Postage Stamp Chat Board & Stamp Bulletin Board Forum
 

Should politicians be forced to keep promises? They all make them, some of them may even intend to keep them! We have all seen politicians make promises to get elected, only to break them after they win power. Every party does it.

From John Howard's core and non-core promises to Julia Guillard's "There will be no price on carbon under a government I lead".

Now I need to qualify something here, the only promises that I think count are those actually made during an election campaign. The idea that John Howard's statement that the GST is dead, after the coalition lost the 1993 election (fought, in large part, on taxation) does not count, not for me anyway. However, Paul Keating's promise on the L A W law tax cuts does, He reneged as soon as the election was over. He broke an election promise and, since he was the incumbent, he couldn't claim circumstances were not what he expected when he took up the reins of power.

Julia Guillard could have said that the carbon tax was necessary because, as a minority government, they had to have the green's support and the carbon tax was a price of that support. She didn't though, she lied and obfuscated. She said she had been misunderstood and that carbon tax was the right policy. Unfortunately, that is the norm for our current Prime Minister. She has very little credibility left, so little that I am not sure I wouldn't look outside to check if she said it was daytime.

John Howard used the fig leaf of the budget being in a far worse mess than he had been led to believe after he won the 1996 election. There was some truth to that, so should he be held to account for broken election promises or not? I am somewhat ambivalent, I must admit.

But what is an election promise anyway? Is it something the party leader says on the campaign trail? Does it only count if it is reflected in the election manifesto or documented policies?

Of course, the next question is, "What should happen if an election promise is broken?" Currently, there is no consequence (other than odium with the electorate) for breaking a promise. Julia Guillard has turned it into an art form and is suffering for it in the polls. She is hoping she can get the nasty stuff out of the way before she has to face the electorate again, late next year (assuming she doesn't fall sooner).

The only sanction for breaking election promises is how the voters react at the next election. And voters often have a very short memory.

So, back to the first question, should politicians be required to honour election promises? If so, how?

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

Silly boy .. we would have zero Politicians if they stuck to that rule.

"The first week in office I will direct we close Gitmo Bay" is one I seem to recall hearing from Obama?

Would it be such a bad thing if we got rid of most of our current politicians?

Seriously though, if a politician breaks a promise perhaps they need to have to justify the decision in a court. If they can convince a jury that they were justified in breaking the promise then fine. If not there would be some sort of repercussion, perhaps forcing a re-election. If politicians knew they would be held properly accountable, they just might be less inclined to make promises they did not intend to keep.

An example, the former Brumby government in Victoria promised (methaphorically swore on a stack of bibles) that the new Eastlink freeway in Melbourne's east would not be tolled. It would be built as a public-private partnership. It ridiculed the Opposition for suggesting that there might have to be shadow tolls.

Three months after retaining power, the government came out and said it couldn't afford to build the road and a private consortium would do it and it would be tolled. There is evidence to suggest the decision was made before the election and that the promise was a deliberate falsehood.

They had 4 years before they would need to go back to the electorate and they (correctly as it turned out) reasoned that people would forget and that there would be other issues to worry about by that time.

If there was some system for holding the government accountable, legally, then perhaps the promise would not have been made in the first place.

The process should hold equally true for an opposition that made promises and then won office.

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

Peter. Politicians lie! Thats a basic requirement if you wish to enter politics. No matter how many try and fool you and me and in some cases even themselves, into believing they are the honest ones. The're not! they are just liars in training to become thieves.

The day a politician willingly keeps a promise. Sewers will start running backwards, and you know what we will all be in then!

Huanga.

Huanga, even if I agree with your statement that all politicians lie (which I don't), why does that mean that we have to continue to put up with it? Why NOT make the bastards accountable?

Perhaps we might even get a better quality of candidate in such circumstances?

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

In the real world. We have to put up with them Peter because for the most part, they control our lives. That is the politicial party system. In addition a great many of them are members of politicial dynasties, and if we demand too much accountability. Well, they will rally round the party and change the law to suit, and no matter how much or how often we protest. No great change will ever come from them..............unless we force it on them through the barrel of of a bloody big gun!

