´óÏó´«Ã½

Michael:

Have you run another story on the McGladdery story you ran in the run up to May? Woolas's campaign used ´óÏó´«Ã½ and Newsnight logos beacuse it was so anti-watkins.

Where's the follow up? Or retraction?

Two high court judges were happy to dismiss allegations you faithfully reported as complete fabrications.

WHERE ARE THE WHITE SUITS IN OLDHAM EAST AND SADDLEWORTH?

Will an anti-sleaze INDEPENDENT stand? Time to interview Martin Bell, Newsnight. If you won't listen to ME, perhaps a bit of celebrity will help? This is a chance, not to be missed, to

SPOILPARTYGAMES

The lib dems need to grow up and become men and fight for their pledges to the people that voted for them. I as a voter for Lib Dems now feel they are a waste of a vote. I wish I had voted for Labour. Atleast I wouldn't have been let down over and over and over and over again. Nick clegg needs to step aside and allow a true leader to step up. Vince cable needs to retire and go home.

Can we asssume this blog is about Phil Woollas? Is it safe to say anymore?

OK, No politician, nor any individual should be exempt from slander or libel laws of the UK.

Indeed, it is encumbent for potential representatives of the people in The House of Commons set and to be a good example.

Furthermore, any MP or potential MP should never, ever regard themselves above the Laws of the Land - that's what dicators do in other countries.

It is the work, and art of writers, satirists, song writers, artists, cartoonists and journalists to play with politics, culture and opinion.

It is a person's duty seeking to work and represent the people whether they are an existing MP or not - to do just that - on their own merit and or history.

Given that the current weather conditions and that future forecasts are extremely pessimistic as to when the big thaw may happen, I would venture that a bye election in mid January is a tad optimistic unless of course the Lib dems want a very low turnout.

Given that the single leaflet that Woolas was crucified upon was probably read by 2 men and a dog, one of which couldnt vote, one of which voted labour anyway and one of which was too busy watching Countdown, I would suggest it doesnt matter when the by-election is held, the LibDems are in for a complete and utter shoeing.

At 8:23pm on 03 Dec 2010, booboobooboobooboo wrote:

You do know that labour introduced tuition fees and increased them and if they were in power they would increase them also maybe even without the cap. Be under no allusions labour are only opposing as a political gesture against the government. They do not keep promises either.

Juliet50 - maybe so, but they didn't line up like clowns and sign a public pledge to abolish them (yes abolish, not reduce or keep the same or increase just a wee bit, abolish) in order to buy student votes.

They may wish it to go away, but it wont. Now they have to cancel a mini-conference and next the by-election that they have forced due to "standards in politics" is going to be a humilitation for them. Its truly pitiful to watch the for-against-abstain debate they are having.

What really cheeses me off is it takes me away from my more favoured activity of Tory bashing. I nearly voted for the LibDems - thank the almighty I didn't.

Below is quote from Lib Dem Official Website.
Do you think they appreciate the irony?


" Elwyn Watkins: Time to let the voters decide

Fri, 03 Dec 2010

The High Court today upheld the decision of the Parliamentary Election Court for Oldham East and Saddleworth and dismissed ex-Labour MP Phil Woolas' appeal.

Commenting after the decision at the Royal Courts of Justice, Liberal Democrat candidate for Oldham East and Saddleworth, Elwyn Watkins, said:

“This judgment makes it clear once again that if you knowingly lie in your election campaign and deceive your constituents you should be kicked out of parliament. This is a victory for the people of Oldham and Saddleworth."

Elaine - you couldn't make that kind of stuff up, quality quote.


Elwyn, rearrange the following words: will haunt back come that to you

looking at the LibDems and their party machine and their prospective candidate, their recent history of lying to the elctorate and their abysmal lack of faith I would rather have Phil Woolas a thousand times over a cheapskate LYING politician of which the LibDmes are legion....

It was not just the lies it was the abusive nature of those lies that caused Woolas to have his seat rightfully confiscated.

I find it extraordinary that apparent supporters of Woolas and thus Labour supporters seem to now agree with the sort of vitriol that they complained about when Peter Griffiths beat Patrick Gordon Walker in the electoral contest at Smethwick in 1964 (I think). Griffiths was right out of order and condemned by his own side.

But it was a different Labour Party then, a party of moral principle; not New Labour which is only in politics to win no matter what the price anyone else pays.

"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"

And your story is? ................that some Lib Dems have told you something that they wanted you to know, something that most of us could have guessed by allowing for three weeks plus the Xmas holiday.

Very insightful, cutting edge work. Do you sell rope by any chance?

9. At 9:28pm on 04 Dec 2010, elaine wrote:
Below is quote from Lib Dem Official Website.
Do you think they appreciate the irony?

“This judgment makes it clear once again that if you knowingly lie in your election campaign and deceive your constituents you should be kicked out of parliament. This is a victory for the people of Oldham and Saddleworth."

...................
Wonderful spot Elaine.

Maybe Michael should ask Nick Clegg about this?

Those bleating that the people of Oldham East and Saddleworth have been denied their choice of representative should take note of the fact that The Representation of the People Act is the LAW OF THE LAND; under that Act, if a candidate knowingly lies about a rival in election literature, then he/she is liable to held account in an Election Court.

How many past candidates (defeated) are now kicking themselves that they didn't know about this provision - MANY election addresses in the past have come close to the line, with legitimacy open to question?

Anyway,

what does the LibDem reckoning on the timing of the election - NOT, I argue, a by-election but a re-run election - have to do with the price of avocado dip?