MEMO
From: Phil Woolas
To: Labour Party MPs
Dear colleague,
Thanks for speaking up about how outrageous it is for the courts to oust someone elected by the public with a surprise ruling that sets an awful legal precedent for what was a spur of the moment decision people made during the election.
As the media are building up a welcome interest in the number of MPs who share your views and mine, I have prepared the following brief notes to help you avoid any snarky questions from journalists on this topic.
DON’T say it’s awful for someone the public elected to be ousted from office – else the journo may bring up the number of times you and I voted for standards boards rules that allow councillors to be ousted from office for a wide range of offences.
DON’T say it’s awful for the courts to oust an MP – or some hack who thinks they are smarter than they really are may bring up the number of times you and I voted for new elections and finances offences which you can be convicted of and so booted out from office.
DON’T say that it’s a surprise ruling – it’d be just your bad luck for the journalist to know about the Miranda Grell case a couple of years back (she was only a mere councillor – as if what happens to them should matter to MPs – but bet the journo pretends otherwise!).
DON’T say the ruling sets an awful precedent – or some smart alec reporter may notice there’s no new interpretation of the law in the ruling and that the precedents cited have been around for decades. Ming Campbell’s old enough to get away with saying a law from 1895 is new – but probably not you or I!!
DON’T say the ruling was about a spur of the moment decision in case a Michael Crick wannabe asks how long it took for the diary to be forged or how many times I and my campaign team emailed each other.
FINALLY remember, if you were an MP elected in 1983 or earlier you voted for this bloody legislation in the first place. So you owe me a drink – but don’t let the media interview you!
Hope you find those tips useful. Otherwise keep up the good work how showing how outrageous it is for the courts to oust someone elected by the public with a surprise ruling that sets an awful legal precedent for what was a spur of the moment decision people made during the election.
Best wishes,
Phil
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
More missing scientists: Remembering the GEC-Marconi deaths panic of the late Eighties
Makerfield: we can breathe again.
Brexit has cut trade in almost every sector of the UK economy
David Le Grice
nigel hunter
Ruth Bright
David Warren
Noncoonformistradica
11 Comments
hahahahaha
Great spoof memo – even he could not be that stupid!
Many people in Further Education will be delighted to see Woolas get his come-uppance, because he presided over the ongoing train wreck of the Points Based System of immigration control. His minions at the UK Border Agency were unable to identify the dishonest colleges of Further Education (not in fact a particularly difficult task) so they abruptly slammed on the brakes and dumped a heap of misery on tens of thousands of honest students plus lots of honest colleges. Maybe that sort of cock-up is just par for the course in government. Maybe the letters that ministers (or their civil servants) write to MPs are always economical with the truth. Woolas makes me think of Churchill’s definition of a prisoner of war as a man who tries to kill you and fails, and then asks you not to kill him.
So doing spoof memos purporting to be from Liberal candidates will be acceptable behaviour in future election campaigns will they?
From Nick Clegg
To Liberal Candidiates
23 April 2010
Whatever you do don’t mention that I now believe we need to start to reduce the deficit straightaway and remove it over the life of the entire parliament and hence our promise on tuition fees is a load of garbage. Our focus groups tell us that it won’t go down too well. etc. etc.
“toryboysnevergrowup”, yes your spoof is perfectly legal in future campaigns, just as it was in past campaigns.
Did you not see what Woolas was convicted of?
It wasn’t for some cheeky spoof.
http://politicalscrapbook.net/2010/08/phil-woolas-election-leaflets/
Daniel
I’m well aware of what Woolas was convicted for – but two wrongs do not make a right I’m afraid. I would have thought the format adopted to tell lies about your opponents would be irrelevant in this regard – unless you think that getting caught is the only crime. Given the fuss Cameron made about Labour’s so called lies in respect of axing universal benefits – you could imagine what would have happened if Labour had issued a spoof memo on the lines that I suggest.
@toryboysnevergrowup
Marks on class homework – Spoof political e-mail, showing use of irony, ridicule and pathos.
Pack, Mark – 9/10; Very impressive and well constructed. But remember, no one likes a swot.
toryboysnevergrowup – 1/10; did you do this on the bus on the way to school? Brevity may be a virtue, but indolence is not. In such a short piece, the least you could do is check your spelling. Write out Candidates, 100 times. Candidiates – muppet.
David
If you want to be pedantic, I don’t think that there is much pathos in Mark’s piece.
You clearly missed Clegg, in a TV documentary after the election, saying how he changed his mind on the deficit during the last weeks of the election campaign. Although he somehow failed to inform the electorate of his change of view before they voted.
From Phil MP, MP, MP for ever and ever!
To all Labour campaigners
How about reverting to the tactic we used at the Saddleworth and Littleborough by-election a few years ago? That’s when two of our big chaps tried to intercept all the Lib Dem campaigners on their way out of their campaign HQ (alledgedly, tee hee!). Pity they failed. Hmm, change of tactic after all; maybe those pesky little Lib Dems aren’t as soft as we thought. Anyway who’d have thought they’d go to court this time?
Pathos – an appeal to the audience’s emotions.
Well I for one was crying for poor old Wooly when I read Mark’s piece. Or to be more pedantic, tears were rolling down my cheeks anyway.
David
I think you are confusing pathos and sarcasm.