"Neither is a properly credible prospectus"... says @theIFS of both Conservatives and Labour's fiscal plans...
Main IFS criticisms of Labour
- not be able to deliver investment spending increases on scale they promise.
- highly likely that Labour, at least over the longer-term, would need to implement other tax raising measures in order to raise the £80 billion of tax revenue they want
- not be able to deliver investment spending increases on scale they promise.
- highly likely that Labour, at least over the longer-term, would need to implement other tax raising measures in order to raise the £80 billion of tax revenue they want
and WASPI £58bn too...
- "the decision was taken at least 15 years before the increase in pension age and most in the group are relatively well off. To believe the whole group should receive compensation is a recipe for complete stasis in policy"
- "the decision was taken at least 15 years before the increase in pension age and most in the group are relatively well off. To believe the whole group should receive compensation is a recipe for complete stasis in policy"
IFS criticism of Cons:
-“die in a ditch” style promise to exit transition by end 2020 cd mean something like “no deal”...harm economy/inc debt & deficit.
- failed to come up with any kind of plan/money for social care. promise nobody would need to sell house - uncosted aspiration
-“die in a ditch” style promise to exit transition by end 2020 cd mean something like “no deal”...harm economy/inc debt & deficit.
- failed to come up with any kind of plan/money for social care. promise nobody would need to sell house - uncosted aspiration
Also on Conservative plans..
"Conservative plans if delivered would leave public service spending outside of health still 14% lower in 2023-24 than it was in 2010-11. No more austerity perhaps, but an awful lot of it baked in."
"Conservative plans if delivered would leave public service spending outside of health still 14% lower in 2023-24 than it was in 2010-11. No more austerity perhaps, but an awful lot of it baked in."
NEW:
IFS suggest Labour plans imply 3.5% deficit...if taxes come in as manifesto predicts, & investment gradually up..
Cons 2% deficit, BUT if at end 2020 "moved forward without a deal then the deficit would rise very substantially, perhaps to 4% of GDP" - ie HIGHER than Labour
IFS suggest Labour plans imply 3.5% deficit...if taxes come in as manifesto predicts, & investment gradually up..
Cons 2% deficit, BUT if at end 2020 "moved forward without a deal then the deficit would rise very substantially, perhaps to 4% of GDP" - ie HIGHER than Labour
& to continue the plague on both houses... “clearly not true” that Labour plans only hit top 5 % - marriage tax allowance would, & some dividends, capital gains, and corp tax (indirectly) would... 
Big choice on tax and spend...
Cons vs Lab vs Libs on tax, spend and investment... highs for UK spend historically for Labour...
But Labour plans not out of ordinary by European standards on spending - just below Germany, and above Holland in terms of spending/GDP
then @PJTheEconomist says the Conservative manifesto appears not to have costed a series of capital spending items (hospitals, Northern high speed rail etc) in order to be able to say debt will be lower at end of Parliament...
Chancellor's aides point out that his new fiscal rules would accommodate this spending (allowing up to 3% borrowing to invest) and even if that capacity was used in full, they still calculate that debt would be lower over the Parliament...
