The louder side lost. Yes carried the question by 346 votes to 327, despite the No camp producing more than three times as many arguments and the floor’s most respected submission warning that parties would “publish three pages of meaningless lawyer approved fluff”. The room wanted firmer promises, but was less convinced that judges could police them.
Yes voters made the case in blunt terms: “The just lie and lie and lie,” as one put it, arguing that legal force could “pin them to a mast”. The more developed Yes proposal was to distinguish between “absolute achievable aims” and looser aspirations, making the former enforceable without turning every manifesto into a constitutional minefield.
No voters were more numerous and more varied, but their central objection was consistent: government is not conducted in a vacuum. The sharpest version said a legal duty could leave ministers “forced to introduce legislation” even when it would cause “lasting, devastating harm”; another foresaw “everything in court with claims and counter claims” over what had really been delivered.
That left both sides agreeing on the underlying grievance: manifesto promises should carry consequences. They parted over the remedy, with Yes reaching for legal compulsion and No preferring political punishment, “strong political consequences for abandoning major pledges without good reason”, alongside independent scorecards and room to adapt.
The verdict is therefore narrower than its headline: voters here endorsed enforceability, but the debate’s intellectual weight remained with those who feared that accountability could harden into legal paralysis.
26 Opinions
If pledges were legally enforceable, parties would just publish three pages of meaningless lawyer approved fluff. Realistically, as much as we wish any govt would stick to manifesto pledges, they don't account for changing circumstances. Making them legally binding will harm us more than help us as voters as it doesn't allow for flexibility to changing times. We shouldn't be dragging judges into politics; kick the liars out on your polling car instead.
The thought is in the right place but they will obviously find slimy and underhanded ways of getting around this. They're going to end up basically promising nothing instead. If a party wins by a tiny majority then the opposition will block their agenda even more in order to hold them legally culpable.
The UK needs to put in place the building blocks for long term recovery. This will take more than one Parliament and the outcome will be affected by events not controllable by Parliament. One hopes that the scrutiny over manifesto will reduce the bare faced lies (a little).
That'd be ridiculous. As much as Governments should try to adhere to their manifestos, circumstances often change, so some aspects of the manifesto need to change or be slightly altered. This policy would mean a Government would be forced to introduce legislation even if it believed it would bring lasting, devastating harm.
No. We should have better education on the complexities of governing, so that ALL voters can vote properly based on actual understanding of how the entire world works, how systems succeed or fail and how to put serious thought to solving challenges for everyone together - not just self or their own tribe. We should also be weary of people with limited power on the surface but they bray the loudest and we can't seem to get a break from the hate & grifting rhetoric. SIGH.
One of the problems in the UK is Politicians only plan over a 2-3 year time frame and then go about getting themselves re-elected. I want a government to have vision and want it to run the UK in the best possible manner and that will require 2-3 terms to establish. If we do as the proposition suggests we will just get gimmicks they think they can implement. As a Nation we should be reducing the size of the State & our legislative burden not seeking to increase it.
Govts are already too short termist. Most important things take more than one term. Although you can have in-progress indicators for the first term so maybe...
A manifesto should be broken down to absolute achievable aims which can then be enforced against in the case of non delivery, and then a separate list of aspirational objectives within their term.
A nonsense suggestion. Governments have to adapt to world and domestic circumstamces. Manifestos are about a direction of travel and policy, but can be thrown off course by (e.g.) Brexit, Covid, the Ukraine invasion by Russia, Trump's lunatic actions.
When in government, parties cannot always carry out their programme. The May Govt was unable to pass its EU bill for instance. It is right to hold a government to account over its manifesto but making it a legal requirement to implement it does not take parliamentary reality into account