Remember when Brown told Blair: "Nothing you could ever say to me could ever make me believe a word you say." Well that's what the entire country can collectovely say to Gordon Brown this morning. The Is There More to Life Than Shoes blog has this story from the courts yesterday (also blogged by Guido), where Brown's barrister told the court "Manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation". Translated, that means: you can't seriously expect us to implement what we promise in a manifesto, can you?"What a dark day for politics. Brown will no doubt say it has nothing to do with him but it would be nice if the question was put to him about it at his monthly press conference, wouldn't it? Any takers?
57 comments:
There is an alternative translation of "Manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation": Manifesto pledges are usually implemented by primary legislation (an Act of Parliament) and Acts of Parliament are not subject to judicial review (due to Parliamentary supremacy). "Legitimate expectation" is a doctrine of judicial review.
Court was today Iain, not yesterday, unless you're in Australia now!
Oh Dale , this is pretty desperate stuff.
Who is taking Brown to court ( You forgot to mention ). The case has been brought up by the UK Independence Party UKIP. Aren’t they supposed to be NUTTERS. That what Cambo calls them.
So do you and your party now support the actions of the nutters.
Excuse me but what the [expletive deleted] does it matter who's taking whom to court - the point is, the truth is out!
what does who brought the case have to do with what was said? Oh that's right, bugger all!
What on earth does who brought the case about have anything to do with the fact that Brown has effectively said that Manifesto Pledges are nothing to count on, Jimbo?
jimbo, even if they are UKIP they've got a point. Try playing the ball not the man.
...this is pretty desperate stuff...
Indeed it is Jimbo; from you that is.
What does it matter who brought this case? The issue is, Brown's barrister has stated in court that promises made in Labour's manifesto are meaningless, i.e. lies.
That's the story; not who brought the case in the first place.
Jimbo
We all quite like nutters don't we - very British? Monster Raving loonies and that ilk. UKIP are not nutters - they are dangerous.
I once had dinner with Nigel Farage and found him deeply unpleasant - but that isn't too important. Chemistry (or lack of it perhaps). What was important was the poverty of his ideas. He was like the strange chap at school who was convinced that there were Voldemort type demons around every corner. Farage actually seemed to hate everybody - quite an achievement. The French, the Germans, the Italians...Americans...Japanese (Nips) ... Chinese (Chinks)... and so on.
Farage is a deeply unlikeable, prejudiced, insular creepy individual. But he is not stupid and his is not a nutter. Beware
!
Jimbo
Are you serious? Your opinion is that these people are nutters so they have no rights in law? Do you seriously hold that justice should be dispensed in accordance with your views of the individuals concerned? Your surname isn't Ceauşescu by any chance, is it?
It doesn't matter what you may think of the individual bringing a case, this is a statement made in open court by Brown's counsel. Brown now has the choice of saying that his appointed representative has misled (or lied to) the court or of agreeing with what has been said on his behalf.
Comment on this state of affairs or reporting what has been said is by no means the same as 'support for' 'nutters'. Moron.
Legal niceties aside it is going to be hard for the Labour party to spin "Manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation".
The spin being: it's to do with bigoted anti euro nutters.
In the current climate that won't wash.
Labour are going to have to dig deeper than that.
Ultimately that will be a futile exercise as their 'Great Leader' will say 'Would you rather leave the EU?' which like his responses to most questions isn't really 'on topic'. This is demonstrated to the nation every wednesday.
Let's see to what degree the BBC runs the story this evening.
Yesterday evening on the BBC 6PM news it went unsaid that the main opposition parties have been calling for phone tap evidence to be used in court for years.
It will be fascinating to see to what degree this story is spun and/or truncated.
Please can you tell us more about the blogbabe 'Is there more to life than shoes..' ??
She sounds like the sort of minx that should be on your list of must-read lynx...
So Guido gets a mention because he Googles quicker than anybody else?
I’d keep stum about the EU and Europe if I were you.
You know what will happen in the Tory ranks.
But how shameful of the Tories to be sniping from the fringes, while UKIP actually try to do something about the issue. If you hate the treaty so much why didn’t you lot file the case.
Shall I tell you why? Because you are gutless. Typical Tories
If your translation was what the barrister had meant to have said that is what he would have said.
Your comment suggests that you have no legal education and little proper understanding of the judicial process or language. It might therefore be better if you kept your thoughts such matters to yourself.
Here's a very rough translation for "a typical political blogger" - "jack of all trades yet master of none"...
Excuse me, but why is it a surprise to everyone on this thread that manifesto pledges are not worth the paper they are printed on? Please remember that we are dealing with politicians here, for whom the word 'mendacious' was invented.
You'd have to be pretty naive to think that 'pledges' in a manifesto are any sort of a commitment to actually do anything.Look at the present incumbent - all he can think of to 'do' is to set up another 'review'.
Quite a few going for Jimbos throat.
But he does have a point. If the Conservative party are passionately against the Treaty, and unyielding in their right to hold a referendum, why didn’t the Conservative Party instigate the court case.
Your own leader has described UKIP as a “Bunch of Nutters”. Yet here your are supporting UKIP. Yes it does matter who brought the case. Nutters brought the case. To follow to conclusion, do the Conservative party therefore support the European Polices of UKIP.
The court case can be divided into a political aspect and a legal aspect. The political aspect flounders, of course, on the fact that the manifesto promise referred to the Constitutional Treaty and that has been abandoned. It really does not matter how many times and how loudly Eurosceptics tell themselves the Lisbon Treaty is the same thing, it isn't.
The legal aspect flounders as well. Ever heard of Lord Denning? In the well-known 'Fare's Fair' case from 1981, he was quite clear on the legal situation with political party manifestos. John Carvel's book Citizen Ken explains:
'A manifesto issued by a political party in order to get votes was not to be regarded as gospel. It was not a covenant, Denning said. "Many electors did not vote for the manifesto, they voted for the party. When a party was returned to power it should consider what it was best to do, and what was practical and fair."'
A manifesto is not and never has been a legally enforcable document, and I don't hear anyone suggesting it should be, yet. If it were suggested, then the following points would be relevant in reply: (a) It's not possible in practice; (b) It's not legal unless the Bill of Rights of 1689 is repealed; (c) even if it was both possible and legal, it still wouldn't be a good idea.
Ho Ho excellent. As I predicted; mention the EU and all Willet vampire bats come flooding out of their cave, hell bent on self destruction.
Please accept my apologies, it wasn’t nutters, it was actually fruit cakes.
The Tories in cahoots and supporting the actions of fruit cakes.
A Manifesto is not a legally binding document. Ok that’s it, nothing more nothing less..get over it.
If anything Dave will be delighted with this ruling, he can now continue writing the longest suicide note in political history safe in the knowledge that he cannot be done. Err …..not that he will be given the change to implement it anyway.
I see the anonymous trolls are out and about. Was it a full moon last night?
I support the EU.
I want a more accountable EU that does less better.
I want a referendum.
I want automatic referenda for all constitutional changes to the UK of this magnitude as is statute in the Poblacht na hÉireann and as proposed by the Rt Hon William Hague MP.
'get over it'
What a mundane start to a dictatorship. Oh well, it is 'Blair's Britain' after all.
This epithet goes along with the phrase "may contain nuts"
Both are applicable to the Labour Party.
The phrase "May contain lying bastards" is not necessary because it is self-evident.
I'm sure you're right David Boothroyd and Jimbo about manifestos not being legally binding and I expect UKIP will lose this court case. However do you have to be so insufferably smug in your support of lying? I know it's second nature in Labour circles but a bit of shame wouldn't go amiss.
Malcolm, the people who are lying are those who have read the Lisbon Treaty and compared it with the Constitutional Treaty and come to the conclusion that they are similar. The Constitutional Treaty is a document which would have started the European Union afresh. The Lisbon Treaty makes a few minor tinkering changes to the structure of the EU institutions to make them work a bit better.
I agree, people who are lying by pretending the two are similar should be ashamed of themselves.
"the people who are lying are those who have read the Lisbon Treaty and compared it with the Constitutional Treaty and come to the conclusion that they are similar."
That will include D'estaing then?
Many Labour MPs admit they are at least similar. A cross party committee admits they are at least similar. Several European leaders admit they are at least similar.
