91Èȱ¬

In Court 25, in the basement of the in London, lawyers put in place the framework for what promises to be a memorable political battle.

Two election judges will decide whether the Labour MP for Oldham East and Saddleworth, , should be allowed to continue to represent the constituency.

It will be the first time an election court has sat to consider corruption allegations against an MP for 99 years.

This was effectively a preliminary hearing of the Election Court to decide how it should work.

Readers of this blog will be familiar with the background. Briefly, the Liberal Democrat candidate, , believes he was cheated out of victory by a leaflet published by Phil Woolas and is challenging the result.

The hearing was particularly interesting because all the lawyers, including the judge, were clearly working out the rules as they went along.

A decision was taken to hold the hearing on the week of 13 September, 2010.

The location was more of an issue. The rule book indicated the court should sit in the constituency.

So the venue is likely to be . Strictly speaking that is not in the constituency but it was considered close enough.

Then Mr Justice Griffith Williams wisely pointed out that nobody actually knew if the centre was available to host this historic event.

It was decided to leave the arrangements to the registrar from the Supreme Court who is still to be appointed. A shorthand writer from the will join them.

Incidentally the cost of this will be borne by Parliament, obviously through the taxpayer.

Two High Court judges must preside, sitting as election judges. Four are on the rota, though it's not clear who will be available or if other High Court judges may need to be brought in.

It is still possible the date could be pushed back. But Mr Justice Williams said this should be resolved before Parliament returns from the Summer recess.

Strictly speaking that won't happen because MPs are returning earlier this year. But nobody was entirely sure what the Parliamentary diary looked like either.

One of the solicitors representing kindly gave me a few minutes to explain this complicated procedure further.

The key point is that, unlike in defamation, the onus is very much on Mr Watkins to prove his case. He must convince the court of three things.

First that the allegations made by Phil Woolas were statements. Mr Woolas is apparently likely to argue very strongly that they were questions or suggestions.

Second, Mr Watkins must prove the statements questioned his personal character rather than just his political views.

Third, that the statements questioning his personal character were false.

Even if those criteria are met, Mr Woolas would defend himself by arguing that he believed them to be true, and had reasonable grounds for believing them to be true.

Incidentally the lawyer who seemed to understand the system best of all was . This is good news for Mr Woolas, since Gavin Millar is his defence barrister, as well as being Alastair Campbell's brother-in-law.

At times this hearing was faintly farcical. But as Mr Millar reminded the court, the status of an MP is in question.

The jovial finished proceedings by saying: "We may meet in Oldham".

I certainly hope so. But even if he is not there, others will be. And it will soon get very serious indeed.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Peter Mandelson was in Manchester this week as his second career as literary salesman continues apace.

I haven't read his book yet but it has led to no end of decent stories. You know, the kind of tales which Labour insiders and outsiders were denying just a few weeks ago?

Anyway Lord Mandelson offered a revealing insight into the whole which, you will remember, happened in Rochdale.

He admitted to my North West Tonight colleague, Gordon Burns, that the Prime Minister smiled too much after visiting Mrs Duffy the second time. But Lord Mandelson partly blames himself for this.

Also, there's a possible alternative explanation for why looked like a broken man during a radio interview soon after the political disaster.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I was invited to my first Downing Street reception last night - drinks for the regional media.

Apart from enjoying the grandeur of Number Ten, it gave me the chance to get a couple of minutes with .

The Prime Minister told me the government is pressing on enthusiastically with plans for an elected Mayor for Manchester and other cities.

The Conservatives have long been keen on the idea. They believe a charismatic figure like London's Boris Johnson would revive local government elsewhere.

But surprisingly Mr Cameron said for the first time that ministers have not ruled out the option of an elected mayor for all of Greater Manchester, not just the city. Until now we had been told they had.

Presumably this is the case for other city regions like Merseyside too.

Most experts believe that if we head down the elected mayor route, it should be a figure for Greater Manchester. Someone who can give the region a voice and a strategic grip. A genuinely new role.

For reasons I have never really understood, the Conservatives have been hostile to that. Even yesterday David Cameron was sceptical, arguing that people in places like Bury do not share a sense of identity with people in the city.

That may be true but it is being considered ... and arguably makes much more sense.

Voters themselves have never shown much enthusiasm for any of the options. One campaign has struggled to win support.

But the chances are voters will have to make a choice in a referendum for something.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

So now we know for sure that the general election is not over in

As readers of my previous post will know, the Liberal Democrat candidate, , is challenging the outcome in the courts.

The failed to take the seat from by just 103 votes.

Mr Watkins blames Labour for putting out a small newspaper which he considers libellous.

Under the , anyone involved in an election campaign who "makes or publishes any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate's personal character or conduct" has committed an offence.

Labour sources were initially suggesting that a court hearing was unlikely. The party now accepts it is inevitable.

This is pretty extraordinary stuff. The last time an election result was challenged on the basis of corrupt practices was back in 1911. It was successful.

Everyone is feeling their way through these rarely-charted political waters. High Court judges must now decide how to proceed.

As many as four High Court judges, sitting as an Election Court, could come to the constituency to take evidence. This is likely to be in September at the earliest.

Elwyn Watkins must prove the allegations were made and that they were false.

, in turn, must either prove the allegations were correct, or that he had reasonable grounds for believing them.

Both sides are keeping their arguments to themselves for now, but playing for high stakes.

If Mr Woolas loses, which still seems unlikely, then he would be guilty of a criminal offence and would be banned from standing for office.

If Elwyn Watkins wins he has another chance of being elected. But more significantly he would have changed the way future political campaigns are run.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?