Why is Phil Woolas back on Labour's frontbench?
The Labour MP, currently the subject of a court action, has been named Home Office minister.
By George Eaton Published 11 October 2010 12:48There's much to welcome in Ed Miliband's final set of shadow ministerial appointments. Some of Labour's best new MPs, including Rachel Reeves (work and pensions), Rushanara Ali (international development) and Gloria del Piero (culture), have been swiftly promoted onto the frontbench and Miliband has retained the talents of figures such as Karen Buck (work and pensions) and Andy Slaughter (justice).
The one sore point is the bizarre decision to hand Phil Woolas the post of Home Office minister. Having run one of the most disgraceful election campaigns in recent history, Woolas is currently fighting an attempt to have his victory overturned by his Lib Dem opponent on the grounds of "corrupt practices". He has consistently denied breaking electoral law to secure his seat and said it would have been "political suicide" to do so.
Below is the demagogic leaflet published by Woolas's campaign, which, according to his defeated opponent, Elwyn Watkins, suggested that the Lib Dems were courting support from Islamist extremists.The text reads:
Extremists are trying to hijack this election. They want you to vote Lib Dem to punish Phil for being strong on immigration. The Lib Dems plan to give hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants the right to stay. It is up to you? Do you want the extremists to win?

Legal documents submitted to the High Court argue that there was a calculated attempt by the Woolas campaign to whip up racial tensions in a bid to get the "white vote" behind him.
An email by Woolas's election agent, Joseph Fitzpatrick, to the candidate declared: "we need ... to explain to the white community how the Asians will take him out ... If we don't get the white vote angry he's gone." Another from Fitzpatrick to Steve Green, the MP's campaign adviser, said: "we need to go strong on the militant Moslem (sic) angle" and proposed the headline "Militant Moslems (sic) target Woolas."
A verdict on the case is expected on 5 November and defeat for Woolas would see him expelled from Parliament and a by-election held in the highly marginal seat of Oldham East and Saddleworth. Regardless of the morality of his appointment, the pragmatic case against appointing an MP currently subject to a court action is clear. The court may yet find in Woolas's favour, but his presence on Labour's frontbench is hard to see as anything but a serious mistake.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists




















31 comments
Chris, do you have any evidence for your allegation or did you just make it up ?
For younger readers, the reason Labour lost the Bermondsey byelection was the presence of 2 candidates claiming to be Labour & directing most of their fire against each other
Agreed. Nothing more to say.
And in a shadow Home Office role, no less!
i agree with everything you say swatantra nandanwar,good cooments.
After the decision to stick to Darling's austerity plan, this is another example of Miliband utterly failing to turn the page on the very worst of New Labour. He should be ashamed
Racial Unity Unites! Multi-racial Diversity Divides.
Millions of ordinary people would love to be like pro queer, multi racial lover Billy Bragg and up roots and move to quintessentially English Burton Bradstock Dorset. A million miles away from heavenly Brixton, and Oldham. Phil Woolas is no longer a naive socialist idealist, I believe he now realizes belatedly, that mass non white/Christian immigration will inevitably lead to disaster. The likes of the unworldly, hypocritical, gutless Socialist Unity are advocating white genocide by the back door.
Frankly, neither has Alan Johnson. As Private Eye wrote in 2009, Johnson made political capital campaigning for an asylum seeker in his constituency, having seen for himself the signs of torture left upon him. He wrote to the then Home Sec Jacqui Smith saying that he should definitely be allowed to stay. Once he'd become Home Secretary himself, Johnson had the man deported. If Ed Miliband wants the left to vote for him, he needs to root out the bad apples & the hypocrits.
I can't remember another single issue that has been capable of uniting such a wide spectrum of political opinion. From the blogosphere, to twitter, to publications like the staggers, everyone agrees that Woolas is a stain on Parliament. The only person I have seen that will lend his support to Woolas is a BNP supporter. Funny, that.
Woolas was no doubt woried what ascrofts money was used in his personal constituency, Tory or even tactically LibDem...
Back 'neo-realist' Phil Woolas.
