![Kay Jordan marched in Hanbury Street, Princelet street on 17 January 2006 [pictured below]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_dWmk2LlYKZk/TSPzlCUEKNI/AAAAAAAAALk/oUuVMsb0aIw/S760/KHOODEELAAR%2521%2BNo%2Bto%2BCrossrail%2BHole%252C%2BDemo%2Bin%2BHanbury%252C%2BSpelman%252C%2BPrincelet%2BStreets%2Band%2BBrick%2BLane%2BLondon%2BE1%2B17%2BJanuary%2B2006.jpeg)
0024 Hrs
Wednesday
10 November 2010
BHANGEELAAR!
The Campaign against an elected mayor in Tower Hamlets
You [The GUARDIAN online, London] quote the Labour MP Graham Stringer as follows:
"There is a concern within the parliamentary Labour party, first of all that courts are getting involved in such practices. And if there's going to be action taken against any individual, we have a procedure in place to deal with that, and that means the member concerned will be suspended whilst an investigation takes place."
These words would have been quite hilarious had they been attributed to a banana republic MP. But the UK is not a banana republic. Yet!
May be these MPs who agree with Graham Stringer would prefer to see this country officially declared a banana republic. Once the UK has been declared a banana republic there would be no need for any of the annoying requirements of ethics, morality, honesty on the part of public position holders like MPs. Similarly, the equally annoying requirements of due process, natural justice, rule of law, equality before the law etc would disappear. And the CONDEM agenda of doing away with Society can then be expedited by the MPs enacting any number of measures aimed at scrapping all judges
that dare to approach what used to be known as a just conclusion. Finding of fact involving alleged wrongdoing by an MP would be made a routine to be performed by the accused and their friends and the accused MPs would never have to face the consequences of their offences!
[And so on]
The real problems which your report totally fails to address is the truth that the Labour Party has no real democracy in its conduct. It lacks the legitimacy of a universally recognisably transparently democratic organisation. Like the UK Conservative Party and the Lib Dems Party, the UK Labour Party is an undemocratic cabal that is in place because of the failure of truly ethically active and democratic alternative parties to come into sustainable existence. It follows that the UK’s elected House of Commons is de facto an extension of the deeply anti-democratic, corrupting practices and the resulting agenda that still dominate and influence the policies and the behaviour of the ‘mainstream’ Parties. What the two MPs you have quoted in apparent defence of Phil Woolas have done is to add to MPs’ discrediting of the principle of Parliamentary democracy. As for their alleged targeting of Harriet Harman, this is a superficial factor. She suits the MPs’ propaganda tactics of the moment especially as she has been correctly condemned for HER Phil Woolas-like conduct in the contemptuous way that she had treated ordinary members of the Labour Party in Tower Hamlets in September 2010. It was the ordinary pro-democratic campaign in Tower Hamlets against the Labour Party’s NEC behaviour so closely personified in Harriet Harman that has created Harman as the main violator of universal values. Those who have been pleading for Woolas must not forget what a significantly historic offence he has been found to have committed against an entire population! The Labour Party is doomed to lose even more of the remnants of legitimacy its ordinary members bring to it if its MPs are as brazenly immoral and callously anti-democratic and pro-authoritarian and pro-corruption as the ones you have quoted ‘defending Phil Woolas’ are!
0024 Hrs Wednesday 10 November 2010
BHANGEELAAR!
The Campaign against an elected mayor in Tower Hamlets
Labour backbenchers round on Harriet Harman for casting out Phil Woolas
• Colleagues back MP stripped of his seat by election court
• They brand Labour's deputy leader a 'disgrace' for her remarks
Harriet Harman was branded a "disgrace" as she faced an open rebellion of Labour backbenchers over her comments that the former MP Phil Woolas had no future in the party, it emerged tonight.
At a meeting of Labour MPs in parliament last night, Harman was the target of colleagues upset by her remarks. A specially convened election court ruled last week that Woolas lied to win his Oldham East and Saddleworth seat in May by 103 votes, exploiting racial tensions in order to defeat Liberal Democrat Elwyn Watkins.
Woolas was stripped of his seat and banned from standing for election for three years, in the first such judgment for 99 years. He pledged to fight to overturn the judgment and has opened a bank account to raise funds for an appeal. He has to raise £50,000 by the end of the week.
