http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11904630


Stepping outside court today after the verdict Phil Woolas was asked if he had any regrets and he said no. The arrogance of the man failed to see that he had done anything wrong and claimed that being stripped of his seat on a technicality because of "an outdated law". The leaflet that was the cause of his undoing was dismissed as being only one out of all he had produced in 15 years as if that is any justification. If a murderer asked the judge not to consider his victim but the hundreds of people he had met without killing them in the last decade he would rightly derided. He then tried to backtrack as to the tone of the leaflet without denying that he still claimed the Lib Dems were wooing extremists.
   Politicians seem to forget how there words and actions are interpreted and need to make more care when initially making a statement or printing a leaflet or writing a manifesto as to how it plays out with the public. Another example was a Lid Dem MP defending Vince Cable umming and ahing over how to vote in the tuition fees debate. John Hemming MP kept insisting that the manifesto pledge was to cut fees and deliver a fairer system and that they were doing the latter. Ignoring the fact that it says and and not or a fairer system is a vague notion open to interpretation and not something that would win too many votes unless some people were thinking you planned to introduce an unfair system until you kindly pointed that out. No what people take from that pledge is the first part about cutting fees and to try to manipulate that now is disingenuous. If they were up front and honest about the reasons they may be afforded more respect although if its "I want to keep my job" as opposed to "I don't like it, but if we support the Tories on this they might let us have our vote on AV" maybe not.