Labour’s national executive committee, the party’s ruling body, is appealing against a high court decision allowing new party members to vote in the forthcoming leadership election
5.22pm BST
We’re closing this live blog now, but our politics reporter Jessica Elgot will be back with a new live blog covering tonight’s Labour leadership hustings at 6.45pm.
Thanks for reading, and for your comments.
4.44pm BST
Owen Smith’s team have accused Corbyn of travelling more miles in the first three weeks of his leadership campaign than he did during the two-month campaign to keep Britain in the EU, Buzzfeed reports.
A spokesperson for the Jeremy for Labour campaign responded: “These kind of smears only show how little Owen Smith has to offer. Jeremy did 122 campaigning events to stay in the EU, considerably fewer than he will do for the leadership campaign and far more than Owen Smith did.”
4.10pm BST
GQ has published a new interview with Liz Kendall, in which the former Labour leadership contender says the party will be “a rump” if Corbyn gets back in.
GQ interview with @leicesterliz is very good: https://t.co/yEh5P89NC5 pic.twitter.com/j2YZWrBtcN
4.06pm BST
The judgement in the NEC’s appeal against allowing new members the vote in the Labour leadership election will be handed down tomorrow in the court of appeal.
BREAKING judgment to be handed down at 3pm tomorrow
Judges have heard Labour's appeal re the 130,000 new members and will rule tomorrow 3pm
3.49pm BST
Robert Griffiths, the general secretary of the Communist Party, has condemned sectarian entryism into the Labour party, Buzzfeed’s Jim Waterson reports.
The general secretary of the Communist Party of Britain condemns attempts by rival hard left parties to join Labour. pic.twitter.com/uiuthlxg9I
3.36pm BST
Keith Vaz, chair of the home affairs select committee, has said the public still need to be given a full explanation as to why Justice Lowell Goddard resigned from the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse.
The new chair of the child abuse inquiry has no legal or judicial experience says Keith Vaz pic.twitter.com/bocZqy7XEU
3.14pm BST
Professor Alexis Jay is to take over as chair of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse following the resignation of Justice Lowell Goddard, the home secretary has announced.
Jay, a child protection expert with more than 30 years experience led the official inquiry into the Rotherham scandal which found that at least 1,400 children were sexually exploited in the town between 1997 and 2013.
3.12pm BST
Professor Alexis Jay, who led the Rotherham abuse inquiry, will be the new chairwoman of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, the home secretary has announced.
2.58pm BST
The latest YouGov polls show that the Conservative lead over Labour has halved since last week, from 14 points to seven.
According to the pollsters:
The Conservatives’ new Prime Minister “bounce” may now be coming to an end, with the party dropping four points to 38% in YouGov’s latest voting intention survey. Labour has seen a three point recovery to 31%, although they are still performing below their pre-referendum figures.
VOTING INTENTION
CON 38% (-4)
LAB 31% (+3)
LD 8% (-)
UKIP 13% (+1)
OTH 11% (+1)
(8-9 Aug)https://t.co/OfsTpYEBgA pic.twitter.com/oa13so7OFM
TNS Poll:
Who would make the best leader for Britain?
ABC1 Voters:
May 49%
Corbyn 13%
Source: https://t.co/WxO0EX3gQR
2.30pm BST
Jessica Elgot, our reporter at the court of appeal, has filed her take on the first half-day of the NEC’s appeal against allowing new members the vote. Her story takes in the arguments of Clive Sheldon, acting on behalf of the NEC and Labour general secretary Ian McNicol. She writes:
Labour’s national executive committee must have the power to determine who is eligible to vote in a leadership election, depending on the circumstances surrounding the poll, the court of appeal has heard.
The party is appealing against a high court ruling that the NEC was wrong to block 130,000 new members from voting in the leadership election by imposing a retrospective six-month freeze.
Related: NEC is guardian of Labour constitution, appeal court told
2.23pm BST
Questions are already being asked about how Unison went about its consultation, with some pointing out that the 20,190 members who took part in the union’s online consultation constituting just a tiny fraction of its 1.3 million membership.
