The move to oust James Shaw as Green Party co-leader, which succeeded - at least temporarily - on Saturday was the result of a months and possibly years-long project.
The incident has shattered the veneer of relative peace and stability in the Green Party, with pro and anti-Shaw groups now briefing against one another.
Shaw's demise was, according to these reports, the result of seething animosities built up over months and years of working together in Parliament, ending in smirks and tears on Saturday, when his fate was announced to a Zoom call at the Party's AGM.
As always with the Greens, things are a little bit different to other parties. There is a veneer of politeness to this briefing; you don't get the "devil wears Prada" or "ratf**ker" nicknames bandied about when National is in crisis.
But the relative civility of what is said belies the fact that behind the scenes tempers are fraying and feelings are being hurt and that at the end of all this, when a vote is finally taken in about six weeks' time, there will be big winners and big losers.
Two powerful groups have emerged in the contest, The Young Greens and The Green Left Network. Neither group officially backs a candidate (although The Green Left officially supports encouraging other candidates to come forward and contest the leadership).
Each group needs to check with its members before taking a particular position on something, meaning that an official endorsement from either would be a fairly bureaucratic undertaking. However, individual members of both groups have been calling for candidates to come forward.
It also appears the fact that members of both groups were pushing for Shaw to be deposed meant they were able to cross the crucial threshold of 25 per cent of delegate votes cast on Saturday, triggering Shaw's ousting from the leadership.
This was not a concerted campaign from both groups together, but a coincidence that significant parts of their membership (which are not mutually exclusive) were working against Shaw at the same time.
Shaw has since announced he is running to take back his job, and he's odds on favourite to win any contest - particularly given Chlöe Swarbrick's decision not to stand.
Beginning on Saturday night, members were pushing for MPs Swarbrick and Elizabeth Kerekere to put their hands up to be co-leader. Swarbrick kept to herself, not answering phone calls, but ruled herself out of the race on Monday afternoon. Kerekere said she was "considering" her options.
Swarbrick was considered the key threat although many in the party think Shaw might have beaten her (he would only need to win by a bare majority), Swarbrick's popularity among members could give her so much support that she would have irrevocably weakened Shaw's mandate.
Swarbrick was surrounded by advice, but it appears she was largely or entirely detached from the movement to oust Shaw and not connected to Saturday's vote.
High-profile Young Greens members were said to be encouraging Swarbrick to run.
Some members not affiliated to the Young Greens believed one of the key people speaking to Swarbrick was Luke Wihone (also Wijohn), who was once Swarbrick's youth MP and who stood for the Greens in the Mt Albert electorate last election.
Wihone confirmed he had messaged Swarbrick urging her to stand, and had Tweeted support for Swarbrick, but did not comment further. Swarbrick made no comment to media on Monday.
There was a considerable grassroots campaign to encourage Swarbrick to run, and to get to win any race she contested - this campaign grew up quite independently of Swarbrick, and it appears she had no personal say in its formation.
More than one Green has noted the inspiration of Momentum, the grassroots group that sprung up around UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn supporting him, despite significant opposition from Labour MPs. That group organised to get Corbyn supporters into key party positions and deselect political opponents.
The campaign against Shaw and in favour of other candidates appears to have used similar tactics - to the chagrin of many of Shaw's allies who view the tactics as disruptive. The allegation made against these groups is that they lobbied to position themselves as party delegates, allowing them to vote against Shaw on Saturday, potentially against the wishes of their branches.
Since then, some delegates have rushed to say this was not true.
One delegate said they "discussed the matter thoroughly with members at a branch level before deciding to reopen nominations".
"It has never been a matter of personal grudges towards James or a dismissal of the work he has achieved during his time. Our party is more than our individual leaders and we need to ensure that our party can truly push for transformative and bold action that is sorely needed given the current challenges".
"I urge existing MPs to give the party members a contest of options for co-leadership so we can see different visions for the future of our party."
