Corbyn campaign says it is 'the wrong decision — both legally and democratically'
Labour’s National Executive Committee has successfully overturned the High Court’s ruling that it would be unlawful to exclude members registered after 12 January from voting in the leadership contest.
The decision will be a blow to Jeremy Corbyn, who was expected to take the majority of the 130,000 new members’ votes.
The five new members who took the case to the High Court requested permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, but were refused.
The judge accepted the NEC’s argument that its authority is supreme in setting rules for the contest, saying that there was “express provision” in the Labour rule book for the NEC to define voter eligibility.
A spokesperson for Jeremy for Labour has issued a statement criticising the ruling, and the NEC’s decision to appeal:
“We think that this is the wrong decision — both legally and democratically.
“The Court’s ruling disenfranchises nearly 130,000 Labour members, who joined the party since January and were explicitly told that they would have a vote in any leadership election.
“Crucial to the outcome today was the introduction of a new argument by the Labour Party HQ’s lawyers, who invoked an obscure clause in the Labour Party rules (Chapter 4, Clause II, 1.A), which could be read as giving the NEC the right to ignore all of the rules laid out for leadership elections.
“In other words, this is a ‘make it up as you go along’ rule. We do not think that making it up as you go along is a reasonable way to conduct democracy in our party.
“Serious questions must be raised, however, over why and how the NEC Procedures Committee brought this appeal.
“In doing so, it effectively risked new members’ money on an attempt to disenfranchise them. If we are to build a big, inclusive party to take on the Tories, we need to secure democracy in our party.”
Responding to the decision, Owen Smith commented:
“I had welcomed the prospect of 125,000 additional members being given the opportunity to vote in this vitally important leadership election.
“The decision of the Appeal Court today doesn’t change my approach to this contest; I am getting on with the job of talking to as many members and supporters across the country as possible and making the case for a united, radical and credible Labour Party.”
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
11 Responses to “Court of Appeal backs Labour NEC — excluding 130,000 new members”
Roy Scoones
The Labour Party is being run by a group of people who cannot accept that they belong in history. The people to be excluded from the Corbyn vote are the future. They will never support a party that rejects democracy. And they are not alone.
Pete Chilton
Absolutely saddened by the antics of the NEC and PLP and misuse of membership monies which should be used to fight the Tories. They do not get it, labour voters who voted for Brexit have been lost to UKIP and its like not in the last 18 months but over the last 30 years. When the policies you stand on are indistinguishable, in the eyes of the electorate, from those represented by the Tories and you either vote with them or abstain on issues like austerity meadures then you will inevitably lose those voters. Within hours of Brexit up to £400 billion was identified to shore up the economy, 2.5 % of that would have alleviated the severity of austerity. The PLP are the wreckers and should be bloody ashamed of themselves. The political class is out of touch. When opposition MP’s are being egged on and cheered by this governments representatives they should look long and hard at what they are doing to the party, tp working people and to themselves.
Anne Baldwin
Thank goodness common sense has prevailed. Congratulations to Ian McNicholl and his team for supporting our democratically elected NEC. Shame on our ‘leader’ for trying to undermine them. It took me about five minutes to find the appropriate phrases in the Rule Book (available to all on membersnet). I just couldn’t understand how the previous judge had missed them. We all sign to abide by the Rules, whatever organisation we join. In this case the transparent retrospective freeze dates have been used successfully in Parliamentary, Council and other selections for years. How on earth can the leaders office say they are ‘obscure’.
John Woods
The NEC should be supreme and never challenged by anyone at any time.
Jason
Just so obvious – not for the courts – is for the NEC to decide rules – guess we’ll see that being applied ruthlessly when new NEC takes over 🙂 and gawd knows what kind of fantasy world will emerge after conference