As seasoned observers of the House of Lords will know the Salisbury -Addison convention enjoins the Lords to respect manifesto commitments. The question arises as to which manifesto commitment the Lords should now respect given that neither the Tory nor the Liberal Democrat manifestos are on the table.
There are three possibilities:
The Salisbury – Addison convention cannot and does not apply since no one voted for the Coalition Agreement
The Convention does not apply strictly but since the electorate by its votes ensured a hung Parliament and that therefore a coalition was more than likely, the Agreement forged between the two parties should count as a manifesto
The Lords should respect only those policies which were put forward in the manifestos of both the Tories and the LibDems and are therefore similar.
This could become a lawyers’ paradise – researching the minutiae of precedent even going back to the 19th Century. However the most sensible compromise – which some might see as weasley – is to observe the spirit of the convention. This was made explicit by Lord Wakeham in his Report of his Commission in 2000 where he refers to the “deeper philosophical underpinning” for the convention. A more recent view based on this “philosophical underpinning” comes from Lord Pannick who believes that a focus on the absence of a Coalition Government manifesto is to ignore the political realities in the House of Commons. Conventions should be sufficiently flexible to develop according to circumstances.
As an ordinary person, a voter I had to look up the convention.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200506/jtselect/jtconv/265/26506.htm
“Salisbury, a Conservative who sat in the Lords from 1868 until his death in 1903, developed a doctrine of the mandate over this period which argued that the will of the people and the views expressed by the House of Commons did not necessarily coincide, and that in consequence, the House of Lords had an obligation to reject, and hence refer back to the electorate, particularly contentious Bills, usually involving a revision of the constitutional settlement, which had been passed by the Commons.”
Certainly the way its spoken of now doesn`t seem to refer to the original Salisbury.
Should the Lords accept that the people/electorate/voters really wanted everything in a Government Manifesto. Obviously the voters don`t agree with everything, so perhaps the Lords have a problem.
For the ordinary working class man a Manifesto will appear thus :
http://media.conservatives.s3.amazonaws.com/manifesto/cpmanifesto2010_easyread.pdf
The easy read version with little detail. The other information will be gleaned from quick glances at the press or the TV whilst switching channel. I am considered clever in my circle, I even have an interest in politics…Though I dare say a few Lords have remarked at my ignorance. I have never ever read a full manifesto until today. Like most working people the time and inclination is missing.
So is the Gentlemens agreement, that is the Salisbury-Addison Convention something the Lords should adhere to rigidly ? A gentlemens agreement is fine between two gentlemen. What if for instance the BNP gained power with a manifesto that Lords found abhorrent ? Would the Salisbury Addison Convention still carry weight ? I don`t believe so, nor do I believe the noble Baroness would adhere to the concept.
I think it is all too easy for members to forget when it comes to choosing politically how ignorant the electorate really are. I can say that, I am ignorant…but learning. I think the Lords at times are really fooling themselves or letting the other place fool them regards legitimacy.
We also have to remember that because something is popular doesn`t make it right. There is no Manifesto that everyone who voted that way agrees with every part of. Infact most of the swing voters do so because they are fed up with the last lot not they agree with the new, as wouldbe found out if you did a survey now. The Tories are disliked and many people regret voting that way.
We also have the issue where if the Lords feel they should back Manifesto`s because of the peoples wishes, what should they do when Government or Coalitions go in an opposite direction ?
I say if you are going to agree to hold Government to their Manifesto you must do so for all of it or none.
Yes I agree that the Lords should look at Bills from an independent view but certainly not take as gospel the voters wanted everything in the Manifesto`s, not even party members agree with everything the leadership want.
The convention is not law, it is essentially an attempt to try to gain an independent amount of scrutiny from the Lords without Political party hindrance. I am all for independence but that means not automatically accepting a Government view. If you follow the convention and accept that what the electorate want is the manifesto their is no point to scrutinising anything within a manifesto bill.
The people ARE fed up with the Lords just simply rolling over for Parliament, we`ve seen a good many issues in the blog where public sentiment is against something. I will admit, the whole or a large majority do not get in here to comment but you have seen large influxes at times. Should you ignore that ? Or should there be a convention for that too, after all the Conservatives promised in their manifesto to give the people a bigger say in politics.
As I have stated before the only time the Government held the legitimacy that Politicians think so much of, was on the day the “x” went into the box.
