What does an election agent get for his pains? The joke (well, election candidates regard it as a joke) is that he goes to jail if the election rules get broken.
This is the usual practice anyway. In the case of most election offences it is the agent who is liable for failure to observe the law. But not, it seems, in the case of Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. By declaring that the result of the May 2010 election in Oldham East and Saddleworth was null and void it seems to be only the candidate who loses out.
The agent for Phil Woolas was Joe Fitzpatrick. I thought him one of the most arrogant councillors I had ever come across when I first met him 20 years ago. My views were confirmed when he, then as Oldham Council's housing committee chairman, seemed almost to take pleasure in admitting "I LIED!" in response to questions from the Oldham Evening Chronicle about why he had changed his vote just days after telling constituents in Holts Village - a council estate in the Lees ward he represented - about his intentions.
I took some pleasure in running the campaign which saw him knocked off the council a couple of years later. He has never been re-elected, although he holds various public positions at the behest of the Labour Party. In my opinion he is a man with a tribal hatred of politicians who are not of his party. He embraces negative campaigning of a kind that - as has now been demonstrated - knows no limits.
Phil Woolas has been found guilty of lying about his opponent in order to win the election, but I believe that Fitzpatrick played the key role in leading him astray. A good agent would have made sure that their candidate did not behave in this way.
Fitzpatrick's lack of judgement, and his willingness to play the race card, dug Phil Woolas's grave. The MP may have jumped into it of his own volition, but when Fitzpatrick told the Court that the racially inflamatory leaflets at the centre of the case had only been delivered to "the white areas", he threw the earth that buried him.
Fitzpatrick has since declared himself to be "unrepentent."
Thursday, 11 November 2010
Tuesday, 9 November 2010
BLOGGING FROM CHINA #3 - A WORTHWHILE WEEKEND?
So was it worth spending 23 hours in planes, and 6 hours in cars, for two days of discussion? Well yes, I think it was.
China clearly hasn’t enjoyed being held up as the stage villain for gutting last year’s Copenhagen climate change talks of any substance. The regime doesn’t want to do anything that will curb the country’s economic growth, but at the same time it recognises better than many governments that global warming is a genuine threat that will cause the country harm. There were no expressions of climate change denial at our meeting.
A mixed bag of parliamentarians from a dozen countries around the world had a genuine exchange of views with a similar number of members of the National Peoples’ Congress environment committee.
It wasn’t great, the interpretation being sometimes hard to follow, but it wasn’t bad. We spelt out the problems arising from the lack of an international agreement but we didn’t condemn China. We accepted that, with its low per capita emissions, it has the moral right to continue to grow. But I pointed out that this wouldn’t count for very much if it simply frustrated getting action taken.
The Chinese response became ever more friendly. They talked about all the things they were doing to try and curb the rate at which their emissions are growing, and they used the occasion to announce publicly that they are to introduce a Climate Change Act that will require their industry to meet some specific requirements. So even if they are not sticking to the UN rulebook they are getting on with the game in their own way.
We had some sympathy for one Chinese congressman who commented, wistfully: “The actions of legislators are not always appreciated by the people.”
Positive words from EU Climate Action Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, didn’t get a hearing. The video presentation she transmitted from Brussels got blocked by the Great China Firewall!
Maybe, just maybe, our contribution will have helped China be a little more positive in its attitude towards securing an international agreement on climate change. Anyway, it gave them a nudge in that direction.
We concluded by agreeing a joint declaration that paid homage to the usual mantra by making reference to the need to avoid global temperatures rising by as much as 2 degrees Celsius.
Trouble is, as you look at the rate of growth in China’s emissions, let alone that of other developing nations where even less is being done to try and stem the pace, it is not an objective that seems remotely credible.
China clearly hasn’t enjoyed being held up as the stage villain for gutting last year’s Copenhagen climate change talks of any substance. The regime doesn’t want to do anything that will curb the country’s economic growth, but at the same time it recognises better than many governments that global warming is a genuine threat that will cause the country harm. There were no expressions of climate change denial at our meeting.
A mixed bag of parliamentarians from a dozen countries around the world had a genuine exchange of views with a similar number of members of the National Peoples’ Congress environment committee.
It wasn’t great, the interpretation being sometimes hard to follow, but it wasn’t bad. We spelt out the problems arising from the lack of an international agreement but we didn’t condemn China. We accepted that, with its low per capita emissions, it has the moral right to continue to grow. But I pointed out that this wouldn’t count for very much if it simply frustrated getting action taken.
The Chinese response became ever more friendly. They talked about all the things they were doing to try and curb the rate at which their emissions are growing, and they used the occasion to announce publicly that they are to introduce a Climate Change Act that will require their industry to meet some specific requirements. So even if they are not sticking to the UN rulebook they are getting on with the game in their own way.
