Accountability between elections

Status: Draft · Last reviewed: 29 September 2026

Four-year parliamentary terms would give governments more time to work on long-term problems. They would also give voters fewer chances to change course at an election. That makes visible progress, independent scrutiny, and public challenge during the term essential.

Too often, politics can seem focused on party advantage or the people with the easiest access to decision-makers. We want MPs to be judged by work the country can see and assess: better outcomes, honest explanations when a plan fails, and a record of whose views shaped the decision. Our lobbying proposal would make paid influence easier to trace.

This idea at a glance

The problem: Voters struggle to see whether election commitments are delivered between elections, a concern that would grow with four-year terms.
The proposed change: Publish a limited set of measurable commitments and ten-year goals, annual progress reports, and a midpoint public review.
Cost and funding: Public reporting, data, and independent review would require resources; a credible estimate is still needed before setting the final model.
Who benefits: Voters, communities affected by policy, and future governments would have a clearer record of results and lessons.
Who bears a cost or risk: Agencies would face reporting work, and simplistic targets could distort priorities or hide harder-to-measure outcomes.
Evidence and alternatives: Parliament already reviews agency performance. A lighter option would improve existing annual reviews without a separate commitment scorecard.
What could change our minds: If the reports add little insight, create excessive reporting work, or reward misleading targets, we would revise the measures and review process.

A public plan at the start of a term

Parties seeking to govern should put forward a small, clearly numbered set of priority commitments. For each one, they should publish a starting measure, the result they seek, a delivery timetable, an estimated cost and funding source, and the Minister responsible. The number and enforceable rules for those commitments still need public debate.

Those commitments should sit within ten-year goals for issues such as housing, health, education, infrastructure, and the environment. A government should explain when it continues, changes, or ends a previous government's work.

The ten-year goals are the shared waypoints; an election gives people a choice about the route. Annual reports should show whether the country is moving towards those goals, so a change of government does not erase the record of progress or failure.

Report every year

An annual public report should show, for every commitment and ten-year goal:

the latest measure beside its starting point and milestone;
spending against the published estimate, with reasons for major changes;
the evidence used to assess whether people's lives are improving;
what is delayed, abandoned, or causing harm, and what will change;
relevant lobbying contacts and interests, linked to the public register.

The report should use open data and plain-language summaries. Independent bodies and select committees should be able to test the claims, request underlying evidence, and question Ministers in public. Parliament already has an annual review process for public agencies; this proposal would make progress against stated political commitments easier for everyone to follow.

The report should also identify major projects a government has changed or cancelled, what was already spent, the cost of exit, and the expected cost and timing of the replacement plan. Our project continuity proposal explains the test we would apply before reversing a commitment.

Make public review count

We propose a public hearing after two years, the midpoint of a four-year term, with questions from MPs across parties and from affected communities, frontline workers, and local employers. The government would publish a response to the findings and an updated delivery plan. Voters should be able to compare the original promise with what happened, not just hear a new promise at the next election.

An unmet commitment should require a candid explanation and a corrective plan. We have not settled whether there should be a formal legal consequence for missing a target. Any rule would need to distinguish a broken promise from an honest response to new evidence or a crisis; it should not encourage governments to set trivial targets or hide bad results.

See how we test ideas · Read the governance proposals · Take part