Woolas: The fightback
The Twitter account Woolasfightback says it all really about the mess that Labour are in. Oh, Labour. Oh, Labour, Labour, Labour. I remember voting for you. I remember thinking it was a good idea. I remember thinking that my experience of anything vaguely left-liberal was of people endlessly resorting to infighting and petty squabbles, but that Labour would be different, because they were a national political party, and they'd be clued up, and they'd know what they were doing. Wrong. Oh, I was wrong. Oh, so wrong.
Phil Woolas was responsible for misleading and highly unpleasant tactics against his opponent which used borderline racism to 'get the white vote angry'. He also authorised the use of force against children in detention. So why are Labour still wringing their hands over this poisonous little man? That's the bit that's hard to understand. Why are they so loyal to this idiot who has cost them votes? Why are they trying to reinstate someone who is a massive turnoff for all of us who believe that Labour went too far on immigration by turning a fair policy into a Daily Mail wet dream of 'you can't come in'?
I know it's not all of Labour who are backing Woolas. And thank goodness. But there's enough of a split, and enough rumblings from behind the scenes, to give an impression that, as the cliche goes, lefties are never happier than when they're fighting themselves. Why do the names of Cherie Blair and David Miliband turn up? Don't these people realise what kind of damage they'd do by backing this discredited oaf? And then you have to wonder if they know exactly what they're doing - rocking the boat.
It was Labour's fault in the first place, for not booting Woolas out sooner. Those leaflets were evidence enough to see him off. The claim that the party didn't want to prejudice the court case and so waited for the verdict is simply not good enough. You either think that publishing such leaflets is appalling, in which case you take action, or you don't; you don't wait for someone else to tell you what to do. That kind of wobbling leaves Woolas and his chums with the defence that Labour didn't kick him out until the court ruled, so if the ruling can be overturned, then everything will be rosy again.
It may be disappointing to see a democratically elected person be kicked out of office by the courts, but it's more disappointing to see someone resort to dog-whistle racism and lies to try and win a tight election. Woolas knew the law (or at least he should have been aware of it) when he started his campaign, and - at the risk of using a fairly standard phrase you see everywhere at the moment - he had 13 years in government to change that law, should he have thought it was unfair. He didn't, and neither did anyone else who is suddenly getting heated about the decision.
There is no absolute right to tell a lie, and get away with it, just because it's politics and electioneering. It doesn't chill political debate to call someone out for lying; it simply makes people less likely to lie in the future. We can wring your hands if we like, but I don't find that tremendously worrying, in the cold light of day. And yes, Liberal Democrats and Tories do leaflets of their own that aren't very pleasant. If you don't like them, call them out. Whataboutery doesn't work in this instance because everyone has the opportunity to complain about election communications. And there's a world of difference between a dodgy bar chart and the kind of awfulness found in Woolas's material.
But so it goes on. Woolas is looking for help, and he's getting it. At a time when Labour is riding high in the polls, when its stance against cuts is popular. Its tendency for self-destruction always pops up at the exact moment it is needed least. Labour have a chance to seize the moral high ground over cuts; to offer an alternative; to be the best opposition they can be. If they blow it by getting distracted over defending some fool and his deeply unpleasant leaflets then they deserve all the failure they're going to get.
Related posts:
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
- Cheerio, cheerio, cheerio…
- Children died
- The letters you never get around to sending
- Applying again
- I just sent Robin round – 2
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- Iain on Applying again
- Roger on The letters you never get around to sending
- Dave Hodgkinson on The letters you never get around to sending
- droid on The letters you never get around to sending
- Rogue_Leader on The letters you never get around to sending
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.
November 10th, 2010 - 10:09
Just one thing: what Woolas did wasn’t dog-whistle racism; it was air-horn racism.
November 10th, 2010 - 10:23
I saw it described “wolf-whistle” in one article. I thought that was quite clever.
November 10th, 2010 - 10:47
Quite. Dog-whistle racism implies some sort of subtlety about it, that the “real” message is coded and hidden behind reasonable language. Woolas wasn’t even any good at that. The racism and lies were up front and obvious.
November 10th, 2010 - 11:05
If Woolas was “air-horn racism” what would call the Express or BNP? How loud can racism get? Glastonbury-speaker-system racism.
November 10th, 2010 - 10:09
Seconded.
November 10th, 2010 - 10:21
Excellent blog, but i have to question whether it is disappointing to see an MP removed from parliament under powers granted to a court by act of Parliament for breaking laws passed by Parliament? I blogged on this yesterday – the claim that this is somehow an assault on democracy leaves me cold I’m afraid. And I don’t see how changing the law to permit candidates to lie to the electorate will be good for democracy either.
There seems to be a growing trend among MPs to believe that they should not be subject to the law like the rest of us – the Supreme Court have been forced to rule on this only today. Unfortunately the longer they persist in this special pleading the less respect or trust they will be accorded.
But your final point is perhaps the best – this is the law as it stands. All must be subject to the law whether we find it inconvenient or not, and in particular when one has had 13 years to amend the law, one can hardly be taken seriously when complaining about it only when it bites.
