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
Show Hide image

We argue over Charlie Gard, but forget those spending whole lives caring for a disabled child

The everyday misery of care work is hidden behind abstract arguments over life and death.

“Sometimes,” says the mother, “I wish we’d let him go. Or that he’d just been allowed to slip away.” The father agrees, sometimes. So too does the child, who is not a child any more.

On good days, nobody thinks this way, but not all days are good. There have been bright spots during the course of the past four decades, occasional moments of real hope, but now everyone is tired, everyone is old and the mundane work of loving takes a ferocious toll.

When we talk about caring for sick children, we usually mean minors. It’s easiest that way. That for some parents, the exhaustion and intensity of those first days with a newborn never, ever ends – that you can be in your fifties, sixties, seventies, caring for a child in their twenties, thirties, forties – is not something the rest of us want to think about.

It’s hard to romanticise devotion strung out over that many hopeless, sleepless nights. Better to imagine the tragic mother holding on to the infant who still fits in her loving arms, not the son who’s now twice her size, himself edging towards middle-age and the cliff edge that comes when mummy’s no longer around.

Writing on the tragic case of Charlie Gard, the Guardian’s Giles Fraser claims that he would “rain fire on the whole world to hold my child for a day longer”. The Gard case, he argues, has “set the cool rational compassion of judicial judgement and clinical expertise against the passion of parental love”: “Which is why those who have never smelled the specific perfume of Charlie’s neck, those who have never held him tight or wept and prayed over his welfare, are deemed better placed to determine how he is to live and die.”

This may be true. It may also be true that right now, countless parents who have smelled their own child’s specific perfume, held them tightly, wept for them, loved them beyond all measure, are wishing only for that child’s suffering to end. What of their love? What of their reluctance to set the world aflame for one day more? And what of their need for a life of their own, away from the fantasies of those who’ll passionately defend a parent’s right to keep their child alive but won’t be there at 5am, night after night, cleaning out feeding tubes and mopping up shit?

Parental – in particular, maternal – devotion is seen as an endlessly renewable resource. A real parent never gets tired of loving. A real parent never wonders whether actually, all things considered, it might have caused less suffering for a child never to have been born at all. Such thoughts are impermissible, not least because they’re dangerous. Everyone’s life matters. Nonetheless, there are parents who have these thoughts, not because they don’t love their children, but because they do.

Reporting on the Gard case reminds me of the sanitised image we have of what constitutes the life of a parent of a sick child. It’s impossible not to feel enormous compassion for Charlie’s parents. As the mother of a toddler, I know that in a similar situation I’d have been torn apart. It’s not difficult to look at photos of Charlie and imagine one’s own child in his place. All babies are small and helpless; all babies cry out to be held.

But attitudes change as children get older. In the case of my own family, I noticed a real dropping away of support for my parents and disabled brother as the latter moved into adulthood. There were people who briefly picked him up as a kind of project and then, upon realising that there would be no schmaltzy ending to the story, dropped him again. Love and compassion don’t conquer all, patience runs out and dignity is clearly best respected from a distance.

All too often, the everyday misery of care work is hidden behind abstract arguments over who gets the right to decide whether an individual lives or dies. I don’t know any parents who truly want that right. Not only would it be morally untenable, it’s also a misrepresentation of what their struggles really are and mean.

What many parents who remain lifelong carers need is adequate respite support, a space in which to talk honestly, and the recognition that actually, sometimes loving is a grim and hopeless pursuit. Those who romanticise parental love – who, like Fraser, wallow in heroic portrayals of “battling, devoted parents” – do nothing to alleviate the suffering of those whose love mingles with resentment, exhaustion and sheer loneliness.

There are parents out there who, just occasionally, would be willing to set the world on fire to have a day’s respite from loving. But regardless of whether your child lives or dies, love never ends. 

Glosswitch is a feminist mother of three who works in publishing.