Manifesto pledges should be enshrined in law?

[Cherie]

An interesting proposal by someone who rang in to a radio programme this morning, he said he never voted as manifesto promises were not worth the paper they were written on, but if pledges had to be followed through by law he would vote

good idea or no? would it make more people vote, I think it probably would?

[Niamh.]

I think it's an excellent idea. Parties promising to do X, Y and Z just to get peoples votes but not following through on them should be considered fraud imo

[Cherie]

I think it's an excellent idea. Parties promising to do X, Y and Z just to get peoples votes but not following through on them should be considered fraud imo

Yeah that was his point and that we could end their time in office early, as he put it what kind of gullible mugs are we that time and time again we vote for people who just lie and lie, pretty much spot on.

[Niamh.]

Yeah that was his point and that we could end their time in office early, as he put it what kind of gullible mugs are we that time and time again we vote for people who just lie and lie, pretty much spot on.

Yep, I swear most of these politicians forget that they actually work for us, they need to be reminded imo and held accountable for this sort of thing. Ireland is probably even worse than the UK actually

[Livia]

Well.... in principle I would agree. It would though, give those parties with not much chance of winning, leave to promise the earth without the prospect of ever having to deliver, while the more mainstream parties, those with a hope of winning, would be bound by their manifesto to deliver whether or not it was in the best interests of the people. It might be something do-able pre-election and for a myriad of reasons, out of the question, post-election.

Also, the man who rang in, never votes. But here he is having a say. Sounds daft to me.

[Cherie]

Well.... in principle I would agree. It would though, give those parties with not much chance of winning, leave to promise the earth without the prospect of ever having to deliver, while the more mainstream parties, those with a hope of winning, would be bound by their manifesto to deliver whether or not it was in the best interests of the people. It might be something do-able pre-election and for a myriad of reasons, out of the question, post-election.

Also, the man who rang in, never votes. But here he is having a say. Sounds daft to me.



The programme was about how to engage people in politics and get more people voting.

[Niamh.]

Well.... in principle I would agree. It would though, give those parties with not much chance of winning, leave to promise the earth without the prospect of ever having to deliver, while the more mainstream parties, those with a hope of winning, would be bound by their manifesto to deliver whether or not it was in the best interests of the people. It might be something do-able pre-election and for a myriad of reasons, out of the question, post-election.

Also, the man who rang in, never votes. But here he is having a say. Sounds daft to me.

Maybe this is a reason why he doesn't vote though because he doesn't trust any of them to do what they say?

[Livia]

[/B]


The programme was about how to engage people in politics and get more people voting.

Ahh... I see. I take it back.

It strikes me though, that usually, the people with the most to say are those who don't vote and justify it by saying they don't trust politicians/manifestos etc.

[Niamh.]

Ahh... I see. I take it back.

It strikes me though, that usually, the people with the most to say are those who don't vote and justify it by saying they don't trust politicians/manifestos etc.

I can understand that logic, I feel the same so but I always vote, usually for an independent though for those reasons

[Withano]

Excellent idea

[Livia]

Excellent idea

Yeah, it is... however, it's impractical, legally speaking.

[Northern Monkey]

I don't think it's a good idea.What if a situation changes in the country and the manifesto pledge is no longer the best course of action for the country?Then there'd be no flexibility.

[Tom4784]

I'd be all for it.

[MTVN]

I don't think it's a good idea.What if a situation changes in the country and the manifesto pledge is no longer the best course of action for the country?Then there'd be no flexibility.

Exactly, makes no sense to handcuff governments like that. Policies that looked appropriate and achievable before the election might not seem so five years later.

[MTVN]

Also this wouldn't be possible in coalition governments when compromises need to be made or even in governments where there's only a small majority because it removes the ability of MPs from within the government's party to oppose any policies they think unfair

[Northern Monkey]

Also this wouldn't be possible in coalition governments when compromises need to be made or even in governments where there's only a small majority because it removes the ability of MPs from within the government's party to oppose any policies they think unfair

Good point

[ebandit]

.........and ALL politicians must be fine upstanding honest citizens........meanwhile in the

real world............

Mark L

[user104658]

Well.... in principle I would agree. It would though, give those parties with not much chance of winning, leave to promise the earth without the prospect of ever having to deliver, while the more mainstream parties, those with a hope of winning, would be bound by their manifesto to deliver whether or not it was in the best interests of the people.

Why would that matter, though... it doesn't matter what they promise if they have no hope of getting in, and being held to it doesn't matter if they DON'T get in.


It might be something do-able pre-election and for a myriad of reasons, out of the question, post-election.

There would definitely have to be some sort of system in place that would mean promises aren't set in stone IF there is an obvious reason that the promise can no longer reasonably be fulfilled. But I think the government should have to explain exactly WHY they haven't tried to put things into practice that they have promised, rather than them just being swept under the carpet / never mentioned again which happens far too often. Also, there should be some severe penalties handed down if it becomes apparent at any point that a party gets into power by making promises that they never had any intention of following up. Not just couldn't achieve... but straight up lied about wanting to / trying to.

The main problem for me, I guess, is how complicated it would become in the case of a coalition government... and I think once the current Tory steam runs out (which it will, eventually, though it's going to be a while) we're very likely to see a series of coalitions in the aftermath (as NO party will be particularly popular). If two or three parties are in coalition but have made election promises that contradict each other, where do you go from there?

[Livia]

Why would that matter, though... it doesn't matter what they promise if they have no hope of getting in, and being held to it doesn't matter if they DON'T get in.



Suppose they did get in .... If the last couple of years have taught me anything about politics, it's that almost anything is possible.

Anyway, it's a good idea that is virtually unworkable legally, in my opinion.

[UserSince2005]

Labour would be ****ed.

Id also like to see it be extra hard to push through something that wasnt detailed in the manifesto, that would be interesting.

[Livia]

Labour would be ****ed.

Id also like to see it be extra hard to push through something that wasnt detailed in the manifesto, that would be interesting.

Hmmm... not sure I agree. Gay Marriage wasn't a manifesto issue last time and yet the Tories pushed it through.

[DemolitionRed]

Labour would be ****ed.

Id also like to see it be extra hard to push through something that wasnt detailed in the manifesto, that would be interesting.

Then why aren't the Tories? What is the difference between a Conservative lie and a Labour lie?

When May moved into Camerons seat without a general election she didn't appear to understand that she was bound by Camerons 2015 manifesto. People vote based on manifesto promise and every promise broken is something less for the people who voted in that party in. If May wants to free herself from Camerons promises, then she needs a general election to do so... so here we are!

[Kizzy]

I believe there should be some recourse, otherwise they are just seemingly bare faced lying and getting away with it. Full and frank explanations of U turns for instance.
If it's said 'oh we couldn't afford it', then it begs the question you costed for it pre election, what changed or what has become more important?
It is in effect duping voters to lure them in with false promises then spring unpopular policies once elected.

[user104658]

Suppose they did get in .... If the last couple of years have taught me anything about politics, it's that almost anything is possible.

Anyway, it's a good idea that is virtually unworkable legally, in my opinion.
... But if they did get in then they would be accountable to those promises? That's the whole point.

[user104658]

Hmmm... not sure I agree. Gay Marriage wasn't a manifesto issue last time and yet the Tories pushed it through.
Have any non-manifesto issue like gay marriage go to referendum? Though I feel like we're not "there yet" with tech for that to be feasible. In a hypothetical future where everyone can vote conveniently by electronic means from home that could be a very realistic solution. Far too open to fraud and tampering, currently, but not an impossibility for several decades in the future, with the rise of biometrics etc.