Martyn Sadler

You never know how someone will perform as PM until they are in position. Your comment about Boris would have been made by many MPs about Churchill after he took over from Chamberlain. And, before anyone asks, that doesn't mean I'm saying Johnson is equivalent to Churchill.

He has said that he would reject a coronation by MPs and that he does want it to go to the party members.

I actually think we should be allowed to joke about anything. But we should also be allowed to criticise jokes that stray into being offensive rather than funny. I have no desire to stop Jo Brand telling jokes on any subject she wants.

The problem with making a 'joke' about acid-throwing is that it is currently a live issue, with several recent examples of people being disfigured by this horrible practice. It would have been the same, or perhaps more so, if she had 'joked' about knifing politicians she 'hated'.

That's true, but without checking the figures I'm not sure that Davis or Portillo had a lead as big as Johnson has in the first round of voting. The real question now is whether the Tories will actually go to a members' vote if Johnson wins the final vote as easily as the initial result suggests he might.

In 1955 Anthony Eden became the leader of the Conservative Party and the new Prime Minister on the retirement of Churchill. He was widely regarded as one of the best qualified Prime Ministers ever to take up the office. He called an almost immediate general election and increased his majority substantially. But he is now almost universally regarded as the worst Prime Minister of the 20th Century, although that was before Theresa May, who some would claim was also well qualified for the job. The fact is that it's hard to predict how a politician will perform as PM until he or she is in the role.

Telling jokes that some may find offensive is one thing. And I'm sure the members of any party wouldn't find jokes funny if they were about them. Farage is hardly unique in that respect. But telling jokes that appear to incite people to commit violent acts is something beyond just being offensive.

In my experience it's wiser to read what someone writes, rather than trying to imagine something that isn't there. Can you seriously deny that a joke like the one that Brand told, or Frankie Boyle's that was mentioned earlier, are not pandering to prejudice, whether or not it's a prejudice that you share?

In so far as they play to their audience's prejudices. You are obviously trying to suggest that I think that racist jokes are no worse than jokes about Tories. I had hoped you were more discerning than that.

I'm not sure that I could make myself any clearer. A large sub-group of jokes appeal to people's prejudices, whether they are racists, or have other forms of prejudices that inform their sense of humour. The joke reference earlier from Frankie Boyle about bringing the IRA to Chequers for a Tory gathering there is a case in point. Do you think it would have been funny for most people if the joke had been aimed at, say, a gathering of the Green Party?

I'm not claiming that jokes always appeal to people's prejudices. There are plenty that don't. But in many cases the jokes will be funnier if the target of the joke is someone who we don't like, as opposed to someone we admire.

Jokes on extreme subjects are funny if they appeal to your prejudices, but not funny if they don't. I'm afraid that in that sense it is directly comparable to racist jokes from the 1970s.

“Certain unpleasant characters are being thrown to the fore, and they’re very, very easy to hate, and I’m kind of thinking, why bother with a milkshake when you could get some battery acid? "That’s just me, sorry, I’m not gonna do it, it’s purely a fantasy, but I think milk shakes are pathetic, I honestly do. Sorry.” That's certainly not a "traditional" joke, as you put it. But can you explain how it is a joke at all. I suspect the audience laughed because what she said confirmed their prejudices, rather like a comedian telling racial jokes in the 70s.

I often like Jo Brand. She has a form of self-deprecating humour that often appeals to me. But on this occasion what she said wasn't actually a joke, in that it didn't have a punchline. It was simply a reprehensible statement that could be interpreted by some listeners as an incitement. For some reason, the members of the audience seemed to think it was funny. To say that she should be excused responsibility for what she said because she is a comedian is actually quite insulting to her. Unfortunately some comedians do think they are being funny simply by making outrageous statements.

There should be a constitutional convention to examine how the United Kingdom is governed, how we are represented in the various Parliaments and how they relate to each other.