Meanwhile, members are sharing a graph showing the steady erosion of Shaw's support within the party.
Green co-leaders must go to the party each year at the AGM and be re-elected with a 75 per cent majority. However, party delegates also have the option to reopen nominations (often abbreviated to RON) for the co-leadership.
A graph being circulated by members shows a steady increase in the percentage of RON votes at each AGM (although in the case of the most recent AGM, the percentage of RON votes appears higher than usual because turnout overall was incredibly low).
Suzanne Loughli, former co-convener for Shore Branch and Executive Networker for Auckland Province, noted that at the last AGM, "members voted RON to express dissent from the direction the party was taking. The result was 5 votes short of triggering reopen nominations.
"This method of calling leadership to account was affirmed in 2022 with the adoption of our new constitution.
"Yesterday's vote is a culmination of growing unease amongst the membership, especially with regard to climate change and environmental policy," Loughlin said.
Loughlin added that it was a "mistake to think that those who voted RON did so lightly. Members are conscious of the need to address growing concerns about leadership and party direction in advance of next year's general election".
Emissaries from the pro-Shaw camp were said to have been contacting Swarbrick, making the case for her to hold off and come to some kind of accommodation with the party. The pro-Shaw camp would not confirm or deny this on Monday.
It is not clear whether any accommodation was reached.
Shaw described Swarbrick as "magic" on Monday morning, but the problem for Shaw and Swarbrick appears to be timing.
Swarbrick wants change - and fast, but achieving change requires getting a ministerial portfolio.
Her problem is that if the Greens and Labour lose the next election, it could be some years before she is in the opportunity to take a portfolio. Members not involved in the talks speculated Shaw and Swarbrick must have come to some accommodation over Swarbrick's future after the next election, including portfolios.
Another member close to both sides suggested Shaw needed to adjust his stated goal of taking the Greens into government and safely out the other side and begin talking to Swarbrick about the possibility of a leadership transition to Swarbrick in the next Parliament.
This could, however, have the effect of undermining Shaw going into the next election if it were publicly known.
People close to both sides believe the best outcome is a managed handover from Shaw to Swarbrick with Shaw putting effort into ensuring Swarbrick is ready to take over. The problem with this is that Swarbrick is not likely to be enthusiastic about inheriting a party that's just been booted out of government, which is probably when Shaw is most keen to hand it over.
Another concern expressed by members is that if Swarbrick did decide to contest the leadership it would engender animosity from Labour, which is keen to ensure voters see both Labour and the Greens as stable and capable of government at the next election.
Swarbrick is already not beloved by Labour for her excoriating attacks on the Government's relatively centrist economic policy.
While Swarbrick was assumed to be the main anti-Shaw candidate, Elizabeth Kerekere emerged as the candidate preferred by the left of the party.
Despite her frontrunner status, Swarbrick is one of a minority of caucus who are not members of The Green Left Network, an association of the left wing of the Green Party (other non-Green Left MPs include Shaw, Eugenie Sage and Julie Anne Genter).
Kerekere, however, is a member of the Green Left Network and is the preferred candidate of its co-convenor Nicole Geluk-Le Gros (The Green Left Network itself has not endorsed a candidate).
This is controversial and Kerekere's candidacy is seen as a new front in the tension between the Green caucus, the Green Party's Parliamentary outfit, and the Green Left Network.
Kerekere is controversial in Parliament. Earlier this year she was outed as having broken Covid-19 isolation rules. The episode was followed by leaking against Kerekere, which was believed to be from staff in Parliament.
Last week, when 1 News' powerful 6pm bulletin covered the fact Shaw was facing a likely challenge, Kerekere gave a less than full-throated endorsement of Shaw.
A Green acknowledged this was not dissimilar to how Judith Collins once gave eyebrow-raising non-endorsements of then-National leader Simon Bridges.
