she's now got a mojo, and now she's got her mojo working. I mean, basically, yes, that's just making the most of her o-sounds. But, yes, I mean, there are things that, sometimes there are things that absolutely leap out at you. Like, you know, like with Liz Truss, you know, when I first saw Liz Truss at the 2014 party conference, and you know, just looking around like a crazed toddler waiting for a flaws, and I just sort of, this character just sort of leapt out at me of this little girl whose daddy had always told if she was funny. And yeah, and the, you know, the I know catchphrase came up because I was making, we were doing a sketch where she was announcing that I'm going to be foreign secretary, you know, I'm going to be the face of Britain throughout the world. And I just went, I know, because it just seems so unbelievable even to her. And yeah, the catchphrase just caught on. But you never know, but I think that's her tragic flaw, Liz Truss is her, is like her. She just looks for a flaws all the time, and she can't believe she's not going to get it. Now Rosy, this is very far from what you do, I think. I first became aware of you in videos where you inserted your fictional MP into real TV interviews. Now, you're capturing something of the culture there, aren't you, and not a particular individual? - Yeah, I think when I found consistently fascinating and funny was the way that you would, it was almost like a game where you'd have these MPs who'd be wheeled on morning TV, and they'd have to defend something. And sometimes you got the sense that they'd only been told what they had to defend a few moments before. And there seemed to be this game with them in the interview where the interview was trying to get them to catch them out to reveal what their real feelings may be, and they've got to stick to the party line, whatever that may be. And especially under the Tory government, you'd get them defending something like banning free school meals. And then Boris Johnson would you turn a few days later? So that whole kind of carousel that is really such a kind of stalwart of how our media works, I think is intrinsically very funny. - And this is as much about journalism as politics? - Yeah, yes. Yes, yes, yes. - So the questions, the nature of the questions, the trashes of journalists use to try and knock these MPs out of their streets? - Often ask them questions, which they know they can't answer, which is, and then they'll just ask again, and the poor MP, well, poor in vertical comments, it would be just sort of try and pivot to something else. - I want to go to the other half of the table. - Well, yeah, well, I mean, I remember, for example, Paul Pan from ITV asking Rebecca Long-Bailey, just after Corbin had lost the 2019 election, and he said to him, he said to him, but how would you rate his performance out of 10? And you're like, it's such a good question, 'cause you can't say one, because she can't, because she wants to throw away behind the Corbinite continuity candidate, she can't say 10, because he's just lost the landside election. So what she's supposed to say, five, well, you can't say that either. And it is sort of like trench warfare, knowing that no one's going to give an inch, and knowing that they are going to have to defend this position that they don't agree with. with and you just keep teasing away at them and teasing away at them and they hate it. I mean, do you remember the one we're quasi-quarting at? He was at the cop summit and he sends out just as defend. I mean, I can't remember the details, but he repeatedly said, X, Y and Z, black is white, and then defended whoever it was and then about one second off, you've got a fair of the guy I've been sat. And he knew he was going to be sat, anyway. Your show at Churchill's Irrinal, Rosie, is about a new chancellor who wants to get rid of a Irrinal from number 11, and then it emerges that Churchill used it. This tells a story about the return of deference, doesn't it? Not its end. A return of deference does in, well, giving more respect. This has kind of accorded this respect that, you know, wouldn't perhaps have been, you know, nobody would have taken this idea seriously in the 60s. Yes. Well, I mean, I'm Andrew Roberts, who was Churchill's biographer. He said that Churchill's Irrinal must be protected at all costs. So there's a lot of people out there who believe that his Irrinal should be treated with extreme deference. Like a holy relic. Yes, exactly. Andrew, what do you make of this? Because people often speak about these ideas fading away, but I think, you know, you could make a counter-argument, couldn't you? There are some figures who whose protections are greater than they were in their lifetimes, or even just after their deaths. Oh, I think that's a very good point. I think you could maybe draw some kind of British volatility index, where when we're feeling happy and comfortable and calm, we're not too worried about Churchill's Irrinal. I'm warning things. See, very unstable and uncertain and insecure. We think we must protect this at all costs. I love the idea of Andrew Roberts fighting with a very… Absolutely. I mean, periodically statues, Churchill's statue outside parliament is sort of defaced once every few years, and everyone is up in arms about it, and every time he happens, I always remember my A-level history teacher in 1999, a man called Mr Wellington, who is mentioned in Rylan Clark's autobiography, but anyway. Because the Churchill