Do we put too much stock in so-called “political promises”?

How often do we hear people complain about broken promises and even some silly suggestions that politicians be held to every single word they say during an election campaign with punitive measures?

Why do we ignore the fact that circumstances change, obstructive senates get in the way and needs arise that may not have been evident before we went to the polls?

Which begs the follow up question, how important is a budget surplus? We know the Rudd/Gillard years saw the money in the bank run dry and the journey towards a huge debt began.

The current Government has outlined a pathway to a surplus that will see said debt paid off. It was a core promise of its election strategy.

But how the Prime Minister has hinted he may sacrifice the holy grail that is the surplus in order to help rural towns get through the drought.

So often we hear people scream “we should be helping the farmers” all the while having no idea what “helping the farmers” actually means.

But will we be so keen to help the farmers if sacrifices need to be made elsewhere? Will we complain about broken promises if the surplus is used to “help the farmers”?