He is also in the middle of a Labour party disciplinary process.
At the weekend Harman said that even if the former immigration minister were to win an appeal he would still be unwelcome in the party. The Labour party high command believe they have public opinion on their side after a Yougov poll showed 71% of respondents felt the courts were right to rule against Woolas and only 7% thought the courts had made the wrong decision.
But a sizeable portion of the Labour party feel Woolas should have received the benefit of party support until the results of both processes were in.
A letter being circulated to raise money points to the legal opinion Woolas has received, including from former cabinet minister Charlie Falconer, that "winning the judicial review would also clear Phil's name of the allegations of deception as well as overturning the point of law. We have strong QC opinion that we can win this case; Lord Falconer has also given his opinion that the law was not properly applied and that winning does indeed clear Phil's name."
Woolas says his supporters and financial backers include Gordon Brown and Cherie Blair. One MP is said to have called Harman's comments "a disgrace" at Monday's meeting. Graham Stringer, MP for Manchester Blackley, said: "The feelings in the parliamentary Labour party were very strong."
Another MP, who did not want to be named, said the attack on Harman was "unbelievable". One MP said: "They were saying that Woolas should have been supported, that he should never have been suspended and that the party should be paying for his legal expenses."
Michael Connarty, Labour MP for Linlithgow, told Sky News he believed Harman had spoken out in the way she did for the "titillation of the tabloid [press]" and at the meeting said he had asked her to "examine her conscience". "The leadership have been too swift to demand another hanging," he told Radio 4.
Earlier David Watts, MP for St Helens North, told BBC Radio 4's The World at One: "There is a concern within the parliamentary Labour party, first of all that courts are getting involved in such practices. And if there's going to be action taken against any individual, we have a procedure in place to deal with that, and that means the member concerned will be suspended whilst an investigation takes place."
Labour MP for Walsall North David Winnick said: "It's not acceptable to most of us to say that Phil's time in the Labour party is finished forever. We simply don't see it in that way. We see a colleague who fought a very, very tight marginal, he may have gone over the top, but that's no reason to say his political career is over for good."
Harman has been the public face of Labour's response to the ruling, with Ed Miliband on a fortnight's paternity leave. In private, the leadership's position enjoys fairly wide support in the shadow cabinet, though some senior members agree Harman was wrong to pre-empt the appeal.
The case has attracted concern across the house regarding the possible precedent set with a court overturning the result of an electorate. Labour has denied it has already sent people to the seat to canvas for a suitable candidate.
1 ridiculously huge coupon a day. Get 50-90% Off London's best!
Relieve Cashflow Pressure, Invoice Factor Now. 98% Paid In 24 Hours!
Free P&P On All SoundDocks And Get Great Bose Quality. Buy Online!
- Logged in as Notoanexecutivemayor
- Click here to sign out
Comments in chronological order (Total 67 comments)
Post a comment9 November 2010 8:43PM
Well done Harriet!
Looks like we need to replace some MP's who lack the necessary understanding and appreciation regarding standards in public life. Lessons clearly not learnt by some following the expenses.
9 November 2010 8:50PM
If you're disgusted by the attitude of these Labour MPs who happily support the lying Phil Woolas - sign our petition here:
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/11/09/iagreewithharriet-sign-our-open-letter/
Harman has also had support from other MPs such as Paul Flynn, which are bizarrely not mentioned in this one-sided report.
http://twitter.com/Paulflynnmp/status/2063009207820288
9 November 2010 8:52PM
As a strong supporter of most of the Labour policies I would very much like to know who exactly gave Harman a rough time over this . They are arrogant idiots if they do not realise how reprehensible Woolas's behaviour was and what the decent citizens think of such behaviour
Given the nature of the average male MP ( have you listened to the noise and baiting that goes on whenever a woman MP stands up in PMQ's ?) I have a sneaking feeling that these oafs that had a go at Harman might have been a bit more circumspect had Ed Miliband not been on parental leave .
Harriet and Ed were absolutely right to take immediate action to suspend Woolas after he was found guilty.
It would have been disastrous to hang on while he dragged out whatever he could from appeals .
