OMG? Labour LIED to the electorate?
Never….

The electorate tends not to thanks losing candidates who force a by-election – no matter how reasonable their case. Just ask Gerry Malone, Winchester

“The electorate tends not to thanks losing candidates who force a by-election – no matter how reasonable their case”

Yes, but, wouldn’t Woolas have to stand down as Labour’s candidate? So, Labour might win, but Woolas would pay the price.

Phil Woolas was always one of the most unpleasant race- and immigration-baiting Labour scum.

Look forward to reruns in every seat a LibDem said or implied they were against £6bn cuts this year, opposed Tory policies they’re now signed up to etc etc. Anyway, should be a chance of another election everywhere soon enough hopefully.

This Lib Dem petition is going nowhere. The term in the law is “false statement of fact” so Elwyn Watkins is going to have to argue purely on the facts in the Labour leaflets, not on any interpretation (the remedy for any interpretation which he thinks was wrong was to put out his own leaflet).

For instance, nowhere do the questioned leaflets state as a fact that Elwyn Watkins was being funded by illegal foreign donations. They simply state that such funding would be illegal (undeniable fact), and the fact of Watkins’ employment.

And it was an undeniable fact that Elwyn Watkins wanted muslims to vote for him (of course he did). Where’s the stretch in observing that among them were extremist muslims? Did Elwyn Watkins ever say “please vote for me, except if you are an extremist muslim”?

I suspect David is probably right on this one, if that’s the only claim, Sunny, when I first read of this, it was three separate leaflets with different claims he was mentioning, but I forget where I read the story. There are (not brilliant) copies of each here:
http://www.thestraightchoice.org/constituencies/oldham_east_and_saddleworth

The three named are the Address (top three), the Rose (1st second line) and The Examiner (part one and two, third line).

I have no specific opinion on the validity of the claims, it’s not an area of law I know backwards.

I do share Matthew’s concern that Watkins will be badly hurt by the claim, but Matthew, we only have one case and example from which to work from, and that claim was judged by local voters to be dubious and straw clutching. Part of me wants to see a rerun where the claim is’nt straw clutching and where fair minded voters will say “well, got a point there”, so we have a better variety of precedents.

I don’t know if Watkins has a case, but if he does, then it’s possible he’ll be in with a good chance in a rerun. But I’d, personally, want to see some strong evidence and a clear judgement before I head over to campaign; the seat borders mine, but if I do think it’s straw clutching, I’ll pass on going to help.

Watkins is right to feel angry at these smears, which are worse than the usual accusations in leaflets. Woolas has attempted to inflame racial tensions for his own advantage, even accusing Lib Dem planners of causing riots.

He is right to challenge the Woolas campaign if they cannot produce evidence for their claims.

However a rerun election would probably not result in Mr Watkins being elected. The public hates a sore loser, and by forcing a second vote would probably just be seen as sour grapes or a waste of time. Many anti-labour votes could also go away from Watkins to the Tories if the coalition government has a decent approval rating in Oldham.

As mentioned above, Winchester should be a lesson to politicians who lost narrowly but can’t accept defeat.

Mike, not sure of your logic here.

Many anti-labour votes could also go away from Watkins to the Tories if the coalition government has a decent approval rating in Oldham.

Why would the votes from teh 2nd placed last time coalition partner switch to the several-thousand-behind third placed last time party? It’s almost always the third party that gets squeezed in by-elections.

If I thought you were linking it to the sour grapes point, which I’m not sure has validity as we only have one example, then fair enough, but your use of ‘also’ implies you think it’s a completely separate point, in which case I think you’re fundamentally wrong, on that point alone, it’s very likely the Tories will get heavily squeezed.

Incidentally Elwyn Watkins is on poor ground himself. His own leaflet contains the false statement of fact that Phil Woolas voted to close local post offices, as well as many other distortions.

Is he about to lose his seat? Oh, I do hope so. Vile little man.

