New Labour member’s legal challenge against NEC decision?

[Biff1666]

Hi

 

I am sure plenty of members are aware of Labours National Executive Committees (NEC)decision

to bar all members who joined in the last 6 months (100,000 people approximately) from voting in the new leadership race?

That is unless you pay a £25.00 membership fee within the next two days?

 

The questions I would like to pose are,

 

a)Is it illegal to, retrospectively, change the constitution/rules to deny the’ new’ labour party members a chance to vote?

 

b) How much would it cost to mount a legal challenge against their decision?

 

c) Would the new Labour party members be willing to pay an extra couple of quid to finance the challenge ?( here is my £2)

 

d) Would anyone from CAG be able to assist in setting up a secure holding account etc etc if required?

 

Now whether it’s Mark Twain,

 

“If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it.”

 

Or Ken Livingston’s twist on it (I think?)

 

“If voting made any difference they would ban it.”

 

Both quotes and the labour parties NEC decision give me grave concern in this world of “open and transparent democracy”.

 

Regards

Biff

[Andyorch]

Thread moved to the appropriate forum.

 

Andy

[unclebulgaria67]

As far as I know a political party can change their rules in line with their constituition. The NEC would have gone through this legally, referring it to senior Lawyers. One thing Labour is not short of, is Lawyers who are willing to share their opinions.

 

As the new leadership contest has not officially started, the new rules can be applied to it, once it is triggered. A Judge is unlikely to want to look into whether a political party can change their rules.

 

The costs of a judicial review are quite high ( don't know but read it is about £100k min ) and i believe if you lose, the other side i.e the Labour party in this case, can claim their costs against the parties seeking the review.

 

I doubt that CAG would get involved in any political issue, unless it was focused on Consumer rights.

[Biff1666]

Hi

Cheers for input.

 

As a "consumer", I paid my subscrciption to a join an organisation with voting rights. After I joined, my voting rights were taken away from me unless I pay an increase in my subs to £25.00?

 

a)Did I enter into a contract and is there a breach of that contract? and,

b)What are my rights/options?

 

Regards

Biff

[unclebulgaria67]

You are not a consumer. You belong to a political party which has a constituition which is managed by the NEC. They can change the rules when they like, providing they follow their own constutuition rules. E.g they might have rules regarding whether they can change voting rights through a vote of the NEC or whether they need a vote of the whole membership.

 

As you might know the NEC decision by 18 votes to 14 to allow Corbyn on the ballot without 51 MP/MEP support, is going to be subject to a legal challenge. The challenge is to make Corbyn subject to the same rules as any others who seek to lead the party.

 

If you are unhappy about what is happening, then register a complaint with the Labour party chairman and if it relates to voting rights, then Labour might be subject to Electoral Commission rules. Quite often parties accept to bound by rules of how they should operate, so they meet democratic standards.

[Biff1666]

Cheers and I already have registered a complaint!

 

I joined the Labour Party because I was invited, by two senior figures, a Mr Corbyn and by a Miss Eagle, who told me that "if I joined, I would have a vote in the leadership election"?

 

Regards

 

Biff

[unclebulgaria67]

I think the Labour party will split into two separate parties. Old Labour with Corbyn types and a new party who might join with the Lib Dems. I can't see how any left of centre party can compete with the Tories, because the Tories will raise about 4 times the amount of money to spend in elections and the constituences will be changed at a 2020 election with possibly 600 seats instead of the current 650.

 

While i like some of the economic ideas of McDonnell, he would never stand any chance given that the media hate him. And there are loads of pictures showing Corbyn and McDonnell meeting various dodgy people, that will be used by the media in a run up to an election, that would cause an election disaster for Labour. The Tories would win a landslide. For any left of centre party to stand a chance, they need a leader who appeals to most voters anywhere in the UK and a set of policies for the whole country. They need to get to this position way before any election, as they need to raise the election funds to compete with the Tories.

 

If the Labour parties NEC wants to change the rules, if the constituition allows this, then there is nothing stopping them. If you don't like the way the party is behaving, then campaign within the party or leave it.

[sajindevon]

Hello. I'm back here after 10 years, since CAG helped me reclaim my bank charges. Hope all is well

 

I'm wondering if anyone can help me with some advice. I recently joined the a well known political Party. I opted to pay by direct debit and at that time I was told my membership would mean I could vote in the forthcoming leadership elections. This was a fundamental reason for my joining.

 

Since joining the terms of my membership have been changed meaning I am now not allowed to vote without paying a further £25.

 

I am wondering what legal ramifications are of changing the terms of my membership without more than a few days notice.

 

I have paid the £25 as this is very important to me, but I want to go about reclaiming it as soon as possible!

 

Any help or advice gratefully recieved

 

Saj x

[Sparks_]

I am in almost the same position...but I just can not afford the £25 to vote!

Since when has voting incurred a charge in the UK?

[Andyorch]

We already have thread running on this saj....I will merge your thread into the above so its more a collective thread.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[unclebulgaria67]

I can't believe that a political party can get into this mess. If they can't effectively run their own organisation, then they are nowhere near ready to be voted into government.

 

If the Trade Unions back Corbyn, they are signing up to Labour being out of power for at least 10 years and the Tories will legislate restricting rights of Trade Unions and workers. Why would the Trade Unions vote against the interests of their own members ? Does not make any sense to me.

 

As for issues about membership and having to pay £25, that is up to you to ask Labour for thier legal justification for this. I suspect that within their rules they can charge for various to cover their costs.

[Old Cogger]

self destruction - comes to mind, any more and no doubt the membership funds will be misued

[steampowered]

Hello

 

Organisations like political parties are run according to their constitution. When you become a member of an organisation, you sign up to that constitution. The same principle applies whether we are talking about a political party or your local wine tasting club.

 

Any organisation can set rules about who is eligible to vote for the leader of that organisation in its constitution. When you joined the Labour party, I think you will be seen to agree to the constitution of the Labour party which is freely available online. Assuming that the Labour party's constitution does give the NEC the power to impose this restriction, I don't think you can complain.

 

Personally I think it is reasonable to write a rule which says you must be a member for a certain period before you are entitled to vote in elections. I don't think its fair that long-term members who have been dedicated to their party for years can get drowned out by people simply joining to vote in one election and then leave again. Lots of private societies have a similar rule.

[hightail]

Personally I think it is reasonable to write a rule which says you must be a member for a certain period before you are entitled to vote in elections.

I agree 100%. I don't agree with making it retrospective. Quite right to bring it in but 100% wrong to back date it.