Oldham Council, to their considerable credit, have given me – a mere blogger – media access to the special election court that is sitting in the Oldham East and Saddleworth constituency this week.
In case you’re not familiar with the case, here’s an outline of the developments. Oldham East and Saddleworth was widely tipped as a constituency vulnerable to the Lib Dems at the last election. Phil Woolas, the former Labour Immigration Minister, was defending a notional majority of around 4,000. In the end, the result was one of the closest in the country, with Woolas winning over the Lib Dems by just 103 votes.
However to secure that majority, the Labour campaign resorted to very dirty tactics. They published a number of leaflets which contained very questionable claims about Elwyn Watkins, the Lib Dem candidate, including claims that he was courting islamic extremists, that he broke election spending rules and that he broke a promise made to move to the constituency, among other things. The Labour campaign even resorted to photoshopping a picture to make Elwyn Watkins appear as if standing in front of a number of armed police officers.
After the election, Elwyn Watkins filed an election petition that accused Phil Woolas of breaking the law in relation to the provisions of Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. As a result, two High Court judges will now travel to Oldham, and this week they will hear the case.
This is the first time for nearly 100 years that a case of this sort has been brought about with relation to a Parliamentary election. It is set to be fantastically interesting, and the outcome will almost certainly have consequences for the conduct of future general elections. My reporting will obviously be subject to the usual restrictions and rules placed on any reporting of court cases, but I hope to blog as much as I can, particularly with the details that might not make it into the reports of the mainstream media.
Pingback: Woolas Demands Police Protection | Nick Thornsby's Blog
Pingback: Phil Woolas election case: follow the online coverage
Good for you mate. Should make for fascinating reading.
A blogger you are and a blogger you will always be: but you’ll never be a professional paid journalist – no news reporter would write the following lines without attribution: “However to secure that majority, the Labour campaign resorted to very dirty tactics.” [This is comment/opinion. ]
Then there is this: “They published a number of leaflets which contained very questionable claims about Elwyn Watkins.” [This is mere comment/opinion. The election court will decide whether the claims are questionable.]
Stay away instead of wasting a valuable seat in the building.
Good job I don’t aspire to be a professional journalist then! In case you hadn’t noticed, this is a ‘Lib Dem blog’, and you should expect “comment/opinion” – I happen to think the leaflets were questionable – as, clearly, does Mr Watkins. If you disagree, then fine. I don’t pretend to be an independent journalist; I’ll leave that to the BBC and others. And, by the way, the election court won’t decide whether the leaflets were ‘questionable’, they will decide whether they breached the provisions set out in Section 106 of the RPA 1983.
Would Emma deny people like Johann Hari or Peter Hitchens a seat because they frequently write opinion pieces?
Does this mean that they are not journalists?
“It is set to be fantastically interesting…”
I hope not. Fantasy is the realm of theatre or a gripping novel.
This case will be about the nitty gritty of RPA, real world legal stuff about different understandings of a sentence or an image. Until the final judgement, there will be little of interest to most of us (my guess).
But enjoy your time and use it to learn.
I guess that says a lot about what I find ‘fantastically interesting’
Yawn, Watkins is needlessly wasting tax payers money with this little charade. Woolas won using tactics no worse than those promoted in the ALDC’s election handbook, Watkins should accept he lost and move on.
comments on this piece are just as fascinating as the court case. Clearly, Labour supporters think they should be allowed to say whatever they like about Lib Dems and there should be no come back.
We can’t pre-judge the court case, but the mere fact that one has been brought suggests that whatever happened in this election was not run of the mill stuff.
Is his election agent, Joseph Fitzpatrick, also on trial? If not, why not?
Pingback: The disturbing case of Phil Woolas « Paperback Rioter
@MrsB – interestingly, a number of Labour supporters with some principles (rather than an obsession with power) have been writing online about their desire to see Mr Woolas get what he deserves… I find it strange that anyone would seek to defend even the one leaflet that has been widely displayed on the Internet.
@Emma Grogan and @Cat: What are your opinions/comment on the leaflets? Do you have any? Are you standing by them?
@Emma Grogan – Not all bloggers are aspiring journalists, blogs in general are predominately about getting your own opinions heard. They can also be fictional, informative, creative, journalistic, or in a diary format. There are so many different types of blogs out there; I don’t know how anyone could make such sweeping generalisations.
Also, if you are a journalist yourself (I assume you are since you comment with such presumed authority), you would know that not all journalists are news reporters. Comment, opinion and review are important and interesting sections of national and even some local newspapers. Also, I would have expected a news reporter to have conducted at least a little research before posting a comment, rather than posting inaccuracies and generalisations.
@Henry
LOL!!! Your on thin ice with power over principles, do you stand by the 30 metre square VAT bombshell bill board and associated leaflets?
I see nothing wrong with his leaflets, there are plenty of examples of LibDem attack leaflets smearing opponents. Still it won’t matter anyhow, if they is a by-election how the fuck are the LibDems going win it?
I agree that Woolas is scum, but some of us remember the tactics of Andrew ‘Ell the Smell’ Ellis.
Most local political issues make me glaze over, this however is very interesting, ignore the haters Nick!
@Cat please leave out the effing and jeffing this is not the really the place for it.
@Cat, first it is a coalition/compromise – my policy is compromised, my principles are not. Bear in mind that in negotiations, Labour insisted on ID Cards remaining – where would my principles be then?
Second, I hate the VAT bombshell (which Labour had planned too).
Third: The telling comment (and at least you answer the question) is when you say: ‘I see nothing wrong with his leaflets’.
I have nothing to add.
I am most interested in this case, there has been no further reporting on it , and no update on this blog. I can understand the BBC silence as Phil was a producer on newsnight but nothing elsewhere ? Most odd !
Michael, I have published a blog post every day of the case.
Day one: http://nickthornsby.wordpress.com/2010/09/13/woolas-first-day-in-court/
Day two: http://nickthornsby.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/woolas-in-court-day-two/
Day three will be coming later tonight/tomorrow morning.
Pingback: Top 10 Posts of the Year (Including lots of Woolas) | Nick Thornsby's Blog