The headline is jumping the gun a bit, isn’t it? They might give him the bum’s rush.

I’m glad to see that Iain Dale, a Tory – yes, a Tory! – blogger appears to have more decency than this website regarding the Phil Woolas matter.

http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2010/11/why-ive-donated-to-phil-woolas-appeal.html

2

You may have missed the fact that the comments on his blogspot about the decision to donate to Woolas’ appeal are overwhelmingly negative; he’s wrong (stun us with another)…. more to the point however, why would anyone on the left even think of giving comfort to a piece of work like Woolas?!

why would anyone on the left even think of giving comfort to a piece of work like Woolas?

‘cos he’s a “comrade”?

‘cos he was sufficiently well thought of by the leadership (until his conviction made him a political liability) to be appointed to the shadow ministerial team?

‘cos there but for the grace of God go a shedload more Labour MPs?

@ 2

“I’m glad to see that Iain Dale, a Tory – yes, a Tory! – blogger appears to have more decency than this website regarding the Phil Woolas matter.”

Paying to help someone try to get away with lying to the electorate and possibly stealing a seat as a result? Yes, how very decent.

By Iain Dale’s logic, a politician could pay people to hold all known opposition supporters at gunpoint to prevent them from voting, and their subsequent victory would still be the “will of the electorate”. Please think things through before claiming that Iain Dale take on this is ‘decent’.

4

That may apply to fully paid up New Labourites, but there’s no excuse for anyone else!

I wouldn’t recognise him or his ilk as a “comrade”, and the fact he wasn’t kept at arms length by Mili Minor only goes to show the dearth of talent in Newer Labour.

Much as I’d like to see a good clean out of those like Woolas, the only ones who will be going the same way are those proven to have acted like he did; somehow I think if many had done so we’d have been hearing about it by now.

There are lots of reasons to earnestly hope people like Woolas get their just deserts… but I’m not holding my breath Newer Labour is actually that much different from New Labour.

Labour depressed,

I’m glad to see that Iain Dale, a Tory – yes, a Tory! – blogger appears to have more decency than this website regarding the Phil Woolas matte

Dale seems a bit incoherent.

“The longer I have thought about this the more I think this decision is profoundly ill-judged. In my view it is for electors to decide who sits in parliament, not courts.”

“Judicial Reviews can be prohibitively expensive and are way beyond the means of most normal people.”

“To my mind, the way these kind of disputes should be resolved is not to take them to ‘election courts’, but instead through the libel courts. ”

Huh?

Do you think candidates should be free to make “wrong, racially inflammatory and totally indefensible” (Dale’s words) claims about their opponents? If they shouldn’t be free to do so, what mechanism do you suggest should replace the current system?

4

on your second suggested – Ed Miliband didn’t have much choice but to give him the immigration brief back – Trouble with legal judgements is that they usurp politics to the extent that MPs can’t be seen to pre-emp judgements.

Also – it would be interesting to know which Labour MPs you think go there but for the grace of god.

If there are others a great many of us would like them kicked out too – but the evidence seems to be there was just one. And he’s now effectively gone.

The headline here seems a little optimistic – the judgement was pretty damming.

With regards to the request for judicial review – wheren’t these high court judges sitting in said capacity ? Therefore, wouldn’t a judicial review not be possible ?

What really vexed me (to the point of calling 5 Live to rant) was the (slanderous ?)suggestion by an mp (Maybe Dave Watts ?) who implies political bias in the decision, with no supporting evidence whatsoever.

So tough luck Phil, you’re going to have to find alternative employment (hopefully not at the taxpayers expense).

Just hope I’m not pre-empting things…

I expect a lot of behind-the-scenes lobbying went on to get Dale to say something about the case like that. They need to keep the story alive and they need to keep obfuscating the legalities so that it eventually looks like Woolas was hard done by.

Poor Woolas, treated so harshly by the system :’(

I suppose there is a legitimate argument that it is not for the court to decide who can be elected by the people, but there will be something wrong with a system whereby deliberate lying is allowed in elections.

So I presume that the review is of the judgement that Mr Woolas lied to the electorate, which is unlikely to succeed – just read the original judgement.

Just had an email from Michael Meacher MP, to whom I’d written that I’d hoped that he wasn’t an apologist for the disgraced Woolas, a man willing (I said) to lie and to whip up racial divisions for political gain, and in which I urged him to back Harman’s stand. He replies:

“I suggest you read the transcript before reaching your opinions. It’s nothing like as clear cut as you seem to think which is why there is a Judicial Review taking place this week and possibly an appeal thereafter.”

Richard,

Consider Mr Meacher’s wonderful attitude towards facts (how many traffiked (should that have a c?) women did he make up?) I have no doubt he would support Mr Woolas.

Although there is the interesting possibility that he is suggesting Ms Harman has not read the transcript of the judgement (I presume this is what he means) before taking her decision? That said, I have read the transcript and it was pretty conclusive, so he may just be showing his normal myopia towards facts.

Is Mr Meacher readin from the correct transcript ? I am not a lawyer (never looked good in a wig) but:

“Reasonable grounds for belief

207. For the reasons which we have given we are sure that the Respondent [Woolas] made statements of fact in relation to the personal character or conduct of the Petitioner [Watkins] which he had no reasonable grounds for believing were true and did not believe were true. Those statements were as follows:

(i) The statement in the Examiner that the Petitioner [Watkins] had attempted to woo the vote, that is, that he had attempted to seek the electoral support, of Muslims who advocated violence, in particular to the Respondent [Woolas].

(ii) The statement in the Labour Rose that the Petitioner had refused to condemn extremists who advocated violence against the Respondent.

(iii) The statement in the election address that the Petitioner had reneged on his promise to live in the constituency.

208. The Respondent is therefore guilty of an illegal practice…We shall so report to the Speaker as required by sections 144 and 158 of the RPA 1983. Section 144 requires the court to determine whether the election of the Respondent as a Member of Parliament is void. W have determined that his election is void pursuant to section 159 of the RPA 1983 because the Respondent is personally guilty of an illegal practice….”

seems pretty damn clear to me. Am I missing something ?

Um, isn’t Woolas in court today to apply in person for leave to have a judicial review? The judicial review (if it is granted, which is apparently unlikely) wouldn’t take place for a while. If no judicial review is granted, then Woolas is stuffed, as appeals from the electoral court are specifically not permitted.

Unfortunately, Michael is letting his friendship with Woolas (they shared an office) get in the way of viewing objectively at the situation. The court judgement is very clear.

It is for the people to decide who sits in parilment to represent them. of course it is. Anyone saying otherwise is clearly wrong.

But the argument is the courts are deciding instead of the people. No. No no no. No. The courts have decided the people were lied to in such a manner that a fair election couldn’t have taken place. The court is deciding to give the people another chance to vote, this time in a fair way.

Has the court instated an alternative candidate? Is the court taking over the election from the people?

I’m quite horrified by the number of people (seemingly on all sides) prepared to back Woolas, and use this, ‘elections are for people not courts’ reasoning. It all smacks yet again of parliment being a private members club, where an attack on one is defended as an attack on all due to some honour system.

I do love this in Dale’s ‘analysis’ –

“And after all this is over, we should look at the application of this law, because the long term implciations are quite stark for the way we conduct our election campaigns. We need to ensure that robust debate continues.”

How many of us are fed up of leaflets and get cross when we see half-truths, blatent misrepresentations, and, as confirmed by the court in Woolas’ case down right lies?

Yet MPs are so scared of having to change the clap in these leaflets they’ve even lost the ability to see how turned off we are by them anyway.

Cynical/Realist? @17 hits the nail on the head. It is dishonest / stupid of people to attempt to frame the debate as “courts are overruling the will of the people”.

My dictionary says that the word “robust” (when applied to statements or pronouncements) means something that shows strength of character and determination. I cannot see how Woolas’ leaflets contributed to debate based on strength of characters: quite the opposite.

Numbers 17 and 18 get it right: the courts acted to prevent a politician insulting our intelligence. Voters don’t want this kind of leaflet but politicians are afraid of accepting that.