Political life is full of injustice. Careers frequently end in tears – it goes with the territory. Few who remain in political life for long fail to contemplate the possibility of things ending badly. There are, after all, so many ways in which politicians can find themselves on the wrong end of events, of their own making or of others. Most accept that a bad end might come about. You live by the sword, you die by the sword.

All that said, the Phil Woolas story is even by the standards of modern politics something quite unique. For the first time since universal suffrage came about an ‘election court’ – an anachronism of a legislative system littered with detritus dating back to Cromwell and beyond overturns the judgement of the electorate. Two judges, no jury, sitting with a range of powers designed in another age when politicians were all of independent means.

There is almost certainly a place in the system for some form of ‘long stop’ where a defective election may be contested on a variety of grounds. Whether or not it is wise for candidates to do so is a moot point. Gerry Malone, the former Conservative MP for Winchester, who lost by two votes at the 1997 election and successfully petitioned against the spoilt papers found himself trashed by 21,556 at the re-run. The British don’t like bad losers. However, if we are to have matters of democracy before judges it seems wise to limit their powers. The anachronism of the election court is not so much its existence but the scope of its sanction. The right to remove an elected representative, unless that person is convicted of criminal offences, should rest solely with the electorate. So while there could be a case for ordering a re-run of an election, there is no justification for not allowing the electorate of Oldham East and Saddleworth to determine whether or not they wish Phil Woolas to represent them. The essential principle is that in a modern democracy the final sanction should lie with the electorate.

This is noty the only area in which the laws of our land have become woefully outmoded. Our libel laws miserably fail to cope with existence and the operation of ‘free speech’ interweb style. Not a day goes by without reputations being traduced on the web by individuals of dubious repute who place themselves beyond the reach of the libel laws or skulk in gutless anonymity. However those same libel laws prevent those libelled from defending themselves or responding robustly. Political parties happily stand at a distance while attack dogs of various mutant breeds create tittle-tattle and downright untruths they then attempt to ‘mainstream’ into printed and broadcast media. It might be better to take a US view of ‘free speech’ as we seem to be stuck with it anyway - that might at least level the playing field a little.

While outdated laws and the ill-considered actions of judges are one thing, the behaviour of the Labour establishment is quite another. While it is easy to understand the political logic in Labour’s suspension of Phil Woolas it is distasteful and piles one injustice on top of another. Phil Woolas was one of Labour’s most loyal, never voting against the Labour Government or the party whip, a member over 35 years and someone who never worked for anything other than Labour success. The suspension, which I suspect may hurt Phil more than the judgement, is about the Labour establishment covering its own bottom. He dosen’t deserve it. Phil Woolas is, as things stand, barred from the Commons, so his status as a Labour member is relevant only to him personally – he is no longer a public representative, there is no whip to withdraw. Pointless though the suspension is, the control freaks of the Labour establishment may wish to use this unfortunate incident as a pretext to impose another set of heavy-handed restrictions on local parties while handily taking attention from their own manifest failings in this case.

It is equally unfortunate that this case detracts from legitimate criticism of the rank opportunism of Liberal Democrats over security and anti-terrorism issues. Some, certainly not all, Liberal Democrat politicians have proved willing to court Islamist sentiment in search of votes along racial lines. It would be an unfortunate and unintended consequence if criticism of such dangerous and irresponsible politics was curtailed by this judgement.

Phil Woolas was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He found himself subject to a peculiar law at a time when public sentiment was not with MPs. Judges are not immune from the public mood. Whether or not it is wise for Phil Woolas to fight on is another matter. I can well understand his instinct to do so, but whether or not it is the best course it is hard to tell – all the more so when it is yourself at the centre of the storm. There may come a point where walking away is for the best. There are other ways to serve, there is life after politics. Wherever he decides, I wish him well.