Make Manifestos more Binding with Seat Penalties and Parliamentary Recall

General and Other Policy
1

All Manifestos must categorise undertakings as:

  • Binding
  • Contingent
  • Aspirational

Binding: Failure to commence an action for a Binding commitment in the first year automatically triggers a Parliamentary Recall petition.

Contingent: The Contingent policies must clarify the contingent conditions. If they are met, the policy BECOMES BINDING, with a one-year or End-of-Parliament time limit.

Aspirational: Does what it says on the tin! However, having the money from growth to fund aspirational policies should be seen as a feather in the administration’s cap.

Every party must commit to a UK Growth First Agenda and define its meaning.

Every party WITH MPs AND which wishes to partake in the NEXT General Election must sign a declaration IN ADVANCE that they have examined all current and future spending commitments and growth forecasts in the Parliamentary Record—no more fictitious Black Holes.

New parties with no MPs and Independents are exempt because they cannot have access in the same depth.

Any party proven to have hidden or manipulated figures to leave a trap for the following Parliament will be forced to have Recall By-Elections in the seats with the lowest winning margin. The number of seats will be capped (TBA). The final penalty is set by a committee composed of all remaining parties or an independent panel. Independent MPs are excluded because of the possibility of manipulation.

The roles of PM and Chancellor are BARRED to anyone without experience in running a business with staff and a wage bill.

1 Like
2

how can maifestos be binding you would need to ban co alations and have some way of not encoraging makes it look like it was done instead of actually trying. I do agree though failing to delivery should be more of a thing but thats should change once the idea of blue to red neither deliver ends.
The will of the people must be made paramount even if they vote for mr blobby, Globalist agendas are the actual villian and now accountabilty to the electroate. would the panel you mention be in conflict with that? honestly im thinkinmg to be independant they may have to be somesort of trans national body. What about former prime minsters even truss has free of westminister suddenly gone sane.

Im thinking of times they all gathered to call out current governments actions

1 Like
3

I think Leaf is right There is a need to specify and to define what is meant by words like campaign pledge and maniesto. Perhaps a rewording of your proposal might help such as in cases of obvious defrauding of the electorate, (See the current Labour government for details) legal action must be taken with an option for a demand to be sent to the ruling monarch to dissolve government and to call for a new round of elections. Which should no longer be on a first past the post basis.

1 Like
4

The answer is, perhaps, to go further. To add detail on the policy, the detailed implementation of the policy, and a cost/benefit analysis.

I’ve always found the refusal to disclose policy until a General Election baffling. If your idea is so good that either the Government or Opposition steals it within months, you can point this out with the necessary dates to show you got there first. So that is not an argument against disclosure. I think the old-school parties don’t even bother coming up with ideas until the election is on the horizon.

That leaves four fallow years during which public discourse could be steered towards the policy, if it is controversial. It also means a policy found wanting by the electorate or suffering some weakness can be amended or discarded.

Furthermore, it becomes more difficult to steal the policy if it has been in accountable public ownership by the party that proposed it and has not been acted upon by the Government.

The problem about coalitions (very likely if we get the turkeys to vote for Single Transferable Vote) is an interesting one.

My initial response would be that the senior partner in the coalition gets first dibs. Measures would have to be put in place in the event of a tie. A tie of more than two is astronomically unlikely but should be catered for.

I’d like to see even more detail than proposed above. But here’s the rub … Parties with no seats have access to less information, and have less idea how to get it.

I asked Grok 3 the following question:
What access does the UK Parliament Opposition Party have to the ONS and OBR?

The answer is revealing: https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_0f7fd148-8711-4970-b3dc-ecfa60103b40

Then I followed up with this:

The bottom line is: The system inherently favours established parties with parliamentary representation, as they benefit from direct engagement, funding (Short Money), and influence over bodies like the ONS and OBR. New parties face a structural disadvantage, relying on publicly available data without the tailored support or insider access that seated parties enjoy.

Full Answer here: https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_b9db4d03-d5ba-4a9c-af8e-24a419995304

This fundamentally undermines the accountable Manifesto idea … If we want accountability, we have to fix that first, without disclosing sensitive or strategic information to foreign powers.