Exclusive: Woolas Accuses Lib Dems Of “Bigotry”
Phil Woolas MP
Phil Woolas has accused his Liberal Democrat opponents of “bigotry” during the general election campaign here in Oldham East and Saddleworth. He has also strongly denied that controversial Labour leaflets issued on his behalf were only distributed in ‘white’ areas of the constituency.
Mr Woolas made the claims in an e-mail to supporters, sent yesterday afternoon and seen by Saddleworth News today (the e-mail is published in full at the bottom of this article). The e-mail follows last week’s election court session in Uppermill, at which a legal challenge brought by beaten Lib Dem candidate Elwyn Watkins was heard.
In the e-mail, Mr Woolas said Mr Watkins “intended to demolish my reputation, career and character” by alleging that Mr Woolas had tried to stir up racial divisions in an attempt to hold on to his seat.
He also accused the Lib Dems of trying to “play it both ways.” Mr Woolas wrote: “Because we were attacking Islamists, they assume we are pandering to the white racist vote. They assume – wholly wrongly – that Muslim voters don’t oppose the Islamists. This is the bigotry.”
Mr Woolas also brought up the involvement of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, a group which describes itself as a “Muslim civil liberties” organisation, and which wanted to see the then-Immigration Minister defeated in the election. In his e-mail, Mr Woolas wrote that “Labour supporting British Asian voters were subject to a campaign ‘to oust the Jew,'” and he went on to claim that similar campaigns had been run against Labour politicians in Rochdale and Blackburn in the 2005 election.
Some of the controversial Labour leaflets accused Mr Watkins of trying to “woo Muslim extremists” because of his apparent failure to condemn MPAC. Mr Woolas uses his e-mail to criticise the Lib Dems for being “the known and complicit beneficiaries of the MPAC (and others) campaign against me.”
Mr Woolas has also insisted that leaflets containing his claims about “extremists” weren’t just distributed in ‘white’ areas of Oldham, which he himself describes as a “segregated town.” In the e-mail, Mr Woolas said that “our message… was put out to Asian areas by leaflets, canvassing and at three campaign rallies… the same message was put out by white and Asian Labour councillors and activists.”
However, in the e-mail Mr Woolas does appear to back down somewhat on one of the statements which prompted Mr Watkins’ legal challenge. During the campaign Labour accused Mr Watkins of spending an illegal sum of £200,000 on financing his campaign. But the e-mail only refers to the official figure of £38,000, which is within legal limits.
Aside from the statements relating to “Muslim extremists” and campaign money, the third set of allegations involved in the hearing related to where Mr Watkins lives. Originally from Rochdale, Mr Watkins took a house in Delph before the campaign began. In his e-mail, Mr Woolas said he simply “tried to have some fun with him about that, but to no avail.”
The two High Court judges who heard the case will give their decision in Uppermill next month, on a date to be confirmed. If they agree that the statements made in the leaflets broke the law, the election in Oldham East and Saddleworth would be declared void, and a by-election would have to be held. Mr Woolas might also be barred from holding public office.
Mr Woolas, who has consistently denied doing anything wrong, beat Mr Watkins by just 103 votes after two recounts, following a bitterly-fought campaign. The sort of election challenge brought by Mr Watkins is so rare, it’s 99 years since a Westminster election was declared void because of criminal wrongdoing by a candidate.
When contacted by Saddleworth News, Mr Watkins said he wouldn’t be making any comment on the case until after the judges’ ruling.
Full coverage from Saddleworth News of the campaign itself and the legal challenge, is available here.
(Editor’s note: Mr Woolas’ office confirmed to me today that the e-mail is genuine)
Here is the e-mail in full:
“Dear All,
“You may have seen in the media reports of the Election Petition Hearing challenging the result in the Oldham East & Saddleworth election.
“Claims that my team and I used the issue of race to stoke up race hatred against the Muslim people are highly damaging, inflammatory and were intended to demolish my reputation, career and character.
“The Petition has been brought by my defeated opponent, Elwyn Watkins and NOT by the Liberal Democrat Party. Mr Watkins spent £38,000 of his own money on the campaign. He is employed by a Saudi Billionaire Sheikh.
“In the 2005 election in the neighbouring seat of Rochdale the Liberal Democrat candidate Paul Rowen defeated the sitting Labour Member, Lorna Fitzsimons. That campaign was marred by the interference of outside bodies including the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPAC) and others. MPAC and others campaigned in favour of the Liberal Democrat. It was stated on the doorstep that Lorna was a Jewess (as it happens she isn’t) a Zionist and that she was anti-Muslim.
“A similar campaign was waged against Jack Straw MP in Blackburn. These campaigns featured in a Channel Four News Documentary.
“Our campaign was subject to similar tactics: Labour supporting British Asian voters were subject to a campaign “to oust the Jew”. There are many testaments to such activity and leaflets delivered attacking me as being anti-Muslim.
“Our campaign, indeed our whole strategy especially since the riots of 2001 has been aimed at ALL the communities. Central to our strategy was to expose the intent of the campaign against me: that the Liberal Democrats were the known and complicit beneficiaries of the MPAC (and others) campaign against me. We had seen what had happened in Rochdale and we were determined to stop this manipulation of the electorate.
