Phil Woolas immigration leaflets case: high court orders election rerun in Oldham East

[muriel_volestrangler]

Labour's shadow immigration minister, Phil Woolas, was ejected from parliament today after a court ruled he had breached election laws by falsely claiming his Liberal Democrat opponent had "wooed" extremist Muslims in the run-up to the 6 May poll.

For the first time in 99 years a specially convened election court has overturned the result of a parliamentary poll and ordered a rerun after two high court judges ruled the result of the Oldham East poll void. They upheld the claim by Elwyn Watkins that Woolas knowingly made false statements.

Watkins claimed that in his election materials Woolas lied about his involvement with Muslim extremists, his campaign funding, and his intention to live in the constituency.

Watkins accused Woolas of stirring up religious divisions in his election campaign in a desperate attempt to secure the election, which Woolas did win, but only by 103 votes. In one leaflet, Woolas's campaign accused Watkins of "wooing" extremist Muslims.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/05/phil-woolas-immigration-leaflets-oldham-east-rerun

I'm glad about this. For all that one might say any chance of a Labour seat being lost to the coalition is bad news, Labour shouldn't win a seat through such smears.

[LeftishBrit]

1. Good. Woolas is disgusting, and I'd expect Labour to keep the seat...

with a better person and an increased majority.

Apart from anything else, anyone who acted as Woolas did about the Gurkhas does not deserve to be called 'Labour'. Not to mention the nasty campaign - basically 'If you want a Muslim for a neighbour vote LibDem'.

[Hopeless Romantic]

2. He's been suspended from the Labour Party now

Good

[T_i_B]

3. Wasn't he shadow immigration minister prior to today?

Makes you wonder why Ed Miliband kept him on the front bench in the first place.

[non sociopath skin]

4. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

The Skin

[fedsron2us]

5. What goes around comes around

The precedent being set here may have consequences way beyond just the Labour party.

In my experience the Liberal Democrats have been more than a little economical with the verite in some of their campaign literature in the past so it may be a case of careful what you wish for.

It also begs the moral question that it is an offence in law to lie about your opponent at an election but apparently fine and dandy to lie to the electorate about the policies you will implement when you get into office. For example, Charles Clarke lost the Norwich seat he had held for 13 years to the Liberal Democrat Simon Wright by only 300 votes. One of the main issues highlighted in that campaign by the Liberal Democrats was that Clarke had said in all conscience that he could not sign the NUS pledge to abolish Tuition fees something his opponent made a great display of supporting. Six months later and the victorious candidate is backing a government that will be putting tuition fees through the roof. Sadly, the voters of Norwich may have to wait some time for justice to be meeted out at the ballot box

http://www.southnorwichnews.co.uk/news/anger-taken-to-mps-doorstep/

For the rest the by election may be interesting.

Will the Tories run a candidate against their coalition partners ?

How many disillusioned Liberal Democrat voters are likely to abstain or swap to another party ?

For Labour the choice of the right candidate is crucial. Then they need to make sure they run the campaign as a mini referendum on the coalitions national perfromance .

My top tip for Labour would be to concentrate fire on the logical inconsistencies in the spending review. For example how can the government justify the crazy proposals that a couple with children with a single earner income of £50000 are entitled to means tested Family Tax Credits but not Child Benefit while a similar couple with two earners in receipt of £40000 each (ie combined income of £80000) do not qualify for means tested Family Tax Credits but get Child Benefit (you can run the check here - http://taxcredits.hmrc.gov.uk/Qualify/DIQHousehold.aspx ). Plenty of other topics that would merit similar examination.

We know the coalition are bastards. The key is to show that they are useless bastards

[T_i_B]

6. The trouble here is this...

Labour's record on student finance is pretty poor as well. Labour introduced tuition fees and top-up fees so thier hands are anything but clean on this issue, no matter how much noise they might make in order to woo the student vote.

I remain totally unconvinced that a Labour government would do anything to reverse the many years of bad policies on student finance from all 3 parties.

[LeftishBrit]

7. I agree about the Blair government on education...

including the Tory-in-all-but-name Education Secretary Charles Clarke. And Blunkett, who introduced tuition fees in the first place.

But the Brown government was better on education than the Blair one IMO.

In any case, the problem is not just one specific policy by the Coalition, bad as it is. It is that it is dominated by Tories dedicated to upholding the 'iron fist' over the 'helping hand'. They are dedicated to cuts for the sake of cuts; 'rolling back the state'; treating poverty and disability as sins to be punished. As I said in a post before the election, 'the real Tories are even worse than the imitation Tories (i.e. Blairites)'. The LibDems in such a coalition are in an impossibly weak position at best given their numbers, and are moreover being led from far up David Cameron's rear end.