@damiengayle Would love to know how @unisontweets consulted members. Only ~20,000 took part out of 1.3 milion https://t.co/O2e4VBvMfl
Would you like the Labour Link committee to nominate a candidate in the forthcoming Labour Leadership election?
If the Unison Labour Link committee decides to nominate a candidate, do you have a preference on which candidate they should nominate?
2.18pm BST
Unison general secretary Dave Prentis has said that the views of those members who backed Owen Smith “will always be respected in our union”, obliquely addressing the constant accusations of bullying and so-called “uncomradely” behaviour that have dogged the campaign - and indeed the Labour party since Corbyn won the leadership last year.
In his statement, Prentis warned that Labour risked winning from the Tories the unwelcome sobriquet of the “nasty party” if such behaviour continued:
Jeremy Corbyn retains the backing of a majority of Unison’s Labour-supporting members. That’s why the committee supported his nomination again.
However, a significant minority backed Owen Smith. Their views will always be respected in our union - that’s our proud tradition.
2.08pm BST
News just in: Unison has given its supporting nomination for the Labour leadership to Jeremy Corbyn, according to the Labour leader’s campaign.
Britain’s second-largest trade union, with 1.3 million members, says its membership voted 58% to 42% in favour of Corbyn over the challenger, Owen Smith. Particularly relevant in light of Jess Phillips’s comments today, the union notes that women are in the majority among its membership.
I am proud to have the support of Unison members. Their incredible work, against the backdrop of cuts, privatisation and outsourcing of public services, keeps the services we all rely on running - from the NHS to local government.
We need a Labour Party that gives them a voice - that halts and reverses the cuts, privatisation, and outsourcing that are ripping Britain’s communities and services apart.
2.01pm BST
The court of appeal is just about to get going again after its lunchtime recess. In the meantime, Jess Phillips, the Labour MP, who has been vocal about her opposition to Corbyn and what she believes is male-domination in the Labour party, has written for the Guardian about the lack of female candidates for forthcoming mayoral elections.
Phillips accuses Corbyn of placing more importance on securing jobs for his “brothers in arms” than advancing the cause of women and says he failed to respond to her attempts to discuss the issue with him. She says:
People tell me I should just get behind Jeremy, work with him. On this, I tried. I would have gladly organised events in the regions for women members and councillors. I would have gone with Jeremy, stood shoulder to shoulder on platforms, encouraged women to give it a go, and offered tips and mentoring about being a representative and standing for selection. I was willing to work hard to do something that would have made Jeremy look good.
I’m left disappointed and deflated again. I don’t know why Jeremy didn’t answer. I don’t know why his office ignored my advances. They never ignored me before and haven’t since. He told me he was a feminist. I suppose feminism is out of the window when your brothers in arms want the jobs. The Labour party is becoming a movement of words not deeds.
Related: There are no female Labour mayoral candidates. It’s a leadership problem | Jess Phillips
12.51pm BST
Sheldon’s submissions on behalf of Labour NEC are now over, its time to hear the barrister for the respondents.
We've heard the appeal now, respondents barrister (representing members) is up now.
12.49pm BST
Now Sheldon (McNicol barrister) referring to website promise that joining means you can have a vote
Argues that is all subject to terms and conditions - which refer to the rule book
12.47pm BST
A central plank of the original claimants’ case was that the Labour party website said they would be eligible to vote in a leadership contest. But Sheldon says: “The website can’t be relied upon as providing a definitive meaning of the rules.”
12.37pm BST
“I’m trying to have my cake and eat it,” Sheldon admits when a judge points out that he is both telling them background is not important, then using a lot of background material to support his case.
12.23pm BST
Here’s our Jessica Elgot again, with the latest from the court of appeal, where they are wrangling over the issue of “freeze dates”.
McNicol evidence says that freeze dates have been in place in every lab election and NEC have previously decided not to apply 6m freeze
Judge disputes this reading of a former NEC decision. Says it clearly says NEC decided there was no 6m requirement, not not to apply it.
McNicol evidence also giving some context to this NEC decision, says concern large numbers had joined solely to vote &be 'paper members'
12.17pm BST
The Press Association has filed a report summing up the developments so far in the court of appeal. Here is a lightly edited version:
Labour’s ruling body has accused a High Court judge of “getting it wrong” when he decided that new party members were legally entitled to vote in the forthcoming leadership election.
