Phil Woolas at centre of Labour Party row

Extraordinary scenes are happening in the Labour Party. At the centre of it all is the supposedly disgraced ex-minister Phil Woolas. Having been found guilty of spreading lies about his Liberal Democrat opponent in election leaflets, Woolas is now seeking to show himself as the wronged one. Is he a victim? Has he been unfairly treated? I would hardly think so.

However, on Monday night, Labour backbenchers let rip at Harriet Harman and said some quite nasty things to her face. All because she said racism, telling lies and smearing opponents had no place in the Labour Party. It should have no place in any party.

Is Phil Woolas loved by so many? Or is there some kind of feeling that the courts should not get involved? I can't understand it. Politicians make the laws that govern elections. If they are so beefed up about it, get the law changed. Make it perfectly legal to insinuate that someone is gay, doesn't live in a constituency, is a racist, has dealings with terrorists, fans extremism and is an all-round bad egg, even if none of it is true. That's the way to progress.

As it is, Woolas was found guilty of corrupt election practices. Fine for him to appeal, but let's not suggest that what he did was OK because it wasn't.

Read more »

MPs lose court appeal over expenses

The Supreme Court has ruled that three former Labour MPs should face criminal trials over their expenses claims. They are David Chaytor, Elliot Morley and Jim Devine and they have been claiming that their cases should be heard by Parliament, not the courts. They seem to think that they will get a more favourable hearing before their peers in Parliament rather than their peers in a jury. I would tend to doubt it. As they are no longer MPs, the current House of Commons, with its vast intake of new members, will want to keep them at arms length. Their best bet is to plead not guilty (as they claim they are) and put their case. It's been done before. The late great George Carman QC, in defending Ken Dodd, said, "some accountants are comedians, but comedians are never accountants".

Perhaps a similar sentiment could be put before the courts in their cases.

Read more »