I won't go as far as Dizzy in lambasting david boothroyd. However only a totally brainwashed labour drone would claim the constitution and the treaty are entirely dissimilar.
Yeah right David Boothroyd. A number of European leaders including the author of the constitution have done exactly that. You have a history of defending the indefensible on this blog and elsewhere and many have questioned your integrity as a result. This even by your standards is a new low. Not sure why you do this.
David Boothroyd - Did you copy Angela Merkel on your post? She was the first to say the two documents are identical.
Right, so Gisela Stuart (MP, Lab) is a liar, and the two manifesto pledges to abolish mixed sex wards were pie in the sky.....
as with so much else in NuLab.
Boothroyd:
What people? You mean, like the person who wrote it?????
Where do you get these insane ideas Mr Boothroyd. You must be the only EU citizen that does not recognise the sleight of hand, and not much sleight of hand at that that has magically tansformed the Constitutional Treaty into the totally different Treaty of Lisbon.
Even Giscard, the author of the original treaty says that they are to all intents indistinguishable.
The only difference is that the constitutional treaty was a new writing of the earlier texts incorporating the new and major amendments whereas the Lisbon treaty does exactly the same thing by amending the original treaties. This of course makes it more difficult to see what has been done.
Mendacious politicians - and they wonder why they are trusted less than journalists.
Malcolm, the people who are lying are those who have read the Lisbon Treaty and compared it with the Constitutional Treaty and come to the conclusion that they are similar.
What, like Angela Merkel?
Well that's the Salisbury Convention well and truly buggered then, isn't it?
As predicted the BBC 6 o'clock news didn't cover this. How totally unexpected.
Either way Mr Jimbo and Mr Boothroyd, the idiotic EU should be finally put to rest and as soon as possible. I'm certainly not supportive of the extreme right of either the UKIP or BNP, but anyone with a grain of sense would have realised by now that this institution is a king sized joke! Just for one moment consider the open-door policy of allowing the former East European members to go where they like. Quite frankly it is the biggest disaster that has confronted western Europe for more than 100 years. It has created chaos across Europe, and not only through the export of the criminal classes, but also the mass export of workers (or none-workers) that nobody needs, or wants. More than 1,000,000 Poles alone came to the UK last year! Where do they live? What are they doing here? Are they causing a problem? Of course they are, and they're not returning home to Poland as forecasted. The Romanians and Bulgarians have very few skills to offer except for criminal gangs, yet our government just sits back and lets it all happen instead of DOING something to stop it. People are frustrated and angry for a very good reason! The future is bleak and the young have no chance of a job competing against low cost EU workers and NuLab don't give a toss. The reason that racial strife is growing amongst the young is clear to understand, but nobody within this current government appears to know anything about it. Everybody has to begin to understand we are living on a knife edge currently and a moment away from disaster. Join the real world instead of sitting outside of it!
@ David Boothroyd
Maybe you'd care to itemise these 'few minor tinkering changes to the structure of the EU institutions' here? I'm sure we'll all be hugely impressed by your scrupulous analysis.
And you're clearly perfectly happy to accept that anything written by this Government or the Labour Party will be designed to mislead or will be simply ignored at a whim.
Splendid. Consistency, eh? Always were a bunch of lying shysters - and now we have your personal confirmation.
Boothroyd must beone of "New" Labour's paid spinners - repeat a lie often enough to make it the truth, like Goebbels. Below are quotes that leave no doubt of the deceit of Gordon Brown and the Labour sheep in Parliament.
