So I'm intrigued as to the level of analysis here, or rather the lack of it shown by many people (on AB especially). I can see that what we might call good 'adult humour' and comedy are necessarily 'tricky' to define, it's what may make one thing funny to one person but not another. Grown up jokes require a certain degree of understanding to 'get the joke', Jimmy Carr is a master where this is concerned. Both he and Ricky Gervais went to university and so have an advanced in-depth perception of what can be made funny, for some their humour is 'too clever' it's beyond their more limited view of the world around them. The government minister whoever she may be, I don't consider the majority worth my time they get cancelled instantly - to pass judgement on the joke requires context, I recommend listening to Grounded with Louis Theroux - 15. Frankie Boyle to understand it all.. Frankie says it's the media that's to blame, they 'hype it up', take a quote out of context to stir up a reaction.. as has been said already the bandwagon moves on!
One definition of amusement, is of being “between bored and offended”, it seems to be the guiding principle of much stand-up comedy. We could class Michael McIntyre's comedy as "blandly inconsequential" and others as “benign violation” to varying degrees, comedians such as Jimmy Carr, Ricky Gervais and Frankie Boyle are more towards the violation end of the 'offence spectrum', whilst at the mild "pretty benign" safe end, almost to point of being childish and silly where most people would likely laugh. Jimmy Carr hosted a serious BBC Horizon TV programme called Jimmy Carr and the Science of Laughter, he is intensely interested in comedy and studies what makes us laugh. Often the stage persona is an exaggerated version of the person in real life, what they do on stage is as has been stated already, just an act for the audience, it's a comedy performance nothing more and should be judged as such! ;O)