Election pledges contracts?

[jake-the-peg]

The fundamental issue with the student fees debate is that Liberal democrats are supporting raising them after pledging their abolition over 6 years. They also signed a pledge to oppose future rises in fees.

When a party makes such pledges and breaks them in such short order have they broken the terms under which they were elected.

Should a party manifesto be a legally binding document whereby a Government would have to go to the country to get a mandate to change the terms of those pledges?

and if not why?

[Count-A-Strong]

Because they only promised them if they were elected to govern, not as part of a hung Parliament.

[Quizmonster]

No they didn't. The document they signed read, "I PLEDGE TO VOTE AGAINST ANY INCREASE IN FEES in the next parliament." It had no rider suggesting that it would apply only if THEY were elected to govern. The pledge had nothing directly to do with the manifesto as such. Just Google for images of Clegg holding the document aloft.

[Zeuhl]

agree with the count

the pledge was 'vote us into government and we will do x'

well they weren't voted into government; no party was. So in the coalition deal process all previous contracts were off.

I can see it's uncomfortable for cleggy and co but i'm surprised they weren't more bullish about the coalition deal - we came third but still gained a compromise say in policy - from the start.

They have ended up just looking shifty- oh well they are politicians!
.

[Zeuhl]

Ok quiz

the pledge was:

'vote us into government and we will do x'

'or do what you normally do - vote us into third place - and we will do x'

well neither has arisen - they have a partial say in policy and will gain some and lose some - it's called compromise.
.

[Quizmonster]

Their manifesto read, "WE (plural/the party) will get rid of fees for going to university so everyone has the chance to go." Their pledges read, "I (singular/individually) pledge to vote against any increase in fees IN THE NEXT PARLIAMENT."
The OED defines 'pledge' as, "a solemn engagement to do or refrain from doing something; a promise, vow."
For a person of honour, a pledge is simply not open to compromise, as I hope we shall see when the vote comes tomorrow.

[mike11111]

The last Prime Minister who felt honour-bound to go to the country for a fresh mandate when he realised that economic necessity prevented him from honouring a pledge made by his predecessor was Stanley Baldwin way back in 1923. They don't make politicians like that any more. He lost the election, but came back to serve two further terms as PM.

[Quizmonster]

And good on 'im, too, Mike! We're all aware that party manifestos nowadays are little more than wish-lists...ie we'll do these things if we can. But a personally signed pledge is a different matter. We may yet see in 24 hours that they DO still make some "politicians like that".

[R1Geezer]

No, I would not want a manifesto legally binding, circumstances change, I personally think they are already too specific.I would want a governement that was so intransigent especially by legal force. Intentions may be sincere but when the time and situation comes it may not be the right thing. Not talking about tuition fees here specifically. It's like you saying you are definately going t buy a new car in June but in march you need the money for something else, would you put off or cancel the new car or go ahead anyway because you'd "pledged it". I think politicians dig themselves into holes trying to be too specific in order to get elected. This especially applies to the Libdems as they probably thought they'd never be in a position to attempt to deliver on their pledges.

[R1Geezer]

wouldn't

[New Judge]

I’m afraid the reaction of the students and other young people to a bunch of politicians reneging on their pre-election promises simply demonstrates their naivety.

When they grow up they will come to realise that no politician of any persuasion can be trusted to keep their word on any issue. Yes, they sometimes do what they say they will occasionally, but they cannot be trusted to do so and it is foolish in the extreme to expect it of them.

[Quizmonster]

I am 'way beyond the age of naivety, but I STILL think that there is a world of difference between 'promises' made in a party's manifesto and 'promises' (pledges) - signed publicly and with panache - by individuals. If one cannot honour one's own signature, then what hope is there?

[boxtops]

Good point, QM - a manifesto (IMO) is an organisational declaration of intent, whereas a signature is giving one's word on future actions.

[woofgang]

I think the other issue is that they are saying they didn't know how bad the financial situation was before that got into power (coalition or not) and that i do believe.
So what they should be saying is "yes we promised to do this, yes we are (in part) breaking that promise because the country CANNOT afford for us to keep it"

[anotheoldgit]

The Geezer has it bang on with those two words 'circumstances change', how was he (Clegg) to know how much of a mess this country was in financially, thanks to Brown and his buddies?

Regarding the students, they are also victims of the last government's dream of sending all those to universality who wanted to go.Now we have a situation of certain degrees not being worth the paper they are written on, and graduates ending up stacking supermarket shelves.

It's an impossible dream that anyone who wants to go to university can go at the expense of the taxpayer, why should they, even if a person wants to go to 'Evening Classes' to study something or other, they themselves have to foot the bill, unless of course they happen to be in receipt of certain benefits etc.

[rov1200]

One things for certain, come the next election the Liberals will be booted into oblivion. I'd be surprised if even Clegg gets re-elected. Peoples memories are short but its about the same time as the election will be when the first students will start to pay back their new fees to bring the subject back all over again.

[mike11111]

I went to university in 1972. My tuition was free and I received a grant of £150 per term (a term's board and accommodation was £90 so it was more than adequate, provided one didn't drink or smoke to excess). Without that I would have been unable to go. The rot set when polytechnics were given university status in 1992 which led to the proliferation of 'non-academic' degree courses. At one time the letters B.A. and B.Sc. &c were worn with pride, now they come up with the rations. Just as an aside, the dreadful word 'uni' (which I refuse to use) was unknown in this country until the arrival from Australia of Neighbours.

[jake-the-peg]

This isn't about student fees - it just happens to be the issue about which this has come up.

So whether or not you think it is an impossible dream or whether or not you have a degree is completely irrelevant and misses the point.

That is why I started a seperate thread.

The point is a constitutional one about the information we use when we elect an MP.

If an MP stands on a platform and then changes his behaviour the moment he is elected he has stood under false pretences and personally I think there should be some sort of impeachment mechanism about that. Simply waiting for the next election is inadequate.

Geezer's point that circumstances change is a good and valid one.

In this case however I can't see that it applies. There really has not been a huge change in circumstances here and Clegg is not justifying the decision on that basis.

There would have to be a defence along such lines.

I do wonder if Geezer and New Judge feel the same with regard to what I think they will feel was a broken election pledge by the Labour party not to hold a referendum on the EU lisbon treaty/constitution

[Quizmonster]

In complete agreement with you, Mike, about the ghastly word, 'uni'. Whatever happened to 'varsity'?
And let's not forget who it was that gave polytechnics university status, eh?