The five Labour Party members who began a legal action against the Labour Party over their election procedures have decided not to appeal to the Supreme Court. They have issued a statement confirming that the costs of further legal action are prohibitive.
The case hinged on which Labour Party members were allowed to vote in the current leadership election. Last year, the Labour Party announced the 2015 leadership election and encouraged non-members to join the Party and vote in that election – because the Party wanted the voting base to be as broad as possible to give them an informed result. This year, the Labour Party National Executive set a timetable which only allowed members who had joined the Party since 12th January 2016 to have a vote. The implication is that the NEC wanted to restrict the vote to long-established members only, not to those who had only recently joined – in other words, to minimise the number of voters who would be inclined to vote for Jeremy Corbyn.
The High Court agreed with the five Claimants – ruling that they should have a vote. Its reasoning was that the Labour Party website stressed that one of the benefits of becoming a Labour Party member was that you could vote in elections for the Leader, whereas there was no publicity to say that you might not have a vote if you joined. The Court said that the Labour Party Rule Book was a contract between the Party and its members, and it ruled that the Party had to deliver the benefits of membership which it had used to attract members in the first place.
The Labour Party appealed the High Court decision – and the Appeal Court upheld their appeal. The Appeal Court agreed that the Labour Party Rule Book was a contract with members – but relied on a single rule which said that Labour’s National Executive Committee (NEC) would draw up a timetable and procedures for each election. The Appeal Court therefore ruled, basically, that the NEC had a right to set whatever rules or qualifying periods as it wanted – and their decisions would take precedence over statements elsewhere in Labour Party promotional material with promises such as members would have a vote.
This is a serious blow for the five Labour Party members who took the case – and for the estimated 130,000 new members who have joined the Labour Party since January in good faith, assuming that they would have membership rights as had been publicised. It is also a blow for Tower Hamlets Labour Party members, who have selectively been denied the right to choose their own candidates for Council seats for up to 23 years. The NEC has claimed that the local Party’s membership is tainted, so members cannot be allowed a vote. However, party members point out that they have been allowed a vote in selections for Westminster, European, GLA and mayoral candidates over the same period of time as they have not been allowed to select Council candidates.
However, the cessation of the legal action is not a fatal blow for the Jeremy Corbyn campaign. First, many of the 130,000 new members will have registered as supporters in the 48 hour window allowed by the NEC, at a cost of £25 – so the individuals will be voting anyway. Second, the Appeal Court ruling amounts to declaring that the NEC has the right to be partisan when it sets election arrangements will concern many members and make them more determined to vote for Jeremy Corbyn. Third, a substantial body of members will be determined – whatever the outcome of the leadership election – to change the Rule Book, so insofar as this is a victory for the Smith supporters it is a very temporary one.
Once again, the British Courts have implemented the law – but not delivered justice.
[Adverts]