That and the fact that Labour need to get their act together quick if they want to be a more effective opposition than they were a government…
November 10th, 2010 - 12:44
I certainly agree with your sentiment that MPs appear to see themselves above the law in some respects. We saw that during the expenses scandal and subsequently with the attempt to use parliamentary privilege to avoid legal proceedings. From my own point of view it isn’t especially disappointing that elected officials should be subject to the rule of law, but I know that others are concerned.
November 10th, 2010 - 10:26
Nail, head. What a great post.
I really do think it’s because of Teh Hatez, all this. I think Labour started using hate to knit themselves back together (both MPs and members, and plenty of supporters), and then forgot to turn the tap off. With the result that a whole load of MPs now think it’s an acceptable priority to back a racist idiot because his opponent in both court case and election is a Lib Dem. If hating on the Lib Dems is the single most important thing in life, of course Woolas looks like a priority.
It’s very similar to the mindset that can end up justifying torture, in fact.
November 10th, 2010 - 10:44
It doesn’t chill political debate to call someone out for lying; it simply makes people less likely to lie in the future. We can wring your hands if we like, but I don’t find that tremendously worrying, in the cold light of day. And yes, Liberal Democrats and Tories do leaflets of their own that aren’t very pleasant. If you don’t like them, call them out.
I’ve just heard the sound of a nail being whacked firmly on the head…
I had one of those professional Labour bores tweet me last night blethering on about “right of appeal” and all that… seriously, did he really think what Woolas put out was okay?
You’re right, they’re all at it – I’ve seen iffy bar charts and misleading stats from all of them – Labour, Lib Dems (“can’t win here!”), Greens and Tories.
In Greenwich, local Labour activists and even *a former council leader* pose as disinterested “local residents” on leaflets. I get the feeling that these Labour MPs simply don’t like being found out – like expenses, nasty campaigning is one of those political secrets that they’d rather we didn’t know about.
I can’t help linking this in with the Lambeth councillor censured for implying a blogger was racist for, er, leaving the borough. There’s a horrible strain of entitlement that runs right through that party, and Ed Miliband will have failed if he doesn’t purge Labour of that.
November 10th, 2010 - 14:44
I don’t think carefully choosing whichever stats make you look likely to win constitutes telling lies, to be frank, providing the stats you choose are genuine and the source labelled.
Similarly, if the former council leader lives locally, it is is not lying to highlight him as a local resident. Members of political parties are people too!
There is a difference between being misleading and telling an out and out lie. It’s true that there are many dodgy practices (I may disagree with you as to which are and aren’t) but don’t lets pretend everything from gloss and spin to out and out lying is morally equivalent, because it isn’t.
A lie is something that is factually untrue that the teller knew was untrue. While the truth can mislead, anything that is true is not a lie.
November 10th, 2010 - 11:58
An Expert on the wireless yesterday expressed the opinion that Woolas’ attempt to apply for a judicial review was doomed to failure as a High Court judge has no power to overturn the decision of another High Court judge. Or, in this case, two High Court judges. The kneejerk reaction from assorted Labour vips and finks has put me, probably for the first time ever, in agreement with Harriet Harman.
Let us hope the odious little toad creeps back under his rock and is never heard from again.
November 10th, 2010 - 12:19
“Borderline” racism? It was *blatant* racism.
November 10th, 2010 - 12:24
I think the Twitter account is a joke surely?
Major thing please, really need your lefty help…What the fuck is hand-wringing? I don’t feel like I can do it properly unless I know what it means.
November 10th, 2010 - 12:45
Poe’s Law, isn’t it. But I think, yes, it is a joke.
Hand-wringing is when you’re kind of worried about something and you want to show you’re concerned, but you don’t quite know what to do about it, so you just kind of do nothing, while making a lot of noise to show that you’re worried about it and that you really care. This can be accompanied by gestures of concern and empathy such as wringing your hands.
November 10th, 2010 - 14:36
Ahah. Anti-liberal, well-meaning-but-no-action stereotyping then?
Can I ask a genuine question to you as a blogger? Do you not shy away from these terms (“you couldn’t make it up”, “NuLieBore”, “beggars belief” etc) simply out of principle? They evoke a crazy warning light in my head.
Had to look up Poe’s law. Thanks for bringing this into my life.
November 10th, 2010 - 14:48
I think I’m reclaiming hand-wringing back, for hand-wringing liberals everywhere.
November 10th, 2010 - 12:57
All agreed. Blimming Labour party shooting themselves in the the arse again…
It irked me last night that the one MP interviewed supporting Harman’s stance was….her husband! Others must stand up to this shit.
November 11th, 2010 - 23:26
Surely we risk turning Parliament into nothing other than cipher.
It should rule on the behaviour of its own members and not hand over that task to unelected bureaucrats. I’m not sure the courts should be involved.
Harriot Harman was playing base political advantage but throwing Woolas out of the party even before an appeal.
Don’t blame the elected members blame the parties that have so ham strung our political life that the only way you can become the” people’s representative” is by ignoring your constituents and following party dogma willy nilly
November 12th, 2010 - 08:24
There’s a long established good principle of the separation of powers. Every democracy has it.