Macca Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 The result to elect Phil Woolas has been declared void and there'll be a By-Election for his seat. It's going to be an interesting few months. Glad to see Woolas out of office! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 So do you vote for the incompetents, the cutters or the bum-buddies of the cutters? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macca Posted November 5, 2010 Author Share Posted November 5, 2010 So do you vote for the incompetents, the cutters or the bum-buddies of the cutters? Depends on who Labour field as a candidate. I'm not loyal to one party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 What's that sobbing, done in Tulse Hill, Is it a monster? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 Wow. I honestly didn't expect that judgement. From what had been reported, I was extremely sceptical that Watkins had proved his case. I now wonder if that was more down to rubbish reporting of the proceedings, given that I knew very well there was more than adequate evidence. It is both a victory for electoral fairness and a potentially dangerous precedent. As for the by-election: So do you vote for the incompetents, the cutters or the bum-buddies of the cutters? Even I have to accept that's a harsh but hilarious summary of the choice available! Is Woolas barred from standing? I've not seen anything to specifically say. If not, and he does re-stand, I guess that says all we need to know about the value Labour place on democracy. Woolas should be flung into the pit of self-serving, dishonest, failed politicians never to be seen again. As for Watkins, I don't know his plans. I presume he will stand, but I can't say for sure his heart will be in it. And I think the result could be very difficult to call. A resurgence for new-not-New Labour? A moral victory for a beleaguered Lib Dem party, or a surprise early term swing in favour of the Tories? It really could end up a three way battle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 In fact the Chronicle online article says Woolas is debarred from standing in the re-run. Good. I hope he rots in hell. http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-fea...the-verdicts-in Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 Does anyone else think that if the election hadn't been won by just over 100 votes that nothing would have happened. He lied in his campaign literature on a personal level but the Lib Dems, for certain and Conservatives, in all probability, have now been proven to lie on a policy level. I think this could be a good guide to see how people have rated the coalitions performance so far, the Lib Dems especially. But you have to admit for this board it has a certain schadenfreud about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 Does anyone else think that if the election hadn't been won by just over 100 votes that nothing would have happened. Not sure. Watkins was pretty set on pursuing Woolas legally as soon as he read the offending leaflet, i.e. well before the result. Theoretically, it may have had a bearing on which legal route he chose. With this one he had to show the result had been affected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 In fact the Chronicle online article says Woolas is debarred from standing in the re-run. Good. I hope he rots in hell. http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-fea...the-verdicts-in "The case centred on a newspaper-type election flyer produced by Labour attacking Mr Watkins, and the judges ruled that former Immigration Minister Woolas knowingly made false statements about his opponent." my god, that's some can of worms Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejh45 Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 Excellent news...couldn't have happened to a nicer numptie....I bet he's wiping his tears as we speak with his expenses form!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macca Posted November 5, 2010 Author Share Posted November 5, 2010 Woolas to apply for a judicial review on the verdict. This is going to take a few months longer to be settled! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 Phil Woolas is appealing. Elwyn Watkins is a charmless crybaby. This could be the Bosman ruling of politics. I've got a hunch that Watkins will face plenty worse questions over his character in the rerun. St Elwyn might actually end up wishing he'd lost this case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 Gracious as ever, Mr. Tulse Hill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 Magnanimity is my middle name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 Phil Woolas is appalling. Not like you to make a typo, but I have fixed it for you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 Is it me or does Mr Tulsehill's logic fail to stand up? Surely if there were any genuine questions of Watkins' character to drag up, the Labour campaign wouldn't have felt the need to invent them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 (edited) . Edited November 5, 2010 by 24hoursfromtulsehill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slystallone Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 Phil Woolas is appealing. Elwyn Watkins is a charmless crybaby. This could be the Bosman ruling of politics. I've got a hunch that Watkins will face plenty worse questions over his character in the rerun. St Elwyn might actually end up wishing he'd lost this case. Just remind me again; I've forgotten - you're a Labour supporter right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macca Posted November 5, 2010 Author Share Posted November 5, 2010 Any more appalling than Watkins? I'll tell you tomorrow exactly why Watkins is unfit for office, but it'll all come out in the wash soon enough. Why didn't Woolas and Labour use the info you claim to know instead of making stuff up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 Any more appalling than Watkins? I'll tell you tomorrow exactly why Watkins is unfit for office, but it'll all come out in the wash soon enough. I can't wait. In the meantime, I refer you to the comment I made a few moments ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 Why didn't Woolas and Labour use the info you claim to know instead of making stuff up? They didn't have it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 In fact, seeing as I'm about to disappear for the weekend and you suddenly seem to have gone shy, best PM me this fantastic information you're deigning to share with us tomorrow, just to be sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 Just remind me again; I've forgotten - you're a Labour supporter right? No - I'm strictly neutral. Scrupulously unbiased. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macca Posted November 5, 2010 Author Share Posted November 5, 2010 They didn't have it. You should have told them then. Watkins would have been stuck then. I don't think there'll be any personal attacks in the by-election. All parties will be scared off with this verdict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 In fact, seeing as I'm about to disappear for the weekend and you suddenly seem to have gone shy, best PM me this fantastic information you're deigning to share with us tomorrow, just to be sure. Thanks for the offer but, respectfully and regrettably, I must decline. I didn't say I was sharing anything with the group anyway, least of all you. I said I'd tell Leeslover tomorrow when we're out boozing to mark his birthday. He'll be whistling a different tune then, just as you will soon enough. Signing off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.