Masthead
One of my photos

10 O’clock Live

January 21st, 2011 · Posted by Skuds in Life/Politics · 5 Comments · Life, Politics

For a change I actually watched 10 O’Clock Live in real time today.  I had the V+ box set up but noticed it was 10pm and went down and turned the TV on.

I was a bit underwhelmed by it, but my expectations were very high.  It could have been funnier, it could have been cleverer, and it could have been harder-hitting when it needed to be, but maybe it will take time to hit its stride.  Was the very first Daily Show or Colbert Report brilliant?  (Maybe they were.  I didn’t see them)

A few positive things to say:  I don’t think any of the presenters have a lot of experience with live broadcasting so they must have been bricking it, but they got through it and as the weeks go by they can only grow in confidence.  Again I was struck by how generous Jimmy Carr is with other people’s jokes.  He often seems genuinely amused and not afraid to show it, where some comics would be thinking more about how to come up with an even better reply.  Paul Merton is the same.

How fortunate for them that the Alan Johnson resignation happened today, and quite late in the day too.  It gave them a chance to stress how up-to-the-minute the show is.  On the other hand, did they have to drop some better prepared stuff to make room?

A few negative things: I get annoyed by programmes that come up with their own Twitter hashtag and display it at the start of the show.  I think Question Time does it and I know Have I Got New For You does it.  It just looks desperate to me, and I sort of resent the attempt to dictate such things instead of letting them arise organically.

The show seemed disjointed with swings in tone like it doesn’t know what it wants to be. Maybe it doesn’t know what it wants to be and adapt and evolve into something that couldn’t be planned and better than something that is planned.  It would make the next 14 hours easier to take.

I wish it well though.  Jimmy Carr and David Mitchell I can take or leave, but I’m a big fan of Charlie Brooker and Lauren Laverne and I’d like it to suceed so we get to see more of them.

Interesting interview with David Willetts, even if it wasn’t terribly funny.

I can see what he is getting at, and the points seem reasonable enough, but the trouble is that if you accept that argument about higher education leading to the likelihood of higher earnings so its only fair that if that happens you pay back the cost of the education it is a bit of a slippery slope.   The same argument could apply to sixth form.  Or getting in the top stream for maths, or for going to a school with a better Ofsted rating.  Or going to a better primary school.  Where do you draw the line?

The other thing is that, even without repaying loans, somebody who earns more because they went to uni will pay more back anyway – in income tax.  Why not just increase the higher rate by the amount it would take to fill the funding gap?  What woudl that be anyway?   Less than one percent?   Or just lower the threshold for higher rate by a small amount, or some other tweak like that?   Not only would a high-earning graduate pay back their tuition but, unlike the loan repayment, it wouldn’t stop when the £27,000 was paid: it would keep on paying back to cover the costs for those who use their degree in some less well-paid job.

Apart from anything else, it would remove the overhead of the whole student loan company.  What proportion of the stuent loan repayments just goes to keep that running?

On the whole, I like the idea of comedians doing serious interviews, or at least interviews on serious topics.  They are not afraid to say what they think because they are not guarding a career in political interviewing.

A cautious welcome to the programme then, but I hope it gets funnier.  I will be disappointed if Brooker doesn’t say at least one thing per week that causes me to expel a mouthfull of tea all over the room.

Tags:

5 Comments so far ↓

  • Andrew

    A good review. Thought I’d just add in a few bits –

    The biggest difference that hampers comparing this to The Daily Show/Colbert Report/HIGNFY and others is that it’s live. HIGNFY is filmed sometimes days in advance, and the two American ones are filmed mid-afternoon to be aired only shortly before midnight. That way, they can edit out the dead time, make the half hour interviews more interesting and concentrate on the jokes that went well. On 10 O’Clock Live, they can’t.

    Also, The Daily show has undergone several massive format changes – back in the late 90s it was presented by someone who I think is an insufferable twat, and was a bit more celeb/gossipy and not very serious. When Jon Stewart took over around 2000 or so, they added in this huge fleet of comedy reporters to do these silly ‘live in front of greenscreen’ segments that were funny but goofy as hell. It’s only been in the last few years that the reporters have almost all but disappeared and it’s become the Jon Stewart show. Why? Because he’s found his own voice, it’s much more hard-hitting and it gives him the freedom to launch little crusades against politicians and decent political analysis without having to devote time to some stupid sketch piece.

    I also remember watching the first episode of the Colbert Report when it aired in America. It wasn’t great, and in fact for several months it was just downright stupid. It was way too over-the-top with this running shtick about being afraid of bears. It’s also struck a more serious tone in the last two years and it’s all the better for it.

    As this relates to Channel 4 – there were too many segments that were cut short due to time that needed a bit extra to really blossom. The interviews could have been fantastic if given a bit more time to really get stuck in, and the panel discussion was nice as each performer could revert to their own element. They’ll figure out what works and refine it for next week – I’m hoping that in two months’ time this will be a solid programme, and if they keep learning and evolving it certainly will be.

  • jams o donnell

    A few bits aside it was pretty poor stuff. Charlie Brooker was funny as ever but Jimmy Carr was just appalling

  • skud's sister

    The problem with raising the top rate of tax it that it would also increase the liability of those who are not graduates. (I’m writhing at the fact that I am defending higher-rate taxpayers here but, if you are only considering absolute fairness, it is an issue….)

    • Danivon

      Sure, but those who are top earners and not graduates are likely to be using the expertise of graduates as well. More likely to be paying for accountants, lawyers, private doctors, etc.

      I would suggest that they are likely to be wanting to employ graduate-level skilled labour if they run a business of any reasonable size, too.

  • Skuds

    It is a consequence, but not necessarily a problem. People paying more tax if they earn more is already an accepted part of the tax system.

    Student loans, and a graduate tax for that matter, is just an attempt to ring-fence parts of taxation for specific purposes – which adds to the complexity of the whole system.

    How much better if some of those people employed administering a very complicted system could be employed chasing those who are avoiding and evading instead.