Bercow should have acted with similar speed . The electorate should have their by election at the earliest opportunity.
9 November 2010 8:52PM
These chaps have sat there and lapped it up since 1997. While Mr Tony carried on like the heir of Thatcher they said nothing. When he dragged this country into an illegal foreign war, barely a squeak.
Now we have a 'backbench rebellion' in defence of the sort of scum who would use cryto-BNP tactics to keep himself in parliament. Frankly, it is not just Woolas who deserves to be out on his arse.
9 November 2010 8:53PM
Bloody hell! The real scandal here is that the Labour Party waited until a court ruling before washing their hands of this odious little reactionary. Even if his disgraceful election literature had been ruled as technically within the law, it wouldn't change the fact that it heaps shame on the party. The man is an unpricncipled thug who embodies, perfectly, the "Malcolm Tucker tendency".
In a way, I'm grateful for those who have rallied to Woolas' defence. They've reminded all progressive people why the Labour Party still have a long way to go before they can ever be trusted or voted for.
9 November 2010 8:53PM
There are large divisions in the Labour Party over this matter but what really is clear is how little respect Ed Milliband , who is backing Harman, commands. Not really surprising I suppose as Milliband was not supported by the majority of the MPs, who supported his brother. This mutiny does very little for Milliband' s credibility and the one thing the electorate hate is a divided party. Particularly a divided party that doesn't seem to have any policies and few ideas, apart from carping from the sidelines.
9 November 2010 8:56PM
Winning the judicial review would not clear Phil Woolas of deception, it would simply mean that proper procedure had not been followed and the case would have to be retried.
Charlie Falconer must know this and if he said anything else to the Labour party he should be reported to the BSB for professional negligence.
Personally I think it very unlikely that Phil Woolas will succeed on any point as the evidence seems to be overwhelming, as set out in the QC's letter in today's edition of The Times.
9 November 2010 8:56PM
I hate to take Hatman's side - but WTF are these MPs thing of? Have they learned nothing at all?
9 November 2010 9:01PM
@regor: MPs might not support Miliband on this one but just keep reading the comments here and you will see he is completely in tune with the public mood.
9 November 2010 9:06PM
Define sizeable portion...I don't know anyone in the Labour party who wants to see Woolas ever again.
9 November 2010 9:11PM
It couldn't happen to a sweeter bunch of ferrets in a sack.
9 November 2010 9:13PM
If Woolas had any thought for the UK or even the Labour Party instead of himself (on the assumption that he is actualy innocent - which I don't believe) he would have NOT put his name forward for election to the Shadow Cabinet. Similarly Milliband, if he had given any thought to the matter, would have ensured that Woolas was given a 'minor' role if he had to give him anything (ie Woolas was elected to the Shadow Cabinet).
What we got was someone who knew that his actions were being investigated and that evidence existed against him. Milliband knew about this and still put him into possibly the worst position that he could. To my mind this shows Milliband in a very bad light - his judgement is definately suspect. It also shows that Woolas is really only concerned with himself and should, even if cleared on appeal, should not be in Parliament.
Harman had exactly the right response to this and, to an extent, it would have defused the situation. By acting as they have Labour MP's have kept this matter going for much longer than necessary and reducing the impact of any of their attacks on the coalition.
I find the actions of the wife of the Speaker strange. She claims to be a Labour member but is influencing her husband (which, in this case, she should NOT do) to act against the best wishes of the Party itself. Very strange.
9 November 2010 9:15PM
It's a shame labour MPs can't get as exercised about the threats facing the poor and vunerable in our society as they do about a threat to one of their own - this lot really are the most self-obsessed and woeful creatures ever to disgrace the party. Get a grip and try looking outside the Westminster bubble - you are a disgrace to the history of the LAbour movement.
9 November 2010 9:19PM
Well, I suppose a New Labour hack who uses racist rhetoric to smear an opponent is much more worthy of defending than the thousands of low-paid workers and their families who face forced displacement as a result of housing benefit changes.
These MPs really are beneath contempt. Can those MPs who back Harman on this speak up and do so loudly and swiftly, please?
9 November 2010 9:22PM
Why would anyone give any weight to an opinion delivered by Charlie "an invasion of Iraq would be lawful" Faulkner QC?
