More amusing? It’s crap. He basically says the main reason for his voting against Boris is that he hates Tories, which isn’t the most convincing argument. By contrast, O’Neill gives several examples of Boris’ criminal and thuggish behaviour, and many illustrations of his professional incompetancy. Brooker blames peoples’ like of Boris on their inanity, which is a pretty shallow analysis. By contrast, O’Neill’s suggestion that it marks a culturally embedded form of class-deference is plausible and intelligent. Most importantly, if you want people to take you seriously, you should treat the issue with gravity, rather than mocking the people who might consider voting for Boris (that will just make them angry and less likely to change their mind).
Up to a point: but you can’t entirely get around the aspect of “I’m voting for Boris because he looks so funny on the telly”. It exists, it’s not so very rare, it ought to be addressed.
To be honest they’re two writers of vastly different styles and approaches, there’s not much point in the comparison. There might be more point in asking why the charge-sheet that O’Neill provides is not better-known to the public that is, by now, likely to have voted for the racist buffoon.