We had some sympathy for one Chinese congressman who commented, wistfully: “The actions of legislators are not always appreciated by the people.”
Positive words from EU Climate Action Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, didn’t get a hearing. The video presentation she transmitted from Brussels got blocked by the Great China Firewall!
Maybe, just maybe, our contribution will have helped China be a little more positive in its attitude towards securing an international agreement on climate change. Anyway, it gave them a nudge in that direction.
We concluded by agreeing a joint declaration that paid homage to the usual mantra by making reference to the need to avoid global temperatures rising by as much as 2 degrees Celsius.
Trouble is, as you look at the rate of growth in China’s emissions, let alone that of other developing nations where even less is being done to try and stem the pace, it is not an objective that seems remotely credible.
BLOGGING FROM CHINA #2 - THEY SAY THE NICEST THINGS
Our first day was full of too polite exchanges (“After you, Claude. No, after YOU, Cecil,” or whatever might be the Chinese equivalent). There was some substance, and enough of it to make the exchanges of value, but some things of significance were undoubtedly lost through the inadequacies of interpretation.
I was nervous about my ‘keynote’ speech, not being entirely clear what might work and what might not. I had two objectives: first, to tell the Chinese that the consequences of their government’s refusal at Copenhagen to accept any reference to mandatory CO2 reductions even for developed countries had sapped the political will in Europe to take the actions necessary; second, to tell them that with the Americans off the stage it was time for them to start providing some leadership.” The speech seemed to go down well enough. I made a few other contributions during subsequent discussions.
A Conservative MP later said to me: “You have a flaw with your speaking style. I rather admire it. You don’t seem able to speak without saying something.”
Must be one of the nicest compliments I have ever received. If only it were true of all situations.
I was nervous about my ‘keynote’ speech, not being entirely clear what might work and what might not. I had two objectives: first, to tell the Chinese that the consequences of their government’s refusal at Copenhagen to accept any reference to mandatory CO2 reductions even for developed countries had sapped the political will in Europe to take the actions necessary; second, to tell them that with the Americans off the stage it was time for them to start providing some leadership.” The speech seemed to go down well enough. I made a few other contributions during subsequent discussions.
A Conservative MP later said to me: “You have a flaw with your speaking style. I rather admire it. You don’t seem able to speak without saying something.”
Must be one of the nicest compliments I have ever received. If only it were true of all situations.
BLOGGING FROM CHINA #1 - BRIEF IMPRESSIONS
Outside the doors of the enormous, 56-day old, conference hotel in Tianjin all I saw of this ‘small’ city (10 million people) that is 100km from Bejing was from the window of cars taking me from and to the airport: vast numbers of huge new buildings appearing through the yellow pollution haze of a still day; forests of tall cranes building new tower blocks; and too many cars.
One of my colleagues told me that when he visited the city 30 years ago there wasn’t a car to be seen. In terms of sheer numbers the bicycles are still in the majority, but it is the cars that dominate and clog the streets. The accident rate must be enormous, especially as neither cyclists nor motorists seem to have any sense of lane discipline.
Sitting in a traffic jam, with only the cyclists moving, it does seem that urban planners in China have missed a trick.
One of my colleagues told me that when he visited the city 30 years ago there wasn’t a car to be seen. In terms of sheer numbers the bicycles are still in the majority, but it is the cars that dominate and clog the streets. The accident rate must be enormous, especially as neither cyclists nor motorists seem to have any sense of lane discipline.
Sitting in a traffic jam, with only the cyclists moving, it does seem that urban planners in China have missed a trick.
Thursday, 4 November 2010
CHINA FOR THE WEEKEND
I don't like long flights (can't sleep, keep wriggling), and the thought of flying to China for a 2-day conference held no attractions, but I was talked into it by Lord Deben (who I know as John Gummer, the former Conservative Environment Secretary) who is now President of Globe International. Actually, I spoke to him on my mobile phone while I was walking in horizontal rain on a Scottish island. The phone died before the end of the conversation and hasn't worked since.
"It's really important. You CAN make a difference. We CAN help shape China's agenda on climate change before it finalises its next 5-year plan and sends delegates to the climate change conference at Cancun." That was the gist of it, I think.
I had booked an economy ticket for the flight to Bejing for the Joint Legislators' Forum to be held in Tianjin before the agenda arrived:
HIGH LEVEL OPENING SESSION
1. Wu Bangguo, Chairman of the National Peoples' Congress (said to be the second most powerful man in China).
2. President of Mexico, host to the next UN climate change conference.
3. Prime Minister David Cameron (by video!)
4. Chris Davies MEP
Now I just have to think of something worthwhile to say.