I had voted LibDem since 1987. Mainly for tactical reasons, but I did like my former MP, and will be sad not to vote for him again if he stands against the Tory, especially as he was defeated by a right-wing smear campaign not much better than the Woolas one: in this case, carried out by media figures and local nuts rather than the Tory herself, and involving Christian-Right 'pro-life' viciousness rather than anti-immigrant bigotry. But I was already much more uneasy about voting for Clegg than Ashdown or Kennedy; and certainly can't vote for a party that is actively supporting a Tory government, without showing active resistance on the cuts.

[fedsron2us]

9. This rather misses the point

I do not necessarily agree with Clarkes views on Tuition Fees (or anything else for that matter) but at least the punters casting their vote had some reasonable idea about his position on the subject. Wright simply pledged his support to one position and now is going through the lobby as a supporter of a government that is doing the opposite.

The issue is one of honesty. Woolas lied on a matter of fact about his opponent and is being punished by process of law. Wright appears to have told people he would do one thing to get their votes and now appears to be reneging on the promise.

http://www.simonwright.org.uk/news/000147/candidates_pledge_against_student_fees.html

In fact Wright went so far as to signing the NUS pledge. It would be interesting to see whether that written commitment could be tested in law as a binding contractual agreement.

If political parties were selling a consumer product on the basis of such claims then they would wind up being sued in double quick time by disgruntled customers However, with the political pedlars of dreams it appears to be acceptable to sell black as white and vice versa with no comeback. All parties are guilty of this practise but it is becoming more brazen than ever with this government where there appears to be no attempt even to finesse the broken promises (see Cameron on Child Benefit, Huhne on Nuclear Power and Clegg on just about anything).

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. Well, no, Labour misled people in previous manifestos about tuition fees

see eg:

Did Labour mislead over tuition fees?

12 April 2005
The party has a defence but it's semantic and contradictory

...

The manifesto in 2001 was far more specific about top-up fees than it had been in 1997 about the original introduction of fees.

On page 20 it said: "We will not introduce top-up fees and have legislated to prevent them."

This is the substance of Mr Howard's accusation of a second broken promise, which, on the face of it, seems all but impossible for Labour to rebut.

Labour has two rather contradictory lines of defence, based on two points; the definition of "top-up fees" and the period of time covered by a manifesto.

Labour ministers argue the charges that have become known as top-up fees should really be called "variable fees".

http://www.channel4.com/fc/quote.jsp?id=73

[fedsron2us]

12. This is not about bloody tuition fees. It is about being honest with the voters

I do not care whether the politician represents Labour, Liberal Democrat or Conservative (or any other party in our increasingly bogus democracy). The point is that people seem to think it is wrong for Woolas to lie on a matter of fact about his opponent to win votes but fine to lie to the public about what policies you will support when you get into office ( and even signing pledges on the given point)

I think I am going to give posting here because every point I have made on this subject seems to being wilfully misrepresented by the assorted party hacks who seem to hang round here full time now.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. Sorry, but it was you who brought up misleading campaign promises

and you seemed to be making it a question of "Lib Dems lied to voters about policy; it's unfair that Woolas is got rid of for lying about his opponent". It was you, as much as anyone, who made it a party issue. We're pointing out that Labour has no better leg to stand on, due to its own U turns on the exact same subject you gave as an example. It's a bit much for you to call us party hacks, when you were the one who turned the thread into an attack on the Lib Dems.

[LeftishBrit]

8. Um..

'It also begs the moral question that it is an offence in law to lie about your opponent at an election but apparently fine and dandy to lie to the electorate about the policies you will implement when you get into office.'

Would there be anyone left in parliament if THAT were an offence in law?!

Also most people get away with lying about their opponents too. What seems exceptional here is the sheer viciousness of the attack, and the racism and anti-immigrant bigotry that it implied. I am one of the many (judging from the polls) former LibDem voters, whom the Party lost by jumping into bed with Cameron. But I would never vote for someone like Woolas - I'd spoil my ballot paper if he were the only alternative.

I hope he is replaced by a good Labourite who wins with a comfortable majority.

[fedsron2us]

11. Woolas has not been stripped of his seat because of his attempts to use race as a vote winner

in a British election. His offence was under 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 which specifies

106.
False statements as to candidates.
— (1) A person who, or any director of any body or association corporate which—

(a) before or during an election,

(b) for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election,

makes or publishes any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate’s personal character or conduct shall be guilty of an illegal practice, unless he can show that he had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, that statement to be true.

