The difference between a manifesto promise and a pledge

By Tim Swift

I wrote an earlier post saying why I thought the Lib Dems had got themselves into particular difficulties over tuition fees. In summary, my argument was that there is a difference between a commitment in the manifesto – which it’s reasonable to argue is a statement of what you hope to do if in power – and a specific, individual pledge about how you as one MP will vote.

Nick Clegg is trying to argue that the manifesto commitment cannot be binding if you don’t win a majority. I agree, but this does not help him and his colleagues with the quite specific individual pledge they all gave to vote against an increase in tuition fees.

That’s just the point Nick Robinson has picked up this morning, commenting on the call by more than 100 Lib Dem Parliamentary candidates for the Parliamentary Lib Dems to honour their pledge.

The letter from the candidates gets it exactly right, and points out precisely why Nick Clegg’s argument is wrong, this is a pledge that cannot be broken due to the nature in which it was signed and publicised during the 2010 general election. This separates it from manifesto promises that have had to be sacrificed due to the concessions that coalition government brings.

The fact is that this is an issue the Lib Dems should have resolved during the coalition negotiations. It’s clear that Clegg and Laws in particular were so keen to come to a coalition arrangement with the Conservatives that they ignored this and hoped it would go away. It was never going to, and now they are facing the consequences. It is hard to see an outcome that does not end in tears.