Do you have ‘legitimate’ expectations? It’s probably best not to, you’re only going to end up disappointed, and quite possibly angry. You see, the matter of whether we, as citizens, can have ‘legitimate’ expectations became the matter of legal precedent last year.

In short, we, as citizens, are not entitled under law to have a ‘legitimate’ expectation that just because a political party puts something in its election manifesto it has to put it into law. This means that a party can put any amount of bribes and bullshit in its pitch for election but if they get elected don’t be stupid enough to expect that they need to make them a reality.

Gordon Brown is quite entitled under law to promise you a solid gold brick if he wins the next election. The small print actually says solid gold brick may not actually exist and there’s nowt you can do about it other than impotently wave your little fists as ministers blame the media and bloggers for making people cynical about politics. Hey, get used to it.

It turns out the government has a similar get out with laws it actually gets around to putting on the statute book. For example, last year Help the Aged and Friends of the Earth took the government to court over its implementation of Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000. The act demands of the government that it ‘publish and implement a strategy for reducing fuel poverty; to require the setting of targets for the implementation of that strategy’.

Unfortunately, Help the Aged and Friends of the Earth lost:

The High Court has ruled that the Government has not broken the law by failing to keep homes warm, despite allowing the number of households in fuel poverty to reach the highest level in ten years.

As to the get out, here’s a written question to Parliament, answered by Energy and Climate Change Minister Joan Ruddock:

Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what assessment he has made of paragraphs 34 and 35 of the adjudication of the High Court on 17 October 2008 in respect of a case brought by Help the Aged and Friends of the Earth on enforcements of the Warm Homes Act 2000, in terms of the duty placed upon the responsible Secretary of State under section 3 of the Act.

Joan Ruddock: Paragraphs 34 and 35 of the judgment refer to section 3 of the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000. Provisions like that section are commonly included in Bills, and therefore in Acts of Parliament, without any intention that they should have a substantive legal effect.

Without any intention that they should have a substantive legal effect. There we have it – a lovely little convention that means government ministers aren’t bound by their own laws. Try it yourself if you ever find yourself up before a judge. ‘Come on you’re honour, was there any intention that this law should have a substantive legal effect?’ Tell them they shouldn’t have a ‘legitimate’ expectation of your future good conduct. Let me know how much he or she adds to your sentence as a result.

(Via the Guardian Diary)