went to see him live last October, where he did a similar routine regarding Russell Howard - "he as good as murdered those kids". It sounds bad, but the way he does it avoids that.

I'd also heartily recommend his book.

Can there be an easier target than Top Gear?

Yes it's shit, but......

I know I'm in a minority, but I bat for the 'Stewart Lee is a smug git' team.

and I thought that was great as well.

a while ago http://wordmagazine.co.uk/content/time-get-rid-these-guys-too#comment-37... but yes, it's very funny and does sum the Top Gear team up neatly.

I can't stand Top Gear, Jeremy Clarkson or smug comedians like this bloke either. They all deserve each other.

it's all a bit Rik from Young Ones and full of irritating, mannered repetition - it's kind of a simple point dragged out to a tiresome degree. He may have some merit in his rant but isn't it just a bit laboured and it loses some effect by not being that true in the descriptions - there's a great big gap between what he wants to think they are and what they actually are? Apart from the fact that it's not that funny - but that's a matter of taste of course. I'm kind of sympathetic to an extent but he puts me off being so pleased with himself.

he's a man with absolutely no quality control or dignity: witness the fact that he'll lend his name to anything - and I mean anything - if there's a cheque at the end of it. What drives Lee is disgust rather than the impulse to make people laugh and we should applaud him for that, even if it doesn't make you laugh.

Good evening Mr Lee, here is your barrel. Now look inside and you'll find some fish. Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to shoot those fish.

And try not to look quite so pleased with yourself.

Amusing in its way but that's a five minute routine padded to absolute buggery because Stewart Lee thinks himself as not like other comedians. His work is Important. And must be Savoured. At Length. Great legth. Because it is important. Very. Important. And very funny. So you have to laugh at the funny bits. Even when they are repeated. And the not funny bits. You have to laugh at them being repeated because that, too is funny. OK?

And for his next target, presumably, he's got his eye on a small barrel containing lots of large fish. And he'll be using an AK-47.

Lenny,you may be pulling too hard, suggest talcum powder .

Frankie Boyle. Smug prick, he's like a prog comedian, one half funny, no not even half funny idea stretched out to the point where you really don't care what he thinks any more. Clever? Intelligent? Wishing Richard Hammond dead and Clarksons daughters blind? He's a genius, how did he come up with that angle? A proper comic would deal with Top Gears ignorant bigotry in a one line put down and move on to the next gag. What a nasty little man.

I'm not even going to watch this clip of this so called comedian after reading some of the comments on this page. The mindless slaughter of fish with a firearm on stage is not only inhumane but not my idea of entertainment.

Top Gear is a funny show, this isn't actually all that funny. I don't mind people taking the mick out of it, it's obviously quite contrived, but it's just very very entertaining. I normally like Stewart Lee, but nothing grabbed me there (I lasted the first 5 minutes).

in several places, not sure why it's so popular. It's not as if there's any great mystery to Top Gear's appeal or lack of it and it's an oddly easy target with its cartoonish cast etc. Having watched Lee's show and enjoyed it I do think he needs to watch more tv his choices of targets always seem a bit obvious, Chris Moyles for instance. It's all abit safe as nobody who likes will argue with his choices.

Watched it all the way through, and there wasn't anything remotely funny at all,not a single part of it was even vaguely humerous. The audience obviously knew they were in the presence of a 'comedian' and so they laughed at various points, but presumably out of unease rather than aching funny bones. Where were we even supposed to smile ? Or was it simply a satirical put down of Top Gear/Hammond, (as explained to Daily Mailers at the end) but if so why was it in a comedian's act ?
Or is this what Lee does? If it is, it's good to know so that I can (continue to ) avoid his shows.

They're the new complaining classes, aren't they?

I long ago stopped reading or listening to any so-called withering critiques of Top Gear. It is what it is, millions of people all over the world like it, it's the only programme all my family watch, it's one of a tiny handful of British TV products which are genuinely popular all over the world, the more it does to appeal to its own constituency the more it winds up its detractors, it's a useful antidote to the mincing orthodoxy which afflicts so much programming and it's far less brimming with hatred, prejudice and received opinion than the average readers comments thread on The Guardian's website.

Mind you, I turned over when Clarkson and John Prescott were having a go at each other on the other day's show. Two Yorkshire windbags listening to the sounds of their own voices. Ought to have been on its own channel.

But I can say I have seen Stuart Lee live on several occasions. Repetitions etc are a part of his schtick for all of the subjects he talks about onstage, that's just his style. Feel free to dislike it, comedy is the most subjective thing in the world.

But even if you don't like his style, his criticism of Top Gear as a programme and his illustration of the presenters dynamic is pretty much spot on, given that he admits that the programme is almost designed to annoy people like him. And me.

Watched one too many Mark Thomas sketches IMO.

Not funny, cheap easy targets. We mock Davidson for doing the same.

Sorry Mr Dog you are just plain wrongity wrong. Stuart Lee is having a go at wealthy bullies here. Jim Davidson mocks black people, disabled people and the poor.