9 November 2010 9:29PM
Why are people surprised about the Labour back bench revolt to support the odious Phil Woolas, [lying, hypocritical, arse numbingly incompetent, etc.] He is one of them.
9 November 2010 9:30PM
I dislike intensely the idea that judges can overturn the judgement of voters by second guessing the reasons voters made the choice they did. The principle of judges being able to vet parliamentary candidates is a bad one.
SunnyCloudy
Provide a coherent argument for the excellence of judicial vetting of parliamentary candidates, or withdraw your petition.
I'm directly challenging you. I don't believe your capable of making a coherent intellectual case for that proposition.
Prove me wrong if you can.
Bet you can't.
9 November 2010 9:33PM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
9 November 2010 9:34PM
I'm sorry but Woolas lied, it was proven in court and not only that he most despicably played on the race card. For an immigration Minister and a LABOUR MP at that - he should be expelled from the party. Those MPs who support him are on the wrong side of the argument.
9 November 2010 9:39PM
I wonder if Labour can keep the in-fighting going long enough to lose the next election.
Only another 4 years and 6 months to go!
9 November 2010 9:42PM
One also has to look at the motivation of the electorate in choosing a man with such views, The candidates they are presented with in the next by-election should be chosen with great care.
9 November 2010 9:44PM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
9 November 2010 9:44PM
@georgesdelatour
Campaigning should be carried out under the rule of law. Voting in itself does not over-ride the rule of Law unless sanctioned by Parliamentary Act. One MP does not make a whole parliament. He does not exemption from law
You want to repeal the case law judgment was based on - then pass a law in parliament that Candidates can print any allegation they want without proof of fact.
9 November 2010 9:44PM
The only thing I am surprised at is that it has taken everyone so long to realise that the House of Commons is just really a baying mob of the sort that would put any Department of Psychiatry to shame and indeed most nurses I know would not put up with that behaviour in any DOP and would ring the police.
Are we still so subjugated that we dont realise exactly who and what these people are?
9 November 2010 9:48PM
The arrogance of some Labour MPs is unbelievable - you'd think they had joined the ConDems...
Woolas hoisted by his own petard.
9 November 2010 9:52PM
You reap what you sew Woolas, you reap what you sew. I for one am glad that he was found out.
spot on frederama
9 November 2010 9:54PM
Harman is a hypocrite IMHO however on this one she is 100% correct, wool-arse didn’t just tell a few porkies on the door step he actually had printed a leaflet inciting racial tension and claiming his the lid dem guy was sponsored by Muslim extremists.
The fact that he only won by 103 votes means his lies could have won him the election as I am sure there are at least 103 think people in Oldham who would believe that kind of crap especially if it is PRINTED.
9 November 2010 9:54PM
The only party the people of Oldham can rely on is the Respect Party.
This could be George Galloways chance to return to his rightful place.
9 November 2010 9:54PM
Good. Don't bother standing up for principles about civil liberties or the 10% tax rate, social mobility, Iraq or anything. Make a stand about your "right" to lie about other election candidates. Go Labour!
9 November 2010 10:00PM
@Algebraist
Yes but the thing I am trying to point us is that a lot of them are like it anyway; to be frank the place is a zoo.
Thats what consistently surprises people; that Members of Parliament could act like it. Its a study in Anthropology which would have David Attenborough enthralled for weeks.
And that we are having this bunch of jokers as our law makers is possibly a bit too much to bear. As Gandhi said when asked about western civilisation "I think that would be a good idea".
We now need to think about exactly who it is we have got in those two chambers and whether they are genuinely fit for purpose. For certain, this democracy is at a crossroads.
9 November 2010 10:01PM
No surprise some Labour MPs put their own interests before any issues of principle. Some MPs seem to think they're an aristocracy who shouldn't be bound by the same rules as mere voters would be. Woolas put out false propaganda in his election leaflets playing up to racist and bigoted BNP inclined voters. He's already been found guilty be a court. I hope this will be the first of many prosecutions of candidates elected by blatantly lying about their political opponents.
9 November 2010 10:02PM
Woolas typified what went wrong with labour: an easy willingness to do dirty, destructive deeds to achieve short-term objectives. I've no sympathy for him and am angry with the labour members supporting him.
