Manifesto Promises

Accusations from audiences on BBC's Question Time have voiced a belief that many seem to hold, that Liberal Democrats haven't been fulfilling their promises. Usually this revolves around two factors:

+ Liberal Democrats going into a coalition with Tories;

+ and the highly publicised choice of Lib Dem government ministers to drop their opposition to tuition fee rises as part of the coalition agreement to get other policies;

The Liberal Democrats have made it clear that they are counting on being able to demonstrate what they got in return for compromises - in return for dropping student fees - at the end of a four year plan (Daily Mail, 2010).

'Maybe in three or four years time, people will look and say they were a little bit harsh to the Liberal Democrats'
-Paul Scriven, the Sheffield Lib Dems leader (Guardian, 2011)

Amongst those achievements will be the increase in personal allowance on tax to an eventual £10,000, deferring Trident weapons spending and encouraging a green investment bank. They may also stress that the party gave people a choice on a voting system with the AV referendum, even if those people rejected the proffered system.

The full extent of hits and misses by both partners in the coalition can be found at The Guardian site, plus policies committed to but not yet presented to parliament.

In terms of policies the Lib Dems have offered a lot of results considering they came third in a general election. But is that a good enough measure? Will that salve the wounds of those that voted Lib Dem on the issues that were dropped?

I fear the Lib Dems risk falling into the trap of judging means by ends. The party leaders could have, and should have, been clearer about the nature of negotiations and what could be given up and what might be gotten in return (Watt, 2010).

This goes for all parties.

Labour have made noises about a number of issues, in particular EMA and social housing, with Shadow Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform, Mr Chris Bryant, describing the government's social housing policy as 'sociological cleansing' (BBC, 2010).

It is with some interest then, that we can see the same policy appear in the Labour manifesto for the most recent election (Labour, 2010). Furthermore, Labour backed AV for elections and yet failed to support it wholly in the referendum and for a progressive party are acting in suprisingly anti-Europe ways (D'Arcy, 2011).

This forces me to ask: what exactly is the purpose of, and the point of, a manifesto that we must treat as unreliable?

==========
References:
==========
+ Daily Mail's 'Clegg admits it will take four years to "rebalance" Britain but tries to offset fears about savage cuts'; 9 September 2010;

+ Polly Curtis, Patrick Wintour & Helene Mulholland's 'Liberal Democrats have taken "big knocks", says Nick Clegg'; in The Guardian; 6 May 2011;

+ Nicholas Watt's 'Revealed: Lib Dems planned before election to abandon tuition fees pledge'; in The Guardian; 12 November 2010;

+ BBC's The Record covering Labour accusing the Coalition of "Sociological" Cleansing; on YouTube; 27 October 2010; from DPMQs, '...How does he propose to make electoral provision for those displaced people?'; 26 October 2010;

+ Labour's 'Living Standards - Prosperity for all not just a few'; Chp 2, Pg 3; in 'Labour Party Manifesto 2010 - A future fair for all';

+ Mark D'Arcy's 'Labour vote against more IMF funding raises questions'; in BBC; 6 July 2011;
   Mark D'Arcy's 'Surprise timing helps IMF funding passes Commons'; in BBC; 12 July 2011;