You are mistaking an easy target for a weak target. They are not the same thing.

Top Gear and I like Stewart Lee.

I see aspects of myself in what Top Gear does: escapism, stupid humour, sucking the marrow out of life.

I see aspects of myself in what Stewart Lee does: liberal-minded, a tendency to exagerate for comedic effect, a tendency to rail against things in a manner that would probably benefit from some copious editing.

If you can have programmes like Top Gear and comedians like Stewart Lee where is it written that you cannot like or dislike aspects of either? Do I have to take sides?

Lee's good because he manages to work a conscience into his comedy without killing the humour stone dead. But it does compromise many aspects of what humour can do which is why I think he goes for a style of humour that shows the workings of the joke. He breaks it down so that he can reassemble it with his conscience in the mix. No punchlines, just exposition. But there is still a nasty streak in him that is no better or worse than what Clarkson or Frankie Boyle have, although the latter largely bases his humour on nastiness. Lee has a format all of his own and under his direct control at all times. If he wants 1 minute or 15 minutes to make a point he's got it. Has Clarkson (i.e. "politically incorrect opinions to a deadline") or anyone else on Top Gear? Lee has the luxury of working his conscience into all his comedy and thus giving the viewer plenty of back-story to make a judgement about HIM as a person. In many ways his humour is safer than Clarkson's. I'd like to know what Lee thinks about Frankie Boyle in a 15 minute routine.

Whether it's funny or not is another matter. I can laugh at both men (Lee and Clarkson) but for all his footnotes and sidebars I'm not sure that Lee is the cleverer, braver or more adept comedian.

... comparing Lee with Clarkson, no doubt about it. And Clarkson is extremely good on QI and a fine presenter of documentaries about engineering history etc, he's certainly not the devil. As Stuart Lee makes clear, that's Richard Hammond.

I would say though that Lee is pretty adept. He cut his writing teeth writing for On The Hour with Chris Morris and Armando Ianucci, and while I'm sure he had freedom to say what he wanted to say, I'd bet my arm that those guys were pretty hard taskmasters. Like Clarkson he is capable of cutting his cloth to suit what he has to do, but as a person who primarily does stand up, he's now free to do pretty much as he pleases. Good for him there.

Essentially this comes down to style, presentation and, dare I say it, marketing. Clarkson presents himself as the spokesperson for a type of middle England, conservative voting man while Lee is the opposite. It's possible to appreciate both, but I think it would be hard for a normal person to love both the same.

I have no great axe to grind for Top Gear or Richard Hammond although I do enjoy the show and as someone else here has already said it is a good one for all the family to watch together.
However, whilst acknowledging that humour is subjective and that Lee stresses at the end of this clip that he is joking I can't help feeling that there is a lot here that is what he actually thinks.
Which is fine and up to him but for me he oversteps the mark.I may be wrong but I don't recall anyone on Top Gear saying anything as remotely unpleasant as they wished that another human being had died or that someone else's children were blind.

I started a thread myself a while back. I don't like either Lee or Clarkson, so there.

... but you can't deny they are pro speed. Which has killed a lot of human beings. So without "wishing" anyone dead they certainly appear to approve of laws which could be said to contribute to the deaths of children. Which leads me to think that they would have opposed the appearance of drink drive laws as well.

I'll be honest, I despise that programme and the presenters and I think cars are more responsible than almost anything else for the fact that cities are more unpleasant places than they were.

I really shouldn't write about Top Gear. I can't tell if I hate that show or U2 more.

See above.

I'm not sure which is more tedious - Lee's act itself (which is plenty fucking tedious if this clip is anything to go by) or the analysis of what is 'worthy' and what is 'unworthy' comedy.

It's either funny, or it isn't.

..I am a huge fan and laughed my head off when I saw this live.

But that said... if I were trying to convert non-believers then this is the last clip I would go for. When I saw him several members of the audience, who had been chuckling along happily for most of the set, were silenced by this particular section.

Still as a debate spinner it's worked pretty well.

... I also laughed. Found it funny as fuck, as well as perceptive.

Bono was a star in a reasonably priced car?????? A Sprocket Perfect Storm. Never show me that.

