A Labour manifesto is WORTHLESS #2

Following on from yesterday's court case against Gordon Brown for breach of contract over the Labour Manifesto and its promise to provide a referendum on the Constitutional Treaty, DK has been doing some digging into various laws that may apply to the statement given in defence: that
“manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation” and
therefore cannot be relied upon in a court of law.

From Devils Kitchen.

In the court case
brought against Brown 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 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.

Let me remind you that we live in a representative democracy. Indeed, many of those who are opposed to a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty EU Constitution, have advanced the idea of “representative democracy” as a justification for not having said referendum.

The
manifesto that politicians put forward before elections is the way in
which they represent themselves to the electorate. If those manifesto
pledges mean nothing—if “manifesto pledges are not subject legitimate
expectation”—then how, precisely, have these fuckers represented
themselves to us?

“With lies,” is the answer. If the manifesto
means nothing then these MPs have not actually represented themselves
to the public at all and thus they have absolutely no legitimacy whatsoever.

What
this means is that we are not living in a representative democracy,
because the politicians have not represented themselves to us, the
voters. In fact, they have made false representations which is fraud.

Here is the relevant extract from the Fraud Act 2006 [PDF].

2. Fraud by false representation
   1. A person is in breach of this section if he—
      1. dishonestly makes a false representation, and
      2. intends, by making the representation—
         1. to make a gain for himself or another, or
         2. to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
   2. A representation is false if—
      1. it is untrue or misleading, and
      2. the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
   3. “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of—
      1. the person making the representation, or
      2. any other person.
   4. A representation may be express or implied.
   5. For
      the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made
      if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system
      or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications
      (with or without human intervention).

Well, I reckon that you have Gordon under 2/1/a & c/i: “to make a gain for himself”. Remember, a £60,000 MP's salary is gain when obtained falsely. Private prosecution, anyone?

In fact, that would now apply to each and every Labour MP.

Now, what, I wonder, is the maximum penalty for fraud by false representation?

NuLab – Destroying Britain from the inside out.