\n“Broken promise” was a term oft heard in the 80s. My memory is that government spending cuts were frequently discussed back then. Conventional wisdom was that, campaigning, a party wouldn’t mention spending cuts, but rather the opposite. From office, they’d later cut programs or fail to deliver new ones they’d committed to during the campaign.\n<\/p>\n
\nOn first thought, in a democracy, such practices shouldn’t be possible long-term, since a party that breaks a promise can be removed from office next time. However, there is a way that a party can get away with breaking a promise: if people don’t really care.<\/p>\n
\nMost parties like to be in power. Once there, they have vast resources to carry on research about what voters “really” want. Moreover, people’s priorities can change in a few years. Therefore, what seemed a prominent issue the year before the last election, may barely matter now – at least to voters.\n<\/p>\n
\nPoliticians have to “live in the moment,” because their voters do. I don’t believe I recall a party getting voted out because they broke a promise.\n<\/p>\n
\nSource:<\/p>\n
theprovince.com<\/a><\/p>\nJack of Oracle Tutoring by Jack and Diane,<\/a> Campbell River, BC.\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Self-tutoring about politics: the tutor reflects about promises. “Broken promise” was a term oft heard in the 80s. My memory is that government spending cuts were frequently discussed back then. Conventional wisdom was that, campaigning, a party wouldn’t mention spending …<\/p>\n