[user104658]

Originally Posted by 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.

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?