In July, Labour leader Ed Miliband addressed head on allegations that the trade unite Unite had tried to "fix" the Falkirk selection contest to help its favoured candidate.
"I will not allow the good name of the Labour Party to be undermined by the behaviour of a few individuals," he said.
His solution was to use the Falkirk fiasco to reform the link between Labour and the unions.
On Friday, Labour announced that the two Unite members suspended over the Falkirk debacle had been reinstated.
This was because the "key evidence" about members being signed up without their knowledge had been "withdrawn". Without allegations, the investigation died.
The mystery of the vanishing allegations is the latest twist in an already murky episode.
It also raises fundamental questions. Why did the people who made the allegations withdraw them? And were the complainants contacted by anyone after they initially contacted the party?
Michael Crick, the political reporter for Channel 4, tweeted on Friday: "Falkirk Labour source claims witnesses to wrongdoing were persuaded to withdraw their evidence under pressure."
Last week's surprising turn of events confirms the need for Labour to publish its initial report into the allegations. By doing so, the public will learn about the original allegations.
Instead, Miliband's summer of silence on Falkirk has resulted in his tough words turning to dust. On several fronts, the Labour leader now looks vulnerable.
Prime Minister David Cameron is inevitably going to claim that Miliband has capitulated to Unite, while his trade union reforms also look to be in trouble.
His colleagues are also beginning to turn on each other, such as shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy and former deputy chair Tom Watson.
Rather than looking like a Labour leader who takes on vested interests, he may be cast as a puppet who capitulates to them.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article