logo
Who does Stewart Lee think he is?

Who does Stewart Lee think he is?

Spectator16-07-2025
Is Stewart Lee a comedy genius or just another smug leftie comic? The country's 41st-best stand-up, as he likes to remind us in reference to a Channel 4 poll, has built up so many protective layers that he is almost beyond criticism – which I imagine suits him just fine. As if to prove the point, he's posted dozens of negative reviews on his website, presumably to get one over on his more unenlightened critics: 'See, not even your wrongheaded opinions affect me.' He's even included a quote from our own James Delingpole, writing in the Daily Telegraph, who describes Lee as 'not funny and has nothing to say'.
So who the hell does Stewart Lee think he is and what's he going on about? I fear by asking the question I may already have fallen into one of his traps where I end up being quoted on his website. You see Mr Lee enjoys playing with people's heads, especially those who doubt his genius.
What we do know is that he began his career in 1989 as one half of a comedy duo with Richard Herring. He has written for the Observer and was named 'Face of the year' by the Times in 2009. He used to be on telly quite a bit and in 2011 won a British Comedy Award for best male television comic and best comedy entertainment programme for his series Stewart Lee's Comedy Vehicle. He now jokes about not being on telly. In 2001, he co-wrote and co-directed the controversial West End musical Jerry Springer: The Opera which gave him a whole new audience. He's currently on tour with his latest show Stewart Lee vs. The Man Wulf.
Love him or loathe him, Lee has written some cracking sort-of one liners such as, 'What Princess Diana would have wanted was to have not been killed, and then in death, not to have become the unwitting receptacle for the hysterical, over-emotional, shrieking grief of twats.' But the joke, if you can call it a joke, that nails his style of comedy would have to be, 'Hear that applause? I prefer that… I'm not interested in laughs. What I'm interested in is a temporary liberal mass-consensus.' I would say that's pretty accurate for most of his peers but for Lee, who knows? His various onstage personas are so couched in postmodern irony it's hard to know whether to laugh or clap.
Is he a radical progressive or just a too-clever-by-half deconstructionist? He's very good at playing the cynical, middle-aged grump – but is that really him? If so, why ruin it all by slipping into the whiny know-it-all who thinks that repeating his own name over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again is the height of sophisticated wit? Maybe if I sat him down he'd reveal how he is simply trying to understand the absurdity of human nature. But from what I've observed of his comedy, Lee's underlying objective throughout has been to oh-so-subtly expose right-wing bigotry (that old chestnut), while pointing a finger at what he believes to be a shadowy cabal of fascists poisoning the minds of ordinary people.
As a Spectator reader, you probably take the opposite view – believing that a cabal of radical progressives like Lee have been the ones poisoning ordinary people's minds. But Stew is a clever chap who graduated from Oxford with a 2:1. His fans treat him with the reverence of a rock-star philosopher, so perhaps he's right and you have indeed had your mind warped by the evil right-wing press. His shows do feel like a subtle, if absurd, form of re-education.
You'd hardly describe Lee's comedy as edgy, given he adheres to all the correct left-leaning orthodoxies – and while I admire his ability to deconstruct his own performances, being constantly reminded of how cleverly self-aware he is can easily slip into tiresome sixth-form post-structural hokum. And yes, I'm aware of how that last sentence sounds – a bit like sixth-form post-structural hokum, right? You see what happens when you become too aware of your own self-awareness. There madness lies.
Anyway, hiding behind masks is a clever device for those who wish to maintain an air of mystery – but it's also a tactic used by bullies to disorientate their prey. Insist that you were only joking when you punched your weedy victim in the face and you can accuse them of being a spoilsport when they complain. I'm not suggesting Stew is a bully, but he does remind me of some of the tormentors I encountered as a boy. That air of superiority laced with sneering disdain is usually associated with public-school types trying to intimidate the lower orders – which is why it feels odd coming from a working-class lad from Solihull whose adopted parents separated when he was four. But maybe those traumatic early years are what inform his get-them-before-they-can-get-you style of comedy.
Either way, he wants you to know that he couldn't give a monkey's what anyone thinks – and nor could his loyal fans, who love that they are in on the joke. His latest tour asks, with ironic tongue firmly in cheek, 'Can Lee unleash his inner Man-Wulf to position himself alongside comedy legends like Dave Chappelle, Ricky Gervais and Jordan Peterson at the forefront of side-splitting stadium-stuffing shit-posting?' Familiar territory, then – but as Lee famously told a bemused audience member: 'Don't come and see me if you don't know what anything is.' But do any of us know who Stewart Lee is?
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Lucy Spraggan ‘clashed heads a bit' with boxer Conor Benn on Celebrity SAS
Lucy Spraggan ‘clashed heads a bit' with boxer Conor Benn on Celebrity SAS

