How long do politicians keep their promises?

[Askold]

Because few days ago Ben Zyskowicz posed with students and promised that there will be no cuts to education. Three (3) days later he proposed that the goverment should cut money from education.

http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/politics/13253-zyskowicz-calls-for-2-6bn-spending-cuts.html

I know I shouldn't be surprised anymore but usually politicians at least have the decency to wait until the voters have forgotten about the promises. Or at least they would wait until the promise is no longer in the news.

Ben Zyskowicz (NCP) has proposed that public spending be reduced by 2.6 billion euros – equivalent to roughly five per cent of the current national budget...

 ...cutting back on transfer payments made by the Social Insurance Institution of Finland (Kela), such as benefits for families with children, student final aid and basic unemployment allowances.

EDIT: For the record, Zyskowicz is now furious because he does not understand how people see some kind of conflict with his words and actions. He says that he isn't cutting any money from education, he is simply taking away money from students. There is apparently a major difference.

In a way he is right, the cuts he proposed will simply mean that poor families are less likely to have their kids go to schools, while cutting straight from the schools would hurt everyone, this merely hurts poor youths.

[Ultimate Paragon]

This raises a question: does power corrupt. or does it attract the corruptible?  Or does it do both?

[R. U. Sirius]

I'd say it's probably both. Linked closely to this is my opinion that the only people who can be trusted with power are those who want it least.

[Sylvana]

This raises a question: does power corrupt. or does it attract the corruptible?  Or does it do both?

They did a simple test to prove that power and having an advantage changes how a person acts. So really its both, and the worst thing is even if you give power to the person who least wants it, it will end up corrupting them too.

As for the original question, politicians just dont keep promises. From the moment those promises float out of their mouths they are already lies. If there is one thing I have learned looking at global politics, it is that no matter who come into power, or says what, everything stays the same. It is quite depressing really. Politicians will say ANYTHING to get elected, but they will have already planed out their actions and co-operation with other politicians long in advance.

Personally I feel that the world would run better if we rounded up all politicians and hurled them into the sun.

[I am lizard]

That would either result in ww3 with the resulting power struggle or turn most democracies on earth into totalitarian hellholes. (Yes I know you aren't seriouse)

[RavynousHunter]

Could we compromise and just hurl the regressives into the sun?

[Ironchew]

As for the original question, politicians just dont keep promises.

What an incredibly naive statement.

Many politicians keep their promises. The problem is those promises are made to their biggest campaign donors, not their constituents.

[I am lizard]

As for the original question, politicians just dont keep promises.

What an incredibly naive statement.

Many politicians keep their promises. The problem is those promises are made to their biggest campaign donors, not their constituents.

#DESTROYTHEBOURGEOISIE

[Sylvana]

As for the original question, politicians just dont keep promises.

What an incredibly naive statement.

Many politicians keep their promises. The problem is those promises are made to their biggest campaign donors, not their constituents.

Those are not so much promises as binding contracts for the politician. Generally by the time a politician has risen high enough to begin sprouting promises to constituents, they have already been bought completely and proven their allegiance to their owners.

[Sigmaleph]

I don't think it's a matter of contracts or allegiance. It's the much simpler fact that money keeps flowing.

If I break a promise to the people who elected me, I won't see the consequences until the next electoral cycle, at which point they probably forgot, and even if not the alternative is voting for the other guy who has also broken campaign promises. There is no reliable retribution. In a world where campaign promises were a sacred oath and breaking them was anomalous, voter punishment might make a difference, but we don't live there.

A campaign donor, on the other hand, can give me money whenever they want, and thus also stop giving me money whenever they want. Even if the other guy also breaks their promises to donors, they can find someone else to prop up, or simply save their money and spend it in yachts or whatever. I will feel the consequences right away.

Reinforcement is much more effective when it's immediate rather than delayed.

[Lt. Fred]

A two party system gives far too much freedom to each party. Parties can choose to take certain action in the knowledge that
1) It will never be overturned
2) They will face only modest short term consequence - perhaps they will be out of office for a few terms, but
3) They will ultimately be back.

If a third party fundamentally betrayed their base - say, if the Greens decided the environment wasn't so important - they'd be instantly exterminated. This is why two-party democracy isn't.

[Askold]

I think the biggest problem with two party system is that anything that has less than 50% support won't ever work AND 51% support is enough to do most things. So, not only does this shut down all small causes it also means that a cause that is just barely above 50% can and will succeed (apart from occasions when you need 2/3 support or something.)

[Lt. Fred]

I think the biggest problem with two party system is that anything that has less than 50% support won't ever work AND 51% support is enough to do most things. So, not only does this shut down all small causes it also means that a cause that is just barely above 50% can and will succeed (apart from occasions when you need 2/3 support or something.)

I wouldn't mind so much if a majority of people actually wanted something. What I object to is "bipartisanship" - that is, not giving them a choice.

If both parties want something - say, privatisation - how do you express your desire not to privatise? You can't. You can either vote 1 privatisation or vote 1 privatisation. Bipartisanship is the opposite of democracy.

[Sylvana]

Two party systems are completely broken.
How multi-party systems work is that each small group of representatives votes according to that parties ideals and so things only pass when a group of parties want it to. With the two party state they are either both identical, or they are stubbornly opposites of each other. there is no nuance in the positions.

[Lt. Fred]

The one great advantage of multi-party systems is that parties are in a constant state of fear. They know if they betray the fundamental values of their party - say, if a Green party decides to wreck the environment, or roll back action on climate change - that they will be instantly stricken from the pages of history, never to be heard from again. This is a very good thing.

The problem with a multi-party system is that stupid people tend to vote for parties that don't stand for anything, that have no reason for existing - because they have a nice name, or because their boss told them too, or because it has a charismatic leader. In my country, the climate saboteur and billionaire Clive Palmer has a political party. It's essentially a vanity project. This is why we should eat the rich (after banning private campaign donations). I have a theory as to why people vote for an unlikeable blowhard billionaire with no stated policy; I call it peasant-think. A mixture of deep anti-intellectualism, a (justified) lack of self-esteem and above all a juvenile disregard for passion.