David Hick

Every three years, like clockwork, it happens again.

Politicians fan out across the country promising a brighter future. Lower taxes. Better hospitals. More police. Better schools. Cheaper transport. More houses. Less debt … and somehow, more spending.

It’s like a supermarket opening with free samples.

Everyone leaves with a full trolley …. and a vague feeling it was all too easy.

Of course, eventually someone has to pay.

The trouble is, under MMP, election promises have quietly changed.

Once upon a time, parties campaigned on what they intended to do if elected.

Now they campaign on what they’d like to do … subject to a few weeks of post-election horse trading.

Election Day has become the opening act. The real show starts once the votes are counted.

Coalition negotiations are where the fine print gets written.

Maybe MMP no longer stands for Mixed Member Proportional.

Maybe, depending on your patience level, it stands for Mostly Meaningless Promises.

Seasoned voters have heard it all before. These days, election promises tend to roll off like water off a duck’s back …. a polite nod, a raised eyebrow, and a quiet wait to see what survives coalition talks.

Every party confidently launches a manifesto. Every policy is “fully costed”. Every promise is “non-negotiable”.

Then the votes are counted.

Suddenly, those non-negotiable promises become … negotiable.

“It was always an aspiration.”

“That policy wasn’t a bottom line.”

“We’ve had to compromise.”

“We’ve secured other wins.”

Translated into plain English: the promise didn’t survive the coalition agreement.

And then there’s the money.

Election campaigns are remarkably generous when they’re spending other people’s cash. Tax cuts here, new spending there, subsidies everywhere.

It all sounds easier when it’s not your household budget.

Then election day passes, and the Treasury books arrive.

Suddenly the numbers are less “visionary” and more “inconvenient”.

The deficit is bigger than expected. Economic conditions have changed. Fiscal reality quietly walks into the room.

Yesterday’s “guaranteed commitment” becomes today’s “fiscal challenge.”

Of course, compromise is part of democracy. Most people understand that.

But it does leave a lingering question.

If parties already know many of their promises won’t survive coalition negotiations, why campaign as though they will?

Perhaps manifestos should come with a small asterisk:

*Subject to coalition negotiations, Treasury advice, economic conditions, international events, and whatever else turns up after Election Day.

Or maybe every billboard should simply read:

Terms and Conditions Apply.

It might be the first election promise everyone could actually believe.

Because under MMP, the manifesto isn’t a contract with voters. It’s merely the opening offer in a negotiation they don’t get to attend.