Analysis Exclusive

Labour ‘nobbles’ soft-left candidate who beat rigging to win Bolsover candidacy

Members voted in Jerry Hague and rejected party’s favoured right-winger. Barely 2 weeks later, he falls to ‘smear job’

Labour has ‘nobbled’ soft-left candidate Jerry Hague barely two weeks after he defeated the regime’s preferred hopeful to stand in the Bolsover seat long occupied by left legend Denis Skinner.

Hague was selected by Bolsover members earlier this month, but in the last day the media – evidently briefed by the party right – has been full of reports of a £5,000 fine solicitor Hague incurred on a technicality in relation to miners’ pensions. Hague has now resigned the candidacy.

A Labour insider told Skwawkbox:

Hague was nobbled. He beat the right’s favoured daughter in the selection, then lo and behold he falls to an orchestrated smear job.

The Labour regime has rigged selection after selection across the country to exclude any left candidates while helping even right-wingers with serious allegations against them – and clearly even the soft left are too radical for Keir Starmer’s ultra-Establishment taste.

SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and 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 doing its job.

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


  1. Red Tories vs Blue Tories

    At the next election the differences between the parties will be so slight, the ‘democratic choice’ will have effectively already been made for us, before a single vote is counted(and they probably can’t even be trusted to do that honestly with sketchy postal vote shenanigans).

    When will people wake up to the fact that this country’s democratic elections are nothing more than a performative sham. We need PR to break the chains of the conspiring big two. The country is doomed without change.

    1. A solicitor and a politician…..Not a good mix to represent the majority working class of Bolsover.How did it ever come to this that the bottom feeders profession including the other bottom feeders politicians produces this hybred for a good candidate for the labour party… “Soft left ? Soft allround and absolutely typical of the labour party.who are beyond redemption.

    2. Boo hoo. Another lawyer bites the dust. Soft left. What in the name of god does that mean? London mayor left, doesn’t like Bandera very much. Thinks that Blinken shouldnt be so thick? What the hell has happened to Bolsover? It’s all meaningless, just more fodder for the permanently offended.

  2. Strangely Jerry Hague’s own website plus both his Twitter & Facebook pages have suddenly vanished off the face of the earth

    1. Not suprising Steve H has hes plenty of dirty washing to be paraded by you misfits who are no better than him.Your own hybred lawyer \politician knows all about coverups but has obviously more money behind him from his unelected masters and has been in the bottom feeders profession much longer than mr Hague.and has exploited his position for monetary gain leading to Drowning street.and disaster for the country.

    2. So what? It’s natural that a smear victim might not want to interact with random strangers on social media.

      You would have to concede, if you act out of any decency and intellectual honesty, that it’s a tragedy that the Starmer-imposed Labour candidate in Bolsover will be massively to the right of Dennis Skinner, that such an outcome is the opposite of what the CLP would want and that there was no reason for Starmer to insist on it.

  3. Huh! Spooky, eh?

    Almost as though he was protecting himself from a pile-on, from Akehurst and his gang. I’m sure they wouldn’t do that – but – you never know. Better to be safe than sorry.

    Has anyone checked to see if Khalid Mahmood, or Dominic Beck, have done the same?

    Perhaps they don’t have to. They may be a protected species.

      1. Howard Beckett did not report a theft by an employee of his law firm to the Solicitors Regulatory body . She was going through very hard times so the firm made good the loss and he let her pay back the money to them by instalments. What a B*****d eh Steve H?

      2. Smartboy – That is what he’d like you to believe. The actual findings appear to tell a very different story. The accusations regarding his elderly employee were withdrawn <before the judgement..

        There were 8 allegations in total, labelled (a) to (h). Allegation (a) relates to the failure to report the dishonest employee & allegation (f) relates to conveyancing transactions. The remaining allegations relate to miners’ compensation claims. The Law Society (who were acting as the prosecuting authority in the case) successfully applied to the tribunal to withdraw allegations ‘a’ and ‘f’.
        “So Beckett was not fined for being too indulgent towards a cashier in her sixties. He was fined – in the words of his own counsel – for problems involving deductions from miners’ compensation. All allegations apart from (a) and (f) were proven.”

      3. yes, looks similar. We probably need an industry insider like Maria to advise.

        I suppose that nothing like that happens in a legal system without intent – and intent usually serves an obvious purpose: are you seeing a pattern here, too, SteveH? It doesn’t even try >to disguise or conceal itself: that’s how openly corrupt and venal the Labour party is under Keir Rodney Starmer.

        The prospect that this man could be the next prime minister truly terrifies me.

      4. qwertboi – I have no idea what you are on about, do you?

