I confess to having been a bit slow on the up-take about this. Nevertheless, in amongst the wholly legitimate reaction of the blogosphere (especially Trixy at Is There More to Life Than Shoes? for leading the story out but also Guido, Iain Dale, Dizzy, et al) to the Great Bottler's 'legal' prognostication that "Manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation", there sits another (potential) constitutional minefield which may well come back to haunt him.
Pretty much, the House of Lords considers itself still bound by the terms of the Salisbury Doctrine (excellent HoL library note here) - i.e. the House should not reject Government Bills brought from the House of Commons for which the Government has a mandate from the nation (aka manifesto commitments). But, if the executive (in the form of the Great Bottler) is sitting there saying that the promises it makes to the nation in the heat of the election battle are utterly meaningless, by extension the Salisbury Doctrine can no longer bite.
Interesting! I wonder how the red leather benches - particularly those of a constitutional and/or forensic temperament - are going to make sense of this, not least because, in terms, it looks as if the Great Bottler may have opened up the possibility of Government Bills being voted down in the Lords, legitimately, at 2nd Reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment