Page 34 of 37

Re: Mad Nad

Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2023 3:28 pm
by Malcolm Armsteen
If you want to know more then look up 'Johnson at 10: The Inside Story'.
It's all in there.
The two most ‘fiercely anti-woke zealots’, as they were called, were married to each other, Munira Mirza and Dougie Smith. They regularly railed against individuals and institutions perceived to be pushing a ‘woke’ agenda. The list of those to be purged was long: the BBC, the civil service (especially the Treasury), the National Trust, universities and the NHS among those whose socially conscious tendencies needed to be stamped out. Supported by several ministers, notably Dowden, Truss and Kemi Badenoch, they were convinced of a need for the party and No. 10 to be ever more vocal on the emergent cultural fissures – not least on footballers’ activism and new revisionist views of history and empire.

Seldon, Anthony; Newell, Raymond. Johnson at 10: The Inside Story (p. 351). Atlantic Books. Kindle Edition.
‘Dougie operated in the shadows. None of us and No. 10 knew what he actually did. But he gave the impression that he had something on everyone,’ says an official. Dark secrets about people with influence in government, including presence at exotic events, was said to be one of the secrets to his influence with the powerful. ‘He was just very frightening, very bad tempered, a ruthless leaker to the press, very motivated by staying in power and keeping in with whoever has power,’ says an aide.

Seldon, Anthony; Newell, Raymond. Johnson at 10: The Inside Story (p. 463). Atlantic Books. Kindle Edition.

Re: Mad Nad

Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2023 4:55 pm
by Boiler
Abernathy wrote: Sun Nov 05, 2023 3:20 pm The thing is, I, like, at a guess, 99.97% of other, normal folk in the country, don’t give a badger’s fart about Boris Johnson, or whether he was brought down by a secret cabal, or Mad fucking Nad. Mostly, we’re just glad that Johnson is gone.

Other than a mild disgust that Dorries has been given the opportunity to monetise her fantasies by Dacre, if I never see or hear about Nadine Dorries ever again, it’ll be far too soon.
^^^THIS. ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY THIS.^^^

Re: Mad Nad

Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2023 1:49 pm
by Youngian
Did Nad wear a headscarf and sunglasses?

Re: Mad Nad

Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2023 1:54 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
Ha ha. People don't seem particularly reticent about going on the record to say Bozo was unfairly got rid of by a clique- see Peter Cruddas, for example. Why does Nadine have to call her contact "M"? It's not like she's getting the nuclear codes off this guy.

Re: Mad Nad

Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2023 2:16 pm
by Andy McDandy
I've just read through the extracts in the Mail. They're a fucking riot.

Re: Mad Nad

Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2023 2:27 pm
by Crabcakes
Tubby Isaacs wrote: Sun Nov 05, 2023 12:33 pm You'll be amazed to hear there are rumours that Dorries' manuscript was an avalanche of libel suits waiting to happen.

She's not named this Dr No character, but it's apparently very easy to identify who it is. That seems like a bit odd if there are going to be major revelations- wouldn't the lawyers be much more careful about it? So far I think it's basically the story about slicing up his brother's rabbit when he was a kid. See if there's more.

As for who this is, I can tell you, channelling reddit, that it's definitely not a bloke called Dougie Smith.
Dorries is such an idiot and a terrible writer, I'd pay triple the price of her awful book to read the unedited draft. I bet she called anonymous characters 'Sougie Dmith' or 'Mr Dougie X' (to give but 2 randomly selected examples of names that could be used that in no way imply I do know who anyone is).

Re: Mad Nad

Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2023 3:16 pm
by Andy McDandy
She's obviously been bingeing on Bond films - there's M, Moneypenny, Skyfall, and more.

At one point she says that "one of the top KCs" in the country agrees that Johnson was stitched up over Partygate. Well, I suppose that could technically mean Braverman. Or Sumption. Bit like US Supreme Court judges. The title's a bit tarnished.