9 November 2010 10:05PM
You're not such a smug smart arse now, are you Mr. Woolas.
9 November 2010 10:12PM
Absolutely, unbelievably astounding. A debate is going on about housing benefit changes which may shift whole communities and inevitably result in families becoming homeless and sons and daughters being asked to leave home because of changes in non-dependent deductions, and we get these self-centred, careerist, couldn't give a shit backbench MPs (and I include David Miliband in that), who would much prefer to support a former colleague who lied and pandered to racism, than the more vulnerable in the UK who will be suffering as a consequence of these changes.
9 November 2010 10:13PM
I'm really bored of hearing politicians described as 'odious' on these message boards. It's an ok word but there are loads of others that would be more colourful and fun.
9 November 2010 10:19PM
They`re all phoney including Milliband and Harman, look at ESA, it says it all.
9 November 2010 10:19PM
Self-centred, careerist, fuckwits?
9 November 2010 10:25PM
I just can't bring myself to type the words, so I'll 'spin' my possiton to the following:
Hariet Harman agrees with me.
9 November 2010 10:32PM
You reap what you sew Woolas, you reap what you sew.
Presumably a sequinned ball gown.
ffs
9 November 2010 10:35PM
Can't stand Harriet Harperson, but on this occasion she is right and correct. Woolas is an out and out scoundrel of a man who should never have been allowed into parliament in the first place and frankly should be in a criminal court facing charges of defamation, libel and electoral fraud and given a punishment of 3 years community service carrying ammunition for a Gurkha regiment on the front line.
9 November 2010 10:38PM
So now we know what gets NL MPs into a state of apoplexy, not slave labour, not the terminally ill being found fit for work, no people being forced to leave their family home of generations, not mass unemployment.
No, what really gets them going is one of their number is exposed as a grubby little chancer willing to do anything to keep his place on the gravy train, and is criticized for it.
What a useless bunch.
9 November 2010 10:44PM
It is all a bit vague. Too many supporters doing it from the shadows or not. If they think it matters that much and he is wronged after the evidence has been assessed by two high court judges, then they should come out from under the rocks.
Otherwise don't tell us their is a mutiny. It is about the quietest and most ill advised one I have come across. Though the Labour Party's capacity for self destruction are so developed, who knows it could be a way of fighting yesterdays battle all over again. There is only the most divisive government in a generation to hold to account.
9 November 2010 10:47PM
As a government minister Phil Woolas seemed to be a member of the BNP- appeasing tendency, which confuses appealing to the centre ground with courting reactionary Labour or potential Labour voters by using reactionary arguments. It was very disappointing that he was appointed to the shadow cabinet, possibly in the name of party unity. EM and HH have done the right thing, albeit belatedly. Some Labour MPs complaining about it should maybe 'consider their position' in seeking to defend the indefensible.
9 November 2010 10:55PM
Dear Georgesdelatour,
There are separate issues to be considered here: whether Woolas the MP has acted with the dignity and fairness associated with his office and political views; and whether Woolas the citizen has broken the law of the land.
The two judges said that he had broken the law: these two judges are not making comments on his fitness to hold parliamentary office, they are merely stating a fact that would land most of us in court or behind bars!
If anyone finds it acceptable to be represented in parliament by someone who has broken the law, that is for their conscience and something for them alone to weigh up: we call this democracy.
In my humble opinion, those who seek to represent their peers and to make the laws by which their peers live must be beyond reproach; clearly this is not the case with Woolas, ergo he has to go!
Is this coherent enough for you?
Best,
YF.
9 November 2010 10:55PM
Well done Harriet - Woolas is a disgrace to the human race - Labour should expel a few more of such reactionary characters e.g Liam Byrne. Also they should expel those that are part of the Condem Govt like Hutton and Field. Dennis Skinner should retire cos he's lost touch.
So many Labour MPs are reactionaries that Labour will need to change its reselection policies to get rid of lots of them. Unfortunately Ed Miliband was gutless in putting Johnson, Woolas and Alexander in roles where they ape the Tories.
9 November 2010 10:56PM
Correction: Shadow junior spokesman for Home Affairs.