statue was defaced in 1999, we were talking about the score, and I just remember him so clearly saying, well, as Churchill was around today, he would have been well up for the fight. He wouldn't have cared less, and he would have taken these people on and sort of won the argument. He himself would not have necessarily approved of his own, like, beatification almost, and would rather have scrapped it out than be. And people have been fighting over his image, or ever since it materialised, I think, as well. Now, normally, at topical discussion programmes like this leave the "oo what about AI?" question to the end, like the mints. But I want to do this now, because what does it mean for satire, Andrew, for the comedy sketch, when AI can use totally realistic moving images of its objects? In other circumstances, we might call deepfakes. I think we've got a bit of delay on Andrew's line, haven't we? You think he thinks very… I'm so sorry. Much like contemporary Britain, my internet connection is a bit unstable and insecure. Very good. Well, what do you think about this, Jack? What's the question about? Well, I will come back to you. You can hear me ask Jack again. These AI satire, creating these hyperrealistic scenarios, which appear to be, if it wasn't for the absurdity of what they were doing, you would think they were really, real in some way. Yeah, I think there are some things that AI can do really, really well, and that we must be grateful for, and there are some things that it can't. I don't think that AI has yet got a sense of humour. I've done a few voiceovers where I've been asked to be people, and they've played into me a sort of AI construction of the voice that the client wants. I said, "My God, that's really close. Why are you not using this AI version you've got here?" They said, "Well, because it's got no warmth, it's got no humanity, it's got no humour, it's got no kind of play. I'm sure, or I hope not, but it probably will develop the ability to do that. But I think for the moment, you're not going to create an AI version of Rosie's character or dead ringers or. Absolutely not. But what does it do to Satya when you have this imagery that has this hyper-realistic quality? It's not like nobody would ever listening to you, Jan, think, "This is the real Liz Truss. Nobody would look at such a thing." Nobody would look at a spitting image puppet. I think that's the real politician. But Tom, these AI images are much. I think we respond to them as though they are real in some way. Well, look, there are a set number of ways of doing Satya. You can do an impression of someone, you can be a cartoonist and mock someone by drawing a picture of them, you can do this sort of spitting image thing, or you can write about them, which is what I do. And to use artificial intelligence as a new artistic means is totally fine. I mean, I think it would have immense potential for satirists. But I can only say the same thing as Jan, a long way away from where I think AI is going to be taking doing the funny jokes. It's not AI that's going to. Yeah. who's going to see Liz Truss as a overly praised toddler. I mean, that's humanity at the core of it. And who knows where AI leads? I'm not the worst being a stexpert in that. I think it's the kind of. I mean, there's lots of satire on. Or I can be anyway. There's people doing clips on TikTok and Instagram. And so it's more of a kind of. It's more available to more people. So it's available to the people who are creating AI. It's available to a kid in their bedroom if they want to do some satire. They can put it online. Do you think about Rizzi? Does it not change the rules about anything when you have something that that feels very corporeal? Really, I think. When I watch these things, I think I respond to them more closely. It's more like the experience of watching these people do this thing for real. Rather as you flinch when you see somebody kick a robot dog. Yeah. Well, like, I have seen. I mean, I was thinking about this as you were talking and where I have seen AI deployed quite well in the name of satire is in South Park. South Park has been sort of. It's quite. Use it sort of sparingly but quite effectively about Donald Trump. I think. But I think it has its place. I don't see it taking. I mean, as you say, Jan, there's no kind of warmth or humour there. So if you're using it, you have to be very clear about the purpose and the way you're doing it. I don't really see it as yet. But maybe that's because I'm frightened. So there is a healthy. No, no, no, no. There's no way. There is an extremely healthy, well, not healthy, but there's a whole world out there of what you might call sporting satire. Like, I football banter, there are lots of social media accounts with millions of followers that essentially do football-based satire. And quite often, sport is the canary in the coal mine in lots of ways in society. And some of that stuff, they use AI all the time. And some of it is quite creative in the sense that it's a good gag, like, you know, if you think this particular referee has done Arsenal a favour, like somebody makes a video of the referee piling into the Arsenal changing room and joining him with celebrations. And the gag is okay, but, you know, it's five out of 10 gag. The technology you can read in detail is clearly not real. And so it doesn't hit you in the same way, you know, comedy, you can just. You can debate forever about whether or not it's right and wrong, but you've