Exclusive News

Excl video pt 1: Pidcock still not ‘fraternising’ with Tory MPs – and parliament/media ‘like abusive relationship’

Part one of series of videos showing Labour star Laura Pidcock talking frankly about range of issue – starting with ‘that’ video and why she still doesn’t want to be friendly with Tory MPs
Laura Pidcock, talking to the SKWAWKBOX

Two years ago last weekend, the SKWAWKBOX published an exclusive interview with Labour rising star Laura Pidcock that dominated much of the political media for most of the summer.

Ms Pidcock, one of the 2017 general election’s new MPs, rocked the political Establishment by stating frankly that she had been elected to do the job of representing her constituents and that she had no interest in making friends with Tory MPs who were blighting the lives of people in her North-West Durham seat and beyond.

The reaction was prolonged and akin to poking a termites’ nest with a large, very sharp stick as commentators and ‘centrist’ politicians tried to justify their clubby relations with the Tories by attacking the outspoken MP. But many Tory MPs recognised someone who ‘gets it’.

Two years on, Laura Pidcock spoke again to the SKWAWKBOX at even more length and across a range of subjects, including Brexit, Parliament, ‘trigger’ selection contests, antisemitism and more. In this first video in the resulting exclusive series, she talks about:

  • that 2017 article and explains why she still has no interest in ‘fraternising’ with the Tory MPs attacking the people who rely on her
  • compares the treatment she and other new MPs receive from Parliament and Establishment media with an ‘abusive relationship’
  • the ‘mental discipline’ she maintains to resist attempts to assimilate her into the Establishment’s business-as-usual and the ‘unnatural’ environment imposed on MPs to force or tempt them into line
  • the honour of serving her constituents and the ‘degrading’ anguish they suffer under Tory attack that makes it unthinkable to ‘fraternise’ with them

She concludes that a parliamentary system in which MPs can only achieve change by ‘go[ing] to dinner’ or ‘buy[ing] a gin’ for MPs ideologically opposed to what matters is ‘fundamentally wrong’.

Laura Pidcock has been shortlisted for the Patchwork MP of the Year award. You can vote for her or your preferred choice here.


Labour and the country need many more MPs with Laura Pidcock’s working-class commitment and outlook and far fewer of the cosy, ‘clubbable’ types Parliament has in excess – which is why her 2017 comments triggered such an extreme and, yes, ‘abusive’ reaction.

Happily, she has stood firm.

Next: the ‘alienating’ Parliament that ‘stifles fundamental change’ obstructs Labour MPs who want to really change things for the sake of their constituents.

The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here for a monthly donation via GoCardless. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.


  1. I’m afraid I won’t be voting for Laura at the MP of the year award.

    MP’s in the main are liars, crooks and frauds. That disqualifies Laura (And a handful of others).

    1. That is simply not true about Laura, any more than it is true about Corbyn
      There are some good politicians as MPs and some honest and decent ones too.

  2. As Patchwork was the organisation that vetoed Chris Williamson for no good reason then I’ll not be taking part in anything to support them , what they do , or voting either .
    Happy to support good Labour MPs and Laura is most certainly one of them but fxxx Patchwork right off .
    Otherwise an interesting video clip and I look fwd to the next one

    1. Thank you for this Rob. I was previously unaware of it. I think they need to immediately explain why they vetoed Chris.
      I see they say that they are non party political and exist to extend democracy by encouraging maximum participation particularly of under represented ethnic groups.
      However if what you say is correct then they excluded Chris unfairly and without due process. Nothing remotely inclusive or democratic about that.
      In these circumstances and unless a satisfactory explanation for vetoing Chris is forthcoming I feel very strongly that we as a party should have nothing whatsoever to do with them and that includes Laura .

      1. Thanks again Rob- this is utterly disgusting and we definitely should not have anything to do with Patchwork

      2. My thoughs exactly!Due process or kangaroo courts….How many more comrades their lives and family ruined by smear and innuendo,or in Brighton direct attacks….and kyle and caplin…..JML carry on regardless?

      3. Kyle mp,….caplin chairman JLM……?…..Brighton…..out of Control and no sanctions and definitely no inquiry by NEC …..Whats happened to our party when a Labour mp can be slandered libeled and run out of town…..And deadly silence?

    2. I just this minute checked out the Patchwork Foundation’s website, and it says the following:

      As a general rule, nominations for existing leaders of political parties, or those involved in an active leadership bid are not taken forward for consideration as well as those who do not meet the criteria above. Similarly, MPs under investigation or suspension would not be included.


      1. Thus Patchworks ethos is that you are guilty until proven innocent ..

    3. And what do you think would happen if anyone DID speak out about it Joseph? The real question is….. What has happened to our country when MPs can be smeared and falsely accused of anti-semitism AND have speaking venues cancelled as a consequence AND the Labour Party afraid to speak out about it for fear of the repercussions if they did.

      I expect there were more than a few people in Nazi Germany who would liked to have spoken out about the persecution of the Jews (prior to the Holocaust) but were afraid to do so. I mean we’ve had bomb threats re the showing of the Jackie Walker film, threats of violence made to one of the venues Chris was due to speak at, and Labour Against the Witchhunt having to try and keep the venues of its meetings a secret….. not to mention the physical attack on Jeremy himself a few months ago.

    4. Laura Pidcock’s stand against fraternising with the Tory enemy seems honest and principled to me. Well worthy of respect.

      But I would respect her even more if she would break her silence over the witch-hunting of Chris Williamson and the Labour right’s bid to have him ousted from the party.

      1. As has already been said; if Pidcock support Williamson SHE gets it, then. She’s been 5 minutes as an MP and she’ll be subjected to slurs and what have ya for her entire westminster career hereafter. Whether she’s capable of batting the slurs off and carrying on regardless isn’t the point – she shouldn’t have to.

        No. Best wait until either she’s called as a character witness for Williamson or Williamson’s exonerated. Then she’s free to open up both barrels on any mention of Williamson (or most anyone else for that matter) being anti jewish because they’ll have NO comeback whatsoever.

      2. Agreed. My assumption is that softly softly is still Corbyn’s policy and that LP is doing what I’d do – which is respect his right as leader to set the tone – despite wanting to chew up every stick of Tory furniture and build a bonfire of the lot of them.
        Can’t accuse someone of cowardice who slams the Tories at every opportunity.

  3. One of the great things about Laura is that she understands the way in which core Labour voters have been ignored for decades. The affect of the sell out by so called Labour MP’s who go into Parliament and think of themselves as an elite group who have no responsibility towards their constituents, only to themselves.

    Some of these Labour MP’s aren’t socialists but are Liberal Democrats who want to see the status quo maintained. Their alegiance isn’t with those who voted for them but for the political, economic, civil service and patronage that they think they are part of. But as we have seen lately this structure is under attack by the policies of Jeremy Corbyn and as you’d expect they are against it.

    They see the gravy train hitting the buffers, their brand of democracy found to be false, their economics of the 19th century no longer working and so this is their last stand! They need to stop Corbyn in order to have things remain the same, they can’t think of anything that does not correspond to their way of thinking. They are utterly bankrupt and they know it!

  4. I think anyone who is getting sentimental about the Patchwork nominations should have a closer look at this KPMG sponsored organisation that includes such luminaries as Keith Vaz, Chris Grayling and Zac Goldsmith in its awards!

  5. Hostile environment was supported by New Labour, be it immigration, single mums or sanctions
    Key belief of centrists is to bring politics down to the lowest common denominator to stay in power
    Once you SELL OUT there is nothing you wont do to protect your status and place on gravy train
    Follow the money as my grandad used to say, where are they now should be a board game given to every Labour Candidate,
    Hostility to Tories is a given,,
    Ask them simple yes/no questions
    Austerity/Sanctions/No Deal/Trident/HS2/Hinckley/New Green Deal
    For the eagle eyed on here equally applies to Red Tories
    For the record, Laura Pidcock’s auld man was a bit of a LegEnd as well

  6. As I’m sure everyone will recall, a few days after the Panorama program it was all over the MSM that two of the former staffers who appeared on the program – ie Sam Matthews and Louise Withers Green – were planning to sue the LP for defamation, but whilst some reported it as something they WERE doing, others reported it as something they were considering doing. The Daily Express headline (and sub-headline), for example, was:

    Corbyn crisis as Labour whistleblowers sue party for ‘defamatory’ Panorama response

    THE Labour Party is being sued by two former officials who lifted the lid on anti-semitism in a BBC Panorama expose.

    So I was just looking for a headline that had it as them ‘planning’ (or ‘vowing’) to sue the LP and, in the process, just happened to read through the Metro article covering it, and then started reading the comments, and the seventh comment down is by Andy Smith, who is obviously involved with the Riverside CLP in Liverpool, and it’s a lengthy comment and rebuttal of the claim that Ben Westerman made on the program – ie that one of the people he was interviewing asked him if he was from Israel. I’m pretty sure that it was mentioned on SB at the time, either by SB or in the Comments section, and was definitely covered by a few left-wing blogs, and what they were saying is that the interview was recorded and, as such, they have proof that Ben Westerman was lying. All the interviewee asked Ben Westerman is which CLP he belonged to. The thing is – and it’s crossed my mind on a number of occasions since – that as far as I’m aware, we haven’t heard anything more about the recording – ie there hasn’t been an update about it.

    Anyway, all I wanted to say in relation to the ‘vow’ to sue the LP is… was this just another case of getting more ‘anti-semitism/anti-Labour’ headlines by saying they were going to sue the LP for defamation when in actual fact they never intended to sue the LP at all, the point being that we’ve heard nothing more about it in the month since, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if we never DO!

    And it would of course be interesting to ask both Matthews and Withers Green what they think of the fact that SEVEN of the ten people who appeared on the program and were presented as just ordinary Jewish LP members, turned out to all be executive committee members of the Jewish Labour Movement, and one of the other three a former executive committee member of the JLM. I have no doubt that THEY – like everyone else who appeared on the program – were fully aware from the outset who they were, but needless to say, they are hardly going to admit it. Anyhow, here’s a link to the Metro article (and the comment by Andy Smith):


      1. Whilst looking for something online I came across the following on the Board Of Deputies website, taken from their Facebook page:

        After we announced our protest in Brighton tonight, Quakers in Britain thankfully cancelled the venue for Chris Williamson’s event, and stated clearly their opposition to antisemitism. Williamson’s vile event still took place, on the street – and so did our protest. No to antisemitism, anywhere.


        Doesn’t it remind you of the beginnings of something in the early 1930s!

  7. Crowdfunder is now live.

    Chris Williamson is challenging his ‘re-suspension’ by ⁦‪@UKLabour‬⁩ as unlawful. But to do so, he needs your support.

    Donate today, and help keep Chris in the Labour Party!


    1. Well done Jack T and duly contributed , pse if you can comrades consider spreading this link and contributing

  8. ‘Anti-Semitism definition behind secret ban on aid to Palestinian children’

    An East London council banned a charity bike ride raising money for Palestinian children from using its public parks, internal emails revealed last week.

    The council also secretly sent a list of proposed speakers to the Metropolitan Police asking if they were “extremist,” The Electronic Intifada can reveal.

    The emails indicate that Tower Hamlets secretly based their decision on the “furore within the Labour Party over anti-Semitism” and the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s discredited definition of anti-Semitism.


Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: