´óÏó´«Ã½

Kashif Ali, the Conservative candidate

Who does David Cameron want to win the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election?

It might sound like a silly question but, , the Prime Minister would prefer a Liberal Democrat victory in order to shore up the coalition.

If that's true, nobody has told the candidate, Kashif Ali, though I suppose he would be the last to know.

He is a credible candidate and has been doing his best with little support.

However, a Number Ten spokeswoman has told me the suggestion David Cameron wants the Liberal Democrats to win is "absolutely untrue".

The real criticism of the Tory campaign is that it's been late, slow and quiet.

The party should have been campaigning from the moment Phil Woolas lost his seat. Instead they waited for the outcome of the judicial review, even though there was very little chance of it ever succeeding.

Even Labour, who certainly had to wait, had their candidate officially selected before the Tories.

The Conservative campaign manager is Andrew Stephenson, the newly elected MP for Pendle.

He agrees the party has been slow to start campaigning: "It's been a longstanding criticism of mine that we have always held off by-elections until it's 'acceptable' to start campaigning.

"It was the same in Cheadle and the same in Crewe and Nantwich. The Liberal Democrats beat us off the start from the word go."

But he told me the suggestion they are not fighting to win is "complete rubbish".

Nevertheless, it's left the opposition parties believing exactly that.

A national Liberal Democrat source told me: "I don't believe CCHQ is actively trying to help Elwyn, but it's clear they're not actively trying to help their own candidate either.

"This has always been our fight and the Tories' hearts just aren't in it."

I know many Tory activists in the North West hold Kashif Ali in high regard and are keen to support him.

The Conservatives tell me there will be a strong, concerted campaign from January.

The party is paying for direct mail to be sent to constituents.

And, of course, the Prime Minster will be visiting, surely something he would not do if he did not want to win.

Andrew Stephenson hopes the Tories will leapfrog the Lib Dems. While that's possible, it's only going to happen if the party rapidly gets into gear.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I have read an email that , arguably the country's most senior Liberal Democrat councillor, has written to Nick Clegg dubbing two senior ministers "Laurel and Hardy".

Councillor Kemp is referring to two Conservative ministers - the Communities Secretary, Eric Pickles and the Housing Minister, Grant Shapps.

He asks the Deputy Prime Minister to rein them in.

The full text of the email is below.

He is furious because he believes the two ministers are not facing up to the impact of the spending cuts on local government.

Richard Kemp is not opposing the cuts which he believes are necessary to reduce the deficit. But he believes the two ministers are coming up with "gimmicks" rather than admitting the scale of the cuts to jobs and services.

"Their behaviour is a disgrace. Either they really do not know how serious the situation is ... or they are deliberately trying to distract attention from the problems that they have created."

Cllr Kemp leads the Liberal Democrat group in the and is a Liverpool councillor.

is facing an 8.9% cut in spending power next year.

However Nick Clegg does not appear to share these views. A spokesman for the Deputy Prime Minister said: "These are Mr Kemp's personal views and are not representative of Liberal Democrats in Government.

"The Coalition Government has, despite the financial mess Labour left us in, embarked on a radical shift of power away from central government to local government and communities."

And Grant Shapps does not appear particularly concerned either.

In a statement he said: "Mr Kemp will be rather embarrassed when he notices that on Monday his own council admitted its senior management was so bloated that it axed 48 posts saving the taxpayer £4.25 million.

"I don't think even Richard could deny that this move will protect plenty of frontline staff.

"Maybe Mr Kemp is rattled by our new level of transparency meaning that all councils will have to publish expenditure over £500 online, exposing the inner workings of town halls to public scrutiny for the first time.

"This was a tough but fair settlement ensuring the most vulnerable communities were protected.

"If councils share back office services, join forces to procure, cut out the crazy non-jobs and root out the wild over-spends then they can protect frontline services."

This political argument is at the heart of the government's spending strategy.

Liverpool and the rest of the country will find out next year whether the cuts will improve the efficiency of services or damage them.

From the Leader of the Liberal Democrats in Local Government
Rt Hon Nick Clegg,
Deputy Prime Minister,
Whitehall

By E-Mail

17th December 2010

Dear Nick,

Reining in Laurel and Hardy!

As you know we are meeting next Monday to look at a number of issues one of which is the Local Government Settlement.

As the Leader of the Party's councillors I have struggled over the past few days to both explain the need for deep cuts in spending caused by the horrendous level of central government borrowing and defend the spending position of local government as we seek to provide much needed services especially to the poorest members of the community.

We all know that cuts mean job losses. My own authority will have an 8.9% reduction in spending power next year. There is no way that this can be done without job losses. Some of those job losses will be saved by increased efficiency. But we are already the most efficient part of the public sector according to the Treasury and Mr. Cameron and there are limits on how much efficiency can be increased within our sector alone. The rest will come through reductions in levels of service.

Whilst trying to have a serious discussion on these desperate issues we have too frequently been diverted by two Ministers - Pickles and Shapps - who behave more like Laurel and Hardy than members of Her Majesty's Government. They continually put forward the idea that all the savings at this massively high level can be made by increased efficiency, cuts in a small number of salaries, raiding reserves that are not needed etc etc. In fact almost every day we get from them a new gimmick.

Their behaviour is a disgrace. Either they really do not know how serious the situation is that they have created by rushing to get brownie points by being the first to settle with the biggest front loading or they are deliberately trying to distract attention from the problems that they have created.

I realise that they are Tory Ministers and not ours and that your room to deal with them is therefore limited. But there continued behaviour is a distraction from the serious ways in which we can try and reduce expenditure through things like community budgeting and the development of social enterprises which will be on the agenda for our discussion.

Regards,
Richard Kemp

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

On Thursday morning the House of Commons agreed to hold the Oldham East and Saddleworth on January 13th.

The early date is a behind-the-scenes victory for the Liberal Democrats.

The Lib Dems believe this gives them a tactical advantage because their candidate, Elwyn Watkins, is in place and his campaign is well underway.

Labour's candidate, Debbie Abrahams, has been selected very quickly. But she is not yet well known in the constituency.

The Lib Dems want people to vote before Labour's campaign is properly established.

It's a bit like the fable of the hare and the tortoise. The Lib Dems are the hare. Rather than being pipped to the post by Labour's tortoise, they are trying to shorten the race.

This is a surprise because by convention it would be for Labour to move the writ for the by-election.

But the Lib Dems have argued that the way Phil Woolas was forced out has put this race into unprecedented political territory.

In this they were backed by the Conservatives, otherwise Nick Clegg would not have been able to force the issue.

But it's less clear why the Tories are so keen on a shorter race.

They could have been campaigning for weeks. Instead, Kashif Ali, was only officially confirmed as their candidate on Tuesday. The official launch is on Saturday.

Even the minor parties have been more nimble than this.

Visits by senior politicians are planned and underway. The parties will fight particularly hard for victory in Oldham East and Saddleworth.

Voters may find the streets even more crowded than usual over Christmas.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Labour is selecting its candidate to fight the Oldham East and Saddleworth seat on Sunday.

Interviews were held in London on Friday and a shortlist of just three names has emerged.

They are Riaz Ahmad, Abdul Jabbar and Debbie Abrahams.

A number of Labour members have been surprised and disappointed at the restricted choice.

To be fair, Riaz Ahmad was a likely contender. He is a former Mayor of Oldham and chairs NHS Oldham. He has strong local support.

Abdul Jabbar is also a former Oldham Mayor, and was the first Bangladeshi mayor anywhere in the country. He still serves as a senior councillor.

Debbie Abrahams was the Labour candidate in neighbouring Colne Valley at the general election. She works at Liverpool University and is a former chairwoman of Rochdale Primary Care Trust.

Both names seem to have taken most people by surprise.

Saddleworth News has more details on .

Even more surprising are the names left out.

For many Afzal Khan was the strongest contender. He is a former Lord Mayor of Manchester, a lawyer and had many supporters in the area.

Nigel Newton is popular as a successful businessman and councillor.

Peter Wheeler is a respected Labour figure and until recently a member of the NEC.

While the former Leader of Oldham Council, John Battye, is popular in the local party but was probably too closely associated with Phil Woolas' election campaign.

In total, we know about eighty people applied and around twenty were interviewed.

What is not clear is why several high quality candidates were left off the list. With just three names on the shortlist, it's hardly full.

