Why are we not at a place where it’s illegal to stray from manifesto promises? It’s something that seems quite simple; we have consumer rights to protect us from purchasing a product that turns out to be faulty, damaged or compromised in some way as to what it was expected to be, during the purchase of the product/item. Why would you buy or intend to buy something that turns out to not be exactly that? Therefore, why do we as citizens not have some sort of voting protection, so there’s at least some form of procedure for manifesto pledges to not just be made on a whim, or made with the intention of receiving a nation of votes without having to procedurally stick to the pledges made to the country. Literally speaking, if you acted a certain way, and took specific stances that were presented to the public during election time, then essentially changed your stance and position on that issue once in power, there is nothing holding that individual to account or to their pledges, other than having the opportunity to vote them out at the next election cycle. That’s not exactly what it says on the tin is it. It’s deception and it feels like exactly that. If you were hired under the basis of the terms you took a stance on, there has to be some tether to those claims… surely? In business, upon creation of legal contracts between business partners, there are clear contractual obligations and expectations of both parties. Why would you go into business, or sign a contract with somebody, who later decides to act against the interests of the contract? In law, that is considered “bad faith” due to breach of contract, and is reason enough for the contract to be terminated.

The entire basis of a democratic vote rests upon the values said person preaches: Keir Starmer said in a manifesto before election “abolish the House of Lords”, but later tells Andrew Marr he wants to change it rather than abolish it. Is that considered false advertising to you? In November 2019, According to the Independent, Conservative candidate for Ashfield in Nottinghamshire, Lee Anderson, forgot he was wearing a live microphone while he phoned his friend to ask if he could pose as an anti-labour swing voter. He then proceeded to lie about the reason for the phone call, stating “some leaflets that have just come for me”. Is this what British elections have come to? Its entire integrity completely compromised because there are no obligations of British representatives to act with integrity. This has only worsened, since Boris Johnson removed all references to honesty, integrity, transparency and accountability in the Ministerial Code. This means that ministers who have been considered to mislead Parliament who were usually expected to resign, will no longer be the case. It’s funny isn’t it, honesty, integrity, transparency and accountability are all traits that show promise and morality of an individual. These are traits that I as an individual champion, in every aspect of my life. Why would you want a friend who isn’t honest? A boyfriend, a manager, work colleague, government minister, public service workers? Why is honesty targeted and removed? That, in itself is contradictory to the aims of having a house of Parliament. What is the point of having them there if they can act in disregard of integrity, they are only there because they have been voted in by the electorate. What is their intention and reason for being, if the government and ministerial code does not include obligations to acting with integrity and accountability. Just throw the whole thing in the bin!

There’s a difference between tactical voting & rigging the vote or political actors. But again, is the system even considered to be functioning then, once tactical vote are needed? Why do citizens need to vote tactically for something that is the will and of the opinion of the people? Tactical voting is therefore subject to the whims of the status quo and majority, which shows that democratic expression is impaired within this two-party system.