Sunday, November 07, 2010
Phil Woolas
He was an unimpressive minister, outgunned by Joanna Lumley on the Gurkha issue amongst other political failings, and he has ended ignominously, by being declared to have lied about his opponent in his election literature. Phil Woolas represents a sorry episode for Labour all round. but does the new hard line, enunciated by Harriet Harman this morning, really ring true? She says that Labour will not have him back even if he wins his appeal agains the election ruling. This is, she says, because Labour will not tolerate lying in order to get elected. Is she really saying that up to this point the Labour party, which had Woolas back as a shadow spokesman until last week, had no inkling until now about the tendentious nature of his election literature? It beggars belief.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The retreat of liberalism goes on
As communism seemingly disappeared from view at the end of the 1980s, in a sudden and unexpected blow-out, there was plenty of triumphal...
-
As communism seemingly disappeared from view at the end of the 1980s, in a sudden and unexpected blow-out, there was plenty of triumphal... -
Hubris, it seems, comes to everyone in time, even apparently invulnerable and all conquering media magnates. Or so it must seem to anyone o...
-
#200218907-001 / gettyimages.com George Osborne doesn’t strike me as a particularly emotive or soft-headed politician, but ev...
3 comments:
The whole affair is a shocking assault on democracy. Bad enough that the Lib Dem candidate got into bed with Muslim extremists to try to win the seat, but to go crying to the courts because he lost a free and fair election is appalling behaviour. The judiciary should not be politicised like this.
I suppose the only consolation is - with their party lagging at 9% in the polls nationally - the Lib Dems are unlikely to get their grubby hands on the seat at the by-election.
"Bade enough that the Lib Dem candidate got into bed with Muslim extremists...." I thought the whole point of the judicial ruling was that, er, he hadn't! But it's good to know that every time the judiciary doesn't deliver a verdict you like it can be attacked as 'politicised'.
BOYD
Post a Comment