Guido Fawked - Caught Lying About Burnham

[Update at end of post]

That Andy Burnham is the front runner in the Labour leadership contest has been underscored yet again today, as the right-wing press and its cheerleaders have gone after him once more. Leading the charge today have been the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines and his rabble at the Guido Fawkes blog, who have found a most original way of putting the boot into the Leigh MP, and that is by lying.

Fart in lift Inquiry under serious strain

The Fawkes folks saying something that is blatantly untrue is, sadly, not news, but it does show the desperation of those who claim the Tories would love to have Burnham leading Labour, while wanting to deploy any tactic going in order to stop him (a desperation which has seen fresh urgency, after the loathsome Toby Young’s not-so-clever idea of signing up as a Labour supporter to vote for Jeremy Corbyn came unstuck yesterday).

And so it came to pass that, in a post titled “Burnham Gaffe Wasn’t Even First Time” (what “gaffe”? What indeed), readers are given a “Quick career recap”. And, at fourth place, we see the claim “Elected to Parliament in union stitch-up”. This is a flat-out, blatant lie, but not a surprise, given the post was authored by Staines’ tame gofer, the odious flannelled fool Henry Cole, who has a problem with Trades Unions.

Most of Cole’s problem with Unions consists of his knowing absolutely Jack Shit about them, other than his own inexplicable prejudice. It also appears to extend to making accusations about their presence when there was none. So let’s take this nice and steadily, so everyone can see the light from Master Cole’s burning trousers. Burnham’s selection was discussed by Labour Uncut back in 2010.

That was at the time of the last leadership contest, and although the post accused Mil The Elder of benefiting from a stitch-up, no such accusation was levelled at Burnham, of whom it was conceded “All in all, though, Burnham did fight a proper selection, under the normal rules, with minimal help”.There was no mention of organised Trades Union involvement. And there is another inconvenient fact for Cole to consider.

At the time he was selected, Andy Burnham was a member of Progress, a Labour Party linked organisation which started life in 1995 and which characterised itself as “New Labour” until last year. Progress was, in 2012, attacked by GMB Union general secretary Paul Kenny as being “a party within a party”. An organisation attacked by the Unions has a member who becomes the beneficiary of a “Union stitch-up”? Come off it.

Cole has already tried to imply that Burnham having been to Cambridge somehow equates to “privilege”, whereas it signifies significant achievement. Now he’s been caught lying about the manner in which the Leigh MP was selected for his seat. All that this achieves, ultimately, is to show that someone is desperate to stop Burnham. That suggests the Tories may not be as keen on having him as Labour leader as they make out.

Meanwhile, Master Cole is in need of a fire extinguisher. And not for the first time.

[UPDATE 1830 hours: Master Cole, you understand, does not, repeat does not, repeat DOES NOT look in on Zelo Street, and takes no notice whatsoever of anything posted here.

So it is entirely coincidental that the Fawkes rabble's post accusing Andy Burnham of benefiting from a "Union stitch-up" has been edited in an effort to remove Cole's blatant lie.

The problem is, Fawkes people, I wouldn't trust any of you any further than I could chuck you, and so took a screen shot, just in case. This is the first effort, with "Elected to Parliament in union stitch-up" clearly visible.

And here's the edited version, with that changed to "Elected to Parliament in stitch-up", which is still a blatant lie - it's just a marginally different one than that first alleged.

Cole and his pals can't even get away with trying to edit their way out of trouble. Another fine mess, once again]