This is the fifth General Election since the Institute was formed in 2003. In most of them, we have rigorously analysed Party Manifestos to examine their commitments to consult and gradually learnt that it is not a reliable clue as to how consultative a new Government might be.

For the record, the Labour Party have six commitments to consult:-

• Re-opening railway branch lines
• Legal aid for civil cases
• Staffing for Fire & Rescue organisations
• Addressing gender imbalance in creative industries
• Statutory protection for religious communities
• A representative body for Armed Forces

Important issues in their own right, no doubt, but hardly the issues that will turn the election.

The Conservatives intend to consult on:-

• A Police Protection Bill doubling sentences for some assaults
• Phasing out diesel engine cars
• A National Skills Fund
• Flexible working by default
• A ban on exporting plastic waste to non-OECD countries

The Liberal Democrats propose consultations on:-

• A National Health & Care Tax
• A Living Wage

Ostensibly, these are the issues where the parties say they want to take consultee views into account. In reality, they would all consult far more widely. Manifestos are as much about style than substance. Politicians strive to appear decisive and determined. As Elizabeth Gammell and I wrote in the opening chapter of The Politics of Consultation.

“Elections favour those with certainty in their souls. We expect our future leaders to know what they believe and to admit of few doubts. It’s probably rather like religion. Worshipping in the church of the doubtful sounds a little tentative. One of the reasons for going there is to hear the clarion call of those whose lien on righteousness cannot be denied. The politician who admits of too many uncertainties is a bit of a rarity.”

Yet the political landscape has rarely looked more uncertain. Informed commentators universally believe that promises made will be very difficult if not impossible to keep. Beneath the headline rhetoric, there are ample signs that potential Ministers understand this; note how many proposals lack the detail that can withstand serious scrutiny. Consultation will remain – as it does now – a key element in policy-making and an important mechanism for converting vague commitments into practical propositions. Whoever wins, Whitehall will continue to consult.

But can we be as sure that Governments will take proper account of consultation?

Regardless of Party, Ministers’ track-records are not impressive. Too many have been happy to go through the motions and several have failed the ‘conscientious consideration’ test when challenged in the Courts. Gradually, civil servants are finding it best to advise politicians that playing fast and loose with consultations is too big a risk. And fortunately, there are other forces at work.

Trust in our institutions, including the UK Parliament, is at such a low ebb. The days when we vote them in and let them get on with it, have long gone. The public’s opinions have become the checks and balances in the system. The volume of public engagement will continue to rise, driven in part by social media and consultation on the move. The really difficult issues like behaviour-change to tackle climate change will oblige our leaders to persuade and secure support. Steamrolling their chosen solutions, irrespective of stakeholder opinions will not sound fair or sensible. So they will consult.

For all these reasons, who wins next Thursday probably makes no difference to the prevalence or the role of policy consultations. What the priority consultations might be about is quite another matter, and to make that assessment, we have to wait another week.