Labour ‘stitching up’ Hartlepool selection for single centrist candidate they don’t even think knows the area – with collusion of Starmer’s office

Leaked email exposes attempt to bar left from candidacy via ‘shortlist of one’

A leaked email has exposed the Labour right’s attempt to stitch up the selection for the party’s right by imposing a ‘shortlist of one’ – centrist former MP Paul Williams – on members for the Hartlepool by-election triggered by the resignation of former incumbent Mike Hill.

The email also reveals the collusion of party leader Keir Starmer’s office – and that those involved know they’re going to be accused of a stitch-up when the news gets out:

Should things progress as expected with Jon heading for PCC and Paul accepting the offer of the parliamentary candidature we’ll need to act to secure these arrangements. With a single candidate short list being fairly controversial (and with certain factions in the party certain to try to make a grab or call foul) LOTO require a formal letter from us to the NEC requesting that Paul be our candidate. The Left will make a big deal of this and paint the selection as a stitch up by Starmer.

And the decision to impose Williams on members is being taken even though local right-wingers feel that both he and the national machine are ignorant of the local area and the opinions of its people:

It seems clear that the party and Paul aren’t quite as well informed as we’d like them to be re the town and our electorate – as soon as were able I believe we need to arrange meetings with Paul, LOTO and the CLPs election team to go through a full briefing and plan. They won’t win this if they take a generic and national approach

The full message reads:

Afternoon all,


CLP Public Statement re. Mike’s resignation.

We’re going to need this ready but need to discuss tone and content, we need to be conscious of leaving ourselves space to match the tone taken by the wider party and the by-election campaign whilst also being conscious of Mike’s mental health. Quite a few thoughts on this but I’m a firm believer in grabbing the nettle -this needs to be short and sharp to allow the narrative to move on as quickly as possible.

Informing the EC

It’s only fair that our local executive (and then the wider party) hear of Mike’s resignation from us – Indy we’ll need to have on Idea of approximate times and if possible to have copies of Mike’s statement to go out as it happens. I’d suggest we also include our public/press statement in this email too along with a further comment for members from Moss as chair. We can inform the EC through WhatsApp as soon as it happens, this needs to come with an invite to an emergency EC meeting for Monday evening.

Securing Our Candidate

Should things progress as expected with Jon heading for PCC and Paul accepting the offer of the parliamentary candidature we’ll need to act to secure these arrangements. With a single candidate short list being fairly controversial (and with certain factions in the party certain to try to make a grab or call foul) LOTO require a formal letter from us to the NEC requesting that Paul be our candidate. The left will make a big deal of this and paint the selection as a stitch up by Starmer. We need to make it absolutely clear that these arrangements ore local and that, in the absence of a full selection process and the choice of a local candidate, Paul is the choice of the CLP.


With GC set to take place on Friday I’d suggest its suspension and replacement with on emergency all member meeting at which we’ll bring members up to speed and provide an open forum for questions and discussion. Should the meeting take place in this format it will not hove sovereign authority over the executive, as a result well need to make a decision and plan accordingly should we require any formal resolutions from the wider party membership (the timeline is likely to move incredibly quickly making Friday too late anyway, the executive will have to act to deliver anything requiring a democratic mandate IMO).

South Road

I’ve spoken with a Indy who’ll relay to Janet and the rest of Mike’s team but I’d suggest some formal contact will be required between the CLP as landlord and the office as tenants. Indy believes the office can be cleared and ready for campaign use within the week with all technology and files binned or safely locked away in Mike’s small office. I’ve asked Indy to speak to Janet about a cleaner to give the whole place (not the attic) a thorough clean from top to bottom as soon as things are cleared. I’d suggest we need to spend some time in there next weekend looking at arrangements and lay out to provide a covid safe environment from which we can manage 32 local elections, a parliamentary election, and the PCC election (at least in part).

Parliamentary Election Brief

It seems clear that the party and Paul aren’t quite as well informed as we’d like them to be re the town and our electorate – as soon as were able I believe we need to arrange meetings with Paul, LOTO and the CLPs election team to go through a full briefing and plan. They won’t win this if they take a generic and national approach, it’s key we provide them with the info they need and are robust enough in our arguments to ensure they listen.