Johnson doesn't come out of it well, so if that wasn't her intention, too bad. He comes across as inept, pushed around by advisors, petulant, and all told a bit of a wimp. But at the same time a dynamic go-getter demanding ideas and policies from everyone and courageously touring red wall seats every weekend (when not relaxing at Chequers). But generally Rotten Rishi ("something of the devil about him" says her not at all fictional mole) and Mean Mikey did everyone's favourite pal in by surrounding him with incompetents, putting him in awkward situations, and forcing him to act all crooked.

You know that old saying about how if everyone you meet is a twat, you really ought to think about the common factor in all those encounters? Yeah.

Re: Mad Nad

Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2023 3:22 pm
by Watchman
“One of the top KC’s in the country”, would that be a same KC who was part of de Piffle taxpayer funded “defence team”?

Re: Mad Nad

Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2023 3:48 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
Crabcakes wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2023 2:27 pm

Dorries is such an idiot and a terrible writer, I'd pay triple the price of her awful book to read the unedited draft. I bet she called anonymous characters 'Sougie Dmith' or 'Mr Dougie X' (to give but 2 randomly selected examples of names that could be used that in no way imply I do know who anyone is).
I'm imgining something like what Richard Tull in Martin Amis's The Information gets sent at the vanity publisher (Tantalus Press).

Re: Mad Nad

Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2023 4:55 pm
by Crabcakes
If Johnson had a code name it should be ‘A’. As in ‘A-hole’.

Re: Mad Nad

Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2023 5:46 pm
by Malcolm Armsteen
C

Re: Mad Nad

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2023 10:18 am
by Youngian
Nadine Dorries has won the support of well-known conspiracy theorist David Icke after her new book pointed to a “shadowy Tory” figure who operates within the Conservative Party.
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/ ... st-362582/

Re: Mad Nad

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2023 11:30 am
by Bones McCoy
I'll bet paragraph 10 compares Dorries intellect to Ada Lovelace, Marie Curie and Grace Hopper.

by Nadine Dorries.

Re: Mad Nad

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2023 11:35 am
by Tubby Isaacs
I don’t remember gold wallpaper being a thing. I do remember Bozo lying about who was paying.

Re: Mad Nad

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2023 11:43 am
by Malcolm Armsteen
I thought the point was that the flowery wallpaper matched the soft furnishing fabric.

Re: Mad Nad

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2023 12:13 pm
by Abernathy
Absurdity builds on absurdity,

Re: Mad Nad

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2023 1:17 pm
by Youngian
Abernathy wrote: Wed Nov 08, 2023 12:13 pm Absurdity builds on absurdity,
Fresh from discussing the Corbyn piece in the Canary, this article comes from the same place. A place where abject stupidity of zealots lives.

Re: Mad Nad

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2023 1:22 pm
by Youngian
Nad’s chapter titles

Re: Mad Nad

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2023 1:44 pm
by Andy McDandy
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... servatives

Marina Hyde, book reviewer, to the rescue!
Another hugely normal dispatch from our hugely normal country, in fact. But there’s more. Nadine has also slammed on to the table the claim that British Conservative governments are run by a cabal of shadowy figures known as “the movement”. And everyone has … just got on with their afternoon tea as if nothing has happened.
You wonder what “the right crisis” would have been? I somehow picture breathless aides summoning Johnson to Cobra and going: “Prime minister, someone who isn’t one of your wives urgently needs to get pregnant and left to bring up the child on her own.”
Arguably, the mere existence of The Plot – by someone who was a cabinet minister until relatively recently – is but one indication that the government and the wider political culture are very much on fire. Also arguably, the muted reaction to The Plot is a symptom of the past few years in that particular political culture, which might reasonably have left people thinking of their country as the sort of place where these gothically grotesque things probably do happen, increasingly to the point of being unremarkable.
It has to be said, it takes a writer of Dorries' calibre to make such a potentially explosive story so fucking boring.

Re: Mad Nad

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2023 4:15 pm
by Watchman
So they got de Piffle in, and somehow he got an 80 seat majority, a useful idiot, who, so long as he had a steady supply of wine, cheese, girlies, and Colombian, would do what ever he was told…..why get rid? Can only assume it was because he started acting as if he’d achieved it all by himself. So why don’t they pick someone more to their needs the next time round, and the next time, and the next time. They don’t seem very good at being a “ sinister cabal”