BreakingNews.ie

timean hour ago

  • BreakingNews.ie

Lucy Spraggan ‘clashed heads a bit' with boxer Conor Benn on Celebrity SAS

Singer Lucy Spraggan has said she 'clashed heads a bit' with boxer Conor Benn during her time on Channel 4's Celebrity SAS: Who Dares Wins. The 32-year-old singer, who made her name on ITV singing show The X-Factor, will appear in the military reality show's latest series when it airs on Sunday at 9pm – having watched it 'avidly' and written about it in her diary when she was younger. Advertisement Spraggan said she ended up befriending Benn, and became so close with drag artist Bimini Bon Boulash, former Love Island star Adam Collard and Michaella McCollum, who was jailed for smuggling cocaine in Peru with Melissa Reid in 2013, during her time on the show, that she invited them to her wedding. The singer, who is best known for her songs Last Night (Beer Fear), Lighthouse and Tea And Toast, said: 'To be honest, it was mainly Michaella, Bimini, Troy, Adam (that she got on with best) but I also got on with Conor too, although we did clash heads a bit. 'It was only to do with him not really liking direction and I was picked to direct one of the tasks. 'I thought Adam was such a great guy. As a woman, when a man really makes you feel comfortable around them, he was that for me the whole time. Adam, Bimini and Michaella came to my wedding after the show.' Advertisement Celebrity SAS: Who Dares Wins sees celebrities enter SAS training, where they are not eliminated and are instead culled by the directing staff or able to withdraw themselves, with those who remain at the end declared the winners. Fellow contestant Chloe Burrows, best known for finishing second on Love Island series seven in 2021, described her time on the show as 'hell on earth', and added that she 'wasn't in great nick going in'. The 29-year-old said: 'It lived up to my expectations, but in my wildest dreams, it was much more intense, much more straining. 'It was so much more intense than I thought it could be, but because of all the stuff you don't see on camera, if that makes sense. Advertisement 'I would actually love the opportunity to give it another go. I know Pete Wicks has given it another shot. If I did I would say to my management I need a month off and I'm going to train, get SAS ready beforehand.' Benn, who is the son of former boxer Nigel Benn, said he was inspired by his father's time in the military to join the programme, and added that the only thing that would have scared him on the show was spiders. He said: 'It definitely lived up to my expectations. It was very real. It was brutal, intense, can be mind-breaking. 'But in a weird way, if you sort of ride the storm, you find yourself and find out what you're about, who you are. I find out who I am when I'm in the ring with another man. Advertisement 'Whereas for the other celebrities, who don't have to go to that place to really find out what minerals they're made of, this is the perfect test. They can find out if they're strong and put their resilience to the test.' The rest of the recruits will be made up of former footballers Adebayo Akinfenwa and Troy Deeney, TV dancer Louie Spence, Strictly Come Dancing 2025 runner-up Tasha Ghouri, former The Traitors winner Harry Clark, singer Hannah Spearritt, model Rebecca Loos, and rapper Lady Leshurr. Celebrity SAS: Who Dares Wins, airs on Channel 4 at 9pm on Sunday, and will continue on Sundays and Mondays throughout August.