Local Election

We need to consider what all of the above does to our local election timescales and plan. Do we go ahead with our leaflet drop? How closely aligned are the two campaigns set to be? Having given it some thought it seems clear to me that the locals and taking the council are the only mechanism of delivery available to us -Paul can’t promise anything as an opposition MP, as part of a wider and reforming Labour team we can promise the wide scale reforms in our manifesto and more…

It’s no less appalling for being unsurprising. The Labour right wants a centrist candidate who doesn’t know enough about the area – and is a passionate remainer – to stand in strongly leave-voting Hartlepool. What could possibly go wrong?

The SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to without hardship, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

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


  1. The letter from the CLP Secretary says “We need to make it absolutely clear that these arrangements are local and that, in the absence of a full selection process and the choice of a local candidate, Paul is the choice of the CLP.” From my knowledge and local links, that is true. If the CLP at the all member meeting endorse Paul Williams – as a representative of the will of the CLP – will you support him ?

    1. Paul Williams? His he the guy who u-turned and fully endorsed the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, after being wined and dined on a visit?

      Or is that someone else, who was in the running?

      1. @George

        Thanks for the heads up.

        Nothing better than the epicenter of wahhabbi. I see the splendid British royal family treats it like a second home too

    2. No lol. Labour are a busted flush.

      Besides, who’s gonna forgive them for putting us under the current government and all that entails?

      1. NVLA – Unfortunately there is no getting away from it, working class voters are the ones who put Boris in office with an unassailable 80 seat majority.
        Nobody forced them, they were the ones that made the decision to reject what Labour was offering.

      2. If you say so.

        I prefervto believe in a cheated generation. Amongst other things, Laura K telling us the result 24hrs early, and that postal votes are totally corrupted. Also, there’s plenty of proof that the kids mobilised.

        Besides, if you are correct then it shows many more nominalists like yourself.

      3. NVLA – People have derived comfort from a multiplicity of beliefs for millennia.

      4. There is no multiplicity in nominalism.

      5. NVLA – Perhaps I would be in a position to comment if I understood what your interpretation of ‘nominalism’ is. I have asked you before but for some reason you’ve been reluctant to provide an explanation.

      6. Go wading through previous articles if you can’t use a dictionary or search engine

      7. NVLA – You are the one who keeps trying to impress everyone with words that you don’t appear to know the meaning of.
        Whilst I will happily read your explanation and pass comment if I canon that basis I really don’t have any inclination whatsoever to waste my time following you down your 🐰🕳.

      8. Back to the shit trolling technique.

        You’re a grown up centrist dad. It’s your responsibility to educate yourself, no one else’s. You’ll get no help from me.

        If you don’t know what nominalism is, or have the ability to learn, that is your problem. Not mine.

      9. NVLA – I’m fine with that, if you don’t feel up to it then I’ll just have to accept that.

  2. I mean – what more can we say about this?

    It was so obvious, I think, just, about everyone on these threads predicted it, in one way or another.

    Either, they’re so, so predictable, not as clever as they think they are, or they couldn’t care less what the Membership thinks, any longer. That last works both ways.


    1. My understanding will be that there will be a short list presented at the Friday meeting. Obviously, given timing, this will be an NEC short list as in any situation in such a tight time frame (This happened a lot in 2017 ,too remember).

      1. david – I’m well aware of the timetable (I posted it on this site yesterday). I’m not sure how your response answers my question. The NEC invited prospective candidates to put themselves forward by 5pm today. My question is quite simple –
        Did anyone from ‘the left’ (or anywhere else) put themselves forward to the NEC for consideration.
        If you don’t enter the race it is unreasonable to have any expectation of winning.

      2. Well done Squawk box you expose the right wing for the low life they are.Anyway glad our resident low life are fully on board with the stitch up and running again true to form.Absolutely great that Laura pidcock doesn’t ruin her reputation and chance for the future outside of the establishment Labour party and inside a new socialist working class party.Sod em and let these deviants carry on with the destruction of the establishment Labour party..I hope this leak shows that they are so corrupt that they don’t even realise how criminal their misuse of the members money and assets including time on stitching up a dirty deal.