Phil: Better late than never! Get back to the Front Bench ASAP, as Immigration Minister. Tragically, Socialist Unity Andy Newman declined on the offer but do gooders: well heeled middle class: Shami Shakrabarti and Michael Mansfield QC, have both agreed to accept; unconditionally: the filthy, smelly, thieving, workshy Romanian gypsies as unpaid lodgers. Mercifully, they will no longer be a charge to the long suffering UK tax payer. Now, that is what I call putting a penny where your mouth is. Sorry, Shami and Michael the gratuitous Gypsy just stole the penny, your gold fillings and your life possessions. Never mind!
Great to see Woolas back on the Front Bench. Woolas is 'innocent' I tell you. Its most welome to hear a commonplace regional accent and not the usual southern Labourite talking with a plum in their mouth.
Devon are so full of english educated dreaming prats it is unbelievable. Take that Hugh Fernley-Whitinstall that wants us to live on plant leaves and slugs, the total wankcheff.
Leave Devon to the Devonites I say, oh arr!
Er Etch, you leave Devon alone! You've used a contradiction in terms anyway by saying 'full of English educated prats' and then picking up the Wurzels saying! It goes 'Ooh arh' and belongs to Cider drinkers from Somerset, we're not all carrot crunchers down this neck of the woods you know!
You should redeem yourself and find a youtube clip of the Wurzels in song me thinks!
To CrISpY DuCk I would simply say that Woolas' behaviour does not have to be proved illegal in court before it is condemned as unacceptable - and the same to jeremiah. These leaflets were disgusting. Whether they are illegal is another matter but they were certainly a disgrace.
jeremiah - it is certainly worse than the 'bloody Lib Dems' have ever done. I've yet to see a more deplorable campaign from any party,and in that I would include the far right.
Woolas should be expelled for his actions. Not only hasn't he been, he hasn't been suspended pending a verdict and now he has been promoted. Now that definitely is worse than the bloody Lib Dems have ever done.
Oh please, this is bollocks. Woolas's leaflets are no worse than many put about by tories and libdems. The LibDem election handbook actively encourages their candidates to lie, smear and stir shit up to get elected.
And we've all heard about Simon Hughes and his disgraceful campaign against Peter Tatchell - canvassers walking round with buttons saying they'd kissed Tatchell. It only took Hughes almost 20 years to apologise.
"Oh please, this is bollocks. Woolas's leaflets are no worse than many put about by tories and libdems"
Really Chris? In my experience of campaigning during the last election the only campaign literature I've seen that compares to this are BNP leaflets.
And even if it was the case that some Tory and Lib Dem candidates had stooped to such levels I suppose that makes what Woolas did perfectly acceptable then?
Enjoying reading 'Helen' on every story that mentions Woolas on the internet! Clearly a Lib Dem on a mission. Truth is that the Labour Party is backing Woolas all the way through this hearing, as it should. He has put up with terrible accusations against him over many elections as that seat has always been hard fought but no-one ever examines the losers and what they say. Lets hope he sees off this vengeful Lib Dem and continues to be a conciencious and hard working local MP and an outspoken, challenging shadow minister. The Lib Dem and BNP bloggers can get excited slagging him off but sense will hopefully prevail
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Even if he is Guilty it is no worse than the bloody Lib Dems have ever done.
There are a lot more reasons than the election campaign for *Labour voters and ex-Labour voters* to hate Phil Woolas.
Here's mine http://madikazemi.blogspot.com/2009/07/how-very-dare-he-woolas-claims-uk...
This is a difficult one that I admittedly know very little about.To be honest I was shocked by the leaflet,shocked into doing ten minutes of internet research.Now I know that's not much but it drew me to the conclusion that Woolas was probably up against some pretty unsavoury characters in his battle for Oldham East.Now there's nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade (Muslim Extremists)but I find the tabloid tone of the leaflets and emails from those running Woolas's campaign as unacceptable as the views of the Muslim extremists.It remains to be seen as to whether Woolas has proved a significant amount of distance and ignorance from both.
Crispy Duck:
I'm not particularly sure what "up against MPAC means".
Do you suggest that if someone is "up against MPAC", then anything goes?
Do you have any evidence that MPAC had any contact with the Lib Dem candidate? Woolas doesn't. And that's because there are no links between MPAC and the Lib Dem.
