Alex Andreou Profile picture
Jun 23 5 tweets 2 min read
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

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Alex Andreou

Alex Andreou Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @sturdyAlex

Jun 18
This isn’t quite right. The Mail didn’t turn it down. It published it TWICE, then spiked it twice. The Times version made it to print. You can see it in the attached. The Mail version was syndicated by MSN. I screen grabbed it. It’s in the next tweet.…
So here is the Mail version of the story that Johnson tried to hire Symmonds as his Chief of Staff at the FCO, as syndicated by MSN.
Incidentally, the MSN version is also gone now.
Read 4 tweets
Jun 18
Note the pernicious use of the word "foreign". The ECHR is, of course, international, not foreign - no more than the UN or the WTO are "foreign".

And it was designed this way, precisely because all those things kept happening to people who thought they could never happen again.
I just don't understand how Dan We-Won't-Leave-The-Single-Market Covid-Will-Not-Kill-You Hannan is still seen as any sort of credible voice in British politics, let alone a sage by some in the Tory Party.

He's been consistently and provably wrong about everything, all the time.
It's like an easy version of that logic puzzle, in which you're on an island with a guard that always lies, one that always tells the truth and a third that sometimes lies, only there are three Dan Hannans, all of whom are wrong all the time, because no other Dan Hannans exist.
Read 5 tweets
May 26
There is one angle of #Partygate that is not being discussed. I have heard not a single journalist ask questions about it so far. And it is, in my view, one of the most important - if not the most important, in terms of learning lessons. THREAD 1/
That angle is #Partygate in the context of a deadly pandemic. Not the breaking of law. Not the vapid debate of whether a leaving do is work. Not the lurid details of people puking and fighting. But the national security risk the country was put in. Let me explain. 2/
The rules and guidance were in place to prevent transmission. Mitigation measures were seen as essential to prevent the paralysis of work which had to go on during the pandemic. Coordinating the national pandemic response, was probably the most important work at that time. 3/
Read 12 tweets
May 24
Just had a REALLY disappointing work meeting. Come on @PodmastersUK. We know what PROPER work events looks like now. The days of you thinking you can get away with a black coffee and a couple of jammy dodgers are OVER.
It’s 2153. Peter Bone Jr Jr has just told #Newsnight “Come on. Be fair to Wilf. Who hasn’t shot up heroin and assaulted a male go-go dancer during a health and safety training course?”
Read 4 tweets
May 16
For all you professional useful idiots out there - the reason this stuff annoys people is not because it's controversial or not sensible in any way, but because it's obvious, patronising, and what everyone struggling to survive has tried to do every f'kin day for centuries.
It's the equivalent of a lifeguard, having pushed you into the water, standing over you as you drown, saying things like "try not to sink" and "what you want, longterm, is to become more buoyant", instead of doing her job and helping you.
So, instead of going "well, what bit of that advice do you disagree with", perhaps you could examine the complete abrogation of responsibility involved in a gov't deliberately scuttling the economy, then sitting in their yacht, shouting advice across about how to use a bucket.
Read 4 tweets
Feb 15
This is such UTTER NONSENSE by Bulford. The whole point, which she is unable or unwilling to grasp, is that the BBC is complicit in giving these entirely opaque orgs the veneer of respectability they crave. It doesn't matter whether their views are challenged (which they're not).
Imagine I launched a private co called The Royal Trust Against Poverty. Would I ever be invited to comment on economic policy? NOT IN A MONTH OF SUNDAYS. And yet The Taxpayers Alliance or the (formerly) Institute of Ideas are precisely the flip-side of that.
The question is not whether the BBC challenges their views. By inviting them on, it de facto signals they have some authority to express them. Has it ever questioned their funding, agenda and reason for being BEFORE deciding whether they deserve a chair?
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!