Bonnie Blue has no limits
Bonnie Blue has no limits

New Statesman​

time2 hours ago

  • New Statesman​

Bonnie Blue has no limits

Photo by Gilbert Flores/Variety via Getty Images In my previous life as a fact-checker, I was once instructed to watch an execution video to determine how the man had been killed. The Assad regime had fallen. The question was simple: was he shot against a tree or a tree stump? (Stump, as it happened.) Watching pornographic film actress Tia Billinger – known professionally as Bonnie Blue – get her 'insides rearranged' in slow, repetitive motion in Channel 4's 1,000 Men and Me: The Bonnie Blue Story filled my body with essentially the same emotions I'd felt watching the execution video: disgust, fear and dismay at the state humankind has found itself in. This latest documentary from Channel 4 is a passive, docile attempt at investigative journalism. The director Victoria Silver, spurred by the realisation that her 15-year-old daughter had come across Blue on social media, decided to follow the 26-year-old over the course of six months. During that time, Blue rose to meteoric fame, becoming the face of a new era of porn maximalism. Silver watches on, horrified, as Blue pushes her body to extremes, attempting to break 'world records' by sleeping with 1,057 men in 12 hours. Silver's questions don't prod; in fact, they barely brush past Blue. It's Liberal Feminism 101 – asking the kinds of questions about porn that have permeated discussions forever. 'In terms of feminism,' Silver ponders, 'are you not, maybe, sending us backward? Kind of conveying that women are there for male pleasure?' Blue can answer questions like this in her sleep: 'This is what I enjoy. I always say this is what I want. This is not for everybody. A lot of the hate I get is from women who are not working – which is absolutely fine; you get the choice if you want to work or not – but are they not just taking it back in time?' This is rinsed and repeated throughout. Silver, seemingly worried about offending Blue, propounds limply: 'Couldn't you just make a normal porno?' 'So, you don't mind offending women?' 'What's pegging?' Blue, dead behind the eyes like a junior minister on Question Time, toes the party line: 'They have to be 18.' The documentary feels like an advertisement for Blue's content. Her 'record-breaking' 1,057-man feat is played out in slow, graphic video shots. Every inch of Blue is shown – nothing is blurred out. If this is Channel 4's attempt at showing rather than telling viewers how extreme her content is, there's a fundamental flaw in the journalism. Viewers already know how absurd she is: one quick scroll through X or Instagram will lead to a video of Blue spouting misogynistic bile, such as when she blames women for their partners' infidelity. What was needed here was a more hard-line approach. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Instead, Silver wonders how her teenage daughter might feel, and whether she might 'think this is what she has to offer guys'. The same argument could be made about all pornography. Yes, it can distort young people's perceptions of what normal sex is – but even they, for the most part, can see that this is not normal sex. Moreover, the teenage daughter of a Channel 4 documentarian is unlikely to be the kind of girl who will suffer from Blue's content. Those that do appear in her sexual education porn video, for which she hired a number of young male and female sexual content creators who, for the first time, have sex, as a group, on camera – for Blue to monetise in what she calls a 'business opportunity'. All have been chosen because they are just over 18, and are willing to participate for free in the hope of gaining exposure through being tagged in Blue's social media posts. The documentary never sees the vast empire of exploitation that Bonnie Blue is a part of. Partly because 1,000 Men and Me exists within it, and possibly this article does too. The programme is a chance for rubberneckers to peer into her world, for Channel 4 to get some easy attention, and for Blue to expand her ever-growing following. While it is legal for Bonnie Blue-inspired 18-year-olds to join OnlyFans, participate in a gang bang, and buy a Dior suitcase with the profits, it does not take away from the fact that they are being sold a fantasy. Blue reiterates that 'my brain works differently, I'm just not emotional', and that this line of work is not for everyone. In the same breath, however, she lures viewers and participants in with the idea that this could be you in these videos: 'My subscribers can watch that and go, 'My dick looks like that, my body looks like that. I last nine seconds like them as well.'' The problem with Blue is that she is not just coerced by this culture, she also uses it for her own gain. Everyone on her OnlyFans set is a cog in Blue's capitalistic, money-making machine. Seasoned OnlyFans creator Andy Lee – the only other participant in Blue's sex-ed video who has previously had sex with strangers on camera – admits that this video is outside his comfort zone. He seems marginally more concerned than Blue about the well-being of the participants, reminding them that they shouldn't 'just say yes' if they don't actually want to have sex on camera. 'Yeah, um, I don't mind,' the female actors reply – an answer that reflects their juvenility – but they then slowly admit they would prefer to just watch rather than participate. (What would have happened had they not been asked twice?) Leah, new to pornography, grins widely but concedes that she is 'definitely nervous'. Codie isn't sure about it either – she's done 'nothing too adventurous' before but hopes her participation will lead to 'followers and subs'. 'I always think people who do OnlyFans must be really confident,' says Silver, as Madison, 21, trembles on screen. 'No,' Madison replies, shaking her head and biting her lip. 'Definitely no.' 'The fact that they're so nervous actually works in my favour because their reactions are more realistic,' shrugs Blue. 'If they feel intimidated, obviously I want them to say, but sometimes sex is intimidating.' The video goes ahead, unchallenged by anyone on Silver's team, and viewers are treated to a long montage of baby-faced 18-year-olds moaning alongside Blue. Herein lies the issue with Bonnie Blue. If you choose to have sex with 1,057 men in your mid-twenties, no one can stop you. But if young people, who are likely earning much less than you (Blue claims to earn more than £1m a month), are encouraged to believe that creating this kind of content will have little impact on their lives, then their youth and naivety are being exploited. There seems to be endless speculation and intellectualising about the impact of her videos on young women and what it says about culture. This is why free-choice markets become coercive without intervention. But the philosophers can ask what comes after this, what it means for liberalism and so on. Blue knows exactly what's next: 'a disabled gang bang'. [See more: We must fight the deepfake future] Related