“That intent was EQUALLY pursued in the Asian Community as the white community (Oldham unfortunately is a segregated town). Indeed our Asian Labour Councillors’ were at the forefront of it.
“IT IS NOT TRUE THAT OUR MESSAGE WAS ONLY DISTRIBUTED IN WHITE AREAS.
“THE MESSAGE WAS PUT OUT TO ASIAN AREAS BY LEAFLETS, CANVASSING AND AT 3 CAMPAIGN RALLIES OF ASIAN SUPPORTES INVOLVING OVER 1,000 PEOPLE.
“THE SAME MESSAGE WAS PUT OUT BY WHITE AND ASIAN LABOUR COUNCILLERS (sic) AND ACTIVISTS.
“The newspapers, of course, extensively reported the case against me. The case in favour has not been reported nationally. In fact the evidence given by my Agent, Joe Fitzpatrick and myself comprehensively showed that our campaign was aimed at the Islamists AND the Far Right – circumstance not unique to Oldham but nowhere is this as intense. It shows beyond doubt that our campaign WAS conducted on the same grounds in all communities.
“For too long the Liberal Democrats have tried to play it both ways: Because we were attacking Islamists, they assume we are pandering to the white racist vote. They assume – wholly wrongly – that Muslim voters don’t oppose the Islamists. This is the bigotry.
“Of course we wanted white voters to vote for me – but be in no doubt that the campaign was aimed at and supported by large numbers in all communities.
“The other issues were: that we claimed that Elwyn Watkins had put out more than 500,000 pieces of paper. In his written submission he disputed this, however in Court he accepted that he had put out over a million. This obviously backs our case, and you all know how much literature came through your doors from the Lib Dems. We have copies of over 60 leaflets, newspapers and direct mail that were put out by the Lib Dems, since the beginning of December.
“As you know, Elwyn also made a pledge to live in the constituency in 2007. Indeed on his website he says that he had his eye on Lees, a Lancashire village. When he did move into the Constituency he moved into Delph, in YORKSHIRE. We tried to have some fun with him about that, but to no avail. His name did not go onto the Electoral Register at King St Delph until the 1st May 2010.
“The implications of this Election Petition Hearing for ALL elections in the future are profound.
“We will get the verdict in Uppermill towards the end of October.
“Thank you for all your support.
“Yours sincerely,
Phil Woolas MP”
Author: Jude Gidney - Editor
If you would like to share an interesting story, achievement, photo or something you just want to happily shout about please send it in an email to hello@saddleworthlife.com We'd ❤ to hear from you!!
19 Comments
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
[…] Phil Woolas MP in email published in Saddleworth News […]
Perhaps Mr Woolas should consider the final outcome of his arguments before emailing?
Look at this comment.
[…] Phil Woolas MP in email published in Saddleworth News […]
I think politicians flatter themselves and place too much importance on their own leaflets.
So many leaflets were pushed through letterboxes in the General Election – especially by Elwyn that most folk around here got fed up and just binned them.
I know of absolutely no-one who changed their intention and voted for Phil because of his frankly tacky leaflet attacking Elwyn. The reverse was the case – it was counter production as well as being unpleasant and lost Phil votes
I attended some of the hearing in Uppermill and am absolutely staggered by Mr Woolas’s email.
His agent swore under oath that the leaflets in question were not delieverd in heavily asian areas. Considering their content I am not surprised. For him to accuse anyone of bigotry is astonishing hypocrisy.
It turned out that the motive behind these leaflets was to “make the white folk angry”. If Cllr Hulme thinks this was merely tacky then he has a weird sense of priorities.
Woolas’s argument relies on MPAC being Islamists. It is debatable whether or not this is the case. For instance, the photos used in Woolas’s leaflets illustrating Islamists were from London demonstrations in reaction to the Danish cartoon controversy in 2006. MPAC condemned these protests and called for the Islamist protesters to be arrested for inciting violence. MPAC have been linked to Antisemitism in the past, but Antisemitists and Islamists aren’t the same.
Cllr Ken Hulme, I’m fascinated that you think political leaflets don’t change the electorate’s mind. So you’re saying that Woolas and his agent wasted Labour donors’ money by printing them? Labour donors ought to think again about giving your party money in the future if that’s the case.
If I used some of the words that first came to mind I doubt if my comments would be printed.
Hilarious. I, too, was in the court room to hear Mr Fitzpatrick happily declare to the judges that the leaflets were delivered in “the white areas”.
However, I am shocked that Saddleworth News has failed spectacularly in picking up the real story from this email:
Phil Woolas still has supporters to email???
[…] the Saddleworth News website reported that Phil Woolas has accused his Liberal Democrat opponents of “bigotry” during the […]
Is Cllr Hulme really telling us that he considered many words to describe Labour’s lefalets in the closing stages of the election and the best he can come up with is “tacky”?
How tacky.
Duncan – The Labour Party is not my party – hasn’t been for several years now. I don’t support any political party and have no party axe to grind.
