The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has released its analysis of the political party manifestos as polling day approaches on July 4.
Here is a look at the response to the pledges made by the parties.
– What is the IFS?
The IFS is billed as an independent economics institute which aims to analyse and inform economic and policy decisions with “rigorous analysis”.
Its verdicts on major spending decisions, including those contained in the budget and election manifestos, are often keenly awaited by Westminster watchers.
– What is the institute’s latest intervention during the General Election campaign?
IFS director Paul Johnson led a two-hour briefing in which he and his colleagues provided an in-depth look at the challenges facing the next government and the potential impact of the manifesto pledges made by the parties.
– Is the IFS happy with the information provided by the parties?
No. The institute has said the manifestos of Labour and the Conservatives provide little information about the funding outlook for individual services, which makes it easier for them to stay silent on any cuts to unprotected budgets.
While the IFS acknowledged it did not expect the parties to outline comprehensive spending plans, it added they could have provided more details on their priorities and rough minimums or totals for different areas of spending.
Existing government departmental spending plans run until the end of March 2025, with a new comprehensive spending review expected within months of the election.
Mr Johnson said both parties have maintained a “conspiracy of silence” on their spending plans and people will be voting in a “knowledge vacuum” on July 4.
– Why does this matter?
The IFS says Labour and the Tories have ignored the big challenges facing the next government and it has rubbished their claims of providing “fully costed” manifestos.
It notes that specific policies have been costed by the parties but it is harder to grasp overall spending for each public service and where cuts might fall.
Mr Johnson said there are “huge decisions” expected over the size and shape of the state, adding it is likely to mean “higher taxes or worse public services”.
He added both parties are committed to ensuring that debt is falling in five years, adding it “really constrains” them and neither have “faced up” to the “painful choices” required.
Tax locks – pledges not to increase specific taxes or tax rates – have also been made by both parties, something Mr Johnson labelled a “mistake” as it will “constrain” their options in future.
– What will the parties have to do?
The IFS believes the next government, unless it gets “lucky”, will have to do one of three things: make tax rises beyond their manifesto pledges, implement spending cuts or increase borrowing – and therefore go against their fiscal rules.
Mr Johnson said: “What will they choose? I don’t know, the manifestos do not give us a clue.”
– Were there words of encouragement for the other parties?
Not really. Mr Johnson noted Reform UK and the Green Party have helped to “poison the political debate” by suggesting their “radical reforms can realistically make a positive difference” when their proposals are “wholly unattainable”.
He said: “It makes the other parties look feeble when you say ‘we could do all this stuff’. They can’t.”
– And what was the response from Labour and the Tories?
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer defended their plans and disagreed with the assessment, arguing they intend to implement changes to boost the economy.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here