Woolas Election Declared Void

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

He didn't claim for the jam rags.

 

I never defended the leaflet once I'd seen it when the case ended - or Woolas.

 

Obviously not enough people thought he was that bad as a constituency MP, given that he won.

 

He didn't take the money off you or anyone else. That is just silly.

[rudemedic]

He didn't claim for the jam rags.

 

I never defended the leaflet once I'd seen it when the case ended - or Woolas.

 

Obviously not enough people thought he was that bad as a constituency MP, given that he won.

 

He didn't take the money off you or anyone else. That is just silly.

 

Well no he didn't, like I mentioned earlier, if he had won and won comfortably he might still have a job. Given that in large sections of the constituency you could put a gay Nazi, paedophile, cat-buggerer in a red rosette and people would still vote for him, he obviously hasn't done that good a job. Its the same for those areas where you could put the same person in a blue rosette and they'd still win. The good MPs increase their vote share, the really good ones turn a marginal into a safe(ish) seat, Woolas did neither.

 

I'm just glad he isn't my MP, when you get so soundly thrased by Patsy, in public, I'd be concerned how often you'll get beat by proper businessmen and their PR on local issues.

 

Incidentally, I'm with Lees on the drinking front, if in your moment in the spotlight you get so spanked by Joanna Lumley, and that is apparently because you have been drinking far too much then you deserve to get fired. I can think of quite a few occupations where drinking whilst at work is a criminal offence, as opposed to simply unprofessional. I can understand some MPs having a drink at work, its part of their job, but not ones who are deciding the headline of the day.

Edited November 9, 2010 by rudemedic

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Well I'm not quite sure that he didn't win by 103 votes there Doctor, but there you go.

 

Most of the time, MPs are hostages to the national situation. Plenty of Labour MPs with notionally larger majorities than Woolas lost though, which is some indication that the honest citizens of Oldham E and S were nit that unhappy with him - certainly not unhappy enough.

 

LL didn't see Woolas on the Terrace on the Joanna Lumley day. Nor did you. LL saw him on the Terrace on a different day and extrapolated that that happens all day every day. True he was there quite a bit, but he was also not there quite a bit, on telly, leading debates in the Chamber or simply working in his office. I wouldn't get too excited about it if I were you.

 

If my hand swells up after an insect bite, do I need Antihistamine or antibiotics?  

 

[leeslover]

LL didn't see Woolas on the Terrace on the Joanna Lumley day. Nor did you. LL saw him on the Terrace on a different day and extrapolated that that happens all day every day. True he was there quite a bit, but he was also not there quite a bit, on telly, leading debates in the Chamber or simply working in his office. I wouldn't get too excited about it if I were you.

No, I was told about it by someone who works there

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

The ghurkas are in now. What did he do wrong? You can't have it both ways.

[leeslover]

The ghurkas are in now. What did he do wrong? You can't have it both ways.

Whether they were let in or not shouldn't have been decided on the basis of a minister being browbeaten by an actress and unable to deal with it because he was :censored:faced. I'm surprised that anyone would not agree with this, and that it really doesn't reflect highly on the little tool.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

So now you're a Puritan. Fine. I'd be careful with that one though because they more or less all end up as hypocrites. More serious military decisions were taken during WWII after way more than a few glasses of wine.

[oafc0000]

Whether they were let in or not shouldn't have been decided on the basis of a minister being browbeaten by an actress and unable to deal with it because he was :censored:faced. I'm surprised that anyone would not agree with this, and that it really doesn't reflect highly on the little tool.

 

It was very much the weight of public opinion that lead to the change... Which is entirely the right thing when it comes to politics / democracy.... The fact someone was ready to raise the issue and make a lot of noise had little bearing on it.

[opinions4u]

It was very much the weight of public opinion that lead to the change... Which is entirely the right thing when it comes to politics / democracy....

Sometimes the best politicans are the ones who don't give in to public opinion.

 

 

 

[garcon]

The fact Woolas was so pissed he allowed himself to be railroaded by a fecking 70 year old actress surely has some bearing?

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Sometimes the best politicans are the ones who don't give in to public opinion.

 

Except this wasn't just public opinion - in fact, on closer inspection, we see that it was more to do with the opinion of the good old House of Commons. On 29 April 2009 at about 4.15 pm, the then Government lost a Division on a Liberal Democrat motion calling for the Government to "withdraw its new guidelines immediately and bring forward revised proposals that extend an equal right of residence to all Gurkhas."

 

By convention, if the Opposition win on such a motion, the Government change policy, which they did later that day.

 

At 7.43 pm, Woolas turned up in the Chamber (for the second time that day, and perfectly sober) and made the following statement...

 

This Government respect the will of the House of Commons. As the Prime Minister said today, this Government took the first action to provide justice for the Gurkhas and enable them to settle in the United Kingdom. Under this Government, the first ever rights of settlement for Gurkhas in Britain have been granted, and 6,000 of them have applied successfully to settle in this country.