      5. Steve H
        Please see my post at 12.42pm. My comments regarding Jerry Hague’s fine and no police involvement etc also apply to Howard Beckett

  4. Jerry Hague has stood down as PPC for Bolsover. It appears he was fined £5000 by the solicitors regulatory body nearly 20 years ago for an irregularity regarding ill health payments to miners
    A fine of this size indicates it was imposed for some sort of administrative error possibly arising out of inadequate accounting procedures .The regulatory body did not call in the police, Jerry was not charged with a criminal offence, he was not disbarred or sanctioned in any other way by them. However because his face doesn’t fit in Starmer’s Labour this fine has been used to force him out and overturn the democratic outcome of the candidate selection procedure.
    If I believed for one minute that Jerry Hague took money meant for miners suffering ill health my reaction would be total disgust and I would have no sympathy whatsoever for him. However the size of the fine and lack of any other sort of action against him makes it clear that despite the spin put on things by the MSM ( undoubtedly briefed by the Labour Right) it his politics which are the issue not the fine. He’s just the latest victim of Starmers purge of the Left.

    1. Smartboy – I think that it is far more likely that Labour are logically concerned about headlines like this.
      Whichever way you look at it, it is not a good look.
      Labour selects miners scandal lawyer
      Andrew Norfolk, Chief Investigative Reporter

      A solicitor [Jerry Hague] who admitted professional misconduct after his firm deducted money from compensation awarded to sick miners has been selected as a Labour parliamentary candidate.
      Jerry Hague was fined £5,000 in 2010 after appearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on charges after the biggest misconduct investigation into the legal profession.
      He was chosen this month to contest Bolsover, a Derbyshire seat with many former pit villages that was held for 49 years by Labour’s Dennis Skinner until it fell to the Conservatives in 2019.
      Hague’s website says he has a “record of . . . supporting mining communities”. He was an equity partner at Graysons, a Sheffield law firm that earned £38.3 million handling more than 20,000 claims by former miners, their widows or estates under a £7.5 billion compensation scheme.
      A total of 760,000 claims were made. Tens of thousands of ex-miners were awarded less than £1,000 each and 23,000 died before receiving any money, but solicitors were paid £1.2 billion from the public purse.
      [Do the maths, Hague’s firm received an average of >£1,900 per client referred to them under this ‘secretive arrangement’]
      Among the biggest earners were law firms with close ties to mining unions. Deals were agreed under which unions pointed potential claimants towards favoured solicitors. In return, law firms sliced money from compensation awards and handed it to the unions.
      In many cases solicitors failed to inform clients that other law firms would have handled their claims without deducting money from their damages. Hague was the personal injury specialist at Graysons.………………
      ……….Hague was one of four Graysons partners accused of professional misconduct. They received fines ranging from £2,000 to £5,000 and were collectively ordered to pay costs of £27,500.

      1. Wobbly you are correct…sick miners exploited by the solicitors,basically a inside job by the favoured labour party solicitors. Does a dog 🐕 bark?and why do the members think that solicitors make for good MPs ….surely Blair and Brown and now the knight should have been a warning regarding bottom feeders.. “.Another day another doller”and its xmass every day for the billing hours supremo the knight of the realm..

    2. The actual topic here is Stamer’s criminal suppression of democracy within the Labour Party.
      But Strewth turn your back for a second and the troll is back and people are actually answering its questions on Howard Beckett, the miners, Panorama and Jeremy Corbyn.
      This misdirection is entirely its purpose and is why we shouldn’t waste energies and page space engaging with it.
      And just to be clear regarding ‘Starmer’s suppression of democracy’ today it was revealed Jewish socialist Heather Mendick has followed Naomi Wimborne-Indrissi in being expelled from the Labour Party.
      Can we stay on Swawkbox’s topic – which is the anti-democratic gerrymandering of the Labour Party – and ignore the troll?

      1. Bernie – Really?
        I thought that the above was about an unsuitable candidate standing down because his past indiscretions had been exposed and his position as Labour’s PPC for the constituency had inevitably become untenable. 🤔

        Have you bothered to actually read The Times article that I have quoted from and linked to above. (20/12-2:09pm)

  5. [Do the maths, Hague’s firm received an average of >£1,900 per client referred to them under this ‘secretive arrangement’]

    Hmmm…and how much did those former staffers (and their legal team(s) receive from keefs’ decision NOT to contest the antisemitism litigation? 😗🎵

    More to the point, WHY did keef settle – Despite being advised to contest the claim?

    Whichever way YOU look at it, it is not a good look., and I think we should be told.

    1. Toffee – Oh dear that old chestnut again.
      It is worth noting that if Corbyn hadn’t irresponsibly issued his official Labour Party statement on the Panorama program without first getting it passed by the party’s legal team there wouldn’t have been a case to answer. I wonder why all 3 of the leadership candidates clearly said during the leadership campaign that they would pay compensation to those who took part in the Panorama program.
      If you dig out the original legal advice that Jeremy received you will see that it is by no means certain about the outcome of a trial as you falsely intimate.
      After receiving the draft copy of EHRC report the Labour Party did the responsible thing and took fresh legal advice from 2 QCs and accepted their advice to settle rather than risk the Labour Party and its members being faced with a £multi-million settlement if they lost.
      Thank goodness the Labour party isn’t relying on your legal acumen because unfortunately you’re as irresponsible as Jeremy was when he created this liability in the first place.