    2. How would we know Steve H – you’re the one with a hotline to Southside

      1. Smartboy – If I had an inside line on this I wouldn’t be wasting my time asking for further info.

    1. david – I was hoping that a list of those who had put themselves forward would have been published soon after the deadline closed. I do wish that the NEC was more open and transparent.

      1. Yes. We may know the names tomorrow if there is a list longer than one name

      2. You only “wish that the NEC was more open and transparent” when it might support your reason for being here, to knock ‘the left’.

      3. qwertboi – Making stuff up won’t help you. I challenge you to prove that your ridiculous assertion is true. Please feel free to quote me in your ‘evidence’.

  3. Certain ‘factions’ don’t need to cry “foul”. The whole world can see the connivers’ culpability.

    LOTO Office hanged by its own something or another

    1. Would love to see a genuine Socialist such as Chris Williamson stand as a True Labour candidate in Hartlepool. It would be wonderful to see him back in Parliament again.

  4. Does it matter who did what?
    Surely what’s important is whether the candidate is honest, trustworthy and not a “machine politician” or whether he/she is a scheister. Any Saudi Arabia link would suggest the latter.

  5. If it wasn’t clear before, it is now: they are losing on purpose. But on top of that, they are trolling the Left.

    What sort of game are they playing?

    To me it looks like “managed decline”. Anyone from Liverpool knows what I’m talking about.

  6. having been born in Hartlepool and raised in Liverpool I am witnessing a stitch up in both places, I think Liverpool will do the right thing hopefully Hartlepool will do the same.

  7. Does anyone know how these crooks broke into Hq and the lotto office..Should the police be informed and how safe is membership money and details with this bunch of professional criminals.Just whats attracting these types to Southside….Now I realise that theres some very shady characters in football and Boxing…but now weve got the mob inside the Labour party.!.

  8. I’ve asked Indy to speak to Janet about a cleaner to give the whole place [not the attic] a thorough clean from top to bottom”. Remember not the attic,that is where all the bodies are buried.
    With a single candidate short list being fairly controversial [and with certain factions in the party certain to try to make a grab or call foul] LOTO REQUIRE A LETTERFROM US TO THE NEC REQUESTING THAT PAUL BE OUR CANDIDATE. The left will make a big deal of this and paint the selection as a stitch up by Starmer. We need to make it absolutely clear that these arrangements ore [sic] local and that, in the absence of a full selection process and the choice of a local candidate, Paul is the choice of the CLP. This is corruption, Starmer is ‘Requiring’ a letter from the local party and the local party are going to lie about the stitch up. Heads must roll.

    1. Harry – Given that nobody from the left appears to have had the courage to put themselves forward for consideration it is a bit rich to complain about it being a one horse race.

    2. To be honest I am now more interested in “whats in the attic “than whats in the mind of these right wing crooks….Harry could you get indy to ask “janet” after shes mopped and cleaned the office to check out the attic,and burn anything that she finds.Ps…get the shredder going asap…Regards J o keith?

  9. The machinations of Keir’s Kremlin to effectively disenfranchise local members and impose an ‘approved candidate’ is a disgrace. The greater the complexity of the operation the more likely it is to backfire and cause problems. Saw the first article today in a r wing publication saying Starmer is soon for the door. The local CLP can hurry that along.

  10. Urgent message from Evans help us.Can you get janet to get paul round to the local charity shop and get him togged out in local attire …you know flat hat,donkey jacket ,bib and brace overhauls to sort of blend in…..ooh and dont forget the fag in gob and ferrets down his trousers.I know hes never been round Hartlepool,but just tell to wear a vacant expression and keep saying “way hay man or shes a bonny lass” Ooh…get janet to supply him wiv plenty of booze,hes got used to the five star treatment in the Saudi romp.Now dont forget to send copys to the libs and torys with the leak on how we rigged selections… “That should ensure another Labour seat lost….God I hate these shitholes up Norf…!….Whens the next lot of readys coming from the embassy anyone know?…Keir likes to deal wiv it I fink?Sombody ask janet!

  11. Presumably the email above is written by a (probably new) CLP Chair.

    I feel like I know him/her/them already.

    Control-freaks that fit in very well with Sir Keir’s ‘we know best’ managerialism. People like them became officers in the Royal Ulster Constabulary- and The Troubles were ongoing

    You know, maybe a new Independent Labour Party isn’t a bad idea.