Let me be clear, I do not agree on many policy points with MPAC, and I find their intemperate campaigning off-putting. But I do not believe that their actions are criminal. They certainly were not the men who were pictured on Woolas' leaflets demanding that people were beheaded.
So basically, Woolas was accusing the Lib Dem of being in "a pact" with islamist fundamentalist who didn't exist - at least not in a form that was recognisable or relevant to the accusations that were made.
I am also confused why you think that "the waters have been muddied by some on both sides". What did the Lib Dem candidate do? From what I have seen of his campaign, he seems to have run it purely on political issues - he didn't even go for Woolas for the parliamentary expenses receipts for tampons and nappies!
The man should not even be at Westminister! Mandelson and Campbell give advice to Milliband and now this says everything about the Labour Party!
All parties have run nasty campaigns, and some of us are still waiting for an apology from ex-SDP members in the Lib Dems for their treatment of Peter Tatchell. Let alone their usual underhand tactics in local elections.
But that is beside the point. The Wool;as campaign brought The Labour Party into disrepute - he should have been expelled, not promoted.
Post economic meltdown gastrology.
'Imprudent' Brown's legacy: Is that we will be forced to eat raw plant leaves (Mandelson guacamole salad) and slippery Mandelsonian slugs; these will become coveted luxury food items. Cider and carrots will be but a distant dream.
Yep jeremiah, Cleeg has sold its party, for himself. LibDem party are now a joke, total puppets, and the electorate will realise that next time around.
David Lloyd-George is now spinning in his grave.
Elections in Oldham East and the previous constituency Littleborough and Saddleworth have been vicious for many years.When Phil Woolas became the candidate after backing from Labour HQ a decision was made to play dirty and appeal to the lowest common denominator trying to avoid any rational arguments wherever possible by resorting to tabloid style campaigning.The 2010 campaign just got a bit out of control. The mark was overstepped.However I do have reservations about elections being decided by judges.Woolas should step down and fight an honest by election. No chance of that though
"It's important not to conflate different things. On the one hand, many Muslims choose not to support politicians who voted for things like the Iraq war, 90 day detention etc etc. What's wrong with that? Don't we all try to vote for people who will represent our views in the Commons?"
Yes we do do Helen and I honestly cant see why your asking the question.I'm not defending Woolas but simply putting the point that as far as I know he was up against MPACUK.If Woolas is guilty of the things you say then I entirely agree but it's difficult to tell at this stage as the waters have been muddied by some on both sides.
I agree with much of what you say and was half expecting Woolas to either distance himself from those running his campaign or come up with a good reason for aligning the Lib Dem candidate with extremists.From what I've read so far he is yet to do either but the case continues.I may have been naive in thinking that his promotion meant there were extenuating circumstances.
At least I'm using my real name "John Aston". But I guess you're shy about using your real name as you are implicated by the court case. I hope you are not misusing parliamentary computers to go on this blog...
Crispy Duck
It's important not to conflate different things. On the one hand, many Muslims choose not to support politicians who voted for things like the Iraq war, 90 day detention etc etc. What's wrong with that? Don't we all try to vote for people who will represent our views in the Commons?
But obviously, there are occasions when people overstep the normal boundaries of political debate. An example of this would be death threats. Woolas claimed he had received death threats from islamist fundamentalists. In court Woolas failed to produce one shred of evidence for such death threats. He lied.
What's more, Woolas claimed that the Lib Dem had entered into "a pact with the devil" and was condoning such death threats. This, too, is a complete fabrication.
Woolas admitted in court that his team thought they were losing and sought to "make the white folk angry" by using photos of "mad moslems" from the Danish cartoon farago two years ago - photoshopping them to look more relevant to thecase.
This is not calling a spade a spade. This is race-baiting, fabrication, and trying to destroy people's lives for personal gain.
Helen I've already said twice that Woolas's behaviour if proven is not acceptable.I simply make the point that I find the behaviour of others from all sides equally unacceptable.For instance the charge that the Lib Dem campaign cost far more than the legal limit is given gravitas due to the fact that its supported by a former Liberal Democrat volunteer's evidence.