What do we the electorate have to state we no longer believe in the Government at any point in 5 years ? The Government themselves won`t listen, the opposition are already doing all they can. That leaves us one part of Parliament alone to turn to….The Lords.
In the past on many important issues a majority of people feel they have been let down by the Lords, the DEB, The Criminal Justice Bill and many more. What you are doing because of this convention is listening to a third party telling you this is what we want. It appears you are conveniently doing it at times and it is one reason why people would accept an elected Lords, you`re not listening. You are repeating to the people, this is what the people want because Government told us.
The convention was something, I believe, that was to ensure the Lords gave independent scrutiny to bills but it seem`s it has been misunderstood. It has been taken to mean that instead of hindering a bill the Lords MUST help a bill, skewing the balance in an opposite direction.
An independent Lords, that will listen to the electorate? Yes.
A Lords bias automatically through convention in favour of Government ? We may as well go uni-cameral.
I do not want a Lords that just dots the “i”`s and crosses the “t”s.
Every person I know was against the DEB, it was clear and apparent. The convention prescibes that the electorate are the ultimate legitmate power. Why did the Lords not listen then or many others ? Seem`s to me the Lords are confused about a lot of things, ignorant we maybe, stupid we are not.
“Who do we the electorate have to state we no longer believe in the Government at any point in 5 years ? The Government themselves won`t listen, the opposition are already doing all they can. That leaves us one part of Parliament alone to turn to….The Lords.”
What should have read who, I apologise football and politics should really not be done together but as England were losing….again.
Lord Pannick makes a good point, and historically conventions do tend to evolve to better suit the times…albeit perhaps slower than is often needed.
And again, the coalition in the Commons seems to treat the coalition agreement as a Manifesto type agreemet.
Something of an achievement Lady D’Souza as I think all 3 of your options/contentions problematic!
While I disagree in the level of confidence in it being able to survive 4 years I do agree with Lord Noton’s position previously that the Tories were perfectly entitled to and would have succeeded in forming a minority government. The Salisbury Convention would then have applied to their menefesto committments. On your first/last options this creates a perverse position that the coalition has a weaker convention position than a minority. On your last the somewhat odd position that the tail has an effective veto on the dog when the Tories clearly had a mandate to govern in some form where the LDs was only by invitation. This becomes increasingly absurd the greater the disparity between the parties.
I think the contention that the coalition agreement is approximate to or should gain similar, if unofficial, weight to the manifesto unsustainable. However much I think manifestos have lost the trust of the electorate and are treated pretty contemptuously by politicians voters did get a chance to vote having seen the manifesto. The idea that parties can make/break/re-make coalitions and sign ‘constitutionally’ binding agreements that the Lords is pressured to abide by when there is no clear mandate from the voter to do so seems to break the fundamental basis behind the convention in the first place – that the Lords was to give way because the policy had been endorsed by the voters. The Lords accepting the last position is pretty much to sign a blank cheque to the coalition to make anything it wishes a ‘manifesto’ commitment.
Of 3 options I like none but find the first the least worst option.
Interesting use of Lord Salisbury and Lord Pannick in the same breath; Lord Salisbury was noted for doing nothing when faced by a crisis, he was not given to panic on such occasions.
Barrister Cecilia Ivimy, for the government, said: “A manifesto promise is incapable of giving rise to a legally binding contract with the electorate. It is a point which is so obvious that I don’t want to labour it.”…“District Judge Paul Gamba struck out the case as being a political, rather than a legal, matter.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7233175.stm
“Outside court, he (Mr Bower) said: “To file a defence that says ‘I can be a blatant liar in a manifesto and get away with it’ is utterly mind-boggling.”
The question now really lies with the nature of the voting system in use. In the FPtP system a political party stands by their manifesto explicitly; in any other system the transfer of one parties vote to another implies a transfer of authority and manifesto to the winner. Implicit in this arrangement is coalition and a merging of manifestos subject ultimately to common agreement within the executive of the final coalition.
Given that this coalition came about using FPtP there is no implied merging of manifestos and/or transfer of authority. The question is does such amount to a ‘Proclamation to Act’ by the Monarchy based upon a process that neither the public nor coalition parties had any control over during the election process. It was also agreed without the prior approval of the third estate, the HoL because this estate by design lacks the legitimacy of suffrage as enacted in statute by approval of all three estates.
Based upon this should the HoL do what it feels proper in protecting the dignity of itself, the people and the primacy of Parliament in the Separation of Powers now Formally established. Do prior conventions apply? No!