The manifesto mandate is an abortion of an idea. Every party makes impossible promises to the voters and as things never work out over the 5 years as planned things have to change. And manifestos are mainly advertising ploys - so need simple ideas for the people to grasp: "save the NHS!" "New Labour, New Danger!"
It's getting older, but the invasion of Iraq was not on any party's manifesto - nor was any stipulation about the party's level of Jingoism. Labour wanted to do it, and the Tories didn't want to be the party not in on it should things go well. Most people were against it - but so what?
Radical swings of ideals means that we get a decade of stripping out levels of bureaucracy, giving power locally followed by a decade of centralising and targets (inaccurate broad brush statements I know). Structures take time to be sorted out, and often before they've even started to get into swing they're being radically altered by the other lot. A more nuanced approach with slow, subtle changes would work a hell of a lot better.
Manifestos would have to become more... grown up. Core beliefs that can not be altered and those which can. If parties could avoid suicidal statements that would be good too. Allow the voters to see the likely outcome of groupings in Parliament as opposed to two diametrically opposed forces.
![]()
Bookmarks