Lisbon Reform Treaty
"Only cosmetic changes have been made and the basic document remains the same." — Václav Klaus, Czech President, , in Hosposarske Noviny, 13th June 2007
"In terms of content, the proposals remain largely unchanged, they are simply presented in a different way... The reason is that the new text could not look too much like the constitutional treaty." — Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, former French President and Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution, addressing the Constitutional Affairs Committee in the European Parliament, 17th July 2007
"We will put it to the British people in a referendum." —
Gordon Brown, General Election Manifesto, 2005
"If we needed a referendum we would have one. But I think most people recognise that there is not a fundamental change taking place as a result of this amended treaty." — Gordon Brown, The UK Prime Minister, interviewed by the BBC, 24th September 2007
"A referendum now would bring Europe into danger. There will be no Treaty if we had a referendum in France, which would again be followed by a referendum in the UK." — Nicolas Sarkozy, French President, The Daily Telegraph, 14th November 2007
"The good thing is that all the symbolic elements are gone, and that which really matters – the core – is left." — Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Prime Minister of Denmark, in Jyllands-Posten, 25th June 2007
"They haven't changed the substance - 90 per cent of it is still there." — Bertie Ahern, Irish Prime Minister, Irish Independent, 24th June 2007
"The substance of the constitution is preserved. That is a fact." — Angela Merkel, German Chancellor, speech to the European Parliament, 27th June 2007
"There’s nothing from the original institutional package that has been changed." — Astrid Thors, Finnish Europe Minister, TV-Nytt, 23rd June 2007
"For Austria it was important to keep the essence, to keep the institutional side of it intact, and also to keep the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is the essence, and we were able to safeguard that." — Ursula Plassnik, Autrian Foreign Minister, BBC 10 o'clock news, 7th September 2007
"A great part of the content of the European Constitution is captured in the new treaties." — José Zapatero, Spanish Prime Minister, El Pais, 23rd June 2007
"The good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it." — Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister and Vice-Chairman of the Convention which drew up the Constitution, speech to the London School of Economics, 20th February 2007
Many more quotes here.
Anyone who says the intent isn't a federal EU state hasn't been paying attention. Even Sell-out Heath admitted it years ago.
Where's the media on this ? Pretty damn quiet, what about the Tories ? Or is Osborne's book about a new political class right on the money ?
The Salisbury Convention isn't law, it's an understanding. The Lib Dem peers (who arguably were never subject to it) have abandoned it.
Turning to Angela Merkel, she has not said that the Lisbon Treaty is a Constitutional Treaty. She has said that the fundamentals of some minor changes introduced in the process of negotiating the Constitutional Treaty are also to be found in the Lisbon Treaty.
That's not relevant to the reasons why the Constitutional Treaty was subjected to a referendum, and as those changes are in Britain's interests (increasing our voting strength in the Council of Ministers is the most important), that's a substantial reason for supporting ratification of Lisbon. The EU after Lisbon will be better for Britain. All patriots should support the treaty.
Mavis Chancroid (aka David Boothroyd)should give up infesting this blog and go and live in Usbekistan.
Is this the same David Haemorrhoid who wanted to fly a rainbow coloured flage from some council building in order to draw attention to himself?
We should be told.
When Giuliano Amato tells me the Treaty of Lisbon preserves the new European Constitution, I believe him.
So far we have the French, the Germans, the Italians, and the UK representative in the redrafting of the Constitution; any more out there to quote their national constitutional experts and senior responsible politicians that the Treaty of Lisbon is the new European Constitution?
David Boothroyd has proved yet again that he is infantile in his thinking.
I am sick and tired of his juvenile rantings. He appears to take great delight in telling us how wrong we all are. That the lies we are told by his masters in the L abour
Party are nothing of the kind. Do you know I do believe we have someone here, in boothroyd, who actually believes the Emperor's Clothes is a true story!
Boothroyd get back to the kindergarten!
Mark M Heenan said...
Well that's the Salisbury Convention well and truly buggered then, isn't it?
In that case Mornington Crescent.
Either the QC represented his client or he didn't.
Simply ask Gordon to clarify. If the QC got it wrong then he needs to face the court and tell it what his client really thought. If the QC got it right then are we really surprised Gordon and his New Labour team of dinner ladies are sleazly and mendaciously hanging onto power?
I think we should get this in proportion and admit it was a stunt , of course a manifesto is not legally enforecable.
It does however draw attention to the fact that Brown is a liar the Labour Party are liars and their Liberal familiars fawning and grovelling for a slice of the pie are Liars to a man and woman.
Dog bites man I suppose but if there was ever a time when there wasa contract it was surely now . There was an undertaking that the lying traitorous snivelling snot gobblers did not give away a coutry they were only given the stewardship of .
