Did you think a manifesto pledge meant something?
I've always known that Brown was a lying fucker and at last he has admitted it. In the court case brought against him for breach of contract over a referendum on the EU Constitution, Brown's personal barrister has just told the court that "manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation".
Oh yes, Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, has just told an open court that we shouldn't expect him to be telling the truth with his promises, and that no manifesto pledge can be considered to be binding in anyway.
What is even worse is how large sections of the main stream media don't seem to think that this is a story or an outrage. Are they so bitter after spending so long in politics that they are surprised anyone would believe a manifesto pledge? It makes me sick thinking of what these politicians get away with. How much coverage on Tory hypocrisy over patio heaters? none. Major debates happening in the European Parliament? None. Official announcement that politicians can't be trusted? None. Britney Spears being taken into rehab again? Rolling news, baby!
Posts
34 comments:
Go trixy !( In the sense of an exhortation , not a command)
Good work trixy, keep us up to speed..... im glad someone is covering it!
Well done.
The barrister may have meant that legitimate expectation doesn't apply to manifesto pledges because they have to be implemented by primary legislation (an Act of Parliament). Primary legislation isn't generally subject to judicial review (of which "legitimate expectation" is a part).
You placed a stiletto heel neatly into Gordon Brown's orifice, and wiggled it firmly. Sadly he enjoys that kind of thing.
Full marks for trying to find Brown's pain spot though..to all concerned.
Might I suggest a Corps Boot delivered with force between the gonads next time. Follow the Gang Of Four, as the lot who might actually give this traitor the treatment he deserves.
You're entirely right: he's a cunt.
But my understanding of the law on this point (10am lectures a decade ago, so it's a bit hazy) is that the test for "legitimate expectation" is a pretty steep one.
You have to show more than simply that you expected a manifesto commitment to be kept: rather, you have to demonstrate that you pursued a course of action on the basis that you expected the public body in question to do X, because they had said they were going to.
Or something.
The upshot is the same, though. You cannot rely on a politician's utterings in a court of law. As if!...
Amazingly enough I believe that a government should always try to honour their manifesto commitments. I can understand a reasonable explanation as to how and why it may not be possible in the here and now (though not necessarily liking it) However in the case of the constitreaty I have heard no such reasonable reasons, dropping a manifest commitment simply because it's inconvenient does not come across to me as a reasonable excuse.
Keep up the good work, I just wish the MSM were hounding these lying twats for breach of promise.
In the League of Blog Posts, this is a pair of Manolo Blahnik hover shoes.
Yay Baby !!!!
So we're an expert on the law of contact, are we?
Can every political pledge be enforced in contract law? I would have thought that highly unlikely, and it doesn't need a smart-arsed barrister to say so.
Does anyone remember on Air Traffic Control "Our air is not for sale".
It should be illegal to go back on a manifesto pledge - it's misrepresentation.
If this is true, this is really terrifying.
Have you got a link to the transcripts?
Well done, except that this story - a great story - is currently being ignored by the MSM, as is the quite important victory by the SNP in winning the vote over the Scottish Budget, leaving the vaccuous Labour Party looking like prancing tits.
When I read the comments, I sprayed tea all over my screen.
So here is the state of our democracy:
1) Every four or five years, a clique of people at the top of some parties make promises which secretly, according to the barrister, should not be listened to, because they are worthless, and try to win control of our power on the basis of these promises.
2) The winning oligarchs then take our power and do what the feck they want, regardless of what they promised or what we the people whose power they stole, or even what their own MPs think about it, whipping where necessary to threaten people to do as they are told.
3) If this coercive process is too embarrassing, they even curtail parliamentary debate so their red cheeks are spared a little.
...
In what way is this democracy? How dare we lecture other places in the world.
We have oligarchs elected on lies.
It's time to put power back in the hands of the MPs in parliament, and it's time to make leaders accountable for the things they promise.
The manifesto pledge referred to the Constitutional Treaty. That Treaty is abandoned which is why there is no referendum on it. If Mr Bower wants a referendum on an abandoned Treaty which is not going to be put into effect, good luck to him, but it's a bit of a waste of money.