That as you know, is not on the cards for our part of the world. Therefore we will continue to allow them to increase the family dynasty, pillage our taxes, and steal what they can. Until one day some maverick newspaper in desperation and in need of a story, will go after them and cause such embarrassment that a few of the excessively greedy will be rotated. But we will just go on complaining about what scum they are!

Blame the Poms.........who in turn can blame the Normans!

Huanga.

Hang 'em from a meat hook.

Worked for Mussolini, and most of the b*ggers we end up with these days deserve the same fate...

Some politicians are at least honest about lying.

Ferenc Gyurcsány's now famous speech to his party in 2006.

"...No European country has done something as boneheaded as we have. It can be explained. We have obviously lied throughout the past one and a half-two years. It was perfectly clear that what we were saying was not true. We are beyond the country's possibilities to such an extent that we could not conceive earlier that a joint government of the Hungarian Socialist Party and the liberals would ever do. And in the meantime, by the way, we did not do anything for four years. Nothing. You cannot mention any significant government measures that we can be proud of, apart from the fact that in the end we managed to get governance out of the sh*t. Nothing."

Source: Wikipedia.

Get real; circumstances change. Obviously politicians may lie to get elected but also circumstances may massively change due to world circumstances beyond that which was foreseen. Now 'apparently' all US politicians loathe to be called 'flip flops' but it's fine to change to your mind - or break promises - when circumstances change. (In fact, America, any politician who can not change his mind when circumstances change is a moron.)

Jack, please read what I wrote before telling me to 'get real'. I agree that circumstances change, which is why I suggested that the opportunity needs to exist to present reasons for breaking a promise. If they can convince an appropriate panel that the reasons were justified then no problem.

If, however, they cannot justify their reasons then those reasons probably weren't compelling and they will be deemed to have broken a promise 'unlawfully'.

Do I think this will happen? Of course not! Politicians would have to pass the necessary legislation. In Australia, even a change to the Constitution requires legislation through Parliament authorising the putting of a question regarding constitutional change to a referendum.

But, just because it probably won't happen isn't a reason to consider the proposal inappropriate.

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

Welcome to the world of Democracy and Capitalism!!!

As my dad once said when he arrived from Soviet Russia in Oz -1948-

Wonderful thing freedom ...but it cost a lot of money!!!

' why I suggested that the opportunity needs to exist to present reasons for breaking a promise. If they can convince an appropriate panel that the reasons were justified then no problem. '

And the paperwork is enormous; the one thing to avoid. What's a promise? We elect people not merely for the past but for the future. We elect them to lead. Circumstances can change so quickly that an immediate response is needed. That's why we elect against a set of ideas ; left / centre / right so when emergency situations occur a response can be made against what the people have supported.

Otherwise we get bogged down to 'but you said the new road was going one block to the left of my hous'e pointless argument. How many panels waste of time do you think we all have... Or 'they said they would pick up my rubbish at 8am, now it's 7.30 am' send it to the panel...

It's this over citizen control which has made California a basket case...

At least, unlike in the old USSR, we get to vote the bastards out every so often.

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

Yes they should be forced to keep promises by signing a contract of some sort. We are bound by contracts,agreements every day of the week.

If they did the scumbags might even get some respect.

I'm surprised nobody has yet mentioned the two great BBCTV series "Yes Minister" which was followed by "Yes Prime Minister".

If anyone thought a politician made any decisions without consultation and advice from the Permanent Head of their Department then they just have to look at any one of the episodes of those programs to get a reality check

Here's some perfect examples of taken from Jonathan Lynn's great website:

http://www.jonathanlynn.com/tv/yes_minister_series/yes_minister_episode_quotes.htm

"We have decided to be more flexible in our application of this principle' means 'We are dropping this policy but we don't want to admit it publicly'."

"'The matter is under consideration' means we have lost the file. 'The matter is under active consideration' means we are trying to find the file."

"The Prime Minister doesn't want the truth, he wants something he can tell Parliament."

"Politicians must be allowed to panic. They need activity. It is their substitute for achievement."

And there are more gems in that website worth reading through

_________________
Tony

Tony, I loved those 2 shows when they first aired. I even have them on DVD. However, I sincerely doubt they represent any actual reality.

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

I think they should all sign contracts when they get in to make all of their promises 'legalised', and fine them for every promise they break !

Darrin.

_________________
Visit my Website - http://WWW.DJMSTAMPS.COM for Australia & World Stamps, Collections and Accessories

I work in local government, and believe me, "Yes Minister" is exactly how it works.

We have "Yes Councillor", but it's exactly the same.

Having autism, I tend to be direct and say what I mean. My correspondence is sometimes intercepted ... "You can't say 'we have rejected that propsal', you must say 'we are considering it'". That way they don't get annoyed, and given enough time they will forget about it.

But in reality, they (ratepayers) don't forget. I'm now trying to fix promises made by our politicians as far back as 25 years. Annual rate bills seem to have a bigger reminding factor than annual tax returns.

I don't believe having politicians (ie, representative democracy) is democratic at all. It is government by political part and/or their sponsors ... NOT by the people.

I would prefer direct democracy ... but haven't actually seen it work at a bigger scale than village level.

_________________
A man might as well marry ... if he finds a good wife he will be happy ... if not, he will become a philosopher.
Collecting Greater New Guinea & Macropods (Kangaroos & Wallabies).

I worked in a NSW Govt. department for a while and we were told that a new educational building had been promised by the local politician for a certain rural area.

Given that the town already had more than enough educational buildings we questioned the decision. A very abrupt reply came back from the Minister (verbally only of course) that one had to be built and that was that.

Apparently the Minister had promised another building during the elections as the neighbouring electorate had just had one built.

No guesses as to what happened to the $10 million building after it was completed, yep it lay unoccupied for a year or two until it was used by other Govt. departments for storage, offices, etc.

That's just one small example of how politicians carefully spend taxpayers money

_________________
Tony

I will back Peters idea 100% PeterS for P.M. I say.

_________________
Nunawading Stamp Fair
Last Sunday of Every Month - Jaycees Hall Silver Grove - Nunawading.

I didn't realise you hated me that much, Ron, that you would wish that on me!

The only position I would want would be Benevolent Dictator, thanks very much!

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

Start your OWN Bulletin Board.

Glen

Ah well then, Glen for P.M.

_________________
Nunawading Stamp Fair
Last Sunday of Every Month - Jaycees Hall Silver Grove - Nunawading.

Then we would all have to emigrate!

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

Trust me on this one Peter. At least at Victorian Government level, these two shows reflected actual reality in a way that you would not even believe unless you were there, and personally involved. Just one example Since this can not be found at this very late date, I will cite it.

Many years ago, I had a proposal approved at Cabinet level which set a series of Statutory Fees at a level which fully recovered the costs of providing the service, as required by my Permanent Head.

The following year, again at the request of my Permanent Head, I convinced the exact same Cabinet that the exact same fees needed to increase 300% to reach full cost recovery.

When people wanted Statatistics and Statistical Analysis, my first question was always "What do you want me to prove?"

Norm

_________________
Geelong, VFA Premiers 1878, 1879, 1800, 1882, 1883, 1884, 1886, AFL Premiers 1925, 1931, 1937, 1951, 1952, 1963, 2007, 2009, 2011, .

I agree they should; Here in the US we have Presidential candidates telling lies about each other and gutting each other. The day a politician tells the truth the world will end. That is the one thing we of the world have in common, besides coke cola is lieing politicians.

If Politicians were held accountable for their promises then all you would end up getting are Politicians like we have here in the US, ones that make no promises to do anything.

_________________
"Life is a tough Teacher, it gives you the test first and the lesson later"
Anonymous

I bet they all make promises at election time.

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

It would be nice if politicians could somehow be forced to keep promises, however as they have control of all the means of enforcement there is only one way that is going to happen.

(And those that overthrow them will no doubt fail to keep their own promises.)

Actually, in a country like Australia with a written Constitution, the politicians don't control all the means of enforcement. In fact, in all western democracies the politicians are constrained by the rule of law. The court system is independent completely in Australia, no judges are elected (even though they are appointed by politicians) and cannot be deposed except for specific bad acts.

I do agree that it would need politicians to create the necessary legislation, though.

