Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Election pledges contracts?
31 Answers
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?
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?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jake-the-peg. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Before polytechnics were allowed to award degrees via the CNNA, the only way was to study for an external degree at a polytechnic under the auspices of the University of London (an 'external' degree) which was an honourable route taken by many people and of equal merit to a degree studied full-time.
you say my point is good and valid but in this case........ etc then you want to legislate for manifesto to be legally binding. You cannot seriously say that any politician must implement the manifesto come what may? If so you'd get a legal dsiclaimer for a manifesto along the lines of "If we get elected we are responsible for anything that is good and anything that is bad is not our fault". Obviously that would strecth to 3 gazillion words of lawyer speak but that'd be the gist of it.
Manifestos should contain general intentions and direction not "pledges and promises".
Manifestos should contain general intentions and direction not "pledges and promises".
/// 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.///
Not been a huge change in circumstances? And I do think Clegg is justifying it on that basis.
The country is £952.8 billion. (or 64.6% of National GDP) in debt, so cuts needed to be made all over, the students are not the only ones to suffer.
Clegg is only the Deputy Prime Minister in a coalition government, so tell us Jake what could he have done, apart from not making a rather rash promise to scrap university fees in the first place?
He is not the only politician to break his promises, and for certain he won't be the last.
Not been a huge change in circumstances? And I do think Clegg is justifying it on that basis.
The country is £952.8 billion. (or 64.6% of National GDP) in debt, so cuts needed to be made all over, the students are not the only ones to suffer.
Clegg is only the Deputy Prime Minister in a coalition government, so tell us Jake what could he have done, apart from not making a rather rash promise to scrap university fees in the first place?
He is not the only politician to break his promises, and for certain he won't be the last.
Exactly in accordance with my earlier point, AOG.
Anybody, ANYBODY, who labours under the misapprehension that politicians, when they achieve power, will do what they promised when in opposition is naive in the extreme. You might expect it of younger voters because they know no different. But you do not expect anybody who has been around for one or two general elections to be so foolish. It matters not a jot whether the promises are made via a manifesto, a “signed pledge” or an oath on the Bible taken on their mother’s grave - there will always be a reason why they cannot do what they said they would do..
Those who voted LibDem can be partially (though not entirely) excused their naivety. The Party and its supporters cannot in their wildest dreams have dreamt that many of their small number of MPs would be swanning in and out of No 10 and having a major input to Government policy. It follows therefore that their "promises" may have been made in a somewhat more cavalier fashion than those of the main parties.
However, the LibDem MPs are learning that they should be a little less rash with their promises and their supporters are learning what it is like to be let down by a party they thought would represent their interests. And they need to get used to it because if they achieve their aim of abolishing “first past the post” there will always be a “Coalition Agreement” which will water down their (and everybody else's) plans.
Anybody, ANYBODY, who labours under the misapprehension that politicians, when they achieve power, will do what they promised when in opposition is naive in the extreme. You might expect it of younger voters because they know no different. But you do not expect anybody who has been around for one or two general elections to be so foolish. It matters not a jot whether the promises are made via a manifesto, a “signed pledge” or an oath on the Bible taken on their mother’s grave - there will always be a reason why they cannot do what they said they would do..
Those who voted LibDem can be partially (though not entirely) excused their naivety. The Party and its supporters cannot in their wildest dreams have dreamt that many of their small number of MPs would be swanning in and out of No 10 and having a major input to Government policy. It follows therefore that their "promises" may have been made in a somewhat more cavalier fashion than those of the main parties.
However, the LibDem MPs are learning that they should be a little less rash with their promises and their supporters are learning what it is like to be let down by a party they thought would represent their interests. And they need to get used to it because if they achieve their aim of abolishing “first past the post” there will always be a “Coalition Agreement” which will water down their (and everybody else's) plans.
Labour's 1997 'Five Pledges' card was, in effect, no more than an offshoot, a précis if you like, of the party's manifesto. As far as I know, not a single Labour MP actually applied his/her signature to an actual card and almost certainly not as a deliberate publicity stunt.
I am 73, not even remotely politically naive, but clearly of a generation which still believes that one's signature, individually and publicly subscribed on a document, is - or darn well ought to be - inviolable.
I am 73, not even remotely politically naive, but clearly of a generation which still believes that one's signature, individually and publicly subscribed on a document, is - or darn well ought to be - inviolable.
You’re quite right, QM, it ought to be. In the normal world that most of us inhabit, that is.
Unfortunately politicians of all persuasions do not subscribe to the same rules as most of us do. Their word is not their bond because there are always caveats, “new information”, “unforeseen circumstances”, etc. etc. which means they cannot keep their word.
This situation is by no means unique, though a little unusual because of the “signed pledge” nonsense. However, in this respect the LibDems have been hoist by their own petard. They made great play of their intentions believing that, as usual, they had not a cat in hell’s chance of being allowed to have the keys to the sweet cupboard. The problems they now face arise because of those rash promises which they now find they cannot keep.
Unfortunately politicians of all persuasions do not subscribe to the same rules as most of us do. Their word is not their bond because there are always caveats, “new information”, “unforeseen circumstances”, etc. etc. which means they cannot keep their word.
This situation is by no means unique, though a little unusual because of the “signed pledge” nonsense. However, in this respect the LibDems have been hoist by their own petard. They made great play of their intentions believing that, as usual, they had not a cat in hell’s chance of being allowed to have the keys to the sweet cupboard. The problems they now face arise because of those rash promises which they now find they cannot keep.
You’re quite right, QM, it ought to be. In the normal world that most of us inhabit, that is.
Unfortunately politicians of all persuasions do not subscribe to the same rules as most of us do. Their word (or indeed their signature) is not their bond because there are always caveats, “new information”, “unforeseen circumstances”, etc. etc. which means they cannot keep their word.
This situation is by no means unique, though a little unusual because of the “signed pledge” nonsense. However, in this respect the LibDems have been hoist by their own petard. They made great play of their intentions believing that, as usual, they had not a cat in hell’s chance of being allowed to have the keys to the sweet cupboard. The problems they now face arise because of those rash promises which they now find they cannot keep.
Unfortunately politicians of all persuasions do not subscribe to the same rules as most of us do. Their word (or indeed their signature) is not their bond because there are always caveats, “new information”, “unforeseen circumstances”, etc. etc. which means they cannot keep their word.
This situation is by no means unique, though a little unusual because of the “signed pledge” nonsense. However, in this respect the LibDems have been hoist by their own petard. They made great play of their intentions believing that, as usual, they had not a cat in hell’s chance of being allowed to have the keys to the sweet cupboard. The problems they now face arise because of those rash promises which they now find they cannot keep.
"how was he (Clegg) to know how much of a mess this country was in financially, thanks to Brown and his buddies?"
Well, they were talking about it non-stop before the election, saying what a mess Labour had got the country into and what drastic measures would have to be taken. (So was pretty well everyone on AB.) Bit late now to plead ignorance, isn't it? The fact remains, they shouldn't have made promises they couldn't keep. They shouldn't have joined the coalition without a guarantee that they would still be free to honour personal pledges, such as this one, that they made.
Well, they were talking about it non-stop before the election, saying what a mess Labour had got the country into and what drastic measures would have to be taken. (So was pretty well everyone on AB.) Bit late now to plead ignorance, isn't it? The fact remains, they shouldn't have made promises they couldn't keep. They shouldn't have joined the coalition without a guarantee that they would still be free to honour personal pledges, such as this one, that they made.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.