    1. Actually wrtten by the CLP Secretary who, whilst young, is an old hand.

  12. SteveH Mike Hill sent that e mail on Sunday 14th March @20-21 the applications for Parliamentary election candidate did not close until 5pm on 17th of March. This is corruption.

    1. Harry – No it’s another failure by ‘the left’ to get its act together.

      1. Happily, more and more of the left is ready to conclude that Starmer’s Trilateral Labour just isn’t worth the effort

        For THIS you’d get an act together???

      2. So the right of the party’s abysmal corruption is the fault/failure of the left?????


        Go figure

      3. spiderider – ‘The left’ chose not to put forward a candidate. They only have themselves to blame if this is a one horse race.

  13. Dr Paul Williams tweeted after an 8.5 grand paid visit to the head chopper kingdom/dictatorship: “My previous notions have been blown out of the water. I’ve seen a modern, progressive Saudi Arabia that has totally changed my view of this country”.

    1. Lundiel – You must be very disappointed that ‘the left’ couldn’t find a candidate to enter the fray.

      1. Probably not half as disappointed as in that the CLP co-ordinators of the process use demeaning and derogatory language against ‘certain factions’ and the anti-democratic haste with which they fix their interests.

        MY! You’re very defensive tonight steveh. Is this how the entryist (Labour) right behave when they’re on thin ice?

        Thank G*d their type will never be in Government again (Corbyn was their last hope). Now they’ll have to do the decent thing and join the Conservative Party.

      2. …..and yet nobody has been able to explain why ‘the left’ were unwilling to put forward a candidate.

    2. As someone who has visited the KSA and done business there as well as elsewhere in the Middle East and Africa, I can tell you it would be hard to find a more devious deceitful and untrustworthy bunch than the wealthy citizens and bureaucrats of that country. Paul Williams must be on some serious medication.

  14. Jeremy has published an interesting article today

    The integrated review is a plan to make the world more, not less, dangerous
    Real security is about working co-operatively internationally to tackle the major challenges of our time. From climate catastrophe to global poverty, from the international refugee crisis to health pandemics, we are surrounded by threats that cause misery in their own right and also raise the possibility of armed conflicts. However, the government’s integrated defence and security review is the opposite approach of this.

    1. Interesting piece from Jeremy, would be good to see him negotiating with North Korea, China and Russia, letting them know his views on arms reduction and nuclear none proliferation. I think we all know how effective that would be. Can’t we get him to become chief negotiator to the EU over the NI protocol? Man of his talent would solve all our problems in seconds. Lets face it, Jeremy would struggle as assistant controller of the stationery cupboard. Can’t Laura give him a job in the ‘Peoples Assembly etc’. He’d love it. Talking shop, plenty of slogans, no responsibility. Bit like being leader of the opposition all over again.

      1. It would work very well.

        When the yanks pulled out of various treaties during the last decade, Mr. Putin warned that it would result in an arm’s race. And he was right.

        Laughingly, the Russians now have a clear advantage, and still the west aims for conflict.

        The Russians have a saying “If you won’t talk to Lactic, then you’ll talk to Shoygu”

        The money blown on “defence” (utter bollocks) would go so much farther spent on education or healthcare. Would be far more useful too.

        Instead we have boondoggles like the F35 and the L85.

        Match fit? We aren’t even hooligan fit lol.

      2. Quite how Lavrov becomes Lactic, I have no idea…

      3. Stupid comment. If we got rid of our nuclear weapons it wouldn’t make much difference to the overall balance of power and would see us slightly more diminished on the world stage. But it would free us from immediate aniahalaton in the event of conflict between nuclear powers and save us a great deal of money. As things stand our military is just an American proxy and their awful foreign policy is ours. We have given away our future and we’re nothing but a client state.

      4. Plain Citizen, if you think we should have nuclear weapons as a deterrent, the enemy can only see them as such if they think you are prepared to use them. Please give me an example of a situation where they could be used?

      5. @Plain Citizen :

        Jeremy Corbyn has got a job as MP for Islington(North). Been there since 1983, so his constituents must be fairly satisfied with the job he’s doing.

