Making pre-election pledges legally binding

[Judy]

Is there any legal mechanism that currently exists by which an MP
could be made to stick to pre-election pledges for the duration of
that parliament?

For instance, is there some kind of legal document which a prospective
MP could sign, stating their pledges, that would make it illegal for
them to go back on those pledges if elected?

At the moment, it seems that they can say what they like to get voted
in, and then many of them just do what they like as MPs, irrespective
of what they promised beforehand.

[simg]

Sorry, but that's just silly.

We live in a complex world and we need our leaders to have flexibility
to make decisions based on the situation they find themselves in at
the moment - not based on some well meaning but likely ill-informed
election promises. Sure, we'd like MP's to be honest in their claims
but making it legally binding would have some very unwanted
consequences.

Let me guess though, you didn't vote conservative or liberal and are
angry at them for breaking their promises? You voted voted Labour and
never wanted ConLib in the first place ?

Very, very few people vote based on election manifestos. It's either
personalities, long standing political affiliations or just "getting
rid of the current lot" ?

[Judy]

simg,

I disagree.

Pre-election pledges could have conditional clauses and exceptions to
make it clear in what circumstances they would apply, and when they
could not. It is pointless to make an unconditional pledge and then
break it because circumstances have changed. What was the point then
of making the pledge in the first place? It seems very much like it
was only to gain votes. (And some people do base their voting
decisions on the party manifesto.)

If pre-election pledges were to be made legally binding on those who
are elected, they would be much more careful about the promises that
they made in the election campaign. And this could only apply to
pledges made in the knowledge that they would be legally binding; it
would not be desirable to make something legally binding that had been
said before this mechanism was put into place.

Business contracts have terms and conditions that are expected to hold
in varying circumstances. Why shouldn't there be "contracts" in place
for the MPs that we vote for to ensure that they stick to their word
and distinguish between intentions and pledges?

[simg]

Well, for one thing should such a law come to pass manifestos would
become legal documents and the language would be changed
to make sure that politicians didn't actually commit themselves to
anything. Politics would just become a stage more wishy-washy but
nothing
*at all* would actually change - other than lawyers would get richer
and politics would become less interesting and accessible to ordinary
people.

Secondly, the party creates the manifesto and makes the promises.
since the actual decisions are put to a *vote* in parliament and the
house of lords they can't *promise* anything other than to do their
best and therefore who could be held responsible?

Thirdly, an example. You are crossing the road. You've looked left and
right and to the best of your knowledge there are no cars coming. As
you step into the road you notice a car (or maybe a quiet cyclist)
that will certainly hit you if you go any further. You'd change your
mind about crossing right then based on the new information, right ?

[Judy]

I was not intending this suggestion to apply to the whole election
manifesto of any party. Of course things change and new information
can make good intentions less sensible.

What I am saying is that if a prospective MP feels strongly enough
about a matter to make a "pledge" (like the LibDems did with the
tuition fees issue), they should be prepared to stand by it, or they
should not have stated the position so strongly in advance. (For
instance, one response from the LibDems was that their tuition fees
pledge does not apply in a coalition government. Well really, did
anyone, including the LibDems themselves, believe that they could be
in government in any other way? I respect those LibDems who stuck to
their pledge and voted against increasing fees.)

[simg]

Apologies for the implication :)

The tuition fees issue is a good example of my crossing the road
analogy.

The ConLibs find themselves in a *very* difficult situation. The
country is
in absolutely dire financial straights and what is required is strong,
unwavering leadership.

No doubt the Lib Dems are not thrilled about going back on their
manifesto
claims, but what are the alternatives?

1. Risk the break up of the coalition - to continue my car analogy,
we're heading straight for the pedestrian who just stepped out in the
road and we need to steer in one direction, not be fighting over the
wheel.

2. Risk the UK govt becoming insolvent - then we really will get
Reboot UK, but I doubt it will be pretty!

I see the LibDems change of heart as indication of the seriousness of
our situation. They are in possession of the
full facts, which we are not. Thank goodness they are able to change
their position and not be legally forced headlong into the car (or in
this case juggernaught)