I'm really bored of "satire", or "topical comedy" or whatever it's called. Or rather the form of "satire" represented by people like Stewart Lee or Mock The Week or the Thursday Show or HIGNFY or The News Quiz, I just think the whole idea has run out of road. It's boring, predictable and pointless.
I may be wrong about this but I always thought the whole point of satire was that it used wit or humour to challenge contemporary mores; to go against the grain of contemporary orthodoxies. But the people on these shows - and they tend to be of a type - are as orthodox as it gets. They tend to have a lefty/ liberal political outlook and a snotty, sneery attitude towards anything that represents "the establishment" or "tradition". Nothing wrong with that as such, except that it is pretty much the default political position/attitude of most of the generation of people they're addressing. They're not "challenging" anything, just trotting out the current orthodoxy..
The "satire" boom of the early '60s that these people see themselves as the crusading descendents of were operating in a very different world. Interviews with politicians were stiffly formal and deferential. Nobody ever teased or insulted politicians or the royal family or the church or whatever, at least not in any formal public media. Even as late as 1969 Kenny Everett was drummed out of the BBC within minutes of making a flippant remark -clearly meant as a joke - about how the wife of the Transport Minister only passed her driving test because she slipped her husband a tenner. Today it would be seen as too feeble a joke even for Ken Bruce and nobody would bat an eyelid. Then it was an outrage. In that context things like the Establishment club, TW3, Private Eye etc. were genuinely bracing, exciting and a breath of fresh air.
But the world's very different now. People mock and tease and pour scorn on bigwigs all over the place: newspapers, radio phone-ins etc. Question Time's a bearpit; Paxman's a rottweiller; it's been OK to poke fun at the Royal Family for at least 30 years.
And In this context some middle-class smart-alec coming on the telly armed with quips about how Cameron's from a rich family and Boris puts it about a bit and Sarah Palin goes moose hunting is just a bit "yeah, so what?' or, to use a more up-to-date phrase, a bit "meh".

I remember seeing a comedian on The Tube in the early '80s who had one great joke. Your "topical joke" follows a standard format: a person in the public eye has a "salient trait"; the joke is something that points to that salient trait. For instance, George Bush jokes are about how he is (supposedly) pretty dim. So here's Jay Leno: "A report card on Iraq shows progress on only eight of 18 areas. Eight out of 18. And, of course, President Bush is thrilled. That's the best report card he's ever got in his life."
This comedian, can't remember his name, just walked onstage and instead of making the jokes just cited those "salient traits".:
"Prince Charles (pause) has got big jug ears. Denis Healey (pause) has got big bushy eyebrows. Cyril Smith (pause) is a big, fat slob. etc. etc.
And that's what "topical comedy" sounds like to me these days.

Stewart Lee's material is very different to the other examples you mention, to me at least. There's a lot more intellect & playing with preconceptions, accepted 'truths' and notions of what's acceptable. Plus he's very funny.

On the one hand, I love Stewart Lee, and find that routine really funny. On the other, I find a lot of the statements in this thread and others about Top Gear and Clarkson a bit po-faced and precious. Maybe we should just all lighten up a bit, huh? Seems a bit heavy on the blog of late, some of which has probably been added to by argumentative old yours truly. But it does.

Cheer up, everyone! He's only a bloomin' comedian. It's only a bloomin' car show. All comers are welcome to take or leave either or both, after all.

Well said, Bob. He is just a comedian.

Although I have to say that the second clip posted on this thread is every bit as unfunny as the first. He just hasn't got the comedy thing going on (which is one thing), but it's compounded by the fact that he comes across as unbearably smug. That's an unfortunate double whammy.

Jeremy Clarkson, by comparison, is slightly less annoying because he's just not very funny.

- (Cue "so racism is less annoying than smug?" retorts)

- (closely followed by the rejoinder: "there is no such race as Mexican")

the moon on a stick

saying that the rehabilitation of Bernard Manning starts now?

He's no Tim Vine is he?

It makes me laugh when people on here describe Stewart Lee as smug, as if they're sharing some great insight. It's like saying "Y'know that Al Murray? Well I reckon he's a bit like a pub landlord."

"Dame" Edna Everage might be a man in drag..

There's an infobar along the bottom of Lee's website which constantly relays criticims of Lee's work taken 'from the messageboards' and you're on it!

Were you aware of this Lenny?

...Stewart Lee and Richard Hammond went to the same school. At roughly the same time. Any backstory on this??

I liked this sketch but, then again, anything to slag off Clarkson etc.

Anyone remember that BBC doc about San Francisco in the 60s that, amazingly had 60s dodger Clarkson as a talking head, as (and I kid you not because) he went to a wedding in San Francisco in 1985 or something!

They might as well have asked the BBC hat-stand for informed comment on the subject.
Still, he is cheap.

The Hep said of Top Gear that it's "far less brimming with hatred, prejudice and received opinion than the average readers comments thread on The Guardian's website." Yeh but that's pretty much a recommendation to watch anything on tv at anytime ever, considering the bile and hatred that's brimful on the Guardian site. And most of the negativitiy derives from the overwhelming majority of non-Guardian readers endlessly trolling there. Never read the bottom half of the internet. Ever. And irrespective of its popularity in countless countries, nothing anyone says about Top Gear would ever make me want to watch it again.

Words to live by. What a brilliant thing to say. Have an up, that man.

the erudition and informed argument here puts us towards the top of the bottom wouldn't you say?

...but he does it to death. Lost me after that.

That comment will end up on Lee's website.

is great.
Surprisingly the best quotes come from the Daily Mail website. The choice one being:

"Stewart Lee - comedian. Not two words I would use in the same sentence"

It serves its purpose very well.