General Election 2015: Voters are being 'kept in the dark' by all parties over spending cuts and tax rises

Influential IFS think tank says there are 'genuinely big differences' between the three main parties plans but voters were only being offered 'broad outlines'

Matt Dathan
Thursday 23 April 2015 18:54
Comments
David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband put aside their political differences to pledge their support for the campaign
David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband put aside their political differences to pledge their support for the campaign

Voters are being kept "in the dark" over future spending cuts and tax rises, the influential Institute for Fiscal studies has said.

A detailed study of the party manifestos by the IFS concluded that none of the main three parties had provided "anything like full details" on plans to cut the deficit over the next five-year Parliament.

It said voters were being offered "genuinely big differences" and "a real choice" at the election but at best could "only see the broad outlines of that choice".

The Labour-SNP threat is included in every Tory speech, statement and press release, even when the SNP factor is irrelevant

The Conservative party's plans do not add up, the IFS said, with only one tenth of its welfare cuts revealed. The Tories will have to make £40 billion of cuts by 2020 to keep within its plans, while its tax policies represent a net giveaway.

"Despite planning for more austerity, the Conservatives’ detailed tax policies amount to a net giveaway," Carl Emmerson, deputy director of the IFS, said.

Labour's plans are "considerably more vague" than the Tories, the think tank said, concluding that an Ed Miliband government may only need to make £1 billion of cuts.

Labour's spending plans allow for much more flexibility, the IFS said

The Liberal Democrats are being more open about its plans than the big two parties with its proposals to make £12 billion of cuts, but these are based on two optimistic claims: crackdowns on tax avoidance and benefit fraud.

The SNP has a "considerable disconnect" between its anti-austerity "rhetoric" and its plans. Government spending would freeze under its plans, but at a lower level than Labour, suggesting there would be no obstacle for a post-election deal.

SNP tax takeaways appear to be offset by giveaways (Getty)

The IFS added that all three of the main Westminster parties' plans to raise revenue from tax avoidance were based on "made up assumptions". The Tories have pledged to find £5 billion from tax avoidance, Labour has said it will raise £7 billion while the Liberal Democrats plan to find £7.5 billion.

"The SNP are the one major party not to have used largely made up assumptions on tax avoidance to try to make their sums add up," Mr Emmerson said.

Jonathan Isaby, Chief Executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, called on the party leaders to be more honest about their spending plans in the run-up to polling day in two weeks' time.

"The politicians seeking our votes owe it to taxpayers to come clean about what spending the country can, and cannot, afford," he said.

"This candour has so far been noticeably absent in the election campaign, with politicians failing to acknowledge the dire state of the public finances and instead clambering over each other to make additional and apparently unfunded spending pledges.

"Politicians are talking the talk on deficit reduction but there remains precious little indication they're willing to walk the walk."


The Independent has got together with May2015.com to produce a poll of polls that produces the most up-to-date data in as close to real time as is possible.

Click the buttons below to explore how the main parties' fortunes have changed:

All data, polls and graphics are courtesy of May2015.com. Click through for daily analysis, in-depth features and all the data you need. (All historical data used is provided by UK Polling Report)

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in