only got that one second to get the reaction. And I've not seen. And I've not seen anything that's done by AI where you think, bang, that's got me. Like, that's really made me laugh. Can we talk about targets, Andrew? Should. Should. Should a satirist always only punch up? No. I think the answer. I think it's. It risks becoming a priority, if you say. I actually. I only punch up. Well, well done, you. No, I think the answer is that punching predominantly upwards is important and valuable. As Tom said, he writes about who's in government, not who's in opposition. But I think there are different gradations of target selection. You know, it's. I mean, large for us, getting a £5 million bang from a tie-based crypto billionaire is fairly evidently a massive target considering that, you know, there's a very good likelihood of him being the next prime minister. So there's a, you know, there's a very good reason behind that target. And. Rules? I think it's Andrew, because I mean, you work at private eye as well. Is there a kind of. Is there a sort of. Is there a diagram to work from? There's not. There's not much of one. It's much more folly you know. I think one really interesting thing is you do occasionally have to be willing to have a go at yourself or even at your audience. And it's not always comfortable making a joke that maybe you think your audience is not ready to hear. But if you can justify it and you're adhering to reality, which I've just like to point out, AI increasingly is not going to be tethered to, then I think it's valuable. You know, the main thing with all of this, the thing I come back to again and again is, is this making a good point and is it based in reality, you know? And if you can make it very funny, the even better. I mean, it is interesting because you've got, you know, as a satirist, you know, you are supposed to be, you know, sort of even handed. You know, you're taking this. taking the media out of the conservatives, all the different parties and obviously one has one's own affiliations and preferences in all that and you sort of have to put them almost to one side and think well I've got to deal with what's there. I can't go well I better not say that because they're such nice people and I like what they say. You've got to do it and yeah it's his hard time. That's the dead ring is recording last night. You had a sketch about the National Police Chiefs Council anti-racism commitment, done as a skit on the BBC drama line of duty. That sketch trot over some very contentious ground. How do you negotiate that as a former? Well I think as a performer it's you're the sort of last person to know about it in a way because by that time the writer and the producer have gone through all sorts of things with the lawyer. But actually that was quite interesting. You point out that sketch because it was a line of duty sketch. So it was you know Jesus Mary, John the Joseph and the Wee Donkey you know and Lewis doing his Ted Hastings and I was doing you know Fickie McClure and so yes and you know they always use those acronyms in line of duty and you know so well you know they might be you know LGBTQ so we can't we can't you know we can't go after them and you know they might be BME and it's it's all these and they're they they won't take anybody they won't they won't interview anybody because they might be of this you know specific group and and it gets more and more bizarre and it's it was an interesting sketch because it wasn't particularly funny. It was it was very satirical but it wasn't particularly funny and I and you know I mainly think you know my main kind of thing was that it is to make people laugh because that's the joyful element about it but with this I thought you know it was a really strong sketch that that was that was not a laugh a minute but it was kind of making quite a strong spherical point. The show ended with a very well received sketch which featured Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK and Rupert Low, leader of Restore UK. The sketch drew on the tragic death of Henry Novak and the riots in Belfast over the recent knife attack. The characters in the sketch were trying to outdo each other in the lengths to which they were prepared to go to exploit these events and I wondered you know put these two sketches side by side is this some equivalent of like balance? Is this about almost a form of due impartiality? You have to ask the producer. Yeah that is all decided before you before. Well yes yes I mean sometimes you know we will have you know how can we say that you know and they go yes well the lawyers have seen it it's all fine but yes I mean I suppose that is some attempt at impartiality. Andrew what about how does this work on the naked week? Do you measure how many jabs go left and how many go right? We have an incredibly complicated slide rule that John the producer gets out of any any opportunity. No we don't I mean I think you're led by the news and sometimes the news is horrific and you are left wondering slightly right how can we reflect this in a way that gets a point across but remains at least reasonably funny I think John's absolutely right it doesn't always have to be a laugh a minute and the naked week has investigation sections led by the brilliant Kat Neelan of the observer who you know those are again making a point but they're not those are less political though no we don't I think we you just have to kind of feel it the main thing is not to be seen as