"It's really important. You CAN make a difference. We CAN help shape China's agenda on climate change before it finalises its next 5-year plan and sends delegates to the climate change conference at Cancun." That was the gist of it, I think.
I had booked an economy ticket for the flight to Bejing for the Joint Legislators' Forum to be held in Tianjin before the agenda arrived:
HIGH LEVEL OPENING SESSION
1. Wu Bangguo, Chairman of the National Peoples' Congress (said to be the second most powerful man in China).
2. President of Mexico, host to the next UN climate change conference.
3. Prime Minister David Cameron (by video!)
4. Chris Davies MEP
Now I just have to think of something worthwhile to say.
Tuesday, 2 November 2010
DECISION DAY BECKONS FOR PHIL WOOLAS
Political campaigning in Britain is about to get a lot cleaner - or a lot more nasty.
We will learn on Friday whether Phil Woolas, the shadow immigration minister and Oldham East & Saddleworth MP, is to be debarred from office for making false statements in this year's election campaign about the Liberal Democrat candidate's personal conduct.
Two High Court judges will deliver their interpretation of the 1895 Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act from the Civic Hall in Uppermill, Saddleworth. If their thumbs go down I am told it will be the first time in 99 years that such a verdict has been cast.
Whatever the judgement Woolas's leaflets were vile. I don't object to robust political campaigning but as an example of smearing your opponent these went beyond the pale. The words of the Labour agent, Joe Fitzpatrick, who told the Election Court that one leaflet was only delivered in "the white areas", speak for themselves about the intention.
Woolas's election campaigns have often pushed the borders to the limit. Maybe he has never acquired a proper sense of what is acceptable and what is not.
He and I contested the by-election in the former Littleborough and Saddleworth seat in 1995. Peter Mandelson embraced the challenge of being Labour's campaign manager, determined to demonstrate that nothing could stop the onward march of New Labour.
I was described by Woolas as the Liberal Democrat candidate who was "soft on drugs" for supporting my party's call for a Royal Commission to consider the possibility of decriminalising cannabis possession, and who was "high on taxes" for supporting my party in calling for a 1p income tax increase to provide additional funds for schools.
The Guardian commented: “So lurid is Labour’s portrayal that one expects hypodermic needles to spill out of Mr Davies’s pockets.”
This Labour leaflet (below) caused particular controversy. The story actually related to a candidate selection far away in Winchester!
In his recently published autobiography, Lord Mandelson admitted that Labour had gone “on the attack".
He wrote: “After the campaign was over, not only our opponents but some in Labour would denounce our ‘negative’ tactics in highlighting Lib Dem front-runner Chris Davies’ support for higher taxes and a Royal Commission to liberalise drugs laws. For tactical reasons, I felt we had had little choice.”
“Labour was starting from third place, and especially in a by-election, the bulk of Tory tactical voting was always going to flow to the Lib Dems. If we were to win, we would have to make that option as distasteful as possible.”
BBC Newsnight's present political editor, Michael Crick, has described the Littleborough and Saddleworth contest as "one of the nastiest campaigns of modern times." And Paddy Ashdown records in his diaries that he said to Tony Blair: "You didn't discuss your policies. You simply spent four weeks character-assassinating Chris Davies. He is one of my Party's favourite sons (nice!) and to be dealt with by Labour like this is not the way that we build respect between our parties."
But I won the contest, and no sooner had the result been declared than I had a hundred things to do. I dealt with the present, and looked to the future; I didn't bother complaining about the tactics of my defeated opponent. Maybe I should have done. If Woolas has never understood the difference between right and wrong in political campaigning, maybe it is because I didn't do enough to make sure that he got the message.
If the judges debar Woolas they will send a shockwave throughout the political system. Candidates and agents will have to be very much more careful in what they say about their opponents. Surely that can only be a good thing.
But if the petition by Liberal Democrat candidate Elwyn Watkins is dismissed, and Woolas keeps his position, the judges will give a green light to negative, personalised campaigning with no holds barred. Politics in Britain will get more ugly, and a lot more dirty.
We will learn on Friday whether Phil Woolas, the shadow immigration minister and Oldham East & Saddleworth MP, is to be debarred from office for making false statements in this year's election campaign about the Liberal Democrat candidate's personal conduct.
Two High Court judges will deliver their interpretation of the 1895 Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act from the Civic Hall in Uppermill, Saddleworth. If their thumbs go down I am told it will be the first time in 99 years that such a verdict has been cast.
Whatever the judgement Woolas's leaflets were vile. I don't object to robust political campaigning but as an example of smearing your opponent these went beyond the pale. The words of the Labour agent, Joe Fitzpatrick, who told the Election Court that one leaflet was only delivered in "the white areas", speak for themselves about the intention.
