The National Executive Committee has decided not to issue nomination form for the leadership of the Labour Party: the BBC has the story, and Guido Fawkes gives us the text of the press release. And very interesting it is, if you have a lawyer’s mind. The key bit is:
A Leadership election when in Government can only be held if requested by a majority of party conference on a card vote, only Labour MPs can trigger the process and the NEC is confident that most MPs know their responsibilities under the rules.
The Labour Party has followed this procedure for 11 years, as long as we have been in government under these present rules, and it has not required the issue of nomination forms at any time.
Notice that this seems to accept by implication that MPs can trigger the process regardless of whether nomination forms are issued. It certainly does not say in terms that there can now be no election, or that the non-issue of forms preempts the role of MPs in the process.
Looking at the Labour Party’s rule book, I think this makes sense. Page 24 is the key bit. Rule 4B(2)Bii (NB – how on earth can politicians complain that lawyers’ drafting is complex?) says that
Where there is no vacancy, nominations shall be sought each year prior to the annual session of party conference. In this case any nomination must be supported by 20 per cent of the Commons members of the PLP
but rule 4B(1)A makes it clear that the NEC can vary this. So, today’s decision is well within the rules, and I don’t see how any application for an injunction could succeed, either as a judicial review (the argument would have to be that the nature of this decision is of such public importance that in effect the NEC is exercising a public function in deciding whether to issue forms) or as a contract claim (the argument being that the NEC has breached the terms on which party members have signed up).
However. The way I read the rule book, there is nothing that suggests that an NEC decision to vary the rules by not seeking nominations has the result that nominations are barred or automatically invalid. Nor do I see anything requiring nominations to be in any particular form. So I think that Commons MPs can still submit nominations in spite of today’s decision – and I note that the text of Labour’s press release is consistent with that view.
If 70 MPs did write in nominating a challenger, there’d have to be a card vote at conference under rule 4B(2) Dii (over the page on page 25 of the rule book) in favour of an election, in order for one actually to be held.
The difficulty of course is that MPs would have to choose now who they want as leader, and to nominate him or her. The ruse about nomination forms was meant to get round this by making it a test of how many would fail to nominate Gordon Brown, rebels knowing it would be more embarrassing for him looked at that way.
But still. I’ve long thought backbench Labour MPs are a pretty pathetic lot, but there is still a chance her for them to force their leader out, if they really want to. Jon Cruddas, for instance, would need only 21 more nominations than he received in last year’s deputy leadership contest in order to be put up as a challenger now.
Interest argument Head of Legal but I for one would like to see a change to the British constitutional arrangements so that in the event of a serving Prime Minister dying in office or resigning or being replaced by the party for which he stood at the previous election then a GENERAL ELECTION has to be called within 3 months.
Now, had that been the law, I am confident that Brown would not be there today! It was bad enough when Brown replaced Blair but to change party leader and therefore PM twice in a Parliament would make a mockery of democracy.
These politicians really are a bunch of self-serving parasites. With all the problems going on in our economy, all they can do is posture in this way. Meanwhile our great Justice Secretary seems to be touring the world telling others how to run their justice systems as if ours was a perfect model these days!
Thanks for the ‘brief’ (hah!) analysis. But the real question is just who is prepared to make any such move? If no one is prepared to start the process, then this is all a bit ‘academic’.
The likelihood is that the Rule Book was scrutinised (amended is possibly a better word) by lawyers when it was originally written.
I agree with your analysis, Carl: if Labour MPs can get enough support together for any one candidate, then I can’t see anything in the rules to prevent them nominating that person in any form they want. They could do it in crayon on the back of a Granita menu if they want.
The contrary view (apparently based on advice from Charlie Falconer) seems to put too much weight on the words “shall be sought each year”. I agree that must mean no more than that it must be possible for members to make nominations each year, rather than that the views of the members must always be actively sought by sending them a particular bit of paper.
I can’t see any particular deadline for nominations, though. 4B(2)(B)(v) says the nomination has to be printed in the final agenda for the conference. It’s not clear what happens to a nomination that’s received after the agenda has gone to the printers, but surely it couldn’t be rejected just on that basis?
But does 4C(i) really mean that if the incumbent contests the leadership election, the results can’t be announced until the following year’s conference? The only exception seems to be under E, if there’s a vacancy, which there wouldn’t be in those circumstances. I suppose in theory the election could be called and decided within the week of a single conference, but presumably that leaves no time to do everything that 4C(ii) requires?
Well, academic in a sense, Unsworth, but in a sense not: Labour MPs really could make this happen if they wanted to. I think the legal analysis helps reveal the political reality that what really prevents a challenge right now is that those unhappy with Brown do not agree on an alternative leader.
Anon.: is there really a contrary view? I was interested that the Labour press release was consistent with my analysis – so maybe their advice is the same.
On the conference agenda and all that, I agree that the printers’ timetable can’t be decisive; anyway, there’s always the possibility of “final final” amendments being issued in Manchester I think.
On timing, I think what’s envisaged is a contest begun well in advance of conference, so that the result can be announced at conference – rather in the way that happened when Tony Benn challenged Denis Healey for the deputy leadership back in ’81. I don’t think there’s any question of waiting a year – if there really had to be an election then I think the NEC would arrange an election followed by a special conference, just as after a vacancy.
Don’t forget rule 4B(1)A: the NEC can always vary the rules, so it can always get around little problems like the conference agenda or timing issues.
The reality, though, is that an election now with a result this conference would be an unrealistically mad panic – the unions would need weeks at least to do proper ballots of their members, sending out ballot papers and all that, or agreeing method for internet voting – and a new leader’s legitimacy would be damaged by that. It just goes to show how pathetically late the challengers were, just as they were pathetically late on the 10p tax issue. They weren’t serious.
It also goes to show how tough it is to unseat a Labour leader. He can be persuaded to stand down, sure, so can be taken down by pure politics. But if he digs his heels in and won’t move, it’s near impossible, as long as he has a majority on the NEC.
What’d be needed would be a strong, pretty ideologically coherent and clearly recognisable faction based around an individual (like Bevan or Benn) which could over a year or so take over the NEC (I think election results for that will be announced at conference), seek nominations the following year for leadership and so on. Even losing control of the NEC might cause a leader to resign. It was vital to Neil Kinnock.
I suspect the rebels knew that it would not be possible to ask for a card vote at the forthcoming Annual Conference as the rules are pretty clear that two clear weeks notice is required – given that they only started making their moves within the two weeks period -I suspect their intention is to try and get a snowball rolling during Conference so that there is eventually an election following a vacancy.
I agree with you on the politics, toryboys, but I’m not sure I agree about the two weeks. First, the NEC can always vary the two weeks rule; but anyway, the nomination muct be accepted two weeks before the voting for leadership starts; not two weeks before the conference card vote. So there’d be time for nominations to be accepted, a card vote held the next day and then elections over the next couple of months. The NEC would have to vary the normal rule that results were announced at annual conference except in the case of a vacancy.
Agree but the nominations and there are none – would have to be on the final agenda for Annual Conference (and then there would have had to be a further conference for the vote!) – although I’m not sure when that is issued I think other items required to be on the final agenda had already been distributed.
All this nominations stuff is just a smokescreen however – if anyone thought the NEC would act to send out nomination papers just before Conference I’m sure that they figured in David CAmeron’s wilder dreams.