Any idea why the story on the UKIP site seems to have been taken down?
Ah, Mr Boothroyd. Are you not able to read?
I don't have the transcripts yet, but as I was sitting in the court room at the time I was making notes, and that comment I wrote down verbatim.
Alas the MSM seem to be ignoring that inconvenient little phrase...
Being not merely able to read but eager to do so to check what I say is accurate, I can confirm that the 2005 manifesto pledge definitely referred to the Constitutional Treaty. It's on pages 83-84 of the manifesto: "The new Constitutional Treaty ensures the new Europe can work effectively, and that Britain keeps control of key national interests .. We will put it to the British people in a referendum". Note "it" not "any and all future treaties".
It is an established principle of law that political manifestos are not legally enforcable - see Bromley L.B.C. v. G.L.C. ([1982] 2 W.L.R. 62.
Gordon Brown, is there more to life than lies?
I just emailed the approprate bit of this to my (Labour) MP and asked him if he thinks expectations based on manifesto pledges are legitimate.
I'll send you his response. If he bothers, that is.
"Your honour I have to suggest to this court that as my client Mr Gordon 'The Weasel' Brown is known for having a relationship with truth that is as strained as the elastic in the g-string of an exceptionally obese male balloon dancer, that no reliance can be placed upon the words of my client, whatsoever. Except, of course, when he tells me that my cheque is in the post."
I know what the manifesto said, thanks, but I also know that the Constitutional Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty are the same thing. The reason we are not allowed a referendum is because we would vote no and the EU don't want that. That is why Sarkozy did not let the French have one because, as he said to the Conference of Presidents in the European Parliament, 'If we had one then the British would have one and they would say no'
from earlier...."The manifesto pledge referred to the Constitutional Treaty. That Treaty is abandoned which is why there is no referendum on it."
This is ballshit. They are one and the same. If you think they are different go to the bottom of the class!
Sorry but that argument doesnt hold up to scrutiny. (as Trixy says above)
We don't have elections anymore. We have different groups bidding for the GB franchise. One lot says "we can run the country for this amount" and the other lot say "If we win the franchise we will only charge you this and we will do this etc, etc" The group that bids the lowest and/or succeeds in bribing the electorate with false promises gets the right to rip us off. Surely everybody understands that?
Before everyone gets too carried away, it would be worthwhile reading what experienced, qualified court reporters have written on this case.
Also, Mike Wood's question deserves an answer.
Nice scoop.
And we live in audacious times, where the Prime Minister has the gall to say he doesn't need to honour Manifesto pledges. In a fricking court!
Still, since the cunt is avoiding another election at all costs, he's not going to have another host of manifesto pledges to avoid...
I guess the point of the action is not (realistically) to get the court to enforce the manifesto, but to bring full public glare onto the issue. And the MSM are failing in their job. The scary answer as to why, is that the MSM somehow receive funding from Europe…
What else explains their cowardly behaviour?
Any proof yet?
That this was said? Well, I was there in the room with about 50 other people. Good enough?
Re:”Can every political pledge be enforced in contract law? I would have thought that highly unlikely, and it doesn't need a smart-arsed barrister to say so.”
Maybe not - but what his lawyers said was entirely different; that none of them can be relied upon at all, more exactly a posh way of saying that… (watch my lips) none of them can be believed.
Oh and don’t forget Amy Winehouse the MSM will tell you all about that.
No. Has any experienced, qualifed court reporter corroborated it? That would be good enough.
New Labour?
LIARS?
Is this a surprise? LOL
Why? Does a court reporter have different ears or can they hear different sounds? Like those buzzers to stop kids handing around shops?
I suspect that myself, the other 50people including the jounalists sitting next to me are all able to understand the English language without getting on our high horse and finding an excuse not to believe something they find uncomfortable.
It’s great to see good information being shared.
Research papers
Oh yes, Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, has just told an open court that we shouldn't expect him to be telling the truth with his promises, and that no manifesto pledge can be considered to be binding in anyway.
error fix
Post a Comment