        In addition, he’s, just, founded the Peace and Justice Project. Why don’t you come and join us? Unless, of course, you have something against, either, Peace or Justice.

      6. I’ll give you an example JackT as that troll won’t. They could use them (nukes) only as part of an American initiated first strike or could launch them at will in retaliation.
        In other words they are a useless bourdon that makes us s target and an extension of America’s armed forces.

      7. Lundiel, spot on. There is NO defensive situation where nuclear weapons can be used, they are weapons of aggression not defense. This is why we do not have a policy of ‘no first use’ our policy is ‘flexible use’. Nuclear weapons have enormous indiscriminate killing power and anyone who is willing to push the button is a psychopath.

  15. When Corbyn became Leader, it is obvious that the right hatched a plan to install their place men and women in every area of the Labour Party ready to pull the trigger when given the command. In many instances it wasn’t too difficult because ‘sleepers’ were already in position mouthing support for the left while plotting their overthrow.

    The plan which is so obvious, is to get rid of any vestige of Socialism from Labour and turn it into a Social Democrat party. If there is any hope for the left and Socialism in Labour, the left must be just as ruthless

    1. Jack – Surely it is self evident that having been in power for decades that the ‘Blairites’ would be in positions of influence throughout the party and the Unions. There wasn’t any need for a grand conspiracy, they were already in place.

      1. Exactly. So why do keep on asking stupid questions about left candidates.
        The question was rhetorical, I’m not interested in a stupid pointless dialogue in with you troll.

      2. lundiel – ….and yet here you are, like a moth to a flame.

      3. True
        And just as easily replaced and moved on, its hardly rocket science

      4. Doug – Which begs the question, why didn’t Jeremy have a clear out.

      5. SteveH you are emphasising my point. Of course the Blairites have always been there but they may not have been in positions which were strategic enough – Evans for example, nor had they had leadership at the very top of the Party, your man changed all that.

      6. Jack – I wonder if things would have turned out different if Jeremy hadn’t left Iain McNicol in post.

      7. SteveH, leaving McNicol in place was just one of the many mistakes Corbyn made. If he’d realised that he faced mortal danger from the Israel Lobby in the Party he could have got rid of them including McNicol, at the same time. He would not have been supported by McDonnell and McCluskey, who as we know led him down the fatal appeasement path and gave him little actual support anyway.

  16. Apart from Paul Williamson’s stance on Brexit (when that was relevant) which of his policy stances do you disagree with. Please be specific I’m not interested in silly Blairite rants.

      1. lundiel – ‘Stupid questions’ that you can’t find an answer for.

  17. So the cult of new Labour 2.0 knew the parachuting in of the usual right-wing true believer and of course not allowing a socialist any chance of getting elected is wrong.

    As standard they want the locals to help this cultist to get elected FFS! I hope the local members that are sticking around for what reason I am mystified…

    Tell them where to shove this fool and refuse to assist him in any way! If they had any self-respect left would resign rather than having this scum shit all over Labour principles and ideology constantly.

    1. I am not the one seeking to suppress the opinions others. Do you know why ‘the left’ denied their supporters a voice by failing to put forward a candidate that ‘the left’ could coalesce behind?

      1. That’s not what happened, but to answer your question, maybe the fictitious ‘left’ that you imagine exists, did not put a candidate forward because they haven’t got one. Laura Pidcock aside, no obvious goood canadidate is apparent and available.

        Unlike the right, who, it seems, can put a sack of excrement forward for anything at the drop of a hat (and twice on Sundays). Paul Williams though is not a good candidate for Hartlepool. He is going to gift Hartlepool to the Tories – and your fictitious left probably doesn’t care enough to put aside its principles and fight for him as a prospective MP, not least because it would like to TUPE him over to the tories anyway.

      2. qwertboi – Will ‘the left’ get their act together before the next GE when a number of PPC vacancies will be up for grabs. It doesn’t bode well that when tested they were unable to put forward even a single candidate.

      3. That’s the crux question – yes, unless of course, Starmer is still the leader of Labour – then there’d be no point.

        Exciting times.

  18. No-one on the left should use any of their time nor shoe leather to campaign for a scab to be elected, even more so as JC hasn’t had the whip restored which is 1 month overdue !

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: