should we enforce false promises

the_pen_turner

hi there
its nearly time that all this chancers will be calling looking for votes

all they do is promise you everything but when they get in they forget all that

why because we all want to here what they will do for us and because we don't hold them to it

if we made it law that what they put on the manifesto or some legal paper of what their promises are legally enforceable.
we would get a lot less false promises and just telling us what we want to hear.
they would have to research the issues and choose their battles.

lets say there was a vote proposed on a bill or law etc , then if they said they would vote yes then they should have to . no changing their minds or abstaining.


what do you think

Atlantic Dawn

But what of the parish pump?

We are a basket case with a touch of a "positive balance" this year but with €60-70 billion owed in a can kicking exercise, to go a little Brian "Knowledge is knowing that a long term debt is a loan; wisdom is knowing not to blow the lot fixing the road.

Stheno

Never going to work, they go to the polls with a proposed strategy, and if circumstances change it needs to be reviewed.

the_pen_turner

Stheno wrote: »

Never going to work, they go to the polls with a proposed strategy, and if circumstances change it needs to be reviewed.

surly strategy is based on facts and research rather than something dreamt up down the pub or scribbled on the back of a fag box
circumstances only change with time. . what they are is uninformed or deluded.


obviously there needs to be some flexibility to deal with issues that pop up unexpectedly . like the laws banning head shops

what im proposing is that if a candidates states that they will vote yes on an issue or that they will do x y or z that they do or at least do everything they can and also report back on the issue

I want to stop the likes of enda and the boys doing what they did the last time . told us one thing then as soon as they are in they do he oposite

mickdw

the_pen_turner wrote: »

hi there
its nearly time that all this chancers will be calling looking for votes

all they do is promise you everything but when they get in they forget all that

why because we all want to here what they will do for us and because we don't hold them to it

if we made it law that what they put on the manifesto or some legal paper of what their promises are legally enforceable.
we would get a lot less false promises and just telling us what we want to hear.
they would have to research the issues and choose their battles.

lets say there was a vote proposed on a bill or law etc , then if they said they would vote yes then they should have to . no changing their minds or abstaining.


what do you think

Coalition can never be pinned down as they will simply say that while negotiating program for government with other party, certain policies could not be accommodated.
Single party government could reasonably be expected to carry out pre election promises however they generally have many get out of jail free cards usually blaming previous government.
A returning single party government really have no excuse when they don't carry out pre election promises but in politics, a business where quite often the greatest wheeler dealer climbs to the top, I don't think it's any great surprise that they may not always be true to their word.

johnnyskeleton

the_pen_turner wrote: »

what im proposing is that if a candidates states that they will vote yes on an issue or that they will do x y or z that they do or at least do everything they can and also report back on the issue

I want to stop the likes of enda and the boys doing what they did the last time . told us one thing then as soon as they are in they do he oposite

Can you give a specific example? If its something clear like they say "we will hold a referendum on EU membership" and then dont its clear they didnt follow through. But if they say "we aim to creat 100,000 jobs" and 5 years later there are 90k more in employment, can it really be said they didnt hold true to their aim?

There then follows the issues of how it is practically enforced. Lets say it was a criminal offence for a politician to make a promise that they dont keep. Who brings the prosecution? What if they were only a backbencher or opposition member and tried to have their way but were out voted?

You would also then discourage politicians from a) expressing any firm view on anything, and b) prevent them from changing their mind even if their policy doesnt work.

Dont get me wrong, I also find the parliamentary system flawed insofar as you can have all parties promising whatevers popular and then doing whatever is necessary when in power. But I dont think there is a way of imposing more honesty and accuracy on them.

Our best bet is to punish them by not voting for them.

the_pen_turner

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Can you give a specific example?

unfortunately not. I try not to dwell on these things and forget about them.

If its something clear like they say "we will hold a referendum on EU membership"

like this

and then dont its clear they didnt follow through. But if they say "we aim to creat 100,000 jobs" and 5 years later there are 90k more in employment,

yes but they would have tried

There then follows the issues of how it is practically enforced

ban them from running again

. Lets say it was a criminal offence for a politician to make a promise that they dont keep. Who brings the prosecution? What if they were only a backbencher or opposition member and tried to have their way but were out voted?

if they were elected promising to vote yes but didn't vote at all or voted no

You would also then discourage politicians from a) expressing any firm view on anything

no they would have to be very firm on what issues they will be elected on

, and b) prevent them from changing their mind even if their policy doesnt work.

research and proper planning before deciding to make the promise

Dont get me wrong, I also find the parliamentary system flawed insofar as you can have all parties promising whatevers popular and then doing whatever is necessary when in power. But I dont think there is a way of imposing more honesty and accuracy on them.

im sure the history books show this clearly

Our best bet is to punish them by not voting for them

. but if there is no accountability then the next crowd will do the same and lie to the voters.

johnnyskeleton

the_pen_turner wrote: »

ban them from running again

That might pose some interesting democratic/constitutional questions. Who does the banning? A Judge? The electorate? Etc

but if there is no accountability then the next crowd will do the same and lie to the voters.

There is some accountability in the system - accountability to the eleectorte. However, Irish people dont seem to mind being pandered to at election time.

ancapailldorcha

In the US, representatives can be removed from office before their term ends via a recall election which can be called via a petition. Unfortunately I don't see such an idea catching on here as it would mean politicians voting against their own interests.

the_pen_turner

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

That might pose some interesting democratic/constitutional questions. Who does the banning? A Judge? The electorate? Etc



There is some accountability in the system - accountability to the eleectorte. However, Irish people dont seem to mind being pandered to at election time.

how about a system similar to the bar system for lawyers in the usa.
don't do your job properly or be corrupt and you would be struck off
it would also set a minimum standard for them

Lockstep

Genuinely can't see this happening. Manifestos are guidelines, not binding promises. Considering we have coalition governments, it'd be impossible to enforce these.

Godge

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

In the US, representatives can be removed from office before their term ends via a recall election which can be called via a petition. Unfortunately I don't see such an idea catching on here as it would mean politicians voting against their own interests.

It wouldn't work in our multi-seat constituency system.

Imagine in a 5-seater FG got three seats with 51% of the vote and FF and SF got the other two. FG could gather enough signatures for a petition to remove the FFer and then take their seat in a by-election. Six months later, they could do the same to the Shinner. Ditto in other constituencies. Donegal would end up with 5 SF TDs etc.

ancapailldorcha

Godge wrote: »

It wouldn't work in our multi-seat constituency system.

Imagine in a 5-seater FG got three seats with 51% of the vote and FF and SF got the other two. FG could gather enough signatures for a petition to remove the FFer and then take their seat in a by-election. Six months later, they could do the same to the Shinner. Ditto in other constituencies. Donegal would end up with 5 SF TDs etc.

I'm used to the UK's FPTP system of one MP per constituency so that's why I suggested it. Seriously, do we really need so many TDs?

micosoft

the_pen_turner wrote: »

how about a system similar to the bar system for lawyers in the usa.
don't do your job properly or be corrupt and you would be struck off
it would also set a minimum standard for them

We already have (the admittedly toothless) SIPO but direct corruption can be investigated by the Gardai. In any case you've shifted the goalpost from "keeping promises" to prosecuting corrupt activities. Do you accept now it's the electorates role & responsibility to unelect politicians if they so choose?

micosoft

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm used to the UK's FPTP system of one MP per constituency so that's why I suggested it. Seriously, do we really need so many TDs?

We don't need as many TD's but that's not the issue with your proposal. Moving to the FPTP brings it's own issues. And quite frankly recalls are a terrible idea that would do the opposite of what you suggest and destroy the ability for politicians to vote in the interest of the greater good. As we saw with Frank Feighan nasty populist campaigns including recalls would undermine our democracy rather then support it. Four-five years is not that long.

ancapailldorcha

micosoft wrote: »

We don't need as many TD's but that's not the issue with your proposal. Moving to the FPTP brings it's own issues. And quite frankly recalls are a terrible idea that would do the opposite of what you suggest and destroy the ability for politicians to vote in the interest of the greater good. As we saw with Frank Feighan nasty populist campaigns including recalls would undermine our democracy rather then support it. Four-five years is not that long.

I wouldn't advocate moving to FPTP as it leaves too many people unrepresented. I'd forgotten that constituencies had multiple TDs.

micosoft

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I wouldn't advocate moving to FPTP as it leaves too many people unrepresented. I'd forgotten that constituencies had multiple TDs.

