What a fool I am, 13 years of experience and I went and trusted the Labour party's website!

last night I posted what I believed to be the latest state of Labour nominations for the leadership as per the Labour party website. It seems that the site is woefully out of date and inaccurate (rather like the last Labour government). The Labour website still shows:
Diane Abbott - 0
Ed Balls - 4
Andy Burnham - 1
John McDonnell - 0
David Miliband - 19
Ed Miliband - 35

Whereas I am informed that in reality the current state of play is that David Miliband now has over 100 nominations, Ed Miliband over 70, Ed Balls around 20, Andy Burnham around 15 and John McDonnell somewhere around 11. But Diane Abbott is about to be nominated by David 'Mastermind' Lammy. Why is the Labour party's website so out of date? Should we read anything into the Labour party's website under-reporting David Miliband's figures by so much?

Let's remind ourselves of Labour's Higher Education Minister's 'finest hour'...
The incredible general knowledge round starts at 4:22, or 5:16 if you'd rather miss John Humphry's adoring chat.
Q1: So easy - he got it wrong
Q2: Didn't know but would guess Jamaica
Q3: So easy
Q4: So easy - he got it wrong
Q5: Tricky
Q6: So easy - he got it wrong
Q7: So easy - he passed
Q8: Easy
Q9: So easy - he passed
Q10: Easy
Q11: So easy - he got it wrong
Q12: Easy
Q13: So easy - he passed
Q14: Easy
Q15: Henry VII succeeded Henry VIII, that's unlikely!
Q16: Tricky
Q17: So easy - he got it wrong

A fine intellect and I see why he is nominating that other intellectual giant Diane Abbott.


UPDATE: It seems that the BBC are also reporting the Labour party figures so maybe my informant was wrong. Either way can I put on record that I find Ed Balls repulsive, Ed Miliband vile, David Miliband intensely irritating, Andy Burnham too made-up and Diane Abbott a joke.

Labour party site to be updated at 12:30 and 17:30 every day...