As Gordon Brown waxes expansive on all the wonderful things he will do to transform this land into a paradise, he had better remember that he comes to office on the Labour party election manifesto of 2005. Any attempt to deviate from that manifesto (by introducing conflicting policies) must be accompanied by a general election.
I for one will be watching him keenly.
May 17th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Bel
“must”?????
Write 100 times: “We do not need to have a general election no matter how much I want one”
May 17th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Gordon Brown has no right to introduce policies that conflict with Labour’s winning manifesto. Should he do that, he must seek a mandate. I have added the words “(by introducing conflicting policies)” to my post, in order to make my meaning clearer.
May 17th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Quite right, Bel.
I listened to his comments today about a proposed constitution, etc, and I was thinking ’surely he should stick to their manifesto commitments’. Any significant changes should be put before the public.
May 17th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Bel
This is a serious question to which i do not know the answer. I’m not trying to make a point of any sort.
What is the legal position re the manifesto and deviating from it?
I have never heard any suggestion before that a manifesto is legally enforceable ohterwise there would have been legal challenges flying about over the years.
I can imagine there being a moral dimension rather than a legal dimesnion to the question of manifesto changes and a mandate to carry out policy.
May 17th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Hi Calum,
I actually don’t know the answer to that question. Failing to do something you promised in your manifesto is one thing, and we have come to expect that from politicians. However, doing something that completely conflicts with something you promised, and on which you were voted into office, is morally suspect, at the very least. I would go as far as to say that in such a case, the Government would be acting without a mandate. This is especially so if it is a serious constitutional matter. Suppose a party promised not to take us into the Euro without a referendum, but went ahead and did just that after being elected into office. That would be seriously wrong.
I agree with you that this is moral territory; as far as the legal consquences are concerned, I am not sure. Perhaps if Gordon Brown deviates from the Labour manifesto in a serious manner, someone can test this out in court. Having said that, people have governed before in morally suspect circumstances, without any legal consequences.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
I hope that gb does what he thinks is right for gb
I hope that gb judges gb for what he does between now and the next election.
( where gb = gordon brown and great britian )
May 27th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
I have a sneaking feeling that Callaghan and Healey’s policies after 1976 were nowhere near the 1974 Manifesto, and they were governing with a minority,and a de facto coalition; but as far as I know it was never suggested seriously that Callaghan needed a GE to give him a mandate for basically introducing Thatcherism. Alright, so Callaghan fought a leadership election. But that was a far more serious position than Brown finds himself in today.
What about Macmillan? I suppose there was an election in 1959, but he made damn sure to suck up to the Americans and cobblers to a wider world role after 1957 (but was that a serious manifesto point though?)