A precedent and a good one too!

Last summer when the expenses’ scandal broke out the public was, and rightly so, outraged at the gall of those MPs and peers who clearly were taking advantage of the system. The three main party leaders promised to clean up politics and the way we do politics form then on. And since that time we’ve seen examples of that clean up take place, first peers and MPs convicted and punished for expenses misuse and yesterday Phil Woolas was penalized for his campaigning misconduct.

That’s why I am puzzled by certain remarks form some pundits and political commentators and their reaction to yesterday’s verdict – which some went as far as calling ‘interference’ in the political process by the judiciary!

My question is who then; do they expect to uphold the law if not the judiciary?

The notion of “Let the Voters decide” is grand, and the voters did decide by returning Phil Woolas with a sliver of his original majority. But the question still remains did he break the law, by printing lies on his campaigning literature? That, the court found him guilty of doing and decided to punish him for it – what’s more it allowed him to contest it if he so choices!

Nevertheless, listening to the remarks, I got the impression that some just wanted Mr Woolas to get a slap on the wrist for what he did and sit on the naughty step for a couple of days, before being allowed back into parliament, for another five years, at the tax payers expense, where he can walk around the corridors of power in the knowledge that spreading lies here and there is not such a big deal after all.

As for the notion that “All politicians lie” so why single one out!?

First he was not singled out and second all politicians don’t lie, some might stretch the truth a little, while others might trim it a lot – but what Mr. Woolas did was neither – he fabricated stories and printed them as facts.

If we want trust restored to our politics and our politicians respected, then we must allow the public to feel that politicians are not a law onto themselves nor are they above the laws of this land, or are a clan of self interest group sitting in dark smoke filled rooms doing deals that only benefit them including fixing all wrong doing the way they see fit not the way everybody else wants it fixed.

That is why chucking him out, as harsh as it is, shows the voters and prove to them that politics is changing and this kind of behaviour is wrong, unacceptable and punishable under the law!

Woolas, unlike some of the expenses’ victims is not a causality of an obscure rule, because what he did was a clear and deliberate misinterpretation of the facts. There are probably others, like him out there but unless their victims come forward with complaints they will neither be exposed nor reprimanded.

Yesterday’s ruling might be the first in almost 100 years, but it sets a precedent and the parameters by which future campaigns will be measured and that can only be a good thing.