THE Labour Party does not have to follow its rulebook – because the rules give its executive committee power to override them, a court heard yesterday.
The claim was made at the Court of Appeal in London as the party tried to persuade judges to overturn a ruling which would allow 130,000 new members back into the leadership vote.
Tens of thousands of people have joined the party in recent months, with the most recent surge coming as MPs tried to unseat current leader Jeremy Corbyn in a vote of no confidence.
With Corbyn now locked in a leadership battle against challenger Owen Smith, the party’s National Executive Committee (NEC) decided to impose a “freeze” on participation for those with less than six months of continuous membership.
After a crowdfunded challenge brought by five new members, a High Court judge ruled earlier this week that the July 12 freeze date should not have been implemented.
But the party launched an immediate appeal, despite criticisms about using members’ cash to prevent many from taking part in a leadership vote.
Announcing the move, the party said it was acting to “defend the NEC’s right, as Labour’s governing body, to uphold the rule book”.
However, barrister Clive Sheldon QC, acting for the party’s general secretary Iain McNicol, said the NEC is the “guardian” of Labour’s rules and can interpret them as it chooses.
He said High Court judge Mr Justice Hickinbottom had “got it wrong” when he ruled against the party, adding: “The NEC has extremely wide powers under the rules. It is in effect the guardian of the party’s constitution and the ultimate arbiter as to the meaning of the rules.”
Sheldon went on: “What we have done is consistent with the rules framework but, even if it were not, the NEC still has the power to go against the rules framework.”
The court heard there is “nothing in the rulebook which says a freeze date cannot be retrospective” and the issue is “an operational matter which must be left to the NEC to determine because it knows the state of the party.”
Sheldon added that the party has fears that “paper members” who do not attend branch meetings and are not committed to party values have joined “under false pretences”.
He said: “They’re concerned about people joining the party just to vote for the leadership election.”
The members who brought the appeal – Christine Evangelou, Rev Edward Leir, Hannah Fordham, Chris Granger and a teenager known as FM – said the party website had promised newcomers the right to take part in any leadership ballot.
But yesterday Sheldon said the official rulebook shows that while all members “ordinarily” have equal rights, this is subject to change.
David Goldstone QC, representing the members who brought the challenge, said it would be “dangerous” to let the NEC exclude members from key votes, allowing "scope for abuse".
Discussing the rules, he said: “Is it likely that the party’s intention was that the NEC would have a power of effective disenfranchisement? I say no.”
A decision on the matter, described by judge Lord Justice Beatson as urgent, is expected at 3pm today.
Yesterday, a senior Labour source said the case would cost a six-figure sum and, if the judges reject the appeal, McNicol’s career, saying: “If Labour loses the appeal, the position of Iain McNicol becomes untenable. Having spent nearly a quarter [of a] million pounds on this legal case and staking his professional reputation on the outcome, if he loses today then he simply can’t stay in post.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here