9 November 2010 10:57PM
So there isn't any credible support then.
9 November 2010 10:57PM
I dislike intensely the idea that judges can overturn the judgement of voters by second guessing the reasons voters made the choice they did. The principle of judges being able to vet parliamentary candidates is a bad one.
I'm afraid people misunderstand the nature of the court verdict, and the media reporting hasn't helped. We're publishing an article about this tomorrow on Liberal Conspiracy to try and clarify.
9 November 2010 11:02PM
Just said on Newsnight that George Howarth, possibly the most useless MP in the house in my opinion, is canvassing to raise money for Woolas' defense. As a member of his constituency, I deplore almost everything he does, and this is the final straw.
9 November 2010 11:02PM
So now Labour is attempting to rehabilitate Woolas before he's actually gone? Are we going get Gordon and Tony rebranded as the peacemakers?
9 November 2010 11:03PM
Let's not forget that Mr Woolas was busy trying to demonize Muslims, and pander to the BNP loving crowd - that was WHY he lied. WHY is this guy in the Labour party?
9 November 2010 11:04PM
@Mercurey
The BBC just reported that David Miliband is supporting Woolas. Rather poor judgement on his part.
9 November 2010 11:07PM
@georgesdelatour 9:30PM:
I dislike intensely the way candidates lie and smear each other at elections. In my constuency both the lib dem who held the seat and the labour challenger were good thoughtful scrupulous people, who actually agreed about a lot of important issues, but got dragged in to mud slinging abuse that demeaned them both, created a spurious impression of polarisation and added unnecessarily to cyncism and rancour, to everyone's disadvantage.
The judges didn't 'vet' Phil Woolas. They found that he had deliberately lied about another candidate in order to mislead the voters into backing him. If this precedent makes candidates more moderate and careful in what they say about each other in future, our democracy will be the better for it.
Like most other commenters I am appalled at the MPs defending Woolas. Have they learned nothing?
9 November 2010 11:09PM
I never thought I'd say this,well done Harriet,at least the labour leadership has some sense.
There are a whole load of labour mps who just don't get it. We need open constituency primaries so we can get rid of a lot of this dead wood.
Woolas has just disgraced the labour party and should step aside immediately -Stringer,Connarty, Watts and Winnick are also people we could profitably lose.
9 November 2010 11:12PM
Ed Miliband made the right decision. It had got too murky. Phil Woolas may have friends among Labour MPs but being on the back benches is not exactly shouldering the heavy burden of responsibility or being responsible for the image of the party.
9 November 2010 11:15PM
You Stupid Woman. Back down over the ginger tosser and then have a go at a respected member of your own part, what genius! And I thought local parties selected candidates?
As for that smug git Simon Hughes whining about dirty campaigns, words fail me...
9 November 2010 11:23PM
Anyone remember the "Double Whammy"? Those lies won a whole election and I don't remember the courts worrying about that...
9 November 2010 11:24PM
And to think that Labour, after a successful press capaign in the mid 90s managed to paint the Tories as sleazy and themselves whiter-than-white. Another 15 years on and we can see that they are far worse than the Tories ever were during John Major's day. Now, labour MPs are lining up to defend Woolas after he was proved in court to use lying and cheating messages in his election literature. labour really is the NASTY PARTY
9 November 2010 11:32PM
So where's the leader of the Labour party while all this is going on? Ah, I forgot - paternity leave. That's a pity because here was a great chance to stamp his authority on the situation rather than leave poor Harriet to be savaged by the nasty beasts.
I just hope that he can found enough time to prevent this Woolas-supporting bandwagon gaining more momentum by funding and mounting a succession of legal chalenges. Where have all the arm-twisters and media briefers gone when you need them?
9 November 2010 11:34PM
@Londonsage -
"respected member of parliament"
now that made me laugh out loud.. hysterical.. Woolas respectable, since when? Banging up asylum seekers and deporting minors while crowing on the TV about his achievements in reducing immigration - respectable, alright
9 November 2010 11:49PM
They're all crawling out of the woodwork now.
So now we have a list of 60 anti-Muslim racist bigots who are MPs in the Labour Party.