Iain McNicol, the party’s general secretary, is asking the Court of Appeal to reinstate a block imposed by Labour’s National Executive Committee (NEC) on nearly 130,000 recruits getting the vote.
12.09pm BST
Judges are now quizzing Sheldon on the details of his argument. He has said that the power to define voting eligibility rests with the NEC.
This tweet from the courtroom by Dan Bloom, the Mirror’s politics reporter, about sums up the tenor of the debate:
Labour's barrister and the judge are debating the definition of the word 'define'. I am not joking.
11.56am BST
The QC representing Labour is Clive Sheldon who, according to his online bio, is “a Leading Silk in the fields of Administrative & Public Law, Employment Law, Education Law and Local Government Law.”
He has a long history of cases involving government and politics, previously working as a legal advisor to the attorney general:
Before taking Silk, Clive was for many years a member of the Attorney-General’s ’A’ Panel of Junior Counsel to the Crown. Since taking Silk, Clive has continued to advise and represent various government departments at all levels of the Court system.
11.45am BST
Applying a freeze date is "entirely an operational matter which must be left to the NEC because it knows the state of the party"
11.44am BST
The judge asks:
Is your point in selecting the freeze date - absent issues of bias ... - is the point that this is about an operational implementation and that is the area that within the framework of a political party they know more than us?
11.41am BST
McNicol’s barrister argues that a section of the rulebook pertaining to reselection of candidates following a boundary review specifically gives the NEC power to define “freeze dates” for eligible electors.
11.35am BST
Now the court is being directed to Appendix 1 of the rule book.
“Members enjoy the formal democratic rights of membership according to the rules,” he reads out.
The party is however concerned that no individual or faction should recruit members improperly in order to seek to influence our democratic processes. The recruitment of large numbers of paper members ... undermines our party democracy.
11.32am BST
Par in rule book says individual members have equiv rights "except as proscribed in these rules."
Barrister says that means ordinarily all members (old or new) would have same rights but that can be altered by proper exercise of the rules
Lawyer points to selection procedure for candidates, which says candidates need 6months cont membership
11.27am BST
We’re on to a different section of the Labour party rulebook now, with the barrister saying that it shows that members will “ordinarily” have equal rights, but that can be altered by the exercise of the rules. He tells the court:
The important point is equivalence ... except as prescribed in these rules. Where the rules allow for non-equivalence then they don’t have equal equivalent rights.
11.21am BST
Labour barrister tells the court: One of the key questions in this case, is what does it mean to define the eligibility criteria?
The question is what it means when it says NEC has right to "define" eligibility criteria, barrister says, 1/2
2/2 and his argument is that includes right to determine time limits.
11.17am BST
“The parties to the contract are ... recognising that the NEC has an interpretive role,” says Labour’s barrister. He goes on to argue that where the NEC says it has a particular power, it does mean that the court should provide a degree of deference to the NEC.
11.12am BST
This tweet from Jessica pretty much encapsulates the case that the Labour NEC is seeking to make in their appeal.
McNicol barrister argues NEC is afforded by the rule book sufficiently broad powers that it can override the rules framework
11.09am BST
The barrister for Ian McNicol is arguing that “the power to impose the condition ... is clear from the express words of the rule book.”
He says he has finished his preliminary submissions. Now, he is directing the court to page 405 of the rule book...
11.06am BST
My colleague Jessica Elgot is at the court of appeal watching the case and live tweeting the proceedings. It’s starting a bit slowly, from the sound of things.
Judge says: "I think we can say numbering in this rule book is *special*... The love of Roman numerals...." Lots of laughter in court...
10.33am BST
Good morning, on another day set to be full of drama in the Labour party.
Today Labour’s national executive committee, the party’s ruling body, is challenging a high court decision allowing new party members to vote in the forthcoming leadership election. It comes after a majority of NEC members, including the deputy leader, Tom Watson, decided to appeal against a ruling that the party had wrongly disenfranchised 130,000 members, most of whom are thought to back the incumbent leader, Jeremy Corbyn.
Continue reading...