Many in the media seem to have been taken totally by surprise by the voting decisions at the Labour Party conference and are now attempting to turn the issue into some great Machiavellian plot by David Cunliffe.
I think that version is more to do with their inability to have seen the writing on the wall for several months now that the membership of the Labour Party actually wanted to take their party back so we can't expect the media to have a very clear view of what happened nor can we trust them to get the basic facts of what the new thresholds mean.
Patrick Gower's constant questions to Cunliffe were fun but not particularly enlightening, and Prime TV's Barry Soaper pre-record yesterday that predicted nothing was going to happen at the conference and that Shearer was safe highlights how out of touch many in the msm was with what was really going on.
So let's have a look at some of the claims now made because it would seem that the truth of the thresholds actually makes it easier to lodge a challenge than is being suggested by Farrar.
The remit for February calls for the Leader to have 60% + 1 confidence of Caucus. 60% of 34 is 20.4 plus one is 21.4. You can't round down and make the threshold meaning the successful challenge actually needs 13, not 14 to challenge and the leader needs 22 for confidence, not 21.
So a challenger requires 13 to challenge not 14.
If Shearer's response to the members decision is to attack Cunliffe for disloyalty and attempt to punish him for the decision by the wider Party to have more of a democratic say in who is the leader, then the real threshold to challenge Shearer is lower than being reported and as such could become a catalyst for a showdown.