Thursday, August 11, 2016

Let Labour set its own leadership rules.

I don't now if there any lawyers versed in constitutional law who might read my blog posts. If there are maybe they can explain to me and help me understand why the High Court should be getting involved in the Labour leadership election. Surely this is a matter for the Labour Party. Surely it's a political matter that the High Court should keep its ermine-clad nose out of.

A few days ago I took about two hours to write a post about the 'political' interference of the European Court of Justice in European Union matters. This court, more than any other body delivered the vote to leave the European Union. It took its decisions in support of the political objective of "Ever closer union." The people of the U.K. decided they'd had enough of this and voted to Leave. There is a proper place for courts to decide. And there are times when courts should decide not to decide. How the Labour Party chooses its leader is one of them. In my opinion (as a sheep farmer and gardener that is)!! 

2 comments:

Alison said...

It is basic contract law. You pay say £500 for a holiday, the travel agent sells this to you that you'll be staying in a five star hotel. After you've paid up, the travel agent changes the deal and now states you'll be stopping in a one star hotel but you paid up. Breach of contract, you brought something which was retrospectively changed. This principle can apply for all contractual dealings, if someone missells you any consumer goods then people usually complain.

In terms of Labour membership, people thought they were buying membership so they could vote. After people brought the membership, the party changed the terms and conditions of the contract, i.e. a retrospective change of rules. The party subsequently moved the cut off date, after people had entered into that contract. This is a common law principle. I believe the party is stating there was no express mention of rules around retrospective changing of the rules. Hence there is a dispute, which is where the court comes in.

Glyn Davies said...

Thanks Alison. You explain the argument very well. Glyn