The most-respected No case barely mentioned the promise itself. It was about waste: “Every penny should be audited for every department before another penny is added for them to waste and abuse.” Voters comfortably rejected the idea that breaking the tax pledges is acceptable, and the top-rated argument for doing so was a demand for proof of competence first.
The promise-keeping case came next in respect. One voter asked what the point of a manifesto is if “we won't ever get what we voted for”. Another called it “a binding contract”, and a third wanted manifestos made legally binding. Several said a government wanting to break a core pledge should seek a new mandate.
Yes voters made a quieter, more practical case. The most-respected one held that “no government governs in a vacuum”, and that leadership means adapting when circumstances change. One shrugged that “all governments do it”, while another pointed to university fees and rail privatisation as past broken pledges. Several Yes voters wanted the burden to fall on the wealthiest, through a wealth tax or higher capital gains tax.
The No side was not of one mind. A few conceded the squeeze: one called a rise “an unwelcome hit, but an unavoidable financial reality”, and another wished the pledge weren't there but said the government's “hands are tied”. Others wanted tax cuts and a smaller state, while one said simply to tax the banks and the rich. The No answer to the circumstances argument was mostly that a promise is a promise.
For those who rejected it, the sticking point was less the money than the word given.
86 Opinions
Every penny should be audited for every department before another penny is added for them to waste and abuse. Show you can honestly administer what you have before demanding more. The misuse of funds is reported daily, how dare you expect the public to keep handing you more.
As usual a political party is ignoring its manifesto, no big shock there. Then we have a non elected PM who will say it wasn't his manifesto. So If he wants it changed then call a General Election. But my biggest gripe with Tax is the wasteful spending of the money that is raised. I think most are happy to pay into a system, that is fair, transparent and delivers for all. What we have is the opposite, unfair, fails to deliver and clearly not auditable!
If they can just drop their manifesto promise because they feel like it or it no longer suits them then what is the point in putting a manifesto out in the first place because we won't ever get what we voted for if they're allowed to change it willy nilly to suit them!
If politicians can just bin off their core tax pledges the moment things get difficult, voters have no reason to believe anything in a manifesto.
It obviously breaks a manifesto pledge, but realistically, if the government needs to fund major priorities like expanding defence, this is going to happen. While threshold freezes and tax hikes penalise working people, broad tax levers are how the state raises real money. It’s an unwelcome hit, but an unavoidable financial reality.
Manifestos need to be made legally binding, not give them even more freedom to lie their way into power and then take a giant dump on the electorate when they feel like it.
The manifesto a government is elected on should be a binding contract between them and the electorate. If a government can’t deliver it should resign and call new elections.
The government extortionate our money and waste it on a whole host of ludicrous passion DEI projects. They have zero legitimacy in giving away money to foreigners when our nation is hurting so much
Rise taxes raise taxes is always their only answer instead of actually managing our finances. They are quick to send £B's of our money to foreign countries & £BILLIONS on immigrants in UK instead on us. Every time Labour gets in they bankrupt us & sells us out to EU dictorship. Labour us our enemy
A manifesto sets out intentions, but no government governs in a vacuum. When circumstances change, responsible leadership means adapting to reality rather than clinging to a promise that no longer serves the public.