A (rather half-hearted) defence of Phil Woolas

The rather unpleasant former immigration minister, Phil Woolas is currently up in front of the beak (or more accurately an election court consisting of two high court judges encamped in Saddleworth Civic Hall) because of his election campaign – a campaign that resulted in a majority for Mr Woolas of just 103. In general terms the allegations relate to how the challenging Liberal Democrat candidate, Elwyn Watkins, was described in Labour literature. The BBC report the gist of the allegations (presented by the prosecuting QC) as follows:

"Mr Woolas's team had made an overt and, some may say, shocking decision to set out to 'make the white folk angry' by depicting an alleged campaign by those who they described generically as Asians to 'take Phil out' and then present Mr Watkins as in league with them. This was intended to galvanise the white Sun vote against him"

And this campaign involved:

“…using doctored photographs, misrepresenting facts, stooping even to fomenting racial divisions and tensions.”

In one respect this campaign is wholly reprehensible – the literature produced by Mr Woolas was deeply unpleasant and portrayed the area as deeply divided, under threat from ‘extremists’ and (by pretty blunt implication) that the Liberal Democrats were in some form of cahoots with these groups. To be honest, I shudder to imagine the outrage from Labour had this literature been produced by a Conservative candidate – and I wonder just how the party (which must have known) tolerated such an approach.

The action is being brought under section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 which states that:

It is a criminal offence to make or publish a false statement of fact about the personal character or conduct of an election candidate. The purpose of making or publishing this false statement must be seen to be to affect how many votes the candidate will get.

It seems to me that Mr Watkins will need to demonstrate that the campaign conducted by Mr Woolas actually affected the outcome. And bear in mind that (I assume) the Liberal Democrats will have used the somewhat anti-Asian tone of the literature to gain support from that section of the local electorate.

Whatever the outcome, it seems to me that the most commonly shown piece of literature is not sufficient to make this case – and however nasty it may be, I see no reason why Mr Woolas should be banned from making such as statement. What amazes me it how the Labour Party dares to speak about racism so long as this man is one of their MPs.

It may be that material I have not seen – real misrepresentation of the character or actions of Elwyn Watkins (and I’m not sure that the issue of support for arms sales to Palestine is good enough) – will come to light during the next few days (and this might be a start). But so far what we have is literature that shows Mr Woolas to be a nasty bigot. And as far as I can tell, there are no rules against electing nasty bigots. Indeed, if Mr Woolas campaigned to ‘stop the extremists’ (in a manner that might be seen as racist) that cannot be seen as an assault on the character of the Liberal Democrat candidate – indeed it says rather more about Mr Woolas’s character!

Even the more detailed revelations in the Telegraph show Mr Woolas’s campaign team to be exploiting the racial divide (and by inference associating Mr Watkins with Moslems) as well as making some slightly questionable claims about his income and election spending – although anyone familiar with claims about bankrolled candidates will be struck by Lib Dem hypocrisy on this given what they said about the Conservative candidate and campaign in nearby Pendle.

However much it pains me to say this, I do not think that Mr Woolas’s campaign breached election law (although I would be delighted to be proved wrong). More importantly, I see that the action undermines free speech and the ability of candidates to criticise their opponents – however lurid that criticism might be. Labour ran a nasty, underhand, personal and racist campaign – and won. Perhaps that tells us more about the Oldham public than about election law?

I do think, however, that the labour Party might like to consider expelling Phil Woolas!

....

Election 2010: Seats to Watch #3: Will the Lib Dems break through in those Northern Cities?

***

I’ve looked at two sets of Conservative target seats – in the coalfields and in what I called “inner-outer” London. This set of seats is of Liberal Democrat targets in the North of England – where Labour is defending.

For a long while the Liberal Democrats have had a strong powerbase in Northern cities – at present they control Liverpool, Sheffield, Hull and Newcastle. However, this strength has never translated into success at General Elections. The old Liberal Party got David Alton elected in Liverpool and the party have won Manchester Withington, Sheffield Hallam and Leeds North West. A key test for the Liberal Democrats at the forthcoming election is whether they can translate their local success into the election of MPs.

Liverpool Wavertree will be a seat with a lot of attention – at least judging by the 500+ comments on the UK Polling Report thread on the seat! Labour’s Jane Kennedy held the seat in 2005 but is retiring. Labour’s candidate is from London and with boundary changes the nominal majority is just 3,038 requiring a swing of under 4.5% for the Lib Dems to make the gain. With 54% of the vote in the 2008 local elections they really ought to! Expect a campaign laden with scouse vitriol from all sides (plus a little borderline racism wrapped up as anti-Zionism directed at Labour’s Luciana Berger).

Oldham East & Saddleworth is held for Labour by Phil Woolas, the Immigration Minister – boundary changes favour labour and the nominal majority is 4,087 requiring a swing of 5%. The seat stretches from Oldham’s multiethnic inner suburbs out onto the attractive South Pennine moorlands – factors that meant the old Littleborough & Saddleworth seat was a Tory seat in the 1980s. Will be a close run thing with Lib Dem success depending on how much they can squeeze the substantial Tory vote – local elections suggest win with the Lib Dems on 52% and labour in 3rd with just 20%.

The City of Durham must be right at the top of Liberal Democrat expectations. Although held by labour since the 1930s (like most of the North’s mining seats) the majority is just 3,274 requiring a swing of just 3.7% for a Lib Dem gain). Local elections show the Lib Dems building powerful position with 41% of the vote and 15 of the 22 councillors but there’s no Tory vote to squeeze and Labour has a reliable bedrock of support.

With Nick Clegg looking pretty safe in Hallam, the Liberal Democrats can direct their efforts to Sheffield Central where they have an outside chance of winning especially since former Sports Minister, Richard Caborn is standing down. With boundary changes the notional result is 4,807 requiring an 8% swing. Local election results put the Lib Dems on 42% to Labour’s 30% but an active Green campaign may not do Paul Scriven the council leader any favours.

Newcastle-upon-Tyne North is the most marginal of the City’s seats (just ahead of Chief Whip, Nick Brown’s East) and is very much a long shot for the Liberal Democrats. The notional majority is some 6,744 and even with current MP Doug Henderson retiring it’s a tough call for the Lib Dems. However, their local government performances suggest a strong chance (52% of the vote in 2008 and all but two councillors). However, the Labour machine will be working hard here and it will not be the straightforward gain it seems like on paper.

With a weaker Labour Party and voters out to punish them this may be the year when the Liberal Democrats do break through in the urban North – these aren’t the only places there’s also Bradford East, Burnley and Hull West & Hessle where the party fancies its chances.

...