I must admit that David Boothroyd whose preening twitter usually amuses me is seriously getting on my nerves now he is into fulll Lord Haw Haw mode.
First point:
As a matter of law the judgment is almost certainly correct. The doctrine of 'legitimate expectation' applies within fairly narrow limits. (Nor is it clear that the judgment turned on that particular submission.)
Second point:
Gordon Brown's argument ('This is not a constitution') is deeply dishonest. Not a single member of the Government truly believes it, and and every one of them is secretly ashamed of their duplicity.
I think this explains a lot about on which side Mr. Boothroyds Bread is buttered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Boothroyd
I suppose we should be grateful he has failed to get anyhwhere in the Labour party. Obviously tried until he was about thirty when he got the usual pretend job as a political researcher. I wonder if he will try again.
Seems just the right sort to me
...and this one has a picture of him.
http://www.westminster.gov.uk/councillors/cllr.cfm?cllr_id=6
Ugly bugger isn`t he. There we go worked for Labour MP`s wormed around Coucils , published the requisite number of CV fillers and belatedly did a "Political Research" job just so as to pretend he could understand what its like .
Shudder,
Paul Newman, I do not know what your point is, but it is clearly an unimpressive ad hominem. If it would make any difference I would point out that Lord Haw Haw was a member of the Conservative Party. Just for the sake of my vanity, that picture is from 2002 and was taken by a particularly useless photographer. I no longer look like that.
Iain may however be upset at your description of my book given that he published it.
David Boothroyd: "Just for the sake of my vanity, that picture is from 2002 and was taken by a particularly useless photographer."
Britney Spears and Amy Winehouse feel your pain.
Labour MP Andrew Mackinlay actually said in Parliament last November? that as the pledge for a referendum wasn't in his personal manifesto he couldn't be beholden to the Labour Party Manifesto!
So not only has a Barrister said you can't believe the manifesto - you also have Labour MP saying that the Manifesto has nothing to do with them!
Sooner, rather than later, members of the Labour Party are going to wake up to the fact that Gordon Brown is first of all a bully and even worse, a coward. He cannot make decisions, dithering about like a big girls blouse and is totally out of his depth as Prime Minister of this country. His shambolic appearance,together with nail biting and nose raking, typecasts him in the role of an incompetent refuse collector. The people fawning around him currently can only be doing so in the hope that he will soon crack up, which would allow them a mad scramble to succeed him. Let's face it, any of this incompetent shower couldn't run a bath, never mind the country!
Mark M Heenan said...
"Well that's the Salisbury Convention well and truly buggered then, isn't it?"
Doesn't make any difference to the operation of the Salisbury Convention.
from Wikipedia:
The Salisbury Convention is a constitutional convention in the United Kingdom which puts forward that the House of Lords will not oppose the second reading of any government legislation promised in its election manifesto.
For all we know Jack The Ripper was a Conservative Party member David , so what ( Joyce was a member of the British Union of Fascists as far as I know anyway). My point is that you are similarly a propagandist prepared to say anything at all.. You not in the Building industry, like many of my clients, as you disingenuously claimed except in the most tangential sense of the politician’s gap year. Are you always so economical with the truth? Constitution / Treaty its all about presentation for you .
You are actually a lifetime Labour Party Politician intent on crawling up the establishments inside leg from Cambridge onwards .. You attended a delightful Public school for about £10,000 a year http://www.kingsmac.cheshire.sch.uk ( have a look they have a super Rugby strip). ......did you have a fag ?
Knowing you are a Labour Party attack puppy not a person.. What you may say can be judged in that light . IE utterly discounted , for you its just a living and if I `m not mistaken a family business .( Boothroyd ?)
For all I know you wrote a very nice book. As apples for teacher go it may well be delightfully shined. You probably got an A . I expect your immediate family enjoyed reading it.
@ David Boothroyd
"Iain may however be upset at your description of my book given that he published it."
That says altogether so much more than you obviously understand. Just ponder that for a while. You may wish to revise your views.
Why do you bother David Boothroyd? As this thread illustrates so clearly, your false argument convinces nobody and what's left of your integrity is in shreds. Don't you care at all about your being thought of as dishonest?
Post a Comment