being on anyone's side you know you have to be um diogenese the cynic in a barrel barking at everyone who passes by. What about satire's relationship with the overton window which I think you know many might observe is shifting a bit at the moment Tom does satire move with it? Well what do you mean the world is moving right wing and therefore satire has to become more right wing? Well you know if there are if there's a shift in the political discourse does satire you know draw its own lines or does it follow like where where presumably the opinions of the audience and the country? Can I just stop and ask for the heart of understanding like myself what is the overton window is like what well Tom can you define why have you done this to me? This is where like this sort of what's considered the window if you like of acceptable auto opinion shifts and politicians can if they're canny can bend it slightly further in their direction or all the other direction and I think what you're asking is that the world is becoming more and more right wing and therefore satire I have to follow it I would say arguably it makes up a direction we're sort of clinging on like desperate kite servers to bring the window back towards us if you like I mean but I mean you you you're asking about it is it's it's the same question you ask to whether you're punching up or punching down it's instinctive you only get to do you only end up in our walk of life if you if you have a sense of what's funny and and and it's just about how how the thing lands and you can spend forever debating whether or not you've punched up or punched down if you really think about it generally you have punched up I mean I mean I remember off the Brexit always listening to like James O'Brien's phonons on LBC where he would spend hours every morning just kicking the living daylight south out of edge our Brexit ears who'd phoned in who hadn't been to private school who weren't as articulate as him and it sometimes felt a bit harsh but who's punching up and who's punching down in that situation it's the people on the other end of the phone who have decided the fate of the country I mean so what what if you want to punch your whole punching down is about where the power is and it's not we're a democracy thankfully and it's not the power is not necessarily always where you think it is Andrew what do you think about satire and its relationship with the overton window now Thomas explained it so elegant I like the idea that wherever the overton window goes you jump out the other side of it yeah I think satire in general is a reactive force and I don't mean that specifically in terms of the events or the news or even the politics you're talking about I think it's to the dominant timbre of the society you're in so the 1950s was a more deferential time it was a more polite society which provided room for things like the establishment club and you know beyond the fringe and the satire boom to produce a less deferential society we're now in a completely undefrential society and you can look online and find the absolute torrent of many of the worst opinions you've ever seen in your life it's very interesting thinking where does satire go in that space you know given there is this absolute deluge of sludge out there does do we find satire wanting to lobby for a bit more deferentialism or all respectful authority I don't know I don't I don't think that is exactly the right answer but um would you think yeah satire as a reactive force um well I think it's interesting what Andy says about they're being kind of deluge I think what's different now to say 20 years ago is people are getting their news from so many different sources you're from from from tick tock from very odd niche podcasts from people who are kind of opinionists I guess you'd call them yeah who don't who are not journalist but will kind of espouse opinions like their facts so you're contending with so many different it's not like in the old days where the old days the old day the old day where you you know you'd be everyone knew where they were getting their news sources it was from the papers it was from BBC News in the evening and and now there was there's I think you're having to go through so much um there's so many different lenses you can look through our our centrist politicians are a bit of a disadvantage here politicians beyond the center are are seem more colourful I mean you've spoken about this already Tom so is does the satire follow them I mean I never look at it in terms of left or centre or right I tend to look at it in terms of situations i.e. like Theresa May, Edmila Band, so certainly Saint Kierstama these were sort of perfect sitcom characters i i i like like like the the bathos if you like you know they are trapped in it's Theresa May particularly whatever three years trapped in a situation and can't get out of it you actually has to get breaks it done and can't and it's the same as step-toe and son it's the same as only falls and horses and it doesn't it doesn't matter it's it i i i i don't think it's to it's if you're if you do what we do when you're sort of trying to go after the character of the person it's not about their politics or or where they are on the spectrum politically it's about it's about the world that they're stuck in and does that only become that perhaps only it starts to take on those tropes and ideas once people are actually in power as well and actually have something that they have to