TheEconomistNovember 30th 