I remember Phil Woolas as a firebrand member of the national executive of the NUS, back in the early 80s.

What ever happened to that guy?

He got elected and “listened” to his masters

@macuser_e7

You liked him in the 80s? I remember him from that era and thought he was a bit of a tit then too.

What happens if he is found to have broken the rules? Does he get disqualified and the seat go to the LD, or do they have a by-election?
If they have a by-election it could be an interesting test of how the coalition is going.

What happens if he is found to have broken the rules?

The election is void, and Woolas would be struck of the electoral roll and barred from standing as a candidate for five years.

Gaf

I believe it would go to a by-election – and if so it would be an easy win for the Lib Dems. Local Tories would turn out well for the Lib Dems to boost their government.

I imagine that will be the case throughout by-elections for the next five years, and has implications for how the Lib Dems gradually become a party of the right for the long term.

#5

Woolas would also be stripped of his Labour Party membership, as a criterion of membership is that you have to be on the electoral roll. (Although practically speaking if the allegations were proven true I imagine he’d be stripped of membership for bringing the Party into disrepute, anyway.)

margin4error,

Things could go that way. On the other hand, Lib Dem voters may be well switch away from the coalition due to the budget, VAT, trident etc. Not only that, the Tories saw a large swing to them in the 2010 election, suggesting these are not committed, ideological Tories but floating voters, who I would say are less likely to participate in tactical voting, particularly to prop up the coalition.

Of course, having the Labour candidate disqualified for lying in election material, the post-election honeymoon period, the excuse of ‘Labour ruined the finances’, the Labour leadership campaign distracting the party, and tactical voting as you mentioned, would all make me thing Labour would be unlikely to retain.

Considering the frequency with which candidates from all parties make claims like those in election literature, this would be an… um… ‘interesting’ precedent, to put it mildly.

What’s this in the Ansari comments about Woolas’s agent being his producer? Is there any truth to this?

John

Agreed there are plenty of reasons Labour would lose. I’m just interested to see whether a coaliton vote emerges as well. It may not, but I imagine it will.

In response to Tim J’s point from earlier. The bad news is that the general agreement is that Woolas would not be barred from public office for five years. The good news is that it would be three.

Twenty seconds would be OK by me – just long enough to get him removed and the process to replace him started.

The bad news is that the general agreement is that Woolas would not be barred from public office for five years. The good news is that it would be three

I think, though I’m open to correction, that knowingly making false statements about rival candidates in electoral literature counts as a ‘corrupt practice’ and it’s that which attracts the 5 year ban. The 3 year ban is for ‘unlawful practices’. Not really my area of expertise though.

Alun,

Considering the frequency with which candidates from all parties make claims like those in election literature, this would be an… um… ‘interesting’ precedent, to put it mildly.

Candidates often put a spin on other party’s aims and records (it appears claiming to know what your opponent intends despite his or her denials is legitimate…). To make a knowingly false accusation is however not at all common, and if it is proven that Mr Woolas’ campaign had no reason to believe this accusation, then it is very unusual.

Twisting facts and playing things out of context are fair game. Making things up is unusual.

Phil Woolas is one of those people who the labour party needs to get rid of if it deserves to get elected again. Nice to see agreement that it would be good to be rid of him from accross the spectrum.

It looks as though you are right, Tim J. I distinctly heard the QC who compiles Parker’s Law and Conduct of Elections on the radio the other night saying that the penalty was three years out of public office. I’ve just checked the Act and it definitely says five years. Not even “up to five years”.

You are right and I’m very glad that you are.

Of course it is the Lib Dems who are supposed to do this kind of thing.
The truth of course is that every party does it.
It would be better if they didn’t.