And Steven, pending a high court judgement I think tacky and unpleasant are perfectly appropriate words to use at this time. What words would you use to describe the leaflets ?
I’m very surprised Phil issued this statement – I would have thought it wiser to wait until the verdict is delivered.
The point I am trying to make is that absolutely no-one I met during the election campaign was persuaded to vote for Phil because of these leaflets – in fact the reverse -and yes I do think a great deal of money spent on leaflets is wasted.
I would be very interested to hear if Steve, Duncan or anyone has had a different experience.
I think you misunderstand the whole thrust of this case, Mr Hulme. The leaflets were not intended to get people to vote Labour, their purpose was to get voters not to back the Lib Dems. That may be a difference of degree but legally it is a very important difference.
They were specifically delivered very late in the campaign so your statement that you met no-one during the election campaign that changed their vote is hardly surprising. It’s also irrelevant. All that needs to be proved is that is was the intention of this grimy literature.
In the words of the Labour agent, the purpose of these leaflets was to “make the white folk angry” and admitted that they were not delivered in Asian areas. Presumably they were written in the full knowledge that they wouldn’t be read by many Asians. “Tacky” and “unpleasant” don’t even begin to describe them and anyone that is shown to have been helping Labour in their sordid activities deserves condemnation. I understand that a whole series of emails was part of the evidence so hopefully we will all soon know exactly who was involved.
Steven – calm down and reflect for a minute. Judgement on this case is being considered by two High Court Judges following four days of submissions and evidence presented by two teams of highly paid lawyers.
I not a lawyer – are you ? I think you should wait until the verdict is in before you start a witch hunt. I’m certainly not going to use any inflammatory language – I’m going to wait and see what m’learned friends come up with.
But reflect also – whatever the result one of the main protagonists will very probably be ruined. There is a report bill of £200,000 in legal costs to be picked up . If Elywn loses it will will be a shattering experience and personally very damaging. If Phil loses he will be out of a job and in all probability face personal ruin – the impact on his family life could be disastrous.
Even if Elwyn wins it will be a empty victory. If he is selected to fight a by-election for the Lib Dems it looks like they are losing a lot of support and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
And already there is a wave of sympathy building up for Phil – if he is ruined by Elwyn’s action it won’t just be Labour voters who turn against Elwyn in large numbers.
I confidently predict that in any by-election it will Labour and the Tories who will be the front runners – the Lib Dems will be also rans. If the Greens run I think they would do well.
You might welcome Phil’s life being wrecked, others might say Elwyn got his just desserts if he is landed with a massive legal bill.
I would take absolutely no delight in either event – frankly I just feel rather sad about it all and very glad I am no longer involved in local sectarian party politics – which I do believe are tacky and unpleasant.
I don’t have your ‘tribal’ anger Steven. Maybe you lose it when you get a bus pass !
The verdict will only decide whether the actions of Mr Woolas and his team were illegal, there is no need to wait for that verdict for any decent person to decide that they were immoral. Those actions and the motives behind them are now on the public record.
In case you missed the evidence it was shown that newspapers and leaflets were delivered by the Labour Party that were intended to “make the white folk angry” as well as more direct phrases. Photos were altered, false allegations made and even death threats invented to show the party’s opponent in a bad light. And yet I have still to see anyone from the local Labour Party condemn these leaflets or say that they refused to deliver them. I still maintain that anyone who collaborated with them should be exposed and ridiculed – if that makes me tribally angry then maybe it’s because I’m white!
Whatever the outcome of any by-election a legal victory for Elwyn Watkins will not be ’empty’ as you claim. It will show that elections cannot won by such low politics.
But in all probability Labour will be enjoying a rise in support under a new leader and the Lib Dems will be down in the polls as the cuts in public spending start to bite !
What does it prove if Labour win an early spring by-election, the Tories run them a good second and the Lib Dems trail in third ?
It’s strange that for somebody claiming not to be involved in so-called partisan politics your focus seems to be on the outcome of a by-election rather than the details of the case. If Labour were to win the subsequent by-election then fair enough, but there will only be such an election if Mr Woolas has been barred from public office and that will in turn only occur if it is proved that he and his party knowingly lied about the character of his opponent. That’s what it will prove.
Now if you would care to turn your attention to the content of the leaflets I’m sure we will all find your thoughts enlightening and revealing – especially the parts they you think are ‘tacky’.
A statement from one of the publications: “Elwyn Watkins reneged on his promise to move to the constituency.”
That is clearly a false statement of fact about Elwyn Watkins’ conduct or character.
Those responsible for the publication of the statement had no reasonable grounds to believe it was true (Fitzpatrick’s evidence was that he simply didn’t believe Watkins lived in Delph, despite reading in the newspaper that he was living there, and despite Watkins’ appearance on the electoral register at an address in Delph) and it was clearly intended to persuade voters not to vote for Elwyn Watkins.
[…] Phil Woolas MP in email published in Saddleworth News […]
[…] can read more from Saddleworth News about the e-mail sent by Phil Woolas here. The article about Elwyn Watkins advertising for campaign staff is here. The results of the […]