Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner. Facebook Messenger An icon of the facebook messenger app logo. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Facebook Messenger An icon of the Twitter app logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. WhatsApp Messenger An icon of the Whatsapp messenger app logo. Email An icon of an mail envelope. Copy link A decentered black square over a white square.

What is the IFS and what is its view of the General Election manifestos?

Paul Johnson, director of the IFS (James Manning/PA)
Paul Johnson, director of the IFS (James Manning/PA)

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.

A copy of the the Labour Party’s manifesto
The Labour Party’s manifesto (Stefan Rousseau/PA)

– 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.

An extract from the Conservative Party manifesto
The Conservative Party General Election manifesto (James Manning/PA)

– 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.

POLITICS Election Polls
(PA Graphics)

– 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.