 

We have also introduced equal pay and pensions for the Gurkhas—something that had not happened previously. We doubled the pensions of people staying in Nepal and increased the overall pension for Gurkhas, especially those at a senior age. The guidance that we introduced last week will increase the number of Gurkhas eligible to come to this country by 4,000 or, including families, about 10,000 people.

 

However, we recognise the strong feeling in all parts of the House on this subject. As was recognised in the debate this afternoon, this is a complex issue with wide-ranging implications. The cost of implementing the decision of the House of Commons could well run into billions of pounds. The Government also have an obligation to consider the precedent for future decisions on other immigration categories, and wider Government policy. We cannot, therefore, responsibly or fairly rush into the formulation of new policy. We can and do commit to immediate action on individual cases, and we are setting a clear time frame for the next stage of the reform.

 

In the light of the decision of the House, I am bringing forward the date for the determination of the outstanding applications to the end of May. That will ensure that those who qualify under the guidelines now in force get confirmation of that as soon as possible, and we will report to the House the outcome of this work. In addition, based on that work, and recognising the strong feeling of the House, we will come forward with proposals for the next stage of our reform of the rules, to ensure that the Government continue to deliver a fair outcome for ex-Gurkhas and their families. We will publish this next stage before the summer recess.

 

I said in the House earlier that we cannot foresee circumstances in which ex-Gurkhas in the UK, who have served this country so well, would ever be removed from the United Kingdom. I can now say, in addition, that anyone whose case is considered under the current guidelines and does not qualify, whether in the UK or in Nepal, will not have that decision implemented pending the publication of the next stage of our reform.

 

The House of Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs has indicated its intention to conduct a hearing on this issue next week, and I welcome that. In addition, I will share our review of the applications with the Committee, once it has been completed. We will consider the guidelines published last Friday in the light of the decision of the House today, and we will introduce proposals based on the experience of our consideration of the outstanding applications.

 

There we have it. There was already a new policy when Lumley staged her publicity stunt. I'm more inclined to believe that as a celebrity, she was in the business of drumming up attention to Joanna Lumley rather than the cause of the Gurkhas.

 

Woolas did the responsible thing, having been asked to think again by the House of Commons. I don't understand the anger at someone who does something like that. What do you want?

Edited November 9, 2010 by 24hoursfromtulsehill

[oafc0000]

Sometimes the best politicans are the ones who don't give in to public opinion.

 

Sometimes... Sometimes not... In this case it was the right move IMO...

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

The fact Woolas was so pissed he allowed himself to be railroaded by a fecking 70 year old actress surely has some bearing?

 

No. He got railroaded after changing the policy. He made no new policy announcement for the sake of Joanna Lumley. You and Joanna Lumley might like to think that he did, but he didn't.

 

Besides, a few glasses of wine might see you under the table (or throwing up on your sandals) but I fancy Woolas can take it much better than that.

 

How's cat man? Still pacing up and down wondering what to do? Chewing his fingernails down to the bone is he? So many if onlies. Here's a salutory tale from when the boot was on the other foot.

 

Mark Oaten won Winchester in 1997 with a majority of 2. The Tory challenger, Gerry Malone, successfully petitioned an election court to void the result (on the grounds of not counting some votes or some other administrative glitch). There was a by-election, featuring the same candidates, which Oaten won with a majority of more than 21,000. The good burghers of Winchester generally felt that Malone had been a sore loser. What price the good burghers of Oldham E and S feeling the same way?

 

[opinions4u]

Mark Oaten won Winchester in 1997 with a majority of 2. The Tory challenger, Gerry Malone, successfully petitioned an election court to void the result (on the grounds of not counting some votes or some other administrative glitch). There was a by-election, featuring the same candidates, which Oaten won with a majority of more than 21,000. The good burghers of Winchester generally felt that Malone had been a sore loser. What price the good burghers of Oldham E and S feeling the same way?

Good example.

 

The key difference there is "administative mess up" v "lying scumbag who won't be standing".

 

The outcome will indeed be intriguing.

 

 

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

If Labour picks someone local, I reckon it's a formality, even if Watkins stands, which he might not. He's already proved iffy under pressure (if I don't win this case I'm crying off), so I think he might not fancy being involved in the only game in town, with every Labour activist in the region knocking on doors and licking envelopes and so on. I just don't think he'll get much of a sympathy vote, even though he was grievously wronged last time.

[garcon]

Of course, if Labour do win the re-election (and I think that is the most likely result, but something more than 103 votes), while you may claim the victory as a kick in the teeth for the cry baby, I think the greater factor will be dissatisfaction amongst left leaning Lib Dem voters with the coalition.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Of course, if Labour do win the re-election (and I think that is the most likely result, but something more than 103 votes), while you may claim the victory as a kick in the teeth for the cry baby, I think the greater factor will be dissatisfaction amongst left leaning Lib Dem voters with the coalition.

 

It's news to me that the cry baby has teeth to kick.

[rudemedic]

Well I'm not quite sure that he didn't win by 103 votes there Doctor, but there you go.