9 November 2010 11:57PM
well make a real effort and explain yourself. But before you do, please don't get into the straight choice myth, you will only end up embarrassing yourself.
http://www.by-elections.co.uk/bermondsey83/libber832b.jpg
The leaflet references "a straight choice" i.e the a simple choice between one thing or another as was the common usage of the term at that time.
10 November 2010 12:04AM
The judges did not second guess the electorate they ruled that Woolas broke electoral law. It would have been the same if he had overspent in the campaign. The law is there to ensure that is fair contest, all candidates & their agents know what the law says, what is allowed & what is not.
A judicial review seeks to check that the judges correctly interpreted the law not the findings of fact. There is some merit in allowing the judicial process to continue before a final verdict is made. This has been recognised by the Speaker ably advised by his wife.
Perhaps Joanna Lumley should be persuaded to stand as an Independent in the forthcoming bye-election when ever that is.
10 November 2010 12:05AM
Why is lying punished with only an insubstantial 3 year ban?
Who can I lobby to change this to a life ban?
10 November 2010 12:21AM
This is a personal opinion, but Phil Woolas was (or is) one of the nastiest, disreputable, vicious (and odious!!) members of NL and his conduct in the last election was absolutely typical of him.
I'd say good riddance to awful rubbish and Labour will be better without him.
Still a number of shysters to go though.
10 November 2010 12:24AM
You quote the Labour MP Graham Stringer as follows:
"There is a concern within the parliamentary Labour party, first of all that courts are getting involved in such practices. And if there's going to be action taken against any individual, we have a procedure in place to deal with that, and that means the member concerned will be suspended whilst an investigation takes place."
These words would have been quite hilarious had they been attributed to a banana republic MP. But the UK is not a banana republic. Yet!
May be these MPs who agree with Graham Stringer would prefer to see this country officially declared a banana republic. Once the UK has been declared a banana republic there would be no need for any of the annoying requirements of ethics, morality, honesty on the part of public position holders like MPs. Similarly, the equally annoying requirements of due process, natural justice, rule of law, equality before the law etc would disappear. And the CONDEM agenda of doing away with Society can then be expedited by the MPs enacting any number of measures aimed at scrapping all judges
that dare to approach what used to be known as a just conclusion. Finding of fact involving alleged wrongdoing by an MP would be made a routine to be performed by the accused and their friends and the accused MPs would never have to face the consequences of their offences!
[And so on]
The real problems which your report totally fails to address is the truth that the Labour Party has no real democracy in its conduct. It lacks the legitimacy of a universally recognisably transparently democratic organisation. Like the UK Conservative Party and the Lib Dems Party, the UK Labour Party is an undemocratic cabal that is in place because of the failure of truly ethically active and democratic alternative parties to come into sustainable existence. It follows that the UK’s elected House of Commons is de facto an extension of the deeply anti-democratic, corrupting practices and the resulting agenda that still dominate and influence the policies and the behaviour of the ‘mainstream’ Parties.
What the two MPs you have quoted in apparent defence of Phil Woolas have done is to add to MPs’ discrediting of the principle of Parliamentary democracy.
As for their alleged targeting of Harriet Harman, this is a superficial factor. She suits the MPs’ propaganda tactics of the moment especially as she has been correctly condemned for HER Phil Woolas-like conduct in the contemptuous way that she had treated ordinary members of the Labour Party in Tower Hamlets in September 2010. It was the ordinary pro-democratic campaign in Tower Hamlets against the Labour Party’s NEC behaviour so closely personified in Harriet Harman that has created Harman as the main violator of universal values.
Those who have been pleading for Woolas must not forget what a significantly historic offence he has been found to have committed against an entire population!
The Labour Party is doomed to lose even more of the remnants of legitimacy its ordinary members bring to it if its MPs are as brazenly immoral and callously anti-democratic and pro-authoritarian and pro-corruption as the ones you have quoted ‘defending Phil Woolas’ are!
0024 Hrs Wednesday 10 November 2010
BHANGEELAAR!
The Campaign against an elected mayor in Tower Hamlets
10 November 2010 12:25AM
Phil Woolas, what a great result- it could not have happened to a greater scumbag. he deserved everything he got, and those labour mp's now supporting him are shown up for the vile scum they are.