Woolas's election campaigns have often pushed the borders to the limit. Maybe he has never acquired a proper sense of what is acceptable and what is not.
He and I contested the by-election in the former Littleborough and Saddleworth seat in 1995. Peter Mandelson embraced the challenge of being Labour's campaign manager, determined to demonstrate that nothing could stop the onward march of New Labour.
I was described by Woolas as the Liberal Democrat candidate who was "soft on drugs" for supporting my party's call for a Royal Commission to consider the possibility of decriminalising cannabis possession, and who was "high on taxes" for supporting my party in calling for a 1p income tax increase to provide additional funds for schools.
The Guardian commented: “So lurid is Labour’s portrayal that one expects hypodermic needles to spill out of Mr Davies’s pockets.”
This Labour leaflet (below) caused particular controversy. The story actually related to a candidate selection far away in Winchester!
In his recently published autobiography, Lord Mandelson admitted that Labour had gone “on the attack".
He wrote: “After the campaign was over, not only our opponents but some in Labour would denounce our ‘negative’ tactics in highlighting Lib Dem front-runner Chris Davies’ support for higher taxes and a Royal Commission to liberalise drugs laws. For tactical reasons, I felt we had had little choice.”
“Labour was starting from third place, and especially in a by-election, the bulk of Tory tactical voting was always going to flow to the Lib Dems. If we were to win, we would have to make that option as distasteful as possible.”
BBC Newsnight's present political editor, Michael Crick, has described the Littleborough and Saddleworth contest as "one of the nastiest campaigns of modern times." And Paddy Ashdown records in his diaries that he said to Tony Blair: "You didn't discuss your policies. You simply spent four weeks character-assassinating Chris Davies. He is one of my Party's favourite sons (nice!) and to be dealt with by Labour like this is not the way that we build respect between our parties."
But I won the contest, and no sooner had the result been declared than I had a hundred things to do. I dealt with the present, and looked to the future; I didn't bother complaining about the tactics of my defeated opponent. Maybe I should have done. If Woolas has never understood the difference between right and wrong in political campaigning, maybe it is because I didn't do enough to make sure that he got the message.
If the judges debar Woolas they will send a shockwave throughout the political system. Candidates and agents will have to be very much more careful in what they say about their opponents. Surely that can only be a good thing.
But if the petition by Liberal Democrat candidate Elwyn Watkins is dismissed, and Woolas keeps his position, the judges will give a green light to negative, personalised campaigning with no holds barred. Politics in Britain will get more ugly, and a lot more dirty.
Monday, 1 November 2010
SCRAP CONTROL ORDERS
Nick Clegg faces a tough challenge in getting control orders abolished. I know that much of his influence has to be used behind-the-scenes and in private, but this is one battle that he has to be seen to fight, and he has to win.
If he does not, many Liberal Democrats will question the value of being in this party.
Introduced by Labour in 2005, control orders represent a fundamental attack on the principle of liberty. By allowing restrictions to be placed on an individual's freedom solely at the whim of the Home Secretary they undermine the presumption of innocence.
A control order can be imposed without the individual concerned being arrested, charged, tried, or convicted. No evidence has to be presented. This is simply wrong.
The latest terrorist incidents play into the hands of those who believe that any liberty can be sacrificed in order to provide security. Liberal Democrats need to remind these people that control orders do not exist in the USA; in this respect the Americans are better at protecting individual freedom than we Brits appear to be.
We are also calling for the lifting of the ban on the use in courts of intercept evidence obtained from bugged telephone calls and the like. Evidence is evidence, and we can leave it to juries to decide whether it has been obtained properly or not. Better that than allowing one politician to combine the roles of prosecutor, jury and judge.
Terrorists want to undermine our principles of freedom and liberty. If we sacrifice them ourselves, the terrorists win.
If he does not, many Liberal Democrats will question the value of being in this party.
Introduced by Labour in 2005, control orders represent a fundamental attack on the principle of liberty. By allowing restrictions to be placed on an individual's freedom solely at the whim of the Home Secretary they undermine the presumption of innocence.
A control order can be imposed without the individual concerned being arrested, charged, tried, or convicted. No evidence has to be presented. This is simply wrong.
The latest terrorist incidents play into the hands of those who believe that any liberty can be sacrificed in order to provide security. Liberal Democrats need to remind these people that control orders do not exist in the USA; in this respect the Americans are better at protecting individual freedom than we Brits appear to be.
We are also calling for the lifting of the ban on the use in courts of intercept evidence obtained from bugged telephone calls and the like. Evidence is evidence, and we can leave it to juries to decide whether it has been obtained properly or not. Better that than allowing one politician to combine the roles of prosecutor, jury and judge.
Terrorists want to undermine our principles of freedom and liberty. If we sacrifice them ourselves, the terrorists win.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
