This could be simply be pandering to their rabid base.

While I don't agree with this line of policy and would never vote tory, this criticism does amuse me. What exactly is it that's unacceptable about a political party 'pandering' to the people who vote for it? Isn't that actually the fundamental principle of party democracy? Wouldn't we equally be pointing the finger and calling them 'remote' and even 'undemocratic' if they weren't doing what the people who vote for them wanted them to do?

If tory part voters want the tory party to use their phalanx of MPs to push a particular policy through the house, that's exactly what they should do. You may vehemently disagree with the policy, but to decry the very fact it might happen is anti-democratic of itself.

Each party is hoping that you remember that they said this or that in the election and vote for them over the rest.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/12/william-hague-tory-mps-eu-veto

Unfortunately for them, I plan to remember what they said they'd do before the last election, and then what they actually did.

Hague actually making sense? That must be a first.

The way to veto EU law is to leave the EU. The UK government signed up to follow EU decisions for a reason. He actually makes the case why the UK (or any other country) can't just veto the EU. Either you want the benefits the EU brings with it, or you leave. The problem is, the UK has never really joined the EU and has pretty much ignored any benefits in order to make the EU look bad.

Unfortunately for them, I plan to remember what they said they'd do before the last election, and then what they actually did.

Unfortunately for Labour I plan to remember the state they left the country's finances in before the last election.

With the Tories aversion to spending, I think they would have borrowed less when the economy was doing well, that would have allowed more room for manouver to borrow when the crisis hit (I don't believe any party would have had the foresight or the balls to tame the banks before the crisis happened).
Labour's inability to balance a budget, even in prosperous times, has left us with serious issues. The cuts may not have had to be quite as deep (though they would still be deep) as they have been.
The scale of the national debt is a result of Labour claiming they'd banished 'boom and bust' forever, while all the time spending money they didn't have to set us up for the biggest bust ever. Sure it wins votes as people like money being spent on services. But someone's got to pay for it. The next generation are being saddled with debt because Labour wanted to have their cake and eat it.

The general rule is governments' borrow during hard times and pay it back when the economy is doing well.

Unfortunately for Labour I plan to remember the state they left the country's finances in before the last election.