7 in 10 voters back decision to unseat Phil Woolas

Poll suggests that Harman’s decision to suspend Woolas from Labour is in step with public opinion.

Voters overwhelmingly believe that the court decision to strip Phil Woolas of his seat in Oldham East and Saddleworth was the right thing to do.

A YouGov/Sun poll found that 71 per cent of all voters backed the decision of a specially convened electoral court to hold a by-election in the area and suspend Woolas from politics for three years. Just 7 per cent thought it was the wrong decision.

While support was slightly more muted among Labour voters, a substantial majority still endorse the decision – 65 per cent of Labour voters said it was the right thing to do, compared with 82 per cent for both Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.

The figures show that those MPs rebelling against Harriet Harman's decision to suspend Woolas from the Labour Party are vastly out of step with public opinion. The Labour deputy leader said at the weekend that it was "not part of Labour's politics for somebody to be telling lies to get themselves elected".

The BBC reported last night that one MP told Harman that she was "a disgrace", while the Labour MP Graham Stringer warned that she had gone "far too far", and that there were "big issues involved here in terms of the future of our democracy". Another Labour MP, Michael Connarty, said he had asked Harman to "examine her conscience".

This response beggars belief. Woolas was convicted of lying and exploiting racial tensions in order to defeat his Liberal Democrat opponent, Elwyn Watkins. Quite apart from the moral issue, it would be disastrous for Labour to be seen to be supporting a candidate convicted of such serious charges.

While some take issue with Harman's suspension of Woolas before he had a chance to appeal the verdict, it is worth noting that the decision to suspend Lutfur Rahman as Labour's candidate in the Tower Hamlets mayoral race was widely praised.

It's likely that much of the outrage stems from the fact that Woolas is popular in the PLP. Stringer stressed his contribution to the party over many years – as if that should exonerate him from such a serious charge, which raises serious questions over his suitability to represent a constituency with a population that is ethnically very mixed.

Public perception of the whole political class is still reeling from the expenses scandal. The charge of lying and stoking racial tension is not a light one – and these poll results show that the voters don't take it lightly. Out-of-touch posturing will do nothing to help matters.

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Autumn Statement 2015: will women bear the brunt again?

Time and time again, the Chancellor has chosen to balance the books on the backs of women. There's still hope for a better way. 

Today, the Chancellor, George Osborne, presents his Autumn Statement to parliament. Attention will be focused on how he tries to dig himself out of the tax credits hole that he got himself into with his hubristic summer budget.

He’s got options, both in terms of the sweeteners he can offer, and in how he finds the funds to pay for them. But what we will be looking for is a wholesale rethink from the chancellor that acknowledges something he’s shown total indifference to so far: the gender impact of his policy choices, which have hurt not helped women.

In every single budget and autumn statement under this Chancellor, it has been women that have lost out. From his very first so-called “emergency  budget” in 2010, when Yvette Cooper pointed out that women had been hit twice as hard as men, to his post-election budget this summer, the cumulative effects of his policy announcements are that women have borne a staggering 85 per cent of cuts to tax credits and benefits. Working mums in particular have taken much of the pain.

We don’t think this is an accident. It reflects the old-fashioned Tory world view, where dad goes out to work to provide for the family, and mum looks after the kids, while supplementing the family income with some modest part-time work of her own. The fact that most families don’t live like that is overlooked: it doesn’t fit the narrative. But it’s led to a set of policies that are exceptionally damaging for gender equality.

Take the married couple’s tax break – 80 per cent of the benefit of that goes to men. The universal credit, designed in such a way that it actively disincentivises second earners – usually the woman in the family. Cuts and freezes to benefits for children - the child tax credit two-child policy, cuts to child benefit – are cuts in benefits mostly paid to women. Cuts to working tax credit have hit lone parents particularly hard, the vast majority of whom are women.

None of these cuts has been adequately compensated by the increase in the personal tax threshold (many low paid women are below the threshold already), the extension of free childcare (coming in long after the cuts take effect) or the introduction of the so-called national living wage. Indeed, the IFS has said it’s ‘arithmetically impossible’ that they can do so. And at the same time, women’s work remains poorly remunerated, concentrated in low-pay sectors, more often part time, and increasingly unstable.

This is putting terrible pressure on women and families now, but it will also have long-term impact. We are proud that Labour lifted one million children out of poverty between 1997 and 2010. But under the Tories, child poverty has flat-lined in relative terms since 2011/12, while, shockingly, absolute child poverty has risen by 500,000, reflecting the damage that has been by the tax and benefits changes, especially to working families. Today, two thirds of children growing up poor do so in a working family. The cost to those children, the long-term scarring effect on them of growing up poor, and the long-term damage to our society, will be laid at the door of this chancellor.

Meanwhile, at the other end of the age spectrum, low-earning women who are financially stretched won’t have anything left over to save for their pension. More are falling out of auto-enrolment and face a bleak old age in poverty.

Now that the Chancellor has put his calculator away, we will discover when he has considered both about the impact and the consequences of his policies for women. But we have no great hopes he’ll do so. After all, this is the government that scrapped the equality impact assessments, saying they were simply a matter of ‘common sense’ – common sense that appears to elude the chancellor. In their place, we have a flaky ‘family test’ – but with women, mothers and children the big losers so far, there’s no sign he’s going to pass that one either.

That’s why we are putting the Chancellor on notice: we, like women across the country, will be listening very carefully to what you announce today, and will judge it by whether you are hurting not helping Britain’s families. The Prime Minister’s claims that he cares about equality are going to sound very hollow if it’s women who take the pain yet again.