Phil Woolas (ex) MP

[Nick]

I am somewhat surprised by the reactions of some people to his predicament.

As I see it, he was convicted, in a court of law, of corrupt practices in the last General Election. I think he should have the chance to appeal before any bye-election, but I cannot get my head round the idea that a court, overturning a result which has been proved (to the satisfaction of the court,) to have been influenced by corrupt practices, is somehow an affront to democracy....

Any thoughts?

[Dave B]

Nick, I may be behind the news on this case. Are you saying that a court has already revered the original decision or that the idea of one doing so in the future will be an "affront"?

I do think that he should have been suspended, without pay, until the whole matter if appealed and confirmed either way. If he is then found not guilty he should get his pay and position back - though I wonder how many people will offer him the same degree of respect and trust they once did. Will it be worth his effort to return to his seat?

The seeming knee jerk, or just jerk maybe, reaction of the hon, deputy leader has other agendas behind it my cynical mind says (but then, what is truly honest and up front in politics?)

[Nick]

I stand to be corrected, Dave, but in answer to your queries:

Nick, I may be behind the news on this case. Are you saying that a court has already revered the original decision or that the idea of one doing so in the future will be an "affront"?

I don't think a court has reversed the original decision. As I understand it, it is the original decision which is the "affront".

I do think that he should have been suspended, without pay, until the whole matter if appealed and confirmed either way. If he is then found not guilty he should get his pay and position back - though I wonder how many people will offer him the same degree of respect and trust they once did. Will it be worth his effort to return to his seat?

Yaeh, that'spretty much what I think.

The seeming knee jerk, or just jerk maybe, reaction of the hon, deputy leader has other agendas behind it my cynical mind says (but then, what is truly honest and up front in politics?)

I wasn't aware that Nick Clegg was particularly involved. I thought the defeated LibDem candidate was bravely funding the action himself. Have I missed something?

[Dave B]

I wasn't aware that Nick Clegg was particularly involved. I thought the defeated LibDem candidate was bravely funding the action himself. Have I missed something?

Ooops, hang on, not be an avid follower of our politicians I though this was about the Labour bloke wot said rotten, and possibly untrue, things about the LibDem bloke. Thus I meant the Labour dep. leader bouncing him and saying he had no further career in the Labour party. He probably hasn't but he should still be given the opportunity to seek the opinion of those who voted for him, just to keep things level. If they still want him to represent them, supposing he is found "innocent" on appeal, then that is their right.

[philbo]

I am somewhat surprised by the reactions of some people to his predicament.

+1

Looking at the leaflet concerned, it wasn't just lying, it was basically islamophobic scaremongering lies which have no place in any kind of decent society. That he put out such a nasty bit of literature should be enough to bar him from parliament. As he's been chucked out of the Labour Party (it's not often I agree with Harriet Harman), he could always join the BNP

[Nick]

Thus I meant the Labour dep. leader bouncing him and saying he had no further career in the Labour party. He probably hasn't but he should still be given the opportunity to seek the opinion of those who voted for him, just to keep things level. If they still want him to represent them, supposing he is found "innocent" on appeal, then that is their right.

I don't see why the Labour Party should protect him. (Hmmm... I wonder if his election literature was approved by the Labour Party Head Office? I don't think it was...) He can always stand as an independent.

I doubt he will fight on much further. His parliamentary career is finished. Even if his appeal is successful (which I doubt it will be, because of the high level of proof required in the original trial), he is damaged goods, as far as Labour is concerned.

I wonder if both Lib Dems and Tories will stand? The 2010 results were: Labour 14,186; Lib Dems 14,083; Conservatives 11,773

In 2005, the voter shares were: Labour 42.5%; Lib Dems 32.1%; Conservatives 7.6%

With a new candidate might Labour win because of an anti-government backlash? (Especially against the Lib Dems for siding with the Tories). And I don't think the Tories can win.

[Dave B]

OK, I had not seen that pamphlet - I now agree that he is not the sort that even the Labour party needs in any position of responsibility to the public.

I would also be surprised if he pushes his appeal very much further. But then, he looks pretty arrogant - typical BNP material.

[grammar king]

OK, I had not seen that pamphlet - I now agree that he is not the sort that even the Labour party needs in any position of responsibility to the public.

I would also be surprised if he pushes his appeal very much further. But then, he looks pretty arrogant - typical BNP material.

Pah. The thinking of Harman was that the lies in the leaflets were established as a matter of fact, and that since that part of the judgement is unlikely to be overturned, even if the loss of his seat is, he still has no future in Labour. However, don't think that his ideology is somehow different from the rest of the party. In the last election, Labour's manifesto had a section entitled 'crime and immigration' as if the two are inextricably linked. Brown apologised for Bigotgate even though she was a fricking bigot. When they lost, Labour blamed it on their weak stance on immigration. Woolas was their immigration minister, ffs! For Harman to try and distance his immigration policy from that of the party is ridiculous and hipocritical.