accomplish absolutely yes is that why British Sarah do you think because i'm wondering where the British satirists have worked out what to do yet with Zach Polansky in the greens well i don't i don't i don't know about you too i struggle with it i have thought about this because i'm i'm working on a shirt the moment called the illegal aliens have landed for Edinburgh and um like you were saying you you kind of want to be you know not not shy away from from satirising anyone but i do struggle with Zach Polansky also because he's relatively new on the scene and and also some of the things that you you want to criticise about him you think all is that is that fair he hasn't really been long enough sometimes it's he's gone on a podcast and he hasn't to grasp all the facts or all the knowledge and you go well he is quite new to it so I don't know about you to I struggle with yeah we did have a sketch we did have a minute sketch in dead ring as this week but then we had to cut it because it was and it was all set in make a field and it was Andy Burnham and you know so that you do it because of balance and bloody bloody knowledge. I'll just do it now. I think this is why people keep bringing up Zach Plansky and him hypnotising a woman to make her boobs bigger because there's not much else to work with at the moment. Andrew Murray what is the work to work with for you in his case? Well I think Rose is right that he's a lot newer um his party is doing extraordinarily well in the polls which is largely down to his personal charisma and his very clear engaging speaking style he's constantly broadcasting as far as I could tell you know it's video after video after video um I think again I think it's gradations of of target acquisition um I think there is good grist in the fact that I believe he didn't vote in the recent local elections and there was a lot of a lot of back and forth over that the one thing I will say is audience isn't not ready to laugh at him yet because a sizable enough chunk of the audience have still decided that he represents something optimistic hope for change hope he changes stuff and um we're at the very we're at the other end of the starmas spectrum if you like people you know maybe in a few years time people will be absolutely begging for some perlansky material once he's once he's actually prime minister um so again it's you feel your way in in my view you only get the um you only get your hooks into someone as a as a as a character I was going to say victim I said character but I do mean victim um when they are in front of a camera and they don't want to be there and you tend to only get that you tend to only get that like like Nigel Farage I mean the 5 million donation was what 50 days ago and I think I used to go to if you count back 50 days until that day I probably went to three Nigel Farage Press conferences a week there has not been one since there's been one so as soon as he doesn't want to be there he's not there but if you're in government you can't do that which is why governments are so much more there's so much more worthwhile and better targets we have not yet got to the point with that where you know he's in front of a camera squirming we we'll get there. It's a map with a name. First name terms already. Maybe you'll get there quite soon Andrew what is that is that right do you think that it it really takes power to make somebody a fitting object for satire. I think it helps a great deal I mean the fact the fact we've mentioned Nigel Farage so much tonight is an indicator that he has had an extraordinary amount of power albeit not elected authority in this country for the last 10 years I mean he was campaigning for Brexit for God knows how long and you know has has been a substantial voice in the country's politics since then so despite having only a handful of MPs he's clearly he's clearly a key figure in the mix power helps for sure. What is satire even I mean the convention is to do definitions at the top but now we've been discussing it for 45 minutes I feel this is the moment to ask what it is now want to I want to bring Sean Parkinson into the conversation because we need a theorist at the point we need an academic what is it Sean can you tell us wow bring in the new bee to give the definition right the end of the program I suppose we've been circling it this evening and you've described some of the tools that a satris would use impression mockery irony it's essentially trying to puncture characters who are already inflated I think that Andrew mentioned that it's it's something that's reactive it's a reactive force it's not a fiction it's based on something in reality that we can observe but it's often the satirist job to make visible that which we we cannot see but by exaggerating and inflating it suddenly then becomes just at the point where it can pop you're nodding at that Jen yes I mean I it's I was just thinking about that swift quote where satire satire is a kind of glass wherein I think it's beholders to beholders do detect everybody else except themselves and I think that's the kind of good thing about impressions is that you know if somebody's doing an impression of you you can't you know there's no escape you know that's you right there and you know but but also it's like oh surely I'm not like that you know Sean I want you to help us with swift and one of satires great early landmarks gulliver's travels published 300 years ago what does it satirize gulliver's travels I think