Thread by @sturdyAlex

I've been thinking a lot about #Carriegate and why No.10 threw so much at suppressing it, when the story was actually no worse than the average excesses of this gov't and the decision to supress it, so obviously fraught with risk. I have a theory. This is pure speculation. 1/

The possibility of a Streisand effect making the story much bigger than if left alone was always so great that the heavy-handed intervention makes no sense - especially given that most of the information in it had been in the public domain for months and passed largely unseen. 2/

UNLESS... Johnson extracted conditional support from someone (or a group) around the no confidence vote, in exchange for a firm undertaking that there would be not a scintilla of scandal from No.10 for a given time period. (Until by-elections? Summer recess? Party conference?) 3/

This made the stakes disproportionately high even for a page-5 tidbit. And the only people who would still have real power to destabilise him, after he'd won the vote, would be senior cabinet members. So, that would be my bet. He deferred senior resignations with this promise. 4/

We may never know the truth, of course. Or it might leak in two hours. But I cannot think of another reason for such a high-risk, heavy-handed approach.

Thanks for letting me chew the fat. Interested in your alternative ideas. 5/5