So, you're happy for potential PMs to duck & dive, avoid scrutiny, go unchallenged, and unquestioned? You make it sound like it was an achievement worth celebrating.

Just remember - don't think "it couldn't happen here".

Indeed, even when the victor is a true blue coward, so frightened of scrutiny that his henchman is now trying to "close down" anyone who may dare to question the actions of our leader and his party.
It was a shrewd move (avoiding the Neil interview) but, at some point he will face scrutiny for his actions, even if the new world pandemic gives him a cop out.
Johnson is one of those "good time" leaders who is happy to take the cheers and back slapping when all is going well but, will be off like a shot when he is actually tested.
Time will tell just how credible he is.

What is shows is he is a bit smarter than the rest - tick in the box for me

All politicians are the same - Blair didn't want the Chilcot enquiry published - so they will do whatever it takes they never answer a straight question. Starmer last night - "which policies of Corbyn's have you or are you going to ditch" - answer mumble, mumble etc

At least he put himself in the position of being interviewed so you could hear him answer "mumble, mumble". Johnson just bottled it.

The problem with Johnson was that he avoided all scrutiny, I don’t remember many leaders running into a fridge to avoid any questions. He got away with it this time because of Brexit but he will need to rethink his strategy for the next general election.

Yes, but to not say anything of any substance - what was the point - he was like Boris in a strong position so it is damage limitation on his part, same as Johnson before the election. It will be the same outcome - Starmer will win at a canter.

Yep, really smart.
And for you to say that infers that he may not have come out of the interview too well.
If you were confident in the man and his views, you should be happy to put him in front of or against anyone, confident that he would prevail.

How very disappointing.

Even one of his most myopic supporters seems to know that he would have "come second", not great for the leader of the "all new" UK

If the TV interviewers stuck to topic for which the interviewee was requested that would help but they don't - they get Hancock on to talk about the coronavirus and then ask him about Patel and they wonder why there is no trust

One thing is for certain - no matter how bad he was it wouldn't have been the car crash that Corbyn or Sturgeon were.

It currently so difficult to get any minister on the media they have to take every opportunity available. I would be worried if you struggle in an interview with those famous investigative journalists Holly and Phil when they ask the important questions like will you be changing the nappies. I believe after a lot of mumbling his answer was probably, the problem is he does lack practice because he was not around by the birth of some of his children.

And there was me thinking it was the job of the PM and government to run the country, not provide sounbites for mealey mouthed left wing propoganda from an organisation that, finally, is to be disbanded, or at the very least, lose the umbilical cord that allows it to air garbage like The One Show, Songs of Praise, Strictly Come Dancing.

IF the BBC wants to crete commercial programmes, let them do it with commercial funding.

(again, a thread in it's own right)

If the BBC was to go down the far right route of capitalism then they would take advertising revenue from the independent companies. This is because due to the success of the last ten years the only boom in advertising is for gambling and death. There is a finite amount available and if you like the US media coverage then obviously you must possess a very short attention span. The American football game is over 60 minutes but takes up three hours on TV due to the number of breaks.
If privatisation is so good why do we have to keep taking over failed train lines and returning them to public ownership.
I have another question how many of the privatised utilities are still in the hands of U.K. businesses.

Got to love all this BBC bashing.

The people who are banging on about privatising the BBC, or having it rely on commercial funding, will be the same people who will be moaning when there are adverts in the middle of Homes Under the Hammer and Cash in the Attic.

Never ceases to amaze me how abjectly wrong you can be, but keep the incorrect generalisations coming.

So all these angry folk are going to suddenly start signing up for subscription TV packages at £X a month?

Let's face it. These people just don't want to have to be told to pay for the BBC licence, it's completely at odds with their wannabe libertarianism. They'll get a shock when they learn that Netflix, Amazon and Apple TV aren't free. At least the choice of paying for Jeremy Clarkson's bigotry will be one they've made themselves, though.

Andrew Neil would have covered all sorts of topics and Boris (well, more likely Cummings) knew this and didn't want to risk "getting found out".
A calculated, if not very democratic, risk.
Again, it shows lack of bottle and confidence to shy away from scrutiny and as with most things, the truth will come out at some point.

I wonder if there will be a wedding to go along with his latest addition, just to keep the blue rinse brigade happy.
Mind you, the do seem very accepting of anything he does for now.

Remind me, how many kids has he got and to how many different mothers
Can you imagine what would be said if he was a Labour leader ?

I don't disagree - the point of the interview from Neil's perspective would have been to make Boris look as small as possible by focussing on his personal life. Perhaps if Neil were prepared to be more even handed and perhaps discuss the Tory manifesto then Boris might have been more inclined to participate - let's face he has done numerous interviews in the past. If the BBC want leading politicians to engage then they have to give them a fair crack of the whip. Doubt very much Corbyn will ever be interviewed by Neil again.

There is a lot of talk about the Tories boycotting the Today program - how long since Corbyn has been on the Today program - why - because Humphries gave him a hard time - so he simply said no more. Same on C4 news after the Indian gave him a hard time.

Turning the BBC into a private organisation would be a disaster - yes its not perfect but it is still one of the finest broadcasters on the planet - and cheap.

Neil would have made Boris uncomfortable, just as he did with ALL of the other leaders, it's what he does.
As for the Tories not liking the BBC, this is just a ruse to try and prevent too much being broadcast against them, to ensure that they are actually benefitting from their exposure on the channel, very similar to how Trump is trying to "work" the media in the US.

There will of course be certain times when they are harshly treated, just as other parties are.
I'm sure that you remember the hammering that Ed Miliband received and whilst you will no doubt argue that he brought it upon himself, the treatment from most media outlets was grossly harsh and no doubt contributed to his downfall.

The BBC do have to be seen as "balanced" and rightly so.
However, the Tories do seem to want to ensure that the scales are tipped in their favour.
I dont blame them for that but, it doesn't make it right, does it.

Nobody did more of this than Blair and Campbell - David Kelly/Iraq war anyone!!

Blair never hid away or ducked interviews. He is confident enough in himself and his arguments to face scrutiny, even over things like the Iraq War, where people want to put him in war crimes tribunals and the like.

Is red diesel being attacked today? some of the local farmers seem to think so.

The point raised was Blair/Campbell manipulation of the press and the BBC - there are plenty of examples of New Labour approach to message manipulation

I agree that this was when the era of 'spin' started in earnest and it was a change for the worse.

There had always been some form of press management: Bernard Ingham pushing tabloids to present stories in the form of "Maggie Acts" in the 1980s, but the difference was Thatcher wasn't basing her decisions on the headlines. Even Blair wasn't, he was just trying to swing public opinion his way, through media management. But he went against public opinion on tuition fees and Iraq.

The David Kelly / WMD stuff was a significant shift in terms of degrading public opinion in government and that is on Blair.

The Cameron era was when it really started going downhill in terms of a) making decisions based on the press story (a classic hallmark of an Osborne budget), b) moving from spin being the job of political appointments/Spads to expecting civil servants to be "on message" with "defensive lines" and demanding that impact assessments got signed off by Ministers (with anything the Minister didn't like, susceptible to being taken out).

Johnson has taken this to the nth degree, with actively misleading the public and taking an ambivalent attitude to scrutiny. Even May felt the obligation to try and explain herself to Parliament and the public. Johnson has the approach of entitlement, I'm the PM, I can do what I want lol.

I agree with some of what you've said but May is in the guinness book of records for avoiding the most questions, in fact I can honestly say that I have never heard her answer a question unless you count the running through the fields.... BS Boris has simply followed in the footsteps of Cameron & May, they are totally unaccountable.