 

Most of the time, MPs are hostages to the national situation. Plenty of Labour MPs with notionally larger majorities than Woolas lost though, which is some indication that the honest citizens of Oldham E and S were nit that unhappy with him - certainly not unhappy enough.

 

LL didn't see Woolas on the Terrace on the Joanna Lumley day. Nor did you. LL saw him on the Terrace on a different day and extrapolated that that happens all day every day. True he was there quite a bit, but he was also not there quite a bit, on telly, leading debates in the Chamber or simply working in his office. I wouldn't get too excited about it if I were you.

 

If my hand swells up after an insect bite, do I need Antihistamine or antibiotics?  

 

Who won the 100m at the 1988 Olympics, who has the gold medal? If you cheat (and that is essentially what a judge has decided Woolas did) and win at the time but get disqualified later you don't win.

 

As for the last question, it depends, the answer could quite easily be one, the other or both, go see someone.

[garcon]

If my hand swells up after an insect bite, do I need Antihistamine or antibiotics?  

I dunno, but while it's swollen why not have a wank and pretend it's the hand of a real man?

 

Toodle pip!

[Yard Dog]

Lot of support and sympathy for Woolas from people in Oldham centre today according to BBC 909.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Yard Dog

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Who won the 100m at the 1988 Olympics, who has the gold medal? If you cheat (and that is essentially what a judge has decided Woolas did) and win at the time but get disqualified later you don't win.

 

I happen to think that the good voters of Oldham E and S are perfectly capable of deciding what is and what is not a lie on an election leaflet, but if the court knows better, so be it. It was two judges, incidentally. Both of whom are I'm sure well acquainted with modern electoral contests and what voters are capable or incapable of deciding themselves.

 

As for the last question, it depends, the answer could quite easily be one, the other or both, go see someone.

 

Thanks for that. Are you turning me away?

 

I dunno, but while it's swollen why not have a wank and pretend it's the hand of a real man?

 

Toodle pip!

 

Thanks for the advice, unsolicited and useless though it is.

[rudemedic]

I happen to think that the good voters of Oldham E and S are perfectly capable of deciding what is and what is not a lie on an election leaflet, but if the court knows better, so be it. It was two judges, incidentally. Both of whom are I'm sure well acquainted with modern electoral contests and what voters are capable or incapable of deciding themselves.

 

 

 

Thanks for that. Are you turning me away?

 

 

 

Thanks for the advice, unsolicited and useless though it is.

 

No, I can't give you my opinion without seeing it and feeling it and associated areas. Hence why you need to go see someone who can.

 

I think you missed my point, 2 judges decided Woolas cheated, so he didn't win. Currently, no-one won that election. Even if Woolas got 103 (is that the right number) votes more than his nearest challenger.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

No, I can't give you my opinion without seeing it and feeling it and associated areas. Hence why you need to go see someone who can.

 

I think you missed my point, 2 judges decided Woolas cheated, so he didn't win. Currently, no-one won that election. Even if Woolas got 103 (is that the right number) votes more than his nearest challenger.

 

But he was the MP for said constituency since May wasn't he? There were some consequences from him getting 103 more votes than crybaby cat man?

 

Like I said, it's a car crash, out of which a man's reputation has been trashed by a couple of out-of-towners who beg to differ with thousands of voters. Any true democrat ought to be a bit wary of that, if nothing else. But then I suspect that you're not a democrat - I know for a fact that Leeslover isn't. He wants a Puritan dictatorship, following the obvious success of the last one.

 

The hand cleared up fine after I ate some antihistamines, which I plumped for after carefully selecting drugs from my pharmacopia using the much maligned eeny-meeny-miney-mo method.

[leeslover]

I happen to think that the good voters of Oldham E and S are perfectly capable of deciding what is and what is not a lie on an election leaflet, but if the court knows better, so be it. It was two judges, incidentally. Both of whom are I'm sure well acquainted with modern electoral contests and what voters are capable or incapable of deciding themselves.

Woolas wasn't thrown out because the judges were convinced that his actions changed the result. He was thrown out because he violated the rules of the democratic procedure that he was participating in, it wouldn;t make a blind but of difference if he had won by a country mile. Same as if he had stuffed 5 faked votes and won by 20000, he still gets done.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Woolas wasn't thrown out because the judges were convinced that his actions changed the result. He was thrown out because he violated the rules of the democratic procedure that he was participating in, it wouldn;t make a blind but of difference if he had won by a country mile. Same as if he had stuffed 5 faked votes and won by 20000, he still gets done.

 

I'll forgive you for that mistake given that you're new to this story...

 

...actually no.

 

You're wrong. Again. Unforgivably wrong. Wrong on a fact that isn't a secret. Again.

 

Section 106(2)b states:

 

"A candidate shall not be liable nor shall his election be avoided for any illegal practice under subsection (1) above committed by his agent other than his election agent unless...an election court find and report that the election of the candidate was procured or materially assisted in consequence of the making or publishing of such false statements."

 

Have another go if you want. I'd just leave it there if I were you.

Edited November 9, 2010 by 24hoursfromtulsehill