Labour’s heavy hitters at The Standard are going hammer and tongs. The blog has again highlighted Labour’s civil war with accusations of lying, and there is obvious conflict amongst the site authors.
It could be an interesting weekend at The Standard.
Last Saturday Eddie started the current spate of infighting with his post Shearer to put it to the vote. It’s probably not coincidental this was a week before David Shearer’s big opening speech of Labour’s political year. Unlike his post in November that sparked the ‘Cunliffe coup’ the response to this one seemed to fizzle. Until now.
Phase two of the stir arrived yesterday from partner in grime, Zetetic, with For a February leadership vote.
That restirred the leadership pot, as well as highlighting some obvious questions about Zetetic’s loyalties and motives, as I blogged in Zetetic’s loyalty and pseudonym confusion.
Zetetic’s post got the infighting going again, but nothing out of the ordinary in relation to what has been happening over the past few months.
Last night’s flareup
Mike Smith, representing Labour’s leadership office, fired a broadside last night at ‘Zetetic’ and ‘Eddie’ in Tell the truth.
Zetetic’s telling porkies.
I don’t think Zetetic and Eddie and all the other prophets of gloom on this site have a clue about what’s going on in the Labour Party – or the electorate for that matter.
Lynn Prentice (lprent) tried to get involved but has been overshadowed by the party heavies.
IrsihBill stepped into the fray.
I’d caution you against describing authors as liars, Mike. You’ve never been abused by other authors here, regardless of political differences, and it would behoove you to show a similar degree of respect in return.
Nah – reread it.. (I did). He is quite specific about what he thought the “porkie” was.
Now I have no idea if Zet said that (and I don’t think that he did from recollection). But Mike is correct in what the rule is.
Until the caucus doesn’t get its shit together, the vote isn’t going out to the membership.
Interesting dynamic isn’t it….
Sorry Lynn, but I don’t think the tone’s appropriate. I would never, for example, write a response post to Mike that stated “I don’t think Mike has a clue about what’s going on in the Labour Party – or the electorate for that matter.” What I would do is say “I disagree with Mike and this is why”.
I think Mike’s done his argument a disservice and I’ll sort it out with him offline but my comment stands.
Interesting that he’s openly saying he will “sort it out with him offline” – no mention of sorting anything out with Eddie and Zetetic offline.
Technical arguments ensued over whether Smith’s accusation of lying was supported by facts, but that’s a side issue.
Both Eddie and Zetetic bullshit. There’s little doubt they are using The Standard to try and game play within Labour and it’s obvious they are trying to undermine Shearer’s leadership. Again.
So it’s easy to understand Labour’s head office being annoyed at a blog that mainly represents Labour interests (albeit factional) stirring shit with bullshit.
But through Mike Smith’s post all they have done is throw petrol on the inferno.
And Smith is also bullshitting.
His talk of a rift in the Labour Party is crap.
I guess that could be an indication of ignorance from the Shearer camp, but but surely they can’t be that blind.
It is obvious there is much discontent withing Labour membership.
It is obvious there is much discontent and a rift between Labour factional authors at The Standard.
It its very hard to believe the claims by Shearer’s office (and his loyal supporters at the Standard) that everything regardling party leadership and in caucus is hunky dory.
It’s obvious there’s bullshitting and rifting galore.
Expect a lot of heated comment over the weekend. Oh, and in amongst that Shearer has his first big speech of the year tomorrow. That already looks doomed to derision at The Standard.