General Election

[Phil Neatherway]

I believe Woolas has said he is seeking a judicial review. Not sure how that differs from an appeal.

According to electoral calculus http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html it will be an easy Labour win if the national polls are to be believed. However, one suspects local factors will come into play.

[Paul McKeown]

I believe Woolas has said he is seeking a judicial review. Not sure how that differs from an appeal.

Can't understand what Woolas is talking about. Judicial review applies to the administrative acts of government and bodies it delegates its powers to. I guess he is in a state of shock, not that I have any sympathy.

Anyway section 106 of the RPA is clear, as was its predecessor, the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act 1895. You can say whatever you want about your political opponent in an election campaign, except that you cannot make any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate’s personal character or conduct, unless you can show reasonable grounds for believing it to be true. His freedom of political speech is abridged, but specifically by statute, to the degree provided by that section of the RPA. The court didn't just make up the law, but laid out in detail how it came to the conclusion it did, in line with the clear meaning of the statute. As for Woolas chuntering about how ancient the precedent was, the fact that he is the first to be debarred in this way since 1911, shows moreover how egregious his campaign was.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Woolas *can* seek a judicial review - and it has apparently been confirmed that he will.

Quite possibly, he is indeed in a state of shock - apparently the reason Ed M reappointed him to a frontbench post is because he (Woolas) assured EM that there wasn't a snowballs chance in hell of the case against him succeeding!

PW isn't exactly the most popular person even within Labour, it is fair to say - but from what I have seen, the concern this could set an unwelcome precedent does seem quite widespread (and not just confined to Labourites)

Ah well, interesting times..........

[Paul McKeown]

but from what I have seen, the concern this could set an unwelcome precedent does seem quite widespread (and not just confined to Labourites)

The only person I am aware of speaking of "unwelcome precedents" is Harriet Harman, who in the same breath managed to say that Woolas has been suspended from the Labour Party, that Labour would not support his appeal if any, that he would not be the Labour candidate in the by-election, that the Labour Party believed in honest, positive campaigning, yet was worried by the precedent the court had set, infringing on democratic rights to campaign.

Total bull, nothing new at all. The statute has existed since 1895, the legal precedent followed was set in 1911. The present ruling scrupulously followed the precedent. The law is clear, say what you want, only if you tell lies about your opponent's character, you must believe them and have plausible reasons for believing them. You can call him a lying scum, you can call him a thief or a scoundrel, an axe-murderer, or as Woolas did, say that he sympathised with Islamic extremists who wished to have you assassinated, but you must have reason for doing so, other than political advantage. You can say that he will support policy x, y, z and not believe a word of it, that is perfectly allowed.

I would be interested to hear where you believe to have heard "widespread concern", except from Labour sources.

[Neill Cooper]

UK Chess Challenge 2011 publicity material has picked up on the theme of chess playing MPs under the title:
CHESS – the great elevator, not the great leveller!

"Chess players do not all have to become Grand Masters but it is interesting to see the career paths taken by them in later life – into law, banking, medicine, education – all highly demanding jobs. We are immensely proud of the progress of our chess players recently in the political arena, with Rachel Reeves elected in 2010 as one of the youngest Members of Parliament, and the Eagle sisters from Liverpool, now included in the Shadow Cabinet."

[Alistair Campbell]

I believe Woolas has said he is seeking a judicial review. Not sure how that differs from an appeal.

According to an advocate I know, you can't appeal against an Election Court ruling, meaning that a judicial review is the only recourse. Other than acceptance of the verdict.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I believe Woolas has said he is seeking a judicial review. Not sure how that differs from an appeal.

Can't understand what Woolas is talking about. Judicial review applies to the administrative acts of government and bodies it delegates its powers to. I guess he is in a state of shock, not that I have any sympathy.

Anyway section 106 of the RPA is clear, as was its predecessor, the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act 1895. You can say whatever you want about your political opponent in an election campaign, except that you cannot make any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate’s personal character or conduct, unless you can show reasonable grounds for believing it to be true. His freedom of political speech is abridged, but specifically by statute, to the degree provided by that section of the RPA. The court didn't just make up the law, but laid out in detail how it came to the conclusion it did, in line with the clear meaning of the statute. As for Woolas chuntering about how ancient the precedent was, the fact that he is the first to be debarred in this way since 1911, shows moreover how egregious his campaign was.