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Primary&PageNumber=45&NavFrom=2&parentActiveTextDocId=2353486&activetextdocid=2353631&versionNumber=2

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/defamation-of-election-candidates.htm

The crime is simply about lying on a matter of fact about his opponent to win votes not racism.

The subject could have been almost anything from golf club membership to whether the opponent was cruel to his pets. All that mattered was that the statement was untrue and the claims could be deemed to have persuaded people to change their vote. This is why the judgement has potentially huge ramifications

The law as its stands makes it an offence to lie about your opponent to win an election but appears to allow politicians to lie to the public to win their votes

In a system where the public are increasingly treated as mere consumers by the political process this is not sustainable. You would not be able to flog TVs or any other good or service by making false claims about their product. Why should political parties be allowed to get away with it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. High Court rejects Woolas judicial review request

Ex-immigration minister Phil Woolas has lost his first bid to overturn a court ruling that banned him from politics.

The High Court rejected his request for a judicial review of the election court ruling - saying he should instead appeal against the ruling.
...
But he said Mr Woolas could apply to the Court of Appeal.

However a source close to Phil Woolas' legal team told the BBC his lawyers would renew their application for a judicial review and were seeking an oral hearing in front of a High Court judge in which to argue a review should take place.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11708723

[LeftishBrit]

15. Bad as all this is, I'm not sure anyone could hold a candle to Tory Ian Oakley

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4364170.ece

I missed this one, until just now. Wow.

[T_i_B]

16. By-election result from Oldham East & Saddleworth

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12187965

Labour: 14,718 (42.1%)
Lib Dems: 11,160 (31.9%)
Conservatives: 4,481 (12.8%)
UKIP: 2,029 (5.8%)
BNP: 1,560 (4.5%)
Green Party: 530 (1.5%)
Monster Raving Loony Party: 145 (0.4%)
English Democrats: 144 (0.4%)
Pirate Party: 96 (0.2%)
Bus Pass Elvis Party: 67 (0.1%)

Looks like Tory voters went Lib Dem for tactical reasons and Lib Dem voters went Labour in protest against the coalition. Although you have to say that after what Oldham East and Saddleworth Labour party did to cause the by-election in the first place they could have done with a teeny bit more of a kicking.

[LeftishBrit]

17. By contrast, the 2010 election

Labour 14,186 31.9%
Liberal Democrat 14,083 31.6%
Conservative 11,773 26.4%
British National Party 2,546 5.7%
UK Independence Party 1,720 3.9%
Christian Party 212 0.5%
Majority 103
Turnout 44,520 61.2%


Tories did satisfyingly badly in the by-election; though this may have been due in part to the national party's own lack of effort to win, as they were mainly interested in defeating Labour.

Labour did pretty well. 42%. Good. And hopefully the new Labour MP will be a decent type, and not easy to confuse with someone from the BNP! She sounds reasonable, from the little I've heard.

Interestingly, the LibDem percentage hardly changed, though their margin of defeat increased. Hope it will be enough to get them worried about the coalition.

[fedsron2us]

18. Cameron seriously pissing off his own party ?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/david-cameron/8261274/Oldham-by-election-David-Cameron-failed-Tories.html

There will be blood if 'Dave' is felt not put his we weight behind Tory party candidates in the upcoming local government elections.

[T_i_B]

19. The Tory right had best grin & bear it at by-elections for the moment

Next up is Barnsley, where admitting to being a Tory is generally a good way to ensure a good kicking. Tories are not going to make any hewadway in Barnsley Central no matter how hard they try.

[fedsron2us]

20. By-elections are just froth IMHO

They get all the attention but it is local elections where you can see the long term trends emerging

It is worth remembering that in much of Tory controlled England the Liberal Democrats are the opposition party on the Council not Labour. There is no coalition government in that world and Cameron will be making a big mistake if he starts sacrificing his local Councillors just so he can stay pals with Nick Clegg. It is the local Tory activists who do all the leg work at General Elections and they nearly all are engaged in Council politics. If Tories start losing seats to Liberal Democrats in council elections this year because Cameron has soft pedalled the campaign there will be trouble

[non sociopath skin]

21. I think the one thing that Old and Sad has underlined ...

... is that the Tories and the LibDems are now in a position where they have to hang together or hang separately.

Not a comfortable position for either, I'd have thought.

The Skin