Published: November 7th 2010 - at 6:18 pmIt’s official: Phil Woolas isn’t coming back
I missed this earlier, but Harriet Harman this morning confirmed that Phil Woolas is not returning to front-line politics, as we have been calling for on Liberal Conspiracy.
Asked on the Andrew Marr Show whether Woolas would be reinstated if the appeal Judicial Review was successful, she said:
Whatever happens in an appeal – what might happen in an appeal, if he does appeal, it could be that they could say on the basis of the facts that the election court found it was not warranted for them to strike down the election result and disqualify him, so he might win on a legal basis.
But it won’t change the facts that were found by the election court, which was that he said things that were untrue knowing it, and that is what we are taking action on – because it is not part of Labour’s politics for somebody to be telling lies to get themselves elected.
That’s not going to change, and that’s what we regard as very serious and that’s why we have suspended him.
She also defended the decision to appoint Mr Woolas as immigration spokesman in opposition:
He was an existing member of the frontbench team in his role as immigration minister, the court hadn’t yet made its findings, so he was reappointed when we came into opposition.
But once the court finding came through – well he is no longer an MP so there is no question of him being a front-bench spokesperson and indeed he has been suspended from the Labour Party – although there will be a process after that which obviously he will be able to put forward his views in.
I’m perfectly happy with that.
Various people closer to the decision making process told me he was kept on after the election because it was felt moving him might look like they were pre-judging the outcome of the case.
Labour has now cut off any chance of Woolas making a comeback to front-line politics, and that is to be welcomed. I’m glad Harriet Harman confirmed it.
As Don Paskini said earlier – even if the court had found him guilty or not, the party can argue and will argue now, that he brought Labour into disrepute.
The Daily Mirror reported this morning that Woolas needs up to £200,000 to fight the appeal.
Watch Harriet Harman on Andrew Marr
Update: Libcon reader @PeterMEde makes this comment, suggesting that it’s worse for Woolas than people realise:
For anyone interested in legal situation re Woolas> So.. it seems pretty clear that Woolas is no longer an MP as of the moment the judgment was published. He has no right of appeal because of S144(1) Representation of People Act 1983: it is crystal clear the election court’s decision is FINAL. He’s also now barred from re-standing as an MP under s160(5) for a full 3 years having committed an “illegal act”.
His only hope now is a Judicial Review, but under English law he can’t challenge the 1983 Act of Parliament, as it’s primary legislation, so can forget that. Only real hope is to say there has been procedural impropriety or some other similar valid ground for JR: that’s pretty difficult to allege against 2 High Court Judges following rules laid out by statute.
He’s first going to have to get the High Court in London to accept his petition for JR (which they probably will) – but he’s not an MP in the meantime, and he’s got an almost impossible fight on his hands when he does get to court. All he can possibly hope to prove is that the procedural rules were not fair; the Judicial factual findings against him are pretty damning, aren’t subject to challenge, and they will in any case stick politically. If he overturns the rules, then presumably amended ones will be created, and he’ll be back in the box at some future point facing the same allegations.
–> My unskilled assessment? (Given this isn’t my area of law by a long way) – both legally and politically –
He’s screwed.
---------------------------
| Tweet |
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by Sunny Hundal
Story Filed Under: News
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Reader comments
I’m not perfectly happy with that. Labour decided to keep Woolas on, in full knowledge that he was responsible for those despicable leaflets.
as I’ve said before, they kept him on because getting rid of him would look like they were pre-judging the case.
I’m happier that definitive action has been taken now.
Sunny,
They should have got rid of him because he was useless as a minister, regardless of the court case.
I’m not happy either. Before he was made shadow immigration minister by Ed, details of the case had emerged. Indeed, Woolas’s own evidence for the defence produced emails that showed that they were going after “mad moslems” and trying to make “the white folk angry”. And, of course, the leaflets were all well known by now.
That wasn’t prejudging. That was accepted fact by all parties, Woolas included.
Is Hattie saying that those things, which were known, were fine? Has there been new advice from head office to say this is how campaigns ought to be run?
And what of his colleagues? Has his agent been suspended? What about Councillor Battye who was instrumental in this campaign?
@Sunny
And as I’ve said before, they could have suspended him pending the results of the trial like parties regularly do when an MP is facing criminal charges. And there is no excuse for them to have appointed him to such a sensitive frontbench position when his leaflets were so clearly aimed at stirring up racial tension.
Pleased he’s not coming back. Better for Labour and better for politics that way.
“And what of his colleagues? Has his agent been suspended? What about Councillor Battye who was instrumental in this campaign?”
This is the key question. If they just expel Woolas then they’re no better than the Met ignoring the Coulson and the rest of the NOTW staff during their investigations of the phone hacking scandal.
Despite the crass stupidity of what has been done I think this is bad law. Why should only this category of knowing untruth lead to the possibility of such a result? Why not a political rather than personal lie? And is it not a problem that opposition/losing parties can get away with any amount of lying and even drive an incumbent to start stretching? In effect this law applies disproportionately to those who do well in elections. Is that right?
Heaven knows that there is plenty of fact to go after Rochdale and Oldham Lib Dems and Elwyn Watkins with. His commitment – evidenced by attendance – to Council role was puny being just one example. Woolas should have concentrated on the Tory threat, Lib Dem born slipperiness, Labour achievements and facts about Elwyn Watkins and his chums in their council runnings. This nonsense will have put off Labour voters.
Finally, is this a matter for Harriet Harman or the DL alone? Or for the NEC and other structures of the party?
… his leaflets were so clearly aimed at stirring up racial tension.
Incitement of racial (and religous) hatred eh?
Harriet Harman has said that he has been suspended from the party and there will be a disciplinary process where he can put forward his views. She has not chucked him out of the party without due process (which can’t be said for certain other recent candidates).
He can still appeal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anisminic_v_Foreign_Compensation_Commission
In short, you can only lose appeal to a court decision in an act of parliament if that original decision was right, which is a bit of legal trickery to say you can’t appeal. It has never actually happened with a high court decision, which might make it tricky (which means expensive, appeal to the Supreme Court).
He’s finished, in any case.
Whatever happens in an appeal – what might happen in an appeal, if he does appeal, it could be that they could say on the basis of the facts that the election court found it was not warranted for them to strike down the election result and disqualify him, so he might win on a legal basis.
It’s mildly alarming to think that Harriet Harman used to be a lawyer really. There is, as the update says, no right of appeal from the Electoral Court, and whatever a Judicial Review might find, it won’t be a judgement on the facts of the case.
Is it really true that there’s no appeal from an election court? Section 157 of the Representation of the People Act states: “No appeal lies without the special leave of the High Court from the decision of the High Court on any question of law, whether on appeal or otherwise, under the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act, and if leave to appeal is granted the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case shall be final and conclusive.”
Labour was surely wrong to think that it should avoid getting rid of him for fear of prejudging the case. This seems to imply that he would have been kept on as immigration spokesperson if he’d won the case. That would have been ludicrous, because even if what he’d done hadn’t turned out to be illegal, it would still have been a moral and political outrage.
Reactions: Twitter, blogs
- Liberal Conspiracy
It's official: Phil Woolas isn't coming back http://bit.ly/axyh3E
- Paul Trembath
RT @libcon: It's official: Phil Woolas isn't coming back http://bit.ly/axyh3E
- Philip-Antony Smith
RT @libcon: It's official: Phil Woolas isn't coming back http://bit.ly/axyh3E
- sunny hundal
Harriet Harman this morning confirmed that Phil Woolas isn't coming back either way (incl video) http://bit.ly/axyh3E
- Kevin Dykes
RT @sunny_hundal: Harriet Harman this morning confirmed that Phil Woolas isn't coming back either way (incl video) http://bit.ly/axyh3E
- House Of Twits
RT @sunny_hundal Harriet Harman this morning confirmed that Phil Woolas isn't coming back either way (incl video) http://bit.ly/axyh3E
- sunny hundal
Comment by @PeterMEde explains why Woolas' chances of overturning Judicial Review are very slim http://bit.ly/axyh3E
- Chris Paul
RT @sunny_hundal: Comment by @PeterMEde explains why Woolas' chances of overturning Judicial Review are very slim http://bit.ly/axyh3E
- Derek Bryant
RT @sunny_hundal: Comment by @PeterMEde explains why Woolas' chances of overturning Judicial Review are very slim http://bit.ly/axyh3E
- Press Not Sorry
RT @sunny_hundal: Comment by @PeterMEde explains why Woolas' chances of overturning Judicial Review are very slim http://bit.ly/axyh3E
- luke brandt
RT @sunny_hundal: Comment by @PeterMEde explains why Woolas' chances of overturning Judicial Review are very slim http://bit.ly/axyh3E
- sunny hundal
@davidallengreen David, a quick Q if you don't mind… does the comment at the end of this make sense? http://bit.ly/axyh3E
- TenPercent
It’s official: Phil Woolas isn’t coming back | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/UTxxUxT via @libcon
- Wendy Maddox
RT @sunny_hundal: Harriet Harman this morning confirmed that Phil Woolas isn't coming back either way (incl video) http://bit.ly/axyh3E
- conspiracy theo
It's official: Phil Woolas isn't coming back | Liberal Conspiracy http://bit.ly/90VhDw
- smileandsubvert
It’s official: Phil Woolas isn’t coming back http://bit.ly/9qPOQ3
- 1st Ethical CT
RT @sunny_hundal: Harriet Harman this morning confirmed that Phil Woolas isn't coming back either way (incl video) http://bit.ly/axyh3E
- andrew
It's official: Phil Woolas isn't coming back | Liberal Conspiracy: I missed this earlier, but Harriet Harman thi… http://bit.ly/buMjOU
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
You can read articles through the front page, via Twitter or RSS feed. You can also get them by email and through our Facebook group.
» Do older people really need more NHS healthcare?
» There are alternatives to the reckless ‘Plan A’
» On Beecroft: it is already quite easy to sack people
» Why Cameron’s claim of 600,000 jobs created is plainly wrong
» By using age to allocate NHS funding, Lansley rewards Tory voters
» The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an “isolated” problem
» Adrian Beecroft highlights mindset of Tory right
» The US is now a model for the Eurozone to save itself
» The IMF plan to revive the economy doesn’t go far enough
» The Boris brand is weaker than his friends think
» Nine things you can do to halt Lansley’s destruction of our NHS
|
46 Comments 92 Comments 23 Comments 50 Comments 10 Comments 26 Comments 22 Comments 69 Comments 44 Comments 25 Comments |
 |
LATEST COMMENTS » re posted on '43% of young women sexually harassed' » steveb posted on Do older people really need more NHS healthcare? » So Much For Subtlety posted on '43% of young women sexually harassed' » Paul posted on Criticism of Obama for its own sake: a reply to Mehdi Hasan » Conby posted on '43% of young women sexually harassed' » Jim posted on How Newsnight demonised a single mother » So Much For Subtlety posted on Do older people really need more NHS healthcare? » JC posted on Why Cameron's claim of 600,000 jobs created is plainly wrong » pagar posted on '43% of young women sexually harassed' » So Much For Subtlety posted on '43% of young women sexually harassed' » D.O posted on How Newsnight demonised a single mother » So Much For Subtlety posted on Criticism of Obama for its own sake: a reply to Mehdi Hasan » Briar posted on Do older people really need more NHS healthcare? » Eddy Cool posted on How Newsnight demonised a single mother » Ben2 posted on '43% of young women sexually harassed' |