well to be fair I'm not a historian and I'm not a political historian either so I think that we can probably all of us who either read it or not know some elements of it but you would have to understand something about 18th century politics the kind of birth of the party political the Wiggs versus the Tories even his position as a courtier worth Queen Anne so in the initial it's split into four parts and it uses these tricks of exaggeration and excess starting with Lilliput he arrives washed up on a shore this and he recognizes himself as a giant that's strapped down by these these tiny people and it is in that position of towering over them well actually I should say that one of the things that is often edited in the children's version is that he describes defecating and then the Lilliputians having to remove his waste this is in the first few pages and this is what the children what children often laugh at but it is showing that by being utter a move by standing tall and towering over a city a people you observe what is essentially the vanity of small differences it might be that one group are you know wearing heels that are slightly taller than the other some might prefer the red flag than the red than the blue flag and it's by observing that it seems obvious that it's ridiculous as these perceptions of scale they also have a historical dimension to them don't they I mean this is something from the history of science that's being satirized here can you can you unpack that one for us well it's also I mean the I mean the raw society was about a hundred years old at the time you published it which was three hundred years ago this year and you have in this one in the third part where I the characters that I can very much recognize the Lilliputians who live with their heads in the clouds and they're the philosophers and they require people to blow wind hot wind upon their face in order to bring them back down to earth the flappers which is basically they're farting in their faces in order to bring them back down to the earth those other people that are that are grounded they're the scientists they want to be the philosophers they want to be the people that are lofty and that think in the abstract but I suppose this idea of microscopy being you know which is very hot isn't it as he's writing it exactly so it you've got these twin lenses one viewing the by once one end of the telescope and one by the other so he grows and he shrinks and it's about that kind of different perspectives that he's kind of echoing and you don't really need to understand the context well I think actually perhaps you do need to understand the context to get all of the Jews I don't think they're necessarily laugh out loud but there is a truth that still persists today in what's contained within what is essentially a very weird and sometimes prescient book I do love the idea that somehow this is one of the foundations of Gulliver's travels is this this new ability to gaze into that kind of that the very small world you worry him was easy anxious about the idea that this is possible I'm not I'm not sure but I think that what he some of the concerns that does show up is actually less to do with scale in the end in terms of what happens as a satirist by inverting right inverting him from being tall from observing small people from him being small to observing giants and seeing the disgust and when humans are observed up close whether pours their greasy skin the lies crawling on them but really it's at the end when the inversion happens between the beasts and humans where horses have reason and they can speak and it's the humans that are the Yahoo's the disgusting unreasonable unrationalizing creatures that really terrifies Gulliver and probably swift as well how does swift still shape the rules of satire today do you think Sean I suppose in my own world as an artist and a performance artist I mean there's something that that Rosie said earlier about church rules urinal I think back to what are the good examples that that are you would describe as being satirical in the contemporary art world or the modern art world and one of the prime examples is Duchamp's urinal fountain which he presented as an upturned porcelain urinal in a gallery and signed it our map this has been kind of acknowledged by many people has been you know one of the most key the key pieces of art in the 20th century and it's still resonates today because it's changed the way that we look at art I mean maybe not for the better Is that one of those things people say my, you know, seven-year-old child could do that and I would say well congratulations to them But it is this thing about, you know, it's about a place that It reflects what happens in Gulliver's travels where Him going and straddling the the King and Queen's palace to urinate on it when it's on fire to put out the flames And often this is what art does, you know, it kind of urinate sort of defecates on Structures of power in order to show up their ridiculousness What's your taking that is there anything swifty in about what you do do do you think? Oh, I would never pretend to the throne of Swift. I just wouldn't. I mean, I probably shouldn't be venerating him in the way that I do I mean he's he is so good. We haven't really talked about his Modest proposal. Yes, this is very important to sketch it out for us Well, there's there's an Irish famine on at the time and he's making the sensible and and modest proposal that look