Not only that, the swing is far more extreme as it's a winner takes all. With FPTP FG would have had a majority. The irony in the context of this OP is that because we want better representation our system leads to coalitions. Which mean parties need to compromise on their manifestos to form a Government. Labour is getting blamed for not getting every part of their manifesto implemented despite the fact our system very much means that that is an impossibility. Conversely I'm sure a lot of people are disappointed that FG did not get all of it's manifesto delivered.

Forcing parties to stick with their "promises" would result in a inability to form a Government at all in this state or an exceptionally unstable one.

heyjude

micosoft wrote: »

The irony in the context of this OP is that because we want better representation our system leads to coalitions. Which mean parties need to compromise on their manifestos to form a Government. Labour is getting blamed for not getting every part of their manifesto implemented despite the fact our system very much means that that is an impossibility. Conversely I'm sure a lot of people are disappointed that FG did not get all of it's manifesto delivered.

Given the need for parties to compromise to form a government, it would be informative to compare the list of promises by both Labour and Fine Gael at the last election and those promises that were subsequently acted upon. The list would indicate which interest groups each party were most anxious to appease and which interest groups they had least difficulty ignoring,as well as illustrating the respective power that each party had to push through their wishes over those of their coalition partners, especially where policy promises from the two parties were in conflict or where budgetary constraints only allowed the implementation of a single partys' wishes.

If it became clear that the larger party carried most of its policies through, while the smaller party only enjoyed a couple of successes, then prospective voters would be forewarned that the likely smaller partys' manifesto could be reduced to one or two core promises that might be implemented, while most manifesto promises(especially those that carry a high cost or which conflict with their larger coalition partner) will be binned.

I think that the likelihood of a coalition suits all parties and perhaps encourages parties to make promises that they might otherwise be less likely to make if single party government was a prospect. In the current situation, parties know they can make eye and vote catching promises knowing that they will never have to or be allowed to implement, while at the same time having a coalition partner to blame for any broken promises.

micosoft

heyjude wrote: »

Given the need for parties to compromise to form a government, it would be informative to compare the list of promises by both Labour and Fine Gael at the last election and those promises that were subsequently acted upon. The list would indicate which interest groups each party were most anxious to appease and which interest groups they had least difficulty ignoring,as well as illustrating the respective power that each party had to push through their wishes over those of their coalition partners, especially where policy promises from the two parties were in conflict or where budgetary constraints only allowed the implementation of a single partys' wishes.

This is Journalism and highly subjective especially when discussing interest groups. There was a pretty heated debate recently where a certain party appeared to be taken orders from the border region. I can't see it being possible to impartially "listing" this. TBH the electorate need to take a more sophisticated look at the options as well.

heyjude wrote: »

If it became clear that the larger party carried most of its policies through, while the smaller party only enjoyed a couple of successes, then prospective voters would be forewarned that the likely smaller partys' manifesto could be reduced to one or two core promises that might be implemented, while most manifesto promises(especially those that carry a high cost or which conflict with their larger coalition partner) will be binned.

I can't see how this would work in reality unless you are asking for Parties to sign Coalition agreements before the election. Which in itself is undemocratic because the people have the right to choose a single party to lead the state.

Ultimately if two parties sign a pre-nup they may as well go the whole way and just marry. Most larger parties have "wings" within them.

heyjude wrote: »

I think that the likelihood of a coalition suits all parties and perhaps encourages parties to make promises that they might otherwise be less likely to make if single party government was a prospect. In the current situation, parties know they can make eye and vote catching promises knowing that they will never have to or be allowed to implement, while at the same time having a coalition partner to blame for any broken promises.

True but it's not exclusive to coalition Governments. Remember George Bush I and his famous "Read my lips, no new taxes". He had no coalition to worry about. Just economic reality of the legacy of Reagonomics. I think the issue is that we as an electorate need to move away from the simplistic auction politics where specific promises are given and focus more on policy and direction. No more then anyone else politicians cannot tell the future. They should be able to tell us their political philosophy so that we can reasonably predict how they would behave when they are governing. I accept certain items have to be in a manifesto but usually these happen or not due to budgeting, not because the party does not want it to happen.