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

Peter, you are in a better position than I am to research and comment on the following.

It is my understanding that within Australia there is a Court which already delves into electoral matters ( from memory it may be called the Court of Disputed returns or some such; and it may be a special sitting of a Federal Court or the High Court). If such a court exists then it must have Terms of Reference which would/could be subject to amendment or extension.

The second option which I know operates in some countries is if there are sufficient signers of a petition, an election or referendum must be held. Is there anything such as that in the Australian Constitution or Parliamentary Procedures?

A third option if you want to spend the time is to establish a lobby group to get those standing for election to give their views (BEFORE the election) on where they would stand if legislation to change the Constitution and/or Parliamentary Procedures were to be enacted to suspend any politician/s who renege on electoral promises. The inference of course being that if you don't agree we will vote against you'

Pie in the sky stuff but you/we have to start somewhere, and from what I hear you/we may be going to the polls sooner rather than later.

I think I prefer the Swiss option. Every major policy issue is put directly to the people- that is, out of the hands of the politicians. The people determine policy, the government manages (usually to stuff it all up ).

PS blame Huanga for me posting here-he told me about this thread.

Of course we could take a leaf out of Livingston's (the one standing for Mayor of London) book and have a 'Hang a politician each week until they get the message' month.

Bingo. Do you think all that pie in the sky Obama promised... he didn't think he could at least accomplish most of it? Then, when you are President elect, you sit with the current President every morning and get the same security briefings he does. Then your hair immediately starts turning grey. Check out pictures of all of them before and after. You don't really know until you are in that office.

_________________
Always looking for modern Canada on paper!
Topical Interests: Disney, Boats/Sailing Ships/Lighthouses, Horses/Horsedrawn, Butterflies/Insects, and Trains - E-mail me with descriptions or scans if you have some!

Actually most don't. The Campaign managers coach the Politicians through the pre-election things to do and say and what not to do and say. Any controversial subject is usually avoided as it could cost them votes by standing on one side of the line. Our Presidential primary debates have turned into mud slinging contests and a group of people that over state the obvious.

Politics in the US are strict Party line when instead we need bi-partisanship, which means that Politicians such as Obama know that their hands are tied as he has to go toe to toe with a Republican held Congress. Therefore most know not to make promises that they can't control, and they instead come up with wish lists.

_________________
"Life is a tough Teacher, it gives you the test first and the lesson later"
Anonymous

Check out the "Obamameter" at this site. They keep track of political promises, and whether they were kept, broken, stalled, compromised, etc. It's a cool overview.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

_________________
Always looking for modern Canada on paper!
Topical Interests: Disney, Boats/Sailing Ships/Lighthouses, Horses/Horsedrawn, Butterflies/Insects, and Trains - E-mail me with descriptions or scans if you have some!

The Court of Disputed Returns is only to resolve matters relating specifically to an Election matters. It is under the Auspices of the High Court (for Federal Elections), which will generally delegate the function to the Federal Court. It is set up under Part XXII of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

There are similar structures in the States, for State Elections, generally under the auspices of the relevant Supreme Court.

Those courts could certainly be used to hold politicians to account, providing the appropriate legislation was in place.

Given that the High court is the last point of appeal, such a case would best be heard in the Federal Court or by a single High Court Judge sitting alone. That would then allow an avenue for appeal to the full Bench of the High Court.

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

Pretty funny site. If you follow the Party lines here it is pretty accurate as the "Promises" that were not kept are the ones that go after taxing the wealthiest and things along those lines as the Republicans control 52 chambers going into the 2012 elections while Democrats control 31. The Republicans basically are the good old boy network here of the Wealthiest Americans.

_________________
"Life is a tough Teacher, it gives you the test first and the lesson later"
Anonymous

In Iceland, the former Prime Minister, Geir Haarde, is placed on trial for his negligence in handling the 2008 financial crisis which severely undermined Iceland's economy.

Mr. Haarde is accused of negligence because he had not ensured financial safeguards were in place.

The proceedings against the former PM are held at the Landsdomur court, a special body set up to try government ministers.

If convicted, he faces up to two years in prison.

Perhaps, this is a solution for mismanagement.

Source: BBC.