I seem to recall some recent election campaign for mayor of a London borough (Hackney?) had similar allegations being thrown around. Might be misremembering. It was the one where Ken Livingstone was careful not to directly support the guy that won (the one who had been de-selected as the Labour candidate), but manage to so do anyway (something about telling people what to do with their second preferences), but Ken managed to avoid censure by the Labour Party. Anyway, I'm sure that this mayoral election had vicious personal slurs thrown around. I think the point there was that the candidate denied that he or his campaign workers made the allegations. Not sure what really happened there, actually, but it did seem like a very bruising political slugfest.

[Matt Mackenzie]

You are referring to Tower Hamlets, Christopher - long a political snake-pit.........

[Kevin Thurlow]

"You are referring to Tower Hamlets, Christopher - long a political snake-pit..."

Actually that's a bit generous!

[Paul McKeown]

Chris,

I think you are probably referring to the Miranda Grell case. She won the May 2006 election for a ward in the Waltham Forest borough council. About a year later she was disqualified under the RPA 1983 for making false statements against her opponent, a Liberal Democrat, Barry Smith, who she had accused of paedophilia, basically a dreadful and untrue homophobic slur. Labour went up in arms at the time, accusing the judiciary of unwarranted interference with the electoral process, sour grapes, yada yada yada. However, by the time Grell's appeal came to court, Labour had managed to get over itself, refused to fund the appeal, or to have anything to do with at all. iirc, it was Miranda Grell's Labour running mate, however, who had provided some of the most damning evidence against her, clearly an upright individual who wanted nothing to do with the antics of the partisan machinery. When the appeal failed and the re-run was held in 2008, a Lib Dem won the election. This is all from memory, but I don't believe the facts as I have stated above are incorrect in any detail, although I apologise if they are.

What I do remember is that Grell was a fundamentalist Christian, who honestly believed that homosexuality was a great threat to young people. Obviously believing something to be true as a matter of faith, is not a sufficient defence in the legal interpretation of this Act, there must be a plausible reason for such a belief.

I think that a different section of the Act might apply to council elections than to parliamentary elections, but I have no inclination to confirm this by reading it, as it is incredibly dense! In any case, election petitions under this Act and its 1895 predecessor have been very rare, chiefly because the burden of proof lies on the petitioner, who has to prove, beyond reasonable doubt that his/her opponent made claims against his personal character or conduct, which were not only untrue, but for which (s)he had no plausible reason for believing to be true. The evidential test is higher than for a libel case and the burden of proof lies on the petitioner, rather than on the defendent.

Regards,
Paul

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I think you are probably referring to the Miranda Grell case.

I was thinking of the Tower Hamlets campaign (there was no case) as Matt said, but the Grell case was interesting - I hadn't heard about that one, but then I don't follow politics closely enough.

Various Tower Hamlets reports from the BBC are here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11576725
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11604108
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/mi ... livin.html

More here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/dave ... instration
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andre ... -republic/

Annoyingly, the blog I was trying to find, that had some juicy details, doesn't seem to be around. Maybe some legal type leant on it and it vanished.

[Ian Kingston]

...accused of paedophilia, basically a dreadful and untrue homophobic slur...

Paedophilia and homosexuality are not actually the same thing...

[Paul McKeown]

...accused of paedophilia, basically a dreadful and untrue homophobic slur...

Paedophilia and homosexuality are not actually the same thing...

Errr, I'm sure I didn't say that they were????

In fact, I said:

paedophilia, basically a dreadful and untrue homophobic slur

If such a clear statement can be misconstrued, then I give up.

[Ian Kingston]

...accused of paedophilia, basically a dreadful and untrue homophobic slur...

Paedophilia and homosexuality are not actually the same thing...

Errr, I'm sure I didn't say that they were????

In fact, I said:

paedophilia, basically a dreadful and untrue homophobic slur

If such a clear statement can be misconstrued, then I give up.

Well, to accuse someone of paedophilia says nothing about their sexual orientation. That's why I don't understand how the accusation is a homophobic slur.

[Paul McKeown]

Well, to accuse someone of paedophilia says nothing about their sexual orientation. That's why I don't understand how the accusation is a homophobic slur.

Grell made the accusation of paedophilia against her political opponent because he was homosexual and she believed that homosexuals present a moral hazard to male children and teenagers. Her understanding of Christianity tended to conflate the two conditions.