Broken Manifesto Promises

[Guest]

Considering child benefit hasn't yet been abolished and the Lib Dems didn't win the election I fail to see a "broken promise".

 

 

Universal child benefit is to be abolished despite a manifesto promise - broken promise.

Lib Dems backed down on their promise on University fees, and are sharing government - broken promise.

[Guest]

But you already knew that, didn't you?

 

Politicians have 2 goals:

 

If they are not in power - Get into power.

If they are in power - Stay in power.

 

Anything goes. Have you forgotten already how difficult it was to get Broon to move out of No 10? He lost the election - but he was still unwilling to pack his bags and go.

 

 

 

Universal child benefit never existed. There were exceptions. Some people did not get it.

 

How could the Tories abolish something which didn't exist?

 

 

How then, are they going to save money, by abolishing something which you claim never existed.

 

You are simply trying to be clever by making a play with words - you know full well what we are talking about - you know that child benefit is considered UNIVERSAL, and you know that some people are going to lose theirs.

[espadrille]

People did not vote for them to compromise - they voted for them on the basis of the promises they made. If they discover they cannot hold to those promises, a new election should be called with a new manifesto of promises they can keep.

 

The idea that consensus politics is a good thing is kind of the opposite to how our system works - we vote for a party to do what they promised to do!

 

Again, I refer you to my post no 13.

[I1L2T3]

Again, I refer you to my post no 13.

 

Wishy-washy tinkering on the fringes and little of it yet on the statute books. But if it makes you feel better against a backdrop of shattered pledges relating to core policy areas then that's nice.

[Rupert_Baehr]

How then, are they going to save money, by abolishing something which you claim never existed.

 

You are simply trying to be clever by making a play with words - you know full well what we are talking about - you know that child benefit is considered UNIVERSAL, and you know that some people are going to lose theirs.

 

Child benefit is not 'Universal' YOU are the one who was splitting hairs.

 

You said: "In recent weeks the Tories have broken their promise not to abolish universal child benefit..."

 

Alchresearch said"... child benefit hasn't yet been abolished ..."

 

and you replied by saying "...I said universal child benefit is to be abolished..."

 

Is that a play on words, or is it a play on words?

 

The number of people who are going to receive child benefit is going to be reduced. The people who will be losing child benefit are those who can afford to do without.

 

Are you suggesting that in a time when money is short, the state should pay benefits to people who don't need them?

 

I await your reply.

[Boblet]

The idea that consensus politics is a good thing is kind of the opposite to how our system works - we vote for a party to do what they promised to do!

 

But we don't - we elect an MP to represent the constituency we live in - some of us may decide who to vote for based on what political party he/she represents, but our system has never been that we elect a party

 

We may assume/hope that they will do what they said they would once they have been elected, but a politician's promise is not something you should put too much faith in

[Rupert_Baehr]

...All manifesto's are completely pointless then.

 

Pretty much.

 

In the last election, neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals were voted in. - Labour was voted out.

 

If you look back over elections during the last 50 years or more then every time a different party took power the reason for the change was that the people were fed up with the other lot.

[Rupert_Baehr]

But we don't - we elect an MP to represent the constituency we live in - some of us may decide who to vote for based on what political party he/she represents, but our system has never been that we elect a party

 

We may assume/hope that they will do what they said they would once they have been elected, but a politician's promise is not something you should put too much faith in

 

In the UK you elect Members of Parliament - not representatives. When they are competing for your vote they will listen to you. After that if it's a conflict between what you (or your constituency) wants and what the party wants, how many times does the MP vote against the party? - Not often.

 

If the electorate in a constituency are voting for somebody to represent that constituency - as opposed to a member of a political party - why are the candidates for the main parties usually selected by the central party and not selected by the local party?

 

The local party may have a say in who is selected, though they will usually have to make the choice from a list forced upon them by Party HQ and if they make the wrong choice they can expect to be asked to choose again.

 

What happens to an MP who ignores the party whip?

(S)he doesn't get promoted, for a start.

(S)he may be de-selected at the next general election.

In some cases, the whip may be withdrawn.

[taxman]

In some cases, the whip may be withdrawn.

 

Every public school Tory's worst nightmare

[Guest]

Child benefit is not 'Universal' YOU are the one who was splitting hairs.

 

You said: "In recent weeks the Tories have broken their promise not to abolish universal child benefit..."

 

Alchresearch said"... child benefit hasn't yet been abolished ..."

 

and you replied by saying "...I said universal child benefit is to be abolished..."

 

Is that a play on words, or is it a play on words?

 

The number of people who are going to receive child benefit is going to be reduced. The people who will be losing child benefit are those who can afford to do without.

 

Are you suggesting that in a time when money is short, the state should pay benefits to people who don't need them?

 

I await your reply.

 

 

Your quote: You said: "In recent weeks the Tories have broken their promise not to abolish universal child benefit..."

Wrong - Dell12 said that.

 

Child benefit is to be taken away from those with a parent earning £44,000 a year - this means that UNIVERSAL child benefit will have been abolished.

No play on words - that is fact.

The government has always referred to it as universal - I refer to it as universal and so does everyone else. If you want to "split hairs", call it what you like but you are out of step with everyone else.

 

I didn't argue whether those who lose child benefit can afford it - I am arguing, if you read my post, simply that it is a broken promise.

 

I am not making any suggestions regarding what the state should pay - I am suggesting only, that when politicians make promises, they should keep them.