61 replies to this topic

[JohnM]

Yes and that's the mark he overstepped - the one that divides true from false.

Yes, understood. TBH, I'm fed up of this nonsense from candidates of any party, not just this one. What he did was enough to trigger action and I suspect that even now, politicos will be trawling through the election pamphlet waste bin looking for other examples in other constituencies, though it may be too late for action, now.

[WearyRhino]

Yes, understood. TBH, I'm fed up of this nonsense from candidates of any party, not just this one. What he did was enough to trigger action and I suspect that even now, politicos will be trawling through the election pamphlet waste bin looking for other examples in other constituencies, though it may be too late for action, now.

Which is why I think the decision may be overturned, as it will make election campaigning virtually impossible.

[JohnM]

It would be nice to think that it would encourage people to behave properly...but then these are ( second rate) politicians so I don't hold out much hope

[l'angelo mysterioso]

only if found guilty in a court

depends on who's finding him/her guilty

[l'angelo mysterioso]

the Lib Dems are getting totalled in the polls right now a

why?

[Bedford Roughyed]

Which is why I think the decision may be overturned, as it will make election campaigning virtually impossible.

Impossible? Really?

So enforcing the rule which says you can't knowingly spread lies about a rival candidate makes it impossible to campaign?

You can still tell the truth about your opposition, you can still even spread lies as long as you think its the truth.

All you can't do is knowingly spread false statements against an opposition. Cant see why you think thats a bad thing?

[Trojan]

Two reasons (in my opinion). The first is obviously that the Lib Dems are getting totalled in the polls right now and I don't think Oldham East is going to be in any way different to the rest of the country in that regard; the second is that even though the court's backed the Lib Dems it's as good as saying "Oi, thickos, this guy lied to you and you didn't notice. Now vote for me instead you dunderheads."

Oldham East includes Saddleworth, which being in Yorkshire in the past was part of the sprawling Colne Valley constituency, which included Marsden, Meltham, Slaithwaite, and Holmfirth. Colne Valley was a notorious bellweather, marginal between Labour and the Lib/Dems, represented in the seventies for the Liberals by Richard Wainwright, father of Martin Wainwright the Guardian's Northern editor. I always thought that it was Saddleworth that made it so marginal, so who knows what the outcome will be.
Whatever, if you're not allowed to lie in an election campaign, where does that leave all the Lib/Dem MP's for seats with students (like Leeds Northwest?)
In fact where does that leave David Cameron who is rumoured to have invented the lie about Labour's tax plans in 1992?

Edited by Trojan, 06 November 2010 - 11:34 AM.

[JohnM]

There is a big difference between what Woolas has been found guilty of, though, and what the Lib Dems may have said about student fees.

Woolas told deliberate untruths about another candidate. The Lib Dems never in their wildest dreams expected to be sharing power. In any case, it is quite legitimate to change policy based on new facts, a new situation, etc.

In addition, if we are to look back, then how about Browns claim that no one would be worse off when he abolished ( hos own invention) teh 10p tax rate. There are still those who are worse off, despite Browns climb down. Going back even further, how about Wilsons, " the pound in your pocket will not be devalued." I'm sure there are other examples from bouth main parties, too.

How could the court's decision restrict free speech and "chill" comment?

[sam]

In fact where does that leave David Cameron

sat in number 10 not telling us that iraq bombs could be here in 45 minutes.

[Trojan]

There is a big difference between what Woolas has been found guilty of, though, and what the Lib Dems may have said about student fees.

Woolas told deliberate untruths about another candidate. The Lib Dems never in their wildest dreams expected to be sharing power. In any case, it is quite legitimate to change policy based on new facts, a new situation, etc.

In addition, if we are to look back, then how about Browns claim that no one would be worse off when he abolished ( hos own invention) teh 10p tax rate. There are still those who are worse off, despite Browns climb down. Going back even further, how about Wilsons, " the pound in your pocket will not be devalued." I'm sure there are other examples from bouth main parties, too.

How could the court's decision restrict free speech and "chill" comment?

The court said apparently that whilst generally telling lies in politics was permisible, in this case because the majority was so small the lies affected the outcome. I'd say this was a fairly spurious argument. Where do you draw the line?
Of course the political lies to end all lies were those told by Thatcher and co. about the loss of the Fallklands (including the sinking of the Belgrano) that even nearly 30 years later have never been investigated as thoroughly as some of Labour's misdoings.

[Bedford Roughyed]

Application for judicial review refused.

[ckn]

Application for judicial review refused.

