LabourAndy Twitter

An aside from Guido notes the ostensibly remarkable support enjoyed by Labour leadership hopeful Andy Burnham on Twitter — if the meteoric rise of the account @LabourAndy (not really Burnham) is anything to go by:

“a Twitter account called @LabourAndy has quickly amassed over 10,000 followers by tweeting out questionable claims and graphics, much like how one @LabourEoin made his reputation.

But an account called @LabourAndy never secured a five-figure following — because it is actually a historic account which has had its old tweets deleted and its username changed to repurpose it for the leadership contest.

Cue bemusement from old followers:

@Andy4Leader Twitter

What kind of character could possibly be behind such a dishonest practice (which, it should be noted, has no known connection with Burnham’s campaign).

As Guido rightly observes, the output of this account bears all the hallmarks of Eoin Clarke, whose glorious track record of … errrr … making things up is not sufficiently off-putting to Labour MPs who continue to re-tweet his material.

The election campaign even sawTimes leader writer forced to intervene after Clarke attempted to pass off an article by a Labour peer as the paper’s editorial.

Whether @LabourAndy is Clarke or not, leadership and deputy leadership candidates need his support like they need a hole in the head.

  1. Strong evidence that it IS Dr Éoin Clarke:
    You are blocked from following @AB4LabLeader and viewing @AB4LabLeader’s Tweets. Learn more
    This followed my tweet
    Dr Éoin Twatt is rumoured to have sent this message of support to @AB4LabLeader “You are blocked from following @LabourEoin and viewing…”

  2. The account was previously called @EvidenceUK (they share a user id). Eoin Clarke lists his employer on LinkedIn as Evidence UK. Sounds conclusive to me.

  3. @EvidenceUK was definitely an Eoin Clarke account – it used many of the same graphics and EC’s main account often retweeted it.

  4. Just been over to Eoin Clarke’s site and apparently there it is “Saturday, 9 January 2016”. It might help explain his different view of reality.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


Comments are limited to 1000 characters.