      1. My, my – THE worst complainant about others’ so-called verbosity is compelled into giving it chapter & verse himself.

        Wonder why he’s doing so – on behalf and on defence of greasy keef & fat Dave…

        I’d much prefer to smell their bullshit than yours, soft shite. A lot of labour members – and far more prominent ones than a lackey such as you at that – think very differently.

        As did the party’s legal team.

      2. Toffee – I thought I’d been quite succinct. Also your rather long winded expletive filled ramblings are quite amusing sometimes. They say so much about you.

      3. Thank goodness the Labour party isn’t relying on your legal acumen because unfortunately you’re as irresponsible as Jeremy was when he created this liability in the first place.

        I thank my stars that they don’t spunk the subs I won’t pay them so they can capitulate before the first hurdle’s even been approached.

        *Doesn’t fight any litigation.
        *Doesn’t whip his MPs or peers into voting AGAINST the toerags.
        * Doesn’t stick to any of his pledges.
        *Doesn’t support striking workers

        So why fund the worse-than-useless slimeball?

      4. Toffee – I’m surprised that you are still obsessing about the membership fees you don’t pay. It’s is over a quarter of a century since you left the Labour party. You should have got over it by now, I strongly suspect that the Labour party has.

      5. I thought I’d been quite succinct.

        Oh, you did?

        I won’t bother to count how many words you used (another of your pathetic methods) as I have a life.

        I’ll ask AGAIN.

        WHY are YOU paying keef when he’s NOT OPPOSING toerag policies?

        When he’s REFUSING to back striking workers – who pay their dues and expect at least SOME measure of support…And ORDERING his MPs to stay away from picket lines?

        When he sold you out on your precious remain?

        When he reneged on each and every single one of his ten pledges?

        And when he capitulated to those litigants and paid them YOUR subs, leaving the party coffers in a parlous state?

        Oh, no doubt you’ll complain about the toerags and the PPE scandal.

        But you appear to be quite relaxed about the slimeball spunking YOUR money on his mates, without so much as a murmur.

        And you’ll criticise and sneer at those who, like you, have paid THEIR dues and ask the same question(s) as I do.

        Because your a weirdo. A disturbing oddball that has a penchant for allowing children to go hungry – as long as keef doesn’t receive the rightful scrutiny and criticism he deserves for it.

        Now I’M being succinct when I say Off you pop, sicko.

      6. Toffee – I’m surprised that you are still obsessing about the membership fees you don’t pay

        I don’t pay income tax

        Should I therefore have no say in how taxes are squandered and embezzled spent?

        Should I therefore show the same nonchalance as you obviously do for those labour party members who are being shafted wholesale by the grotesque incompetence and arrogance of the greasy slimeball and his cohort?

        Get bent. Sicko.

      7. Toffee – Of course you have every right to express your opinion on how the government spends money on your behalf, you’re both a citizen and a taxpayer.. You even get to have a small say in who’s in the government.

  6. I hadn’t intended to comment further before the New Year. Others are entitled to more of my time.
    I certainly don’t intend to get involved when we hear the usual “Yes, but” stuff that gets churned out as nauseam.
    My comment is related to The Spectator and to Henry Kissinger. I won’t elaborate on the negative aspects of my views on Kissinger. That would need a short book. I will, however, say that he is a realist. A cynical one but, nevertheless, a realist.
    In a recent opinion piece in The Spectator, Kissinger comments, inter alia, “As the world’s leaders strive to end the war in which two nuclear powers contest a conventionally armed country …..”; an acknowledgement that the conflict is one between the US and Russia which is being played out in Ukraine and causing such devastation to infrastructure and human life. He goes on to comment “If the pre-war dividing line between Ukraine and Russia cannot be achieved by combat or by negotiation, recourse to the principle of self-determination could be explored. Internationally supervised referendums concerning self-determination could be applied to particularly divisive territories which have changed hands repeatedly over the centuries.”
    Those divisive territories which have changed hands repeatedly over the centuries consist of every Oblast in Ukraine. KIssinger seems to be advocating referendums across Ukraine. If this were to happen, the east and south would probably vote to leave Ukraine and join Russia. The rest would probably vote to stay within Urkaine, though it might be possible that one or two would wish to join Poland.
    I can’t see any of this happening but Kissinger and, by implication The Spectator, is trying to think of a way forward that could stop the fighting.
    Peace and goodwill ! ?

  7. There is insufficient here to make a call on whether this was a ‘technicality’ but it is difficult to see how Labour can justify a selection process that fails to undertake due diligence until so late in the day.

    1. Hague’s been described as “soft left”.

      Had he been any further left I very much doubt he’d have even made the long list.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: