Search results

I did answer it in simple terms. It's childish and tiresome.

It's not remotely the same, and you're conflating two separate issues. If you want to criticise him if he doesn't appear, that's perfectly valid to do so. What isn't, is what Sky did earlier to try and promote their own campaign for leadership debates by pretending it was identical. It is...

Not playing that game. I find it tiresome and childish.

Because it isn't an inconsistency. A general election where we all vote isn't remotely the same as a party leadership election, who on earth would think it is? It doesn't matter what you (or I) think about Boris Johnson, for Sky to try and take this line is entirely about pushing their agenda...

Yes, I'd agree with that, but given he's advocating essentially a continuation of May, there's no more reason to assume he would than anyone else would, whatever their own tactics on the matter.

Why on earth would it? Does the principle apply to everything? By-elections? Cabinet re-shuffles? Sky are not a disinterested observer in this, it's news activism how they promote the idea of leader debates in the general election - they openly campaign for it for their own interests...

I don't agree at all. If they chose him they'd be writing their own suicide note with the Brexit Party picking up millions of votes. Not that there's a cat in hell's chance of it happening.

Yes, but the very point is that you are far more likely to be in favour of someone who you feel is closer to your own views, and because you'd never vote for him, that would be a terrible choice for the Conservatives. They need a leader who will make people vote Conservative, not one who those...

Well, you see, you're using pejorative phrases there - and that's absolutely fine, but it identifies where you're coming from and why it doesn't matter what you think on this particular issue. You just aren't going to vote for them. Any political party needs to have a leader that both...

Not necessarily. There are millions of people politically homeless at the moment. I suppose that might be one destination for their vote, but it's also notable (and frankly a bit weird) how plenty of solid Labour voters on social media are praising him. Now, if they're doing that because of...

You've actually nailed the issue with him - he's liked by people who would never vote Conservative.

That is referring to general elections, not Conservative leadership elections. Whatever Johnson might be, it's disingenuous at best to conflate the two.

It'd be seriously funny if he'd blown his chances with that deleted tweet.

It's not a rainy season, it's the driest month of the year. It's just bad luck.

People may or may not agree with the point being made, but I daresay will approve the sentiment.

Think strategically Kaz - all City need to do is tweet him the screenshot of him claiming he'd been sent the video, and he'll block them. ;-)

Lol, you're a precious one. Feel free to, I won't claim offence.

Offensive? Oh diddums. Fine with disagreeing, don't play the victim. Your argument was preposterous.

Ironically, they proved your point by pretending that Rabin's tweets were a work of some kind of investigative super-sleuth, rather than just someone taking a bit of time to look at publicly available material.

I felt they were being a bit more nuanced than that, saying that according to the rules it was the right decision, but querying whether the rule was right in the first place. I've forgotten who it was, but someone on there was saying it was a 60/40 decision, and should be respected either way it...