The Watkins v Woolas case
I've just bumped into Lord (Chris) Rennard here in Liverpool, the celebrated and feared Lib Dem election strategist (depending on your point of view).
He reckons this week's extraordinary election court case against the Labour MP for Oldham East and Saddleworth, Phil Woolas, will have a profound effect on British elections.
Woolas is accused by his Lib Dem opponent Elwyn Watkins of making false statements in his campaign literature, which if proven, would breach the 1983 Representation of the People Act.
That could lead to his disqualification as an MP.
Rennard thinks that whichever way the case goes - whether Woolas wins or loses - candidates and agents will be a lot more careful about what they say about their opponents in future.
He thinks it will become a regular feature of campaigns for agents to fire off barrages of letters to their opposite numbers threatening to invoke this part of the 1983 act, an act which has been pretty much ignored until now.
The irony of the Watkins v Woolas case is that over the years the Liberal Democrats have probably been more guilty of dirty tricks - and false statements against their opponents - than any other party, especially in by-elections. So the Lib Dems might, in fact, lose most if the Woolas case significantly makes parties clean up their acts.
I attended the Woolas hearing for most of the day last Tuesday. It took place in the civic hall of the small Pennine town of Uppermill, in the Oldham East constituency. Woolas was pretty unconvincing in defending some of his leaflets - but given what the literature had said then anyone would have struggled frankly. And the MP was resolute in refusing to concede much to Watkins's barrister.
The onus of proof is on Watkins, and most observers I spoke to on Tuesday thought Woolas would probably win.
The judges originally said they hoped to produce a result by last Friday. But now the verdict has been put off until October, pending legal arguments. Which rather suggests the result is not actually clear cut. If the verdict had been obvious then surely the judges could have simply announced it on Friday.
I'm Michael Crick, and I'm Newsnight's political editor. My guiding rule is that in any story there's usually something the politicians would prefer the world not to know. My job is to find that out. Follow me on
Comment number 1.
At 19th Sep 2010, barriesingleton wrote:NONE SO BLIND
It has been incorrectly implied that the offence of 'false instrument' is confined to defamation (or similar). However, the wording of the Act is MUCH WIDER.
In precis: ". . . any fraudulent device or contrivance (that) induces or prevails upon an elector either to vote or to refrain from voting."
Go back to your constituencies and inspect ALL your flyers.
Just watch the Westminster Monster do ALL IT CAN to damp this down. It is LIVING WITHIN THE LIE and intensely comfortable therein.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 19th Sep 2010, fullversiongame wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 19th Sep 2010, BluesBerry wrote:Should Labour MP Phil Woolas return to the Seat for Oldham East and Saddleworth, be allowed to stand?
Apparently the issue started because The Daily Mirror distributed a free edition in which it was highly pro-Woolas; as well, some of Woolas' election pamplets have also been questioned.
Unfortunately Woolas’ win was by a very small margin (103 votes).
Liberal-Democrat, Elwyn Watkins (under Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act) has objected to Woolas
1. misleading and wrong claims regarding her character and
2. his attempt to Muslim votes.
The onus lies not with Mr. Woolas, but with Elwyn Watkins.
IF (and that’s a mighty big IF), Elwyn Watkins can prove her case, there will occur a by-election.
It is also possible that Phil Woolas could be fined, barred from holding office and even from voting in an election. According to Section 144(1) of the Act an appeal is not allowed.
I agree with Michael Crick - no matter how this turns out, it's likely that the Woolas case will significantly makes parties clean up their acts, which I think is a "win" for the voters.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 20th Sep 2010, David Boothroyd wrote:I think Barrie Singleton is referring to another section of the RPA 1983. The 'false instrument' was the section used in the infamous 1990 Tower Hamlets case when the Lib Dems produced a leaflet purporting to be from Labour.
The key term in the section invoked by Elwyn Watkins is that the false statement of fact must be about the candidate's personal character - as opposed to their political history. I would expect that claims about muslim extremism would be regarded as being political questions and not personal ones. It is certainly arguable that the financing of a campaign is also a political question and not truly about personal character. Perhaps only the claims about where Elwyn Watkins lives actually concern his personal character as referred to by the Act.
By the way the obscure 1983 election petition of Eric Morgan against David Maclean in the Penrith and the Border byelection attempted to invoke this section: Morgan claimed that leaving him off a list of candidates in the Daily Telegraph constituted a false statement of fact about his personal character.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 20th Sep 2010, stevie wrote:the Zinnovief letter it ain't
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)