There were a number of Tory MPs against the Poll Tax.

I don't think it's too much to ask that an MP sticks to the manifesto they stood on. For instance, Diane Abbott was one of the Labour government's serial rebels on things like civil liberties (most of which hadn't been pledged in the manifesto) or illegal wars - but she never voted against a single Labour manifesto commitment in Parliament, ever. If you don't agree with a key plank of your party's manifesto, you're free to stand as an independent with your own policies, after all.

 

I don't know if it would be practical to enshrine in law that a government has to stick to every single manifesto commitment, but I wouldn't have any problem with steps being taken to make sure parties can't do things that are in DIRECT CONTRADICTION of manifesto commitments within a year of a general election (such as carrying out a massive NHS reorganisation when you'd explicitly promised not to, or trebling tuition fees when you'd explicitly promised to vote against it).

 

Yep, this is exactly what I'm talking about... But of course "noo labor" were just as guilty of that sort of sh"t too, such as going back on a promise to not bring in uni tuition fees in the first place... Once that flood-gate opened, well, we can see where it's led us...

 

Suedehead seems to be saying that basically the Manifesto isn't worth the paper it's written on, because, well, they wont keep to it anyway... So, just what the fukk is the point of a Manifesto then, or indeed the point in voting really if we're just going to be ignored...?

I'm not saying that at all. Part of the job of parliament - and each member of it - is to scrutinise legislation. That shouldn't mean just waving something through just because it was in a manifesto. If a proposal is shown to be seriously flawed it should be defeated. And you still haven't answered the point about a coalition. What happens when two parties have conflicting manifesto commitments?

 

The only result of this will be manifestos which are far more vague than they already are.

I'm not saying that at all. Part of the job of parliament - and each member of it - is to scrutinise legislation. That shouldn't mean just waving something through just because it was in a manifesto. If a proposal is shown to be seriously flawed it should be defeated. And you still haven't answered the point about a coalition. What happens when two parties have conflicting manifesto commitments?

 

The only result of this will be manifestos which are far more vague than they already are.

 

Well, we dont actually really have a "Coalition" in this country mate, that's point one... We have one party dominating and another one just being their enablers.... The AV vote referendum is a joke because Clegg's Coalition "partners" are doing all they can to sabotage it, while Clegg has basically become Dave's lap-dog and does everything "his master's voice" tells him to do, the whole "give and take" ethos of a Coalition doesn't exactly seem to be working both ways does it....? TBH, I dont even know what Clegg's actuall "job" is, as has been pointed out, even when Dave's not in the country, he's still running the show....

That doesn't answer the point at all. The Tories aren't increasing the inheritance tax threshold because of the coalition. The legislation on a referendum on EU matters has been toned down because of the coalition. Should the Tories be prosecuted as a result?

There were a number of Tory MPs against the Poll Tax.

Was that ever a Tory manifesto policy? I'm genuinely asking, I don't know.

 

 

And you still haven't answered the point about a coalition. What happens when two parties have conflicting manifesto commitments?

 

If anything, the Lib Dems' current mess only shows how foolish they were to enter a coalition with the Tories in the first place... positioning themselves to the left of Labour for the past 8 years (and consequentially taking an awful lot of left-wing votes who would otherwise have voted Labour) and then jumping into bed with the most right-wing of the mainstream parties, was always going to end in tears. Had they had an agreement with Labour, or if they agreed to support a Tory minority govt on an issue-by-issue basis, they wouldn't've needed to directly contradict anywhere near as many of their policies. So, no, I don't think there's ever any justification of doing the exact opposite of what your manifesto pledged, hung parliament or no hung parliament.

 

 

That doesn't answer the point at all. The Tories aren't increasing the inheritance tax threshold because of the coalition. The legislation on a referendum on EU matters has been toned down because of the coalition. Should the Tories be prosecuted as a result?

 

But what the Coalition are doing to inheritance tax isn't in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to the Tory manifesto, that's the point... if they were actually dropping the inheritance tax threshold, or doubling the inheritance tax rate for those they'd promised to take out of it altogether, then Tory voters would be entitled to feel miffed... but just quietly not enacting a policy and leaving things as they are is something that will always go on. If the Lib Dems had not enacted their policy to scrap tuition fees, but simply left fees as they were, then there wouldn't've been anywhere near as big a backlash... but it was the fact they sold out in such an extreme way that made people angry.

I'm not denying that people are angry over tuition fees. Nor am I saying that they are wrong to be angry. But if you make voting against a manifesto commitment illegal, manifestos will suddenly contain no commitments whatsoever, just vague aspirations.

 

I've answered the point about the choices facing the Lib Dems before. If they had refused Cameron's offer of a coalition they would have been accused of running away from their first chance of power in a century after spending most of that century arguing for a change in the voting system to make coalitions more likely. Cameron would then have aimed to go for another election by May this year at the latest, more likely last autumn.

 

The Tories in 1987 promised to replace the old system of rates. It became clear in the election campaign that their proposed replacement was the Poll Tax.

