by The Conservative Party’s refusal to provide information on its leadership election process makes it “completely unaccountable” and has “unfettered power” over the selection of a new Prime Minister, the High Court has been told.
News organization Tortoise Media wants to bring a legal challenge against the political party after it refused to answer nine questions about the status and demographics of members who chose Liz Truss as Tory leader last year.
Ms Truss was announced as leader on September 5, before being appointed Prime Minister by the late Queen the following day without a general election.
Lawyers for the news outlet, which requested the membership information in August 2022, said the decision by a “small minority” of voters was “one of the least democratic elements” in the process of choosing who to be in headed by the Government.
The party was a “private members’ club” and its members were able to wield “tremendous power” over who took the top job, a judge was told.
The Conservative Party opposes the attempt to launch a legal challenge, arguing that the leadership election was “not a public function or government power” and that the late Queen was ultimately responsible for appointing a new Prime Minister.
At a hearing in London on Thursday, Alan Payne KC, for Tortoise, told the court that his case involved “fundamental issues of transparency and accountability” and involved “one of the least democratic aspects of the constitutional process of electing the Prime Minister. “.
He said around 170,000 Tory members had chosen, in electing Mr Truss, “the person that convention requires the monarch to appoint as Prime Minister”.
The barrister said the monarch’s role was effectively a “rubber-stamping exercise”, and that the Conservative Party’s position was “archaic” and “fails the significant developments over the past decade in the principles of accountability, transparency and reflect the functioning of government. public powers”.
Mr Payne said the party acknowledged the public interest in the election, adding: “However, they say, today, it is right that that process should be done in secret by a private members’ club”.
In written arguments, Mr Payne said the Turtle was not challenging the outcome of the Tory leadership election or its process.
He said: “There is a strong public interest in information relating to the integrity of the electoral process, for example, foreign influence, checks carried out to ensure that members are entitled to vote, confirmation of whether members are on the national ballot. age able to vote in the election etc.”
Mr Payne added that the “logical consequence” of the party’s approach was that it is “completely unaccountable for the electoral process” as opposed to a general election and “is free to adopt any process it chooses, knowing that it will never be. they must answer to the public regarding the errors/failures/inadequacy of the process, which culminated in the appointment of the Prime Minister”.
“That unbroken power of the party is inimical to democracy and good government,” he said.
Mr Payne said Turtle “wanted to test the safeguards” of the election and applied for the party membership of an animal, a dead person and two foreign nationals in August last year.
They all received membership numbers and were invited to leadership hustings, the court was told.
Kevin Brown, representing the Conservative Party, told the hearing that the Turtle challenge was “bound to fail”.
He said it would be an “extraordinary set of circumstances” if the court were to intervene in the leadership election, as the party is a private members’ association.
“If a political party has external control, it makes me a dictatorship,” he said.
Mr Brown said it was important to distinguish between the party and its members in Parliament, adding that if it was decided that the election could be examined by the court, it would open the floodgates to a lot of potential political litigation.
In written arguments, counsel said the court does not have “jurisdiction” to review the party’s refusal to provide the requested information and “it would not serve any purpose” to proceed with the case.
“Electing the leader of an unincorporated private association is not a public function or a government power,” he said, adding that it was “purely an internal act.”
“The court cannot ignore the constitutional position that the appointment of the Prime Minister is entirely within the personal powers of the monarch and the Conservative Party has no powers in this regard.”
The hearing concluded on Thursday, with Mr Justice Fordham saying he would give his ruling in writing later.
James Harding, former director of BBC News and ex-editor of The Times, co-founded Tortoise Media, which he says produces “slow news”.
Rishi Sunak replaced Ms Truss, who became the shortest-serving prime minister in history when she resigned after 49 days in office.
