Phil Woolas, four investigations and a funeral wreath
Ed Howker 6:01pm
It may take another week to discover if Phil Woolas has the right to challenge the
election court ruling that destroyed his career. To the delight of his cadre of supporters in the House, judges have said there are
"difficult questions to resolve" - not about the evidence of Woolas' campaign making "false statements", but about the specific application of the Representation of the People
Act (RPA).
Before the last die is cast, here are two quick contextual points. First, it is not just Harriet Harman who is keen to shut down this episode - many folks on all sides of the House of Commons would like to pretend skulduggery of this kind is exceptional. It is not - Phil Woolas' behaviour is far from untypical of northern politics.
Examine the record for 2010 in the marginal constituency of Halifax, for example, where some Conservatives are alleging that postal ballots were used to swing the election in Labour's favour. Meanwhile, Labour are merrily pointing out that two Tory councillors in the town were arrested on charges of postal ballot fraud just weeks before the election.
Across the Pennines, police were called to investigate four elections in Greater Manchester this year. Rochdale returned Simon Danczuk for Labour but, earlier in the campaign, disaffected members of his own local party spread vicious rumours that he was involved in domestic violence. Danczuk's experience of selection for the seat was even dirtier: when he put himself forward he received a funeral wreath with his name picked out in white carnations as well as threats from an anonymous caller who explained that "his body-parts will be found across the motorway" if he did not withdraw. Woolas' constituency is next door.
Second, this election court ruling must give pause for thought to all those who turn blind eyes to nasty campaigns. As Dennis Kavanagh put it when I spoke to him, ‘Each party is holding a stick of dynamite on this one’ – each one contains some rogue operators. I hope that the Woolas’ ruling serves to check their behaviour. But another outcome could be the encouraging of third party campaigners during elections.
Already, the NUS threatens to insert itself into the election re-run in Oldham East and Saddleworth and there are plenty of campaigning groups that could get active in subsequent campaigns. They would find their spending capped at £100 but what they say would be difficult to control - unlike mainstream political parties, they're unlikely to fear the RPA.
Previous
TrevorsDen
November 17th, 2010 6:36pm Report this commentSo you are saying that standing for election is a licence to commit slander and libel?
If Tories have broken the law - why should it be a bad thing if they are found guilty?
Is it right or is it wrong to knowingly tell lies about your oppon ent. the issue of fact re Woolas seems clear. So irrespective about a re-run what is Labours response to that? Are they going to change their mind? Would Mad Hattie then resign?
ollie
November 17th, 2010 7:08pm Report this commentThe Woolas story could becoming a nasty, running sore for Labour - especially if he gets his way in the courts.
Labour have been running a dirty tricks camapaign for decades - as Cameron pointed out just two names, McBride and Campbell.
The stink of corruption is still with us, and only the threat of imprisonment will curb it.
David Ossitt
November 17th, 2010 7:26pm Report this commentollie
“The stink of corruption is still with us, and only the threat of imprisonment will curb it.”
ollie I think that you are on the right lines, well nearly.
You are correct the stink of corruption is still with us, but the threat of imprisonment is not enough, we need to see many actually sent down for long sentences.
I am not talking about all of those who used the lax expenses rules, to, in effect, work the system, no; the ones that I want are those who by telling lies actually stole from the taxpayer.
The three MP’s who have already been sent to trial, the three Asian Peers who think that they have got away with it, and brother Woolas, they should all serve time.
And so should many others who have not yet had their collars felt.
David Lindsay
November 17th, 2010 8:35pm Report this commentWe are still clean compared to London. Politics there is like nothing else on earth. But then, when and where has polital activity ever been anything other than a rough old trade? Just ask the Lib Dems.
Woolas is one of very few MPs against whom this ruling wuld ever have been made. If it stands, then no one can ever be an MP who would not pass muster before both an old-fashioned Liberal Tory judge and a newfangled judge drawn from among 1968 sectarian Leftists.
TGF UKIP
November 17th, 2010 9:05pm Report this commentWhat is most likely to be exercising and enraging most at Westminster is that the complainant has been a LibDem who themselves are notorious for their gutter politics.
I would still be most surprised if a defeated Tory, or more likely, Labour candidate did not bring a parallel case.
Of course what would most get up Dave's nose would be if a Labour candidate together with his Tory counterpart, brought a joint case against a victorious LibDem. How splendid that would be.
Edward McLaughlin
November 17th, 2010 9:29pm Report this commentCould someone please state here in the simplest form, specifically what this man is accused of?
strapworld
November 17th, 2010 10:24pm Report this commentWe do appear to have the most corrupt politicians in public life now.
Am I the only one, as I mentioned elsewhere,to believe this disgraceful pay off to terrorist suspects is to protect politicians?
It is all so very cosy. An intelligence officer is cleared (rightly) but what about two ex foreign secretaries who assured us all that they and we knew nothing about waterboarding!!
Frankly it stinks. So I would not be surprised if Woolas is allowed to remain an MP. He is welcome in that bed.
Bring back the armed services and then have a military coup!!!
What a country we have become.
wrinkled weasel
November 17th, 2010 11:24pm Report this commentStrapworld, Martial Law would work right now because the Army would not get embroiled in the niceties of arresting a quota of little old ladies in order to satisfy fatuous protests against "profiling".
Muslims who preached hate and fomented violence could be shot. Illegal immigrants and fake asylum seekers could be put on the next plane and the BBC, (and this is the best bit) would be forced to reflect the views of the majority of this country.
Frankly, it seems an attractive proposiion right now.
The ruling elite are corrupt and totally without any sense of shame. They have lost the moral right to rule. The only people who should fear a coup would be those who have tried to destroy this country.
You and I are probably not the only people who are thinking this way, either.
Fergus Pickering
November 18th, 2010 8:31am Report this commentWe have the most corrupt politicians! Some people ought to get around more.
Roger Davies
November 18th, 2010 8:32am Report this commentMartial Law would only survive if at least 10% of BBC big wigs were executed on the first day. This in itself could be an acceptable justification. I think Stalin would have accepted the logic of this!
David Ossitt
November 18th, 2010 10:25am Report this commentEdward McLaughlin
“Could someone please state here in the simplest form, specifically what this man is accused of?”
Lying, in that he told lies about an opponent in order to win at the GE.
David Ossitt
November 18th, 2010 10:27am Report this commentPS
“what this man is accused of?”
Correction found guilty of.
Marcher Baron
November 18th, 2010 3:41pm Report this commentEdward McLaughlin “Could someone please state here in the simplest form, specifically what this man is accused of?”
He's been found guilty of knowingly writing untrue statements about his opponent on his election literature in order to get votes, contrary to the Representation of the People Act.
Edward McLaughlin
November 18th, 2010 4:38pm Report this commentDavid Ossitt
Thank you but what was the actual substance of the lie? The leaflet I have seen bore no lies. It described how the LibDems were intent on offering an amnesty to illegal immigrants.
He may, other than this, have committed a serious offence. Once again: what has he done, specifically? What was the lie?
Edward McLaughlin
November 18th, 2010 4:40pm Report this commentMarcher Baron
Thanks also. Again, the leaflet I have seen, bore no lie. Are there more leaflets?
Back to top