Anger as Mandelson’s and Purnell’s friends are selected in safe Labour seats

TV historian Tristram Hunt’s selection as Labour candidate for Stoke Central has caused a whirlwind of controversy as the election campaign gets underway

by Chris McLaughlin
Friday, April 9th, 2010

Controversy over the process of choosing Labour election candidates has been fuelled by a row over the selection of historian Tristram Hunt in the safe seat of Stoke Central.

Party member Mick Williams, who was presented with the party’s merit award in 2008 to “honour a lifetime’s commitment to the Labour Party”, has resigned in protest in a personal email to Gordon Brown.

He intends to stand against Labour in the local council elections on the same day as the May 6 general election and has returned his certificate of merit.

It follows the announcement by former constituency secretary Gary Elsby that he is to challenge Mr Hunt at the election.

Mr Hunt, a well-known television presenter of history documentaries, was selected as the prospective candidate for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Labour majority 9,774) at a hustings meeting on April 1.

The decision followed speculation in the party and local and national media that Mr Hunt was the favoured candidate of Peter Mandelson whose support had helped him secure the seat. In his email to Mr Brown, Mr Williams, a party member since 1964, claims the selection was “obviously rigged”.

He told Tribune that he could no longer be a member of a party which failed to follow democratic rules. Labour’s regional office has reported no infringement of the rules and no evidence has emerged of any direct interference by Mr Mandelson.

But the incident, which came on the day Mr Brown announced the date of what promises to be the most closely-fought election in recent memory, reflects wider concern among Stoke party members and those in other constituencies over the selection process.

The row follows a similar controversy over the selection of Jonathan  Reynolds in Stalybridge and  Hyde following the intervention on his behalf of Mr Mandelson and the constituency’s retiring MP James Purnell in the selection process.

Mr Purnell was outraged that his ally had not been included on the shortlist drawn up by local members and, following a meeting in the constituency on the day it was announced, Lord Mandelson successfully lobbied to have Mr Reynolds, who is embroiled in a civil war among local councillors, added to the list.

Local members, including former MP Tom (now Lord) Pendry, were also outraged but have been told there is no recourse to any further appeal.

Mr Hunt, who obtained a copy of an article which appears in this week’s print edition of Tribune before it went to press, commented: “I dispute every element of this article. I have never been a member of the Fabians and I have no recollection of the meeting to which the article makes reference.” He told Tribune that he had never met the author of the piece, Martin Rowson. Mr Rowson stands by his article and insists that the two men discussed the exchange in a convivial discussion at a later encounter.

The only place you can read all of Tribune's articles as soon as they are published is in the magazine. To find out more about subscribing from as little as £19, click here.

About The Author

Chris McLaughlin is Editor of Tribune
  • Vicky Heywood

    This story regarding Jonathan Reynolds is completely ridiculous. As a member of the party in Stalybridge and Hyde I witnessed the selection process over the period of time it took place, and reading these sort of comments of protest from Mr Pendry are an insult.

    Jonathan had a huge backing from members in the constituency as soon as he announced he was going to go for the role. it was soon was made clear instantly that members wanted a local candidate, Jonathan or not.
    The point being; Jonathan gained more than 50% of the members vote. Dr Kailash coming in second, and Peter Wheeler third. The vote speaks for itself, and members clearly thought Jonathan was an ideal candidate.

    Personally I’m completely thrilled with the outcome. I know Jonathan is a fantastic candidate, who genuinely cares about Stalybridge and Hyde and it’s constituents. He is a strong local voice, and I can’t think of anyone better to represent us.

  • Vicky Heywood

    This story regarding Jonathan Reynolds is completely ridiculous. As a member of the party in Stalybridge and Hyde I witnessed the selection process over the period of time it took place, and reading these sort of comments of protest from Mr Pendry are an insult.

    Jonathan had a huge backing from members in the constituency as soon as he announced he was going to go for the role. it was soon was made clear instantly that members wanted a local candidate, Jonathan or not.
    The point being; Jonathan gained more than 50% of the members vote. Dr Kailash coming in second, and Peter Wheeler third. The vote speaks for itself, and members clearly thought Jonathan was an ideal candidate.

    Personally I’m completely thrilled with the outcome. I know Jonathan is a fantastic candidate, who genuinely cares about Stalybridge and Hyde and it’s constituents. He is a strong local voice, and I can’t think of anyone better to represent us.

  • john

    It is not the question weather Jonny Reynold is good or bad.The whole selection process was deeply corrupt.The muscle of insitutional power was used to get Johnny back on short list.He had unfair advantge over all other candidates.

  • john

    It is not the question weather Jonny Reynold is good or bad.The whole selection process was deeply corrupt.The muscle of insitutional power was used to get Johnny back on short list.He had unfair advantge over all other candidates.

  • Fiona Parker-Perry

    I was there too Vicky… I also received a glossy CV off Jonny a week before any of the other candidates- how did that happen?… The fact still remains that he wasn’t on the original shortlist. Again, Purnell puts the constituency in the news for all the wrong reasons. If you want out of politics James, then stay out of it, and maybe the constituency would have a legitimate candidate right now. As for ‘local’- Jonny’s lived here for 5 years and spent most of that time down in London courting Claire! I should know, Sean had to do all the overtime to cover the amount of time Jonny wasn’t in the contituency office. He’s very good at TELLING us how hard he works but what has he actually achieved in his two years as a councillor? Turning up for the Longdendale and Hattersley District Assembley Business Meetings that he’s Deputy Chair of might be a good start. Jonny is yet another careerist… I challenge him to still be living in the consitiency in 30 years time- like my dad has- let alone be representing it- like my dad did.

  • Fiona Parker-Perry

    I was there too Vicky… I also received a glossy CV off Jonny a week before any of the other candidates- how did that happen?… The fact still remains that he wasn’t on the original shortlist. Again, Purnell puts the constituency in the news for all the wrong reasons. If you want out of politics James, then stay out of it, and maybe the constituency would have a legitimate candidate right now. As for ‘local’- Jonny’s lived here for 5 years and spent most of that time down in London courting Claire! I should know, Sean had to do all the overtime to cover the amount of time Jonny wasn’t in the contituency office. He’s very good at TELLING us how hard he works but what has he actually achieved in his two years as a councillor? Turning up for the Longdendale and Hattersley District Assembley Business Meetings that he’s Deputy Chair of might be a good start. Jonny is yet another careerist… I challenge him to still be living in the consitiency in 30 years time- like my dad has- let alone be representing it- like my dad did.