Labour won it's appeal - what are your views?

[voluptuagoodshag]

I think this amounts to something resembling election rigging. If you are a member of something, you get a vote. To change the rules to suit just lacks integrity.

I personally think a coup is not what happened, more a general realisation that Jeremy Corbyn was not functioning as a leader. Nothing like as organised or Macchiavellian as a coup. More a lot of soul searching and earnest discussions with Jeremy to stand down so the party could get its act together.

You cannot ignore the heading. The two must be taken together. The courts will almost certainly say that the ordinary construction of the statement is that membership could make you eligible to vote in leadership elections. You cannot simply ignore the word "could" or interpret it as meaning "will".

Where does your membership take you? Why, you could be eligible to vote in leadership elections.

The decision of the lower court is irrelevant now that the Court of Appeal has overruled. In any case the lower court did not agree with your argument. The judge found against the NEC on other grounds and expressed the view that a misrepresentation claim was unlikely to succeed.

Aaaaah but that is not what it says haha!

Where could your membership take you? (out of a number of options)

You (wi)ll be able to vote in leadership elections. And no qualification.

I am not a lawyer ( though I have done some legal type reports) but I have a degree in English and I know how that reads.

I do not think it is negated by the heading (clearly we disagree) and I think that even if I can't insist on voting (though I should be able to) I should get a refund.

Clearly we have a difference of opinion.

Re the legal arguments, I don't think this is the end of it. There are too many people involved and it is a small but key point in a situation of national interest.

I think it's a lot of fuss over nothing & can't see them winning a GE for at least 10 years

I am starting to think we need another party- one that is organised in a sane way.

The appeal did not address the issue of whether there had been a misrepresentation of eligibility to vote on the website because it was only concerned with the contract in the rulebook. As prh4 says, the judge in the first hearing had already indicated that there were difficulties with the argument of misrepresentation. The appeal only focused on whether the initial hearing had been wrong regarding the rulebook and found that it had.

Could someone perhaps link to an article then that explains what the difficulties with misrepresentation arguments would be and how this was expressed in the first judgement?

I can only find this on the Mirror site, which suggests the opposite:

Was there misrepresentation?

Labour members thought they were signing up for a vote - because of the party’s own website.

And the NEC voting otherwise could have amounted to “misrepresentation”, the judge says.

Filler text on the site’s recruiting page said members would benefit from voting in leadership elections.

The judge accepts it wasn’t in the formal rules.

But he says: “What’s on the website may be very, very relevant to whether there was misrepresentation.”

I don't know what the difficulties were or whether the judge expanded on that, but in the event, it seems that the members' lawyers did not pursue the argument of misrepresentation on the website. They based their own case on what was said in the rulebook:
"We say they have been wrongly excluded by breach of contract from the right to vote. We say there is nothing in the Labour Party rule book that suggests a limit on the members who can take part in the leadership election.”
So the members' lawyers possibly brought the wrong case.

My reading of the case initial verdict was that the original trial judge said the NEC did not have power to do what they wanted, and previous Labour party practice was to not have a time requirement for membership.
The appeal court disagreed and said the NEC could set the rules.
On the misrepresentation, previous case law suggests adding rules outside the rulebook is legally very difficult (see para 90 on my link)

Clearly we have a difference of opinion

We do. You are also disagreeing with the judge in the High Court.

I can only find this on the Mirror site, which suggests the opposite

The report in the Mirror covers is about the debate in the Court if Appeal, not the High Court judgement. As someone who is used to the way the Court of Appeal works this report is a little odd in that it refers to "the judge" when there are in fact three judges. However, these comments came during the submission on behalf of the Labour party so would have been one of the judges testing the strength of the case rather than offering a legal opinion. In the end the Court of Appeal did not even bother to mention misrepresentation in its judgement beyond reporting the views of the High Court and suggesting that the misrepresentation argument misled the judge, resulting in him giving too much emphasis to matters outside the rulebook and hence making the wrong decision.

Caroldecker has highlighted the relevant clause in the initial judgement. In relation to the arguments about implied terms and misrepresentation the judge said, "given the difficulty in implying terms into a contract such as this, and the clear indication on the website that membership of the Party was the subject of the Rule Book, had his main ground failed, it is unlikely that these alternatives would have found favour".

So the members' lawyers possibly brought the wrong case

Their lawyers, correctly, concentrated on the case most likely to win - breach of contract. They also put forward a number of other arguments, including misrepresentation, as alternatives should the main argument fail. As the main argument succeeded in the High Court the judge did not need to rule on the alternative arguments but, as per the comments above, he stated that they were unlikely to succeed.

So registered supporters who paid £25 can still vote but members who paid £3 can't, is that right?

I may be wrong on this as I am not associated with and have never been a member of the Labour party but I thought that £3 made you a registered supporter, not a member.

Also both courts confirmed registered supporters under 18 cannot vote.

Thanks, PRH, I found it here, registered supporters can vote assuming this has been updated!

www.labour.org.uk/pages/labour-party-leadership-election-2016

That's been updated with the outcome of the case so I presume it is correct.

Apparently the ASA did say that Labour were wrong advertising that folk could vote on their website .... Ruling should be on ASAs website on weds

Labour are totally confused - I am a Tory Party member and got an email from Labour asking if I would like to stand as a local councillor, I was most disappointed when they withdrew the offer next day. I can only imagine they got my email address as I am in a union.

Apparently the ASA did say that Labour were wrong advertising that folk could vote on their website

I haven't heard this. Do you have a link?

No. Was on Twitter from the person who submitted a complaint. If true ASA publish rulings every Wednesday.

Was on Twitter from the person who submitted a complaint

I've found some reports on Twitter but none from anyone who claims to have submitted a complaint. Most of them are from people I wouldn't regard as reliable sources of information. Which does not, of course, mean it isn't true. I'll be interested to see what happens on Wednesday.

So, I'd like to explain who can and cannot vote.

To be upfront, I am a LP member, have been for 33 years. I will not vote for JC (and didn't last time).

Members who joined after 12th Jan cannot vote.

Registered supporters who paid £3 for the leadership election last year cannot vote (it seems that deal is only for each upcoming election).

Registered supporters who registered and paid £25 this July, within the two days (I think it was 18th to 20th) can vote.

Members who have been members since before 12th Jan can vote.

Then there is some union/affiliated membership that I admit I have never understood.

It is probably not 'democratic' - but, what the heck is anyway? Democracy is not an absolute. It's quite amusing how suddenly everyone is an expert on 'democracy'.

The Court of Appeal ruling looks pretty tight to me.

I actually think the NEC made the wrong decision though. I think they should have just made it from that date (of their meeting) onwards that new members didn't get a vote. There has to be some delay due to the necessary vetting process.

"Members who joined after 12th Jan cannot vote.
...
Registered supporters who registered and paid £25 this July, within the two days (I think it was 18th to 20th) can vote."

How can both of those statements be true?

DS mischievously signed me up to receive Tory party emails... why do I feel like the Tories have the good sense to not air their dirty laundry so publicly.

I don't know why you think they can't both be true, they are!

'Members' and 'registered supporters' are two different categories with different rights and different ways to register etc.

The fact it's ridiculous doesn't mean it can't be true.

Members who are registered supporters can vote.
Only registered supporters over 18 can vote (unlike last year)