Actually a lot of good meat on a baby and you can keep yourself going with you know for the calorie content Is terrific. So why don't they are? It's just sorted sorted out and eat their babies. This is a grotesque It's apps. It's not funny to read But you are you're just sort of ordered the audacity of what he's suggesting and he is one of these writers. He Seems to contain such inhumanity and savagery or rather he seems to be aware that that is the human condition and It's It's so striking this work because it still has the power to shock 300 years later with almost no knowledge of of the context so and I don't think it would have got many laughs You know, certainly not in the 630 Friday night slot It's unquestionably a towering achievement of satire and it's a beautifully sort of detailed piece of writing as well Isn't it? You know I you know I imagine that you know these children might make a very tasty regu or a fricasset Yeah, yeah, it's really really really good and that that whole it's a bit sort of like what you do in a way Rosie it's that sort of thing of saying you know why why not you know cook your children up into these delicious dishes and you know Salam, you know you know to the to the other landowner to the landowners and all this kind of thing and people sort of going This is disgusting without realizing that it's irony and then you know that was what sort of happened with your character Wasn't it when people are sort of going oh, it's it must be a real Tory MP Why do you think it persists as a model and modest proposal? I think that what Andrew said there about the the shock value of it is is really where it's still resonant partly because it's not I mean imagining him just saying there is starvation happening very close to where we are right now and isn't this terrible But by saying starvation is happening with there's a great source of protein in babies is so so shocking that it actually forces a Laugh and this is often what happens in great satire the laugh happens before we intake that that short sharp breath Can you do you think of you know recent or relative recent examples of that? I can give you yes go I can give you one that I made a pilgrimage down to Stratford upon even to see the Resistable rise of Arturo Uy having not read the play at all written by Bertel Brecht in 1941 about Hitler's rise to power And I couldn't believe that this text hadn't been modified For the modern day for you know for contemporary society and played you know incredibly by Margatus And there was that shock and that absolute you know flutter of excitement and laughter all throughout but the message is Incredible it's incredibly still resonant now Anybody else had the one of those shocks Tom Well, it's a I think the thing about a modest proposal is yes, it's shocking But it's deliberately done in a playful way and he know and that's and that's the which sort of underpins the shocking point that he's trying to make and I think The satire that we all possibly try and do is not supposed to Hit people over the head of the baseball bat. It's not supposed to make them recall You know there's that thing about you only need a soft touch with the sharp blade and I think that's that's what satire is about really Adam Gotnick of the New Yorker wrote an obituary for Tom Lair who I mentioned at the top of the show Trying to understand the question of why some satire persisted. I mean Tom Laires songs are all about targets long gone You know who remembers Senator George Murphy? He said got Nick said satire keeps its objects alive by lampooning them and wrapping itself around the subject Fossil like replaces the original substance with its own material I mean do you hope for a place in the geological record? I think that would be absolutely lovely. Yes, but that's the trouble about satire is it's ephemeral? I mean you're you know you're by its very nature. You're in a business that you know You know you're not going to be there for posterity are you? It's there one minute gone the next or yes But nothing changes. I mean that like in Gulliver's travels the book the first three books are about the French and the English and then about the Protestants and the Catholics and then book four with the horses and the and the brutish Yahoo's is where he sort of turns and it's like Actually, maybe human nature is why we can't govern ourselves successfully and that's 300 years ago And that categorically has not changed not changed with Tom Laires not changed for any of us. It's still very much how things are So Andrew is the best satire piss it's because it has truth that are always there I I think so I think it does have to be able to draw a bit of blood because I think one thing they do Jonathan Miller wrote about this is they promote you And they effectively what is the phrase they they castrate you through coziness They they patronize you and until they've destroyed the satire. So you've got to watch out for that everybody Are you watching out for that, Jan? Yes very much so Well, listen, I hope that you are all preserved. I hope that you do show upon the the geological record And you know perhaps we can all come back in in 10 million years time and see if you're properly cooked My thanks sir for tonight to Janet Ravens, Rosie Holt, Tom Peck, Andrew Hunter Murray, and Sean Parkinson and to the producer Ellie and Glazer next week I'll be back to here about English accentrix radicals and outsiders the guests will reflect this and hopefully so will I