And comprehensively booted by the Labour Party.

[John Drake]

The Lib Dems never in their wildest dreams expected to be sharing power.

Oh come on! Almost everyone correctly predicted that the outcome of the last election would be a hung parliament, so it was no surprise to anyone when it turned out that way. As the third party, the Lib Dems were always going to be the power brokers in that scenario. Nick Clegg openly stated time and again during the campaign that in that event, he would talk to whichever was the largest party about a possible power sharing deal. It's about the only pledge he did make that he's stuck to.

[WearyRhino]

Nick Clegg openly stated time and again during the campaign that in that event, he would talk to whichever was the largest party about a possible power sharing deal. It's about the only pledge he did make that he's stuck to.

Like the staunch democrat he is!

[WearyRhino]

The court said apparently that whilst generally telling lies in politics was permisible, in this case because the majority was so small the lies affected the outcome. I'd say this was a fairly spurious argument. Where do you draw the line?

You are right to highlight the fact that a line has now been drawn and the potential to push the line exists. The problem is that paradoxically the distinction between truth and lie is not nearly as clear cut as some might suggest.

[JohnM]

Oh come on! Almost everyone correctly predicted that the outcome of the last election would be a hung parliament, so it was no surprise to anyone when it turned out that way. As the third party, the Lib Dems were always going to be the power brokers in that scenario. Nick Clegg openly stated time and again during the campaign that in that event, he would talk to whichever was the largest party about a possible power sharing deal. It's about the only pledge he did make that he's stuck to.

Come off it with your " oh, come on" Hindsight is a wonderful thing. They may have hoped, planned, declared, etc but in their heart of hearts....

[John Drake]

Come off it with your " oh, come on" Hindsight is a wonderful thing. They may have hoped, planned, declared, etc but in their heart of hearts....

It's nothing to do with hindsight. The 2010 election was the Lib Dems best ever opportunity of securing a share of power. They knew it. Everyone knew it. A hung parliament was the most likely outcome predicted by every single opinion poll published during the campaign and that's exactly what happened. To suggest it hadn't crossed their minds or they hadn't planned for such an outcome is not credible, IMO.

[Trojan]

It's nothing to do with hindsight. The 2010 election was the Lib Dems best ever opportunity of securing a share of power. They knew it. Everyone knew it. A hung parliament was the most likely outcome predicted by every single opinion poll published during the campaign and that's exactly what happened. To suggest it hadn't crossed their minds or they hadn't planned for such an outcome is not credible, IMO.

I think so too. Their big chance to have a say in government. They even sacrificed the one policy that they have stuck to through ups and downs for forty years PR. AV is nothing like PR. PR would IMO have ensured a Lib/Dem voice in government in perpetuity whoever was the larges party. Clegg was so eager he snatched at the ball, knocked on and was a pushover at the subsequent scrum.

Edited by Trojan, 08 November 2010 - 08:10 PM.

[Steve May]

Oldham East includes Saddleworth, which being in Yorkshire in the past was part of the sprawling Colne Valley constituency, which included Marsden, Meltham, Slaithwaite, and Holmfirth. Colne Valley was a notorious bellweather, marginal between Labour and the Lib/Dems, represented in the seventies for the Liberals by Richard Wainwright, father of Martin Wainwright the Guardian's Northern editor. I always thought that it was Saddleworth that made it so marginal, so who knows what the outcome will be.
Whatever, if you're not allowed to lie in an election campaign, where does that leave all the Lib/Dem MP's for seats with students (like Leeds Northwest?)
In fact where does that leave David Cameron who is rumoured to have invented the lie about Labour's tax plans in 1992?

Colne Valley has a very interesting history. The mysterious Victor Grayson was MP here for a while. Churchill once intervened to stop the local Tories from putting a candidate up to allow his Liberal friend Violet Bonham Carter to run against the Labour candidate.

As for Woolas, good riddance. But I wonder where this ruling leaves some other MPs? I can think of some interesting examples from the last election that might not look too good in the light of this case.

And of course, we must all enjoy the irony of Simon Hughes commenting on the situation given how he won his seat all those years ago.

[gingerjon]

And of course, we must all enjoy the irony of Simon Hughes commenting on the situation given how he won his seat all those years ago.

But he was the straight choice. Unless you know something about Tatchell ...

Hopefully it will see an end to a lot of nonsense that spews out of election material. I've felt nauseated by some of the stuff that's put out - and I don't even believe that Woolas is the worst offender although he's managed to be particularly dull about it.