Tortoise Media is seeking judicial review of the Conservative Party’s refusal to provide information about the running of the election to decide Boris Johnson’s successor as Party leader and Prime Minister.
The Tortoise newsroom asked for information about the demographics of the membership voting to elect the next leader and Prime Minister; they asked for the numbers of members and how they have grown over time; asked what the Party does to ensure members are who they say they are; and asked what the Party does to deal with attempts at infiltration and interference.
The Conservative Party refused to answer any of these questions. Darren Mott, CEO of the Conservatives, said the election was a “private matter” and that the choice of PM is not ultimately made by the members, but the Queen.
Tortoise believe that this is unlawful. On the advice of lawyers, they have written to the Conservative Party to inform them that they are seeking judicial review because they believe that the Party’s refusal to disclose information is in breach of common law and human rights law – i.e. the Conservative Party is in breach of the laws safeguarding open government and guaranteeing our right to know information regarding the operation of our government and democracy.
(The full text of our letter to the Conservative Party is here.)
The full argument for judicial review can be found here but in summary we believe the leadership process to be undemocratic, in its conspicuous lack of transparency, and against the principle of open and fair democracy:
- – undemocratic because the process by which Conservative Party chooses the next PM is unrepresentative (the membership accounts for little over 0.2 per cent of the population and includes non-UK citizens and under-age voters) and because it’s unsafe (the Party has provided no assurance to us as to how or if it checks voters are who they say they are).
- – unlawful because we asked the Conservative Party to provide information about the demographics of the electorate, the efforts taken to validate party members and the process of securing the election from interference. They refused. In doing so, we believe they’ve breached the common law principle of open government and human rights enshrined in law guaranteeing information is made available to the public about the operation of our democracy.
- – we know more about the membership of the Chinese Communist Party – age, gender, geography, job – than we do about the Conservative Party members choosing our prime minister
- – Party insiders estimate the membership has grown by 50-70,000 people in the last three years, but no one can say who they are; no one, in fact, can say how many of the members are on the electoral register
- – if Liz Truss moves into No. 10 next week, she’ll have the weakest mandate of any modern prime minister, not being the choice of the majority of Conservative MPs but carried into office by 80,000 or so people who pay £25 a year to be Conservative Party members.
- – when we asked a Party official who oversees the Party’s compliance processes to ensure voters are who they say they are, we were told: “Nobody”. The former head of one of the UK’s national security agencies said the Conservative Party is not resourced to run an election of this importance.
James Harding, Editor of Tortoise, said: “After we registered Archie, our pet tortoise, a couple of foreign nationals and the late Lady Thatcher as members of the Conservative Party – and the Party had taken the money, issued them all with new membership numbers and invited them to the leader hustings – we were concerned about how the Conservative Party was running this election.
“We wrote to the Conservative Party to ask who the voters are and what they do to ensure they are who they say they are. They have refused to answer.
“This is no way to choose the person who, from next week, will be Prime Minister of a nuclear-armed G7 nation with a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
“This election is obviously undemocratic. The Party’s insistence on secrecy is also unlawful. We are a newsroom; our job is to inform; if the Conservative Party refuses to disclose information in the public interest, we can’t just shrug, we need to take it to court.
“The public surely has the right to know who gets to choose who runs the country and what is done to ensure the election is clean and safe. ”