 

There's also the issue of individual candidates who make it clear in their election literature that they oppose party policy in certain areas. It is well-known that some Tory MPs (including ministers) do not agree with party policy on European issues. What are they meant to do?

I'm not denying that people are angry over tuition fees. Nor am I saying that they are wrong to be angry. But if you make voting against a manifesto commitment illegal, manifestos will suddenly contain no commitments whatsoever, just vague aspirations.

 

Well, if you ask me, that's pretty much what they are anyway tbh, so what difference does it make....? The facts are these parties are SELLING themselves to the voters at Election time.. Party Manifestos seem to be every bit as disingenuous and misleading as "Unlimited" internet packages.... -_-

 

There's also the issue of individual candidates who make it clear in their election literature that they oppose party policy in certain areas. It is well-known that some Tory MPs (including ministers) do not agree with party policy on European issues. What are they meant to do?

 

Well, if they've made it clear in election literature, then they atleast have some leeway, and can say their constituents didn't elect them under false pretences. Which wasn't the case for any Lib Dem MPs, who, far from disagreeing with the tuition fees policy in their election literature, enthusiastically signed pledges for the cameras. I'm not aware of any Tory MP disagreeing with the "no change to the NHS" policy either - they knew that they'd be slaughtered if they were seen as weak on the NHS.

If anything, the Lib Dems' current mess only shows how foolish they were to enter a coalition with the Tories in the first place... positioning themselves to the left of Labour for the past 8 years (and consequentially taking an awful lot of left-wing votes who would otherwise have voted Labour) and then jumping into bed with the most right-wing of the mainstream parties, was always going to end in tears. Had they had an agreement with Labour, or if they agreed to support a Tory minority govt on an issue-by-issue basis, they wouldn't've needed to directly contradict anywhere near as many of their policies. So, no, I don't think there's ever any justification of doing the exact opposite of what your manifesto pledged, hung parliament or no hung parliament.

 

Exactly...

 

..Not to mention the students who voted for them after Simon Hughes, Nick Clegg, Vince Cable, et al, signed that pledge, which many people could be forgiven for thinking was actually awfully like a legally binding contract....

Ed Miliband at today's PMQs....

 

‎"The prime minister may act like he is born to rule, but the problem is he is not very good at it".

 

BOO YAHHHH!!!!! Ca-Moron, you have been OWNED...... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Even Noel Coward would've been proud of that one....

As good as Miliband's jibe was, I don't think it was as good as Matt "Smiling Assassin" Baker on the One Show last night:

 

 

As good as Miliband's jibe was, I don't think it was as good as Matt "Smiling Assassin" Baker on the One Show last night:

 

BOOM.

Ed Miliband at today's PMQs....

 

‎"The prime minister may act like he is born to rule, but the problem is he is not very good at it".

 

BOO YAHHHH!!!!! Ca-Moron, you have been OWNED...... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Even Noel Coward would've been proud of that one....

Clearly pre-prepared but still a good line :lol:

Had they had an agreement with Labour

 

Labour refused to enter into coalition. The options were to govern with the Tories or stay separate and vote with the true Lib Dem party line on these issues, which would almost certainly return a defeat for the Tories every single time. This would almost certainly have led to a second election last October where the Tories would probably get their majority.

 

So, yes, I think you can put a lot of blame at Labour's door for refusing to offer this alternative. That would have been my choice of coalition.

 

Well, if you ask me, that's pretty much what they are anyway tbh, so what difference does it make....? The facts are these parties are SELLING themselves to the voters at Election time.. Party Manifestos seem to be every bit as disingenuous and misleading as "Unlimited" internet packages.... -_-

Sky's top package is actually unlimited. Trust me on that one, i've tried my hardest to find it's upper limit and it's never appeared. The small print and contract also has no mention of a limit. It'd be illegal for them to enforce a limit that isn't in the contract, or at the very least breach of contract which they could then be sued for.

Labour refused to enter into coalition.

 

Sorry, this was the spin that was put about by the Lib Dem negotiators, but it just isn't true. In Mandelson's memoirs (which, for all their faults, are certainly candid) he wrote that three of Labour's negotiating team were enthusiastic about a coalition (Ed Miliband, Harriet Harman and Andrew Adonis), Mandelson himself was sceptical about how it would work arithmetically but agreed with a coalition in principle, and Ed Balls was very sceptical but nowhere near as hostile in the negotiations as the Lib Dems claimed.

 

The difference was that the Lib Dems set much higher standards for the Labour negotiating team to meet: for instance, they insisted on a freeze in the education budget PLUS a £3bn-a-year pupil premium ON TOP (which, it now turns out, the Tories didn't stick to), they wanted AV to be passed through Parliament without a referendum, and they were insisting on spending cuts to start in 2010 (contrary to their election policy). Everyone connected to the talks says it's pretty clear the Lib Dems had already decided to go with the Tories, and so they set the bar to such a high level so that they knew Labour wouldn't meet it.

The arithmetic meant a deal with Labour was never likely. However, if the Lib Dems had not even talked to Labour, they would probably not have got the AV referendum.