Stuart

Dedicated to... Amyl and The Sniffers - "Jerkin'" (Official Video - Censored) youtu.be/98DrIPe7t8I?si… via @YouTube

@MonicaClare1 @bbcquestiontime "I’d have 20 of him" I'm sure you would, but I wouldn't brag about it

@StuartofLeeds @bbcquestiontime What a snob! I’d have 20 of him before you!! Obnoxious, rude man you are!

Dear @bbcquestiontime Tom Skinner on Question Time is the BBC equivalent of inviting the loudest bloke in the pub because he “speaks his mind.” Great for viral clips, terrible for actual political debate. Skinner isn’t there to inform anyone — he’s there because he shouts, he mugs for the camera, and he trends. That’s it. No expertise, no depth, no grasp of policy beyond “common sense” clichés you could hear from a taxi rank at 2am. Putting him on Question Time doesn’t elevate the conversation. It drags the show down to the level of a breakfast‑TV soundbite factory. Every time the BBC hands a seat to a reality‑TV personality instead of someone who actually understands the issues, it proves the show cares more about engagement metrics than meaningful discussion. Not that this is surprising anymore! If the goal is serious debate, Skinner adds nothing. If the goal is cheap entertainment, just say that — and stop pretending it’s public service broadcasting. #bbcqt

Reform UK’s biggest donor, Christopher Harborne, gave £2.3m while his companies were accused of dodging £80m in UK fuel duty. Entitlement isn’t a mayor getting a Lords seat. It’s a party bankrolled by tax avoiders telling the rest of us how to behave.

🧵 This exchange actually took place on GB “News” in January 2026, shortly after it was formally announced that Tom Skinner had joined Reform UK (link to video in the next tweet): Patrick Christys: “When are you going to run for an MP then?” Tom Skinner: “Look, look, listen. I got, I've got three beautiful children. I’ve got a beautiful wife. I got successful businesses. I’m busy every day. And I’ve got fourteen staff that rely on me day in, day out. So I, I need to get that in order first. Look, once, once, once, once, I could, once I’ve built myself up and I can sit back and I don’t have to work every day cuz I got so many overheads like, then, then, I potentially, I could go into, I’m not saying I ain’t going to, but potentially when, when I’m, when I can afford to, I’ll see if I can help.” #WTAF #bbcqt

We've reached the point where Danny Dyer is talking more sense than almost anybody ...

To be clear, the president’s views are those of a white supremacist and his own administration members say so. This should be the second-biggest domestic scandal in American politics (the first being Trump’s documented ties to a notorious child sex offender and trafficker).

Nigel 🇷🇺 Farage 🇷🇺 has 🇷🇺 a 🇷🇺 big 🇷🇺 problem 🇷🇺 with 🇷🇺 political 🇷🇺 donations 🇷🇺 going 🇷🇺 to 🇷🇺 Reform 🇷🇺 being 🇷🇺 traceable. Why??? 🤔 🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺

Fox host: Are kids in Iran dying without food/water? @POTUS: You are a sexy woman. 🤬 I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT, LIVE ON AIR, THIS SERIAL SEX OFFENDER, WHO "GRABS THEM BY THE PUSSY", can say whatever the fuck he wants and America laughs like "Oh Donald, that's my pedo President"

Fixed it for you @SkyNews

Massive bombshell. Trump whines on camera that Australia refused to help with his Iran war, only for the Australian Prime Minister to reveal on live TV that Washington didn't even consult them before launching the attack. The US has gone completely rogue.

Tom Skinner was paid 2 GRAND to appear on Question Time. Journos usually get a £150 fee. Please tell me how the BBC is somehow biased toward the left.

Impressive. You’ve managed to cram an insult, a conspiracy‑level assumption, and a full psychological projection into one sentence. Shame none of it adds up to an argument. When someone leans this hard on playground-level name‑calling, it’s usually because they’ve got nothing intelligent to contribute. You’ve basically announced you’re out of ideas before the discussion even started. If you ever feel like engaging with the topic instead of flinging random bile, I’ll be right here — talking to the adults.

@StuartofLeeds @bbcquestiontime Another lefty with dodgy paedophilic facial hair thinking anybody with three digits in their IQ is listening to them...

Ah, the classic move — when you run out of arguments, just invent a fantasy version of what I supposedly believe. If you need to fabricate my ‘ideal world’ to make your point, that tells everyone exactly how weak your actual position is If you want to debate the issue, debate the issue. If you want to debate the imaginary villain you’ve created in your head, that’s between you and your imagination.” “Come back when you’re ready to discuss what I actually said, not whatever straw‑man you’ve built to avoid it.”

@StuartofLeeds @bbcquestiontime No doubt in your ideal world he would not be allowed a vote either .

@didtheydiecom @bbcquestiontime Fair enough - and for this platform, a golden and hopeful reply. Thanks

@StuartofLeeds @bbcquestiontime I still disagree but I like your answer.

