Labour ‘hugely outgunned’ in leaflet campaign

TENSE . . . Phil Woolas on election night

Election Court 2

LABOUR leaflet The Rose claimed extremist groups wanted voters to support Elwyn Watkins because he was “in the pay of a billionaire Arab Sheikh.”

James Laddie QC, for Lib-Dem candidate Mr Watkins, said Labour’s campaign inferred that he was “beholden” to his employer, Sheikh Abdullah Alhamrani, for who he worked as a financial adviser.

He went on to say that the leaflet implied that this was the reason Mr Watkins would not condemn the actions of the extremist groups.

Phil Woolas said he had simply wanted the electorate to know that Mr Watkins did not work in Oldham for a local firm, but rather that he worked abroad.

Mr Laddie added: “The leaflet suggests that Mr Watkins works for an Arab, Arabs make death threats and this is the reason Mr Watkins won’t condemn the group making the death threats to you.”

The Rose leaflet claims that Mr Watkins had spent £200,000 on producing and distributing 500,000 leaflets.

But Mr Laddie said that if Mr Woolas had really believed this to be the case, he would have reported him to the Electoral Commission as this would have been way above the maximum amount allowed.

Mr Laddie also questioned where Labour had come up with the £200,000 figure from as this would mean that each of the Lib-Dem leaflets would have cost 40p.

The Labour accounts show they were able to get their leaflets printed for a maximum of 6p each. Mr Woolas said the estimation of the higher Lib-Dem cost was to take account of postage and distribution costs. It was revealed that the Lib-Dems spent around £28,000 on the election campaign while Labour spent only £3,328.

Mr Woolas admitted that Labour had been “hugely outgunned” by the Lib-Dems in terms of leafleting but told the court that he had received many complaints from voters about the amount of Lib-Dem literature being delivered.




Arms ban defence



ELWYN WATKINS attempted to “woo” the extremist vote by calling for Israel to face an arms ban but not Palestine, according to Phil Woolas.



Mr Woolas said he highlighted this on election leaflets because it was an issue he felt very strongly about.

James Laddie QC, for Mr Watkins, said that many people had called for Israel to be made subject of an arms ban at around the same time and that it was illegal to sell arms to Palestine directly from Europe.

He added: “There is no point calling for a ban on the sale of arms to Palestine when it is already illegal. That would be like calling for Elizabeth Windsor to be Queen.”




Move talk off the mark



CLAIMS that Mr Watkins had reneged on his promise to move to the constituency were justified according to Mr Woolas.



The court heard how, on his selection as the Lib-Dem candidate, Mr Watkins had told a local newspaper on two separate occasions that he was looking to move to Lees.

James Laddie QC said that Mr Watkins had never promised anything so it was therefore wrong of Mr Woolas to accuse him of going back on his promise.

But Mr Woolas said the inference in the newspaper story was that he would be moving into the area as soon as possible so it was fair to say he had reneged on his promise.