The only ‘vile’ thing that Phil Woolas has done is to fight hard against a Lib Dem, and to win elections. They don’t like it up’em.

Cllr Boothroyd obviously doesn’t know his law.

Many of the statements on Woolas’ leaflets are dressed up as questions. That is no defence legally. A lot of them accuse the Lib Dem candidate of breaking the law. They are quite clearly mendacious and fit into the definition set out in the legislation.

We’ll leave aside the parts in which Woolas is either deliberately attempting to stir up racial conflict or at the very least wrecklessly ignoring the fact that he might.

Lastly, all this talk of rerun and second elections should stop. This is not like Winchester and whatever the outcome of the case will not result in the election being run again.

Sorry, Steven Acres, but that’s rubbish. You come very close to libelling Phil Woolas in accusing him of stirring up racial tension, which is typical of the way Lib Dems lose track of reality when Phil Woolas is involved. And this is an election petition and not a prosecution: if it succeeds, the election will be declared void and a byelection held.

It is not a libel case where implications can be read. This is over accusations of “false statement of fact” and that means that it is the statements of fact only that can be read.

For instance Elwyn Watkins’ website refers to a supposed Labour accusation that he did not live in the constituency. There was plainly no such accusation whatsoever. The leaflets simply referred to his previous pledge to move to ‘a Lancashire village’ and noted that he had moved to Delph which is in historic Yorkshire. Perfectly fair comment, surely.

If a byelection is forced, I can only see the LibDems losing much of their core vote to Labour anyway.

Having supported the LibDems since Blair took hold of Labour, and encouraged many others to vote for them too, I’ve realised that they’re not the party they claimed to be. I shall not be voting for them for the foreseeable future, and from talking to many others, it’s not just me.

I hope Watkins ends up with egg on his face either way – we need opposition even if it is in the form of Phil Woolas.

I see your Winchester and raise you the Leyton ward of Waltham Forest…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_Grell

“if it succeeds, the election will be declared void and a byelection held”, says David Boothroyd.

Not so, David. If an election was declared void there wouldn’t be a by-election but a re-run one. In this case there would be a by-election as the MP would have been found guitly of a criminal offence and barred from public office.

You also claim that Woolas did not claim that Watkins didn’t live in the constituency. Would it have been a lie if he had made such an accusation?

No, Steven Acres, you really do need to learn something about election law. This is an election petition. There are four possible outcomes of an election petition: it can be withdrawn, be dismissed, be allowed (undue election), or result in a void election. But an undue election only happens in practice where the case is absolutely clear (eg a miscount, or a manifestly disqualified candidate has been elected such as Tony Benn when he inherited the peerage). So the best that Elwyn Watkins can hope for is a void election.

This is not a ‘rerun’ in the sense that a new writ has to be issued, so it is not the same election as the 2010 general election – it is a byelection. (cf Thirsk and Malton the other week, which was part of the 2010 general election) In the hypothetical circumstances that a petition alleging false statement of facts by the previous successful candidate succeeds, then the candidate is reported to have committed an illegal practice by his agent; the election is void and the candidate is subject to electoral incapacities for three years. However it is not the same as a criminal conviction for which you have to have a separate prosecution by the Crown Prosecution Service. In other words, an election court does not have the power to convict candidates of criminal offences and fine them.

(Incidentally, false statements about a candidate is an illegal practice, not a corrupt practice, and so is not an imprisonable offence – s.169)

I don’t see any point in discussing a hypothetical accusation which Phil Woolas never made.

Just for information, David, can I suggest you read the leaflet that Woolas put out two days after the one that is in question here. You might then change your opinion about hypothetical accusations – although somehow I doubt that.

There may be four possible outcomes of an election petition – but not in this case, which is being argued under a specific section. The Tower Hamlets case that you quote has very little relevance to this hearing.

I agree with you about the CPS though. Obviously that will be done separately and at a later date.