This line collapses under its own weight the moment you look at it closely. • “Common sense at a taxi rank at 2am” That’s not a political philosophy, it’s a mood. And usually not a sober one. The idea that the best blueprint for national governance is whatever someone blurts out while waiting for a kebab is… optimistic at best. Common sense is great for crossing the road; it’s not a substitute for fiscal modelling, international law, or running a health system. • “So‑called experts” This is the classic move: discredit expertise without offering any alternative except vibes. If your boiler breaks, you call a qualified engineer. If your country breaks, apparently you call Dave who’s had six pints and a strong opinion about potholes. Expertise isn’t the enemy — bad decisions are. And those come from politicians, not the people who spend their lives studying the issues. • “Driven this country into dust over the last 30 years” Thirty years covers governments of multiple parties, ideologies, and economic cycles. Blaming “experts” for everything from global recessions to pandemics to geopolitical shocks is a convenient narrative, but it’s not a serious analysis. It’s a slogan dressed up as hindsight. • The underlying contradiction You can’t simultaneously argue that the country is in ruins because of experts while also insisting that the solution is less knowledge, less evidence, and more gut instinct. That’s not reform — that’s roulette. This statement romanticises “ordinary wisdom” while demonising expertise, but it forgets the obvious: Good governance needs both. Lived experience to understand real problems, and expertise to actually solve them. Pretending you can run a modern state on bar‑stool common sense alone is like saying you can fly a plane because you’ve been on holiday a lot.

@StuartofLeeds @bbcquestiontime I'd very much like our politics to be much more driven by the kinds of common sense you hear at a taxi rank at 2am than the governance of so called experts that has driven this country into dust over the last 30 years.

I don’t buy that at all. Showing “more respect than the shouty ones” is an incredibly low bar, and it doesn’t magically turn a flat, evasive performance into a good one. Skinner wasn’t some beacon of courtesy; he was just quieter while still dodging questions, recycling lines, and offering nothing of substance. If anything, the panel and audience deserved someone who could actually engage rather than simply avoid making a mess. Politeness without clarity isn’t respect—it’s just a softer form of the same old political non‑answers.

I disagree Stuart. Whilst he'll never be the world's best orator, Skinner showed the panelists and audience a great deal more respect than the majority of "shouty" interrupting politicians that have been on the programme recently. I'd also suggest that he was somewhat better informed than Tom Tugendhat who was clearly way out of his depth talking about social media!

Ah, there he is — the pedant with a scalpel, carving up clauses like he’s auditioning for Silent Witness. And look, you’ve even brought receipts. Very neat. Very forensic. Very… Skinner. But since you’re asking what I was saying about coherent arguments, let me refresh your memory: Coherence isn’t about commas — it’s about control Anyone can nit‑pick punctuation. That’s surface‑level stuff. Coherent argumentation is about: • Building a line of reasoning that actually goes somewhere • Connecting claims so they reinforce each other instead of wobbling independently • Choosing structure over scattershot point‑making • Making the reader feel like you’re steering the ship, not clinging to the mast You can have flawless grammar and still produce an argument that collapses like a soufflé in a cold kitchen.

@StuartofLeeds @bbcquestiontime (1). No comma in a sentence before 'and.' (2). Incorrect grammatical structure, it should be 'put together coherent arguments.' (3). Full stop after 'Skinner.' What were you saying about 'coherent arguments' Stu?😉

Frank Skinner, Jo Brand, Nish Kumar, Zoe Lyons, Rosie Jones These are comedians whose public personas are built around: • Stand‑up • Panel shows • Satire • Entertainment • Commentary through humour Even when they touch politics, they do so as comics, not as political actors or campaigners. Their presence on a show is part of the genre. Tom Skinner is not in that category. He’s: • A reality‑TV personality • A businessman • A social‑media figure • A very public supporter of a specific political party • Someone whose recent visibility is tied directly to political campaigning, not comedy or entertainment work So when he appears on a show that normally features comedians, satirists, or entertainers, it reads differently. It’s not “a comic doing a panel show.” It’s “a political surrogate being given a soft‑focus platform.” That’s why people notice. It’s not about politics vs non‑politics. It’s about genre and intent. • Frank Skinner isn’t going on TV to warm up a voter base. • Jo Brand isn’t there to push a party line. • Nish Kumar isn’t being booked because of his alignment with a political campaign. • Zoe Lyons and Rosie Jones aren’t being used as political validators. Tom Skinner’s recent media presence is tied to political messaging. That’s the difference People aren’t singling him out because he’s “non‑political.” They’re singling him out because he’s the only one on that list whose current public role is political.

@StuartofLeeds @bbcquestiontime Frank Skinner, Jo Brand, Nish Kumar, Zoe Lyons, Rosie Jones and other non-political figures regularly appear on the show. Why single out Tom Skinner?

This old and unoriginal line collapses under its own smugness. It’s the kind of half‑baked jab that thinks it’s landed a knockout blow but barely grazes the opponent. It assumes superiority without earning it, waves vaguely at an imagined audience, and hopes the reader will fill in the insult that the writer couldn’t articulate themselves. It’s a shrug masquerading as a zinger. A drive‑by sneer with no horsepower. A limp wrist trying to throw a haymaker. If you’re going to invoke the Manchester Guardian as shorthand for a worldview, at least commit. This is just a lazy wink toward a stereotype, the rhetorical equivalent of pointing at a crowd and saying, “You know the type.” It’s not clever, it’s not cutting, and it’s not even specific enough to be wrong. At best, it’s a placeholder for a better line. At worst, it’s a museum exhibit titled “When banter gives up.”

@PeonyinPearls @StuartofLeeds @bbcquestiontime All readers of the Manchester Guardian no doubt!

@JeffW2304 @bbcquestiontime I'm an ordinary person, and I can put coherent arguments together. Sadly, this is beyond Skinner

@StuartofLeeds @bbcquestiontime Terrible when they have ordinary people on isn't it Stu?