Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Bones McCoy wrote: ↑Sat Nov 05, 2022 12:59 pm

Abernathy wrote: ↑Sat Nov 05, 2022 11:01 am I still don't believe Johnson really had the numbers.

Neither do I.

Brady's statement is nothing but bullshit from the nation's leading bullshit factory.

That’s infinitely more plausible than Johnson sacrificing personal ambition for party and country.

I don't know why he wanted it anyway. After all, he's already told us that he can't afford to live on the miniscule salary that goes with the job.

Ah...

Boris Johnson ‘quit PM race over risk to £10m earnings’, sources say

If the ex-PM had lost the leadership contest, his value stood to drop by half, according to the entertainment industry

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ources-say

I think Johnson made it clear he was thinking of standing just to test the water. He probably soon realised that he would struggle to get the hundred but got friends to claim he had the numbers so that he could have his Saturday night meeting with Sunak. It is still not clear what he wanted from Sunak may be it was some well paid job or may be he wanted Sunak to make the the privileges investigation disappear. Sunak saw through the bullshit and offered him nothing.

If he did get the 100 names some of the backers probably only jumped on board after they knew that he was pulling out. By backing him it would probably have got them brownie points with their local party members.

I think by now we are fully cognisant that what a Tory MP says and what a Tory MP does are not connected by the mighty sinews of truth.

I would guess that Johnson had no intention of standing, because he knew that while Premiership 1.0 was all about Getting Brexit Done (ie having enough headbanging MPs to win a vote then worry about the consequences later) and Beating Covid (letting the experts do the work and taking all the credit), version 2.0 would involve the hard work of actually trying to fix the mess. As it is he can put himself over as the People's Choice who stood aside in the interests of unity, for the national good.

At this rate I wonder if he had forgotten to book return tickets and so proclaimed this great return to get some.

Abernathy wrote: ↑Sat Nov 05, 2022 11:01 am I still don't believe Johnson really had the numbers.

I will allow the caveat that he thought he had the numbers but literally only just, and would have had to grovel to be certain of getting over the line.

Johnson doesn’t like to be told no, and doesn’t like reality poking holes in his vastly overinflated ego. And a humiliating “just made it” would be intolerable for him. The fact he’d have struggled to assemble a small bird box let alone a cabinet would have sealed the (non-)deal.

Brady ought to have said fuck all about Johnson's numbers. Not his job to flatter Johnson's vanity.

Too busy going shopping in the Chinook.

She may have been having a word with the Bar Standards Board:

Suella Braverman’s ‘photocopying’ CV claim is being assessed by legal regulator

Suella Braverman’s dubious claim she “contributed” to a legal textbook when working as a lawyer is being assessed by the barristers’ regulator.

The home secretary claimed in an online CV to have been “a contributor” to a regulatory book titled Gambling for Local Authorities, Licensing, Planning and Regeneration by Philip Kolvin KC.

But Kolvin told The Big Issue in October she made “no written or editorial contribution”, adding: “However on one occasion I asked her to do some photocopying for the book, which she did.”

It has now emerged the story sparked a complaint of “potential serious misconduct” from a fellow barrister to the Bar Standards Board, which regulates barristers and investigates wrongdoing.

The complaint, first reported by Private Eye and seen by The Big Issue, was made in early October and accused Braverman of a “dishonest statement made out of self interest to promote her career”.

Again another area that they cannot gaslight.

This is grimly amusing. Tim Loughton is very good here. Watch Braverman stop talking when she realises he's got her.

Takes her long enough...

I like the bit where she suddenly decides that others should bail her out

I can't believe she wasn't briefed to answer that question.

A bullying, self-important gobshite is best hung out to dry, one peg at a time.

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 8:41 pm I can't believe she wasn't briefed to answer that question.

Sure she was briefed on policy by the department. She also has been briefed by her Spads that she mustn’t admit what Loughton is about to force her to admit.

The only surprising bit is that she leaves it so long before bailing out. Maybe just stupidity, or maybe lulled by Loughton being a fellow Brexiter.

She probably was briefed, but like the current batch of Tories; knows better, too thick to understand what she was being briefed