This stood in contrast to how other MPs, like Ricardo Menendez-March, responded. March gave Shaw some support in that story, despite occasionally butting heads with Shaw in his pre-Parliamentary career as an anti-poverty campaigner.
Greens questioned how long Kerekere had been manoeuvring herself for the leadership (Kerekere told 1 News on Monday night she had only given thought to the leadership after it had become vacant).
It was pointed out, however, that Kerekere was one of the leaders of the recent constitutional changes voted on by the Green Party - some of which would directly benefit her candidacy.
One such change was the removal of the requirement that one co-leader be male, making it possible for Shaw, the leader least possible with members, to be deposed and for Kerekere to take his place.
The reforms also concentrated powers in a new more centralised party structure called the Kaunihera. This would effectively give more power to people close to it.
There is some animosity between parts of the parliamentary Greens and the two co-convenors of the Green Left network, Nicole Geluk-Le Gros and Daniel Jackson.
Geluk-Le Gros formerly worked for co-leader Marama Davidson. Parts of the party not associated with The Green Left said she butted heads with other parts of the Green Party operation in Parliament. They saw Geluk-Le Gros's support for Kerekere to replace Shaw through the lens of a possible rift between her and the parliamentary part of the Greens.
Geluk-Le Gros said she would not comment on her time at Parliament, but disputed the idea of a rift.
Geluk-Le Gros said she worked for Davidson "directly" and that Davidson "remains a job reference and a friend".
"I was her campaign manager in 2020 as well as her staff member.
"My work with the GLN [Green Left Network] and in the party has nothing to do with my time at Parliament and everything to do with the values I hold and the friends I have.
"My personal life - which my employment is part of - is irrelevant to my volunteer mahi. I am deeply disappointed an un-named member is attempting to undermine that," Geluk-Le Gros said.
She said she had spoken with Kerekere as well as other potential candidates about running, although in a personal capacity, not as a co-convenor of The Green Left.
"I am an unapologetic huge fan of Elizabeth, her vision and her leadership skills," she said.
Jackson in particular aggravated some members of the pro-Shaw faction. On Saturday's AGM Zoom call, he was described as "smirking", when it was reported Shaw had lost the co-leadership, rubbing salt into the wounds of the shocked and hurt pro-Shaw delegates.
Jackson disputed the smirking comment, noting that Shaw's fate was not new to them when it was revealed on the Zoom call.
"I would dispute that on the basis that the results were not new to me because I was a scrutineer," Jackson said.
The next phase of the election will be tomorrow after the Green Party's caucus meeting when Kerekere is likely to make a statement outlining whether or not she will run for the co-leadership.
Nomination papers will be sent to members, possibly by next Monday. From then, members have a week to decide whether they will run.
A final vote must be held within four weeks of nominations closing.
With Swarbrick out of the running, team Shaw seems quietly confident. Green Party polling is enjoying a bump. The Party's polling firm, The Navigators, polls for core vote, which is people who say they will only ever vote Green, voters who sit on the fence, and voters who are "available", which are people who are considering voting Green.
The Party's "core" vote has doubled from a previous low, and the party's "available" vote is higher than at any point since Jacinda Ardern became Labour leader.
But that might not be enough to sway Green delegates. One Green noted that the contest was really about theories of change. Shaw's theory of change is likely formed by the Green Party's decades of being locked out of power, and seeing leftwing legislative accomplishments like the Emissions Trading Scheme gutted by National governments.
Instead, Shaw, much like Ardern, prefers to win consensus with National compromising to ensure those schemes are not repealed - as was the case with the Zero Carbon Act, which National supports.
But that compromise appears to have come at the expense of support from his own party.
It has been eight years since the Greens last went into opposition following an election. Some Green staffers, and many Green voters, were too young to vote in that election, and there's a fear that some of the membership might not remember what actually being locked out of power feels like.
OPINION: Measuring influence of protest at ballot box would be to miss the point.