Claims that Queen Victoria had a secret child are pure clickbait
Claims that Queen Victoria had a secret child are pure clickbait

Telegraph

time10 hours ago

  • Telegraph

Claims that Queen Victoria had a secret child are pure clickbait

Rarely has the humble question mark done so much heavy lifting in a programme title. Because for all its proclamations of 'overwhelming evidence' that Queen Victoria had made an honest man of faithful ghillie John Brown, the jury remained very much out on Channel 4's Queen Victoria: Secret Marriage, Secret Child?. The evidence that Queen Victoria had indeed married her loyal servant-cum-companion and had a child with him? She didn't go out much for a couple of years after Prince Albert's premature demise and could have hidden a lot under her signature voluminous skirts. And – besides a note describing a dodgy deathbed confession from a Scottish vicar who claimed he officiated the ceremony – that was about it. Taking the gossipy scribblings of a Swiss tabloid, musing that Victoria was hiding a pregnancy secret, as some kind of starting point, historian Fern Riddell embarked on a flight of fancy that had her staring at a picture of John Brown and cooing on about how sexy he was. 'Looking at this you can see why Victoria was so incredibly drawn to him,' sighed the academic who was clearly in the grip of a fangirl crush. Putting two and two together and coming up with something like 69, Riddell interpreted the letters and postcards between the monarch and her servant with all the gushing lust of a feverish romance novelist. Landing on any turn of phrase or declaration of devotion that supported her theory – well, she has got a book to flog – Riddell strove to present pure conjecture as indisputable fact. I wasn't buying it. Which could not be said for sometime judge and media legal everyman Robert Rinder, who had been presumably enlisted to cast an objective eye on proceedings. But he too got swept up in Riddell's elaborate fantasy. 'It blows history up,' was just one of the many bizarre overstatements that littered a story spun from the flimsiest of threads. It all felt rather prurient. The hook for it all, which could have been delved into further, was Riddell's discovery of a John Brown family archive. How she got her hands on this mysterious archive remained obscure, but it had led her to tattooed Angela from Minnesota who believed she was descended from history's most celebrated ghillie. The likeness was not striking. This is where we really could have done with the forensic approach of Who Do You Think You Are?, tracking the lineage of 'Mary Ann', the supposed child of Victoria and Brown, down through the generations. Mary Ann had, we were told, been passed off as the offspring of John Brown's brother and his wife and whisked to New Zealand for safe-keeping. But the evidence supporting this theory amounted to little more than hearsay. Tracking down the missing links in the chain to Angela would have given the story some much-needed ballast. Riddell has, I understand, earned a degree of credibility as a social historian, but here she played the part of a starry-eyed fantasist, reading so much between the lines into the correspondence between Queen Victoria and John Brown that credulity flew out of the Balmoral window long before the closing credits. This isn't history, it's clickbait.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store