There is a fair bit of anger among Labour activists at the way this has been handled.

Some even wonder privately if it will cost them the election.

It is hardly unknown for political parties to fix a selection by sending through one good name and a few duds.

But if that's happened here, it's not entirely clear who the NEC is backing.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Labour is selecting its candidate for the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election, and accelerating the process.

Labour's ruling body - the NEC - will interview candidates and draw-up a shortlist towards the end of this week. On Sunday the local party will meet to vote on their new candidate.

But I gather preparation work has been underway for some time.

I have been told Iain Wright, the Hartlepool MP, has been lined-up to the be the campaign's political director.

He won his own seat in a by-election in 2004 when Peter Mandelson stood down as the MP for Hartlepool.

Mr Wright has already held informal conversations with some of the potential candidates, well before the Woolas case was resolved.

which includes a number of names which would distance the party from the Woolas saga.

Among them Josh MacAlister is the youngest candidate and could be the face of change.

Peter Wheeler is a former member of the NEC and is a popular Labour character.

Meanwhile Afzal Khan is running a professional campaign and as a Muslim would certainly draw a line under the Woolas affair.

As for the date of the by-election, the Liberal Democrats want to take advantage of their headstart and are aiming for 13th January.

But Labour prefers a slightly longer campaign with voting on 3rd February.

Once the writ is moved, a by-election must be held within 15 to 19 working days. This means that Labour will probably not move the writ until next year.

I'm told the Lib Dems might break convention and move the writ themselves, possibly with Tory support. But I think it's much more likely that Labour will decide.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

On Monday the Commons Speaker, John Bercow, ruled that MPs could finally discuss the issues surrounding Phil Woolas.

That's because the former Labour MP's legal battle has finally ended in defeat, after the High Court ruled on Friday against his judicial review.

But should MPs wish to debate this case, they will find it has become even more complicated.

A judicial review is a type of appeal, but it considers the decision-making process, not the decision itself.

Mr Woolas did well to get even that far.

The law was deliberately drafted to avoid exactly this kind of legal delay; once an MP has been disqualified, they are expected to simply shut-up and go.

The courts started dealing with Parliamentary election petitions back in 1870. 76 MPs have lost their seats since then, the last in 1924.

But such a decision has never been judicially reviewed until now.

Normally any disputed issues of law should be considered before a judgment is reached, but in this case it was not clear that such an issue had arisen.

Lord Justice Thomas, Mr Justice Tugendhat and Mrs Justice Nicola Davies agreed to "exceptionally grant permission".

This gave Phil Woolas the chance to argue that the judges had misinterpreted his attacks on Elwyn Watkins as personal, rather than political.

It was a critical legal issue because political attacks are perfectly legal and would not have resulted in Mr Woolas losing his seat.

During the election, Mr Woolas claimed Elwyn Watkins had promised to live in the constituency but was not really doing so.

The Election judges ruled this was a personal attack: "A person who breaks his promise is untrustworthy."

But the High Court overruled them and agreed with Phil Woolas.

They ruled that an attack had to be either political or personal, it could not be both. This they decided was a political attack, even if it was untrue.

However, it is worth remembering the Election judges had made pretty clear that this issue alone would not have been enough to evict Phil Woolas from Parliament.

Far more important was the false allegation that Elwyn Watkins had been wooing Muslim extremists.

The Election Court took this to mean violent extremists.

The High Court upheld the conviction on this basis because such a serious accusation went "from being a statement as to Mr Watkins' political position to a statement about his personal character."

But Mr Woolas has always argued that he accused his opponent of wooing Muslim extremists but not violent extremists.

Mr Watkins' lawyers successfully argued there was no such distinction, and indeed the leaflets showed photographs of Muslims jailed for threatening violence.

But because this was a judicial review rather than an appeal, those arguments could not be heard again.

The High Court could only rule on the application of the law and it decided that on this far more serious charge, the Election Court had judged correctly.

Mr Woolas' supporters will share his anger and frustration that he cannot appeal and argue his case again.

But he knew that he was taking a serious political gamble when he sanctioned his all-out campaign. He just did not realise the stakes were as high as they were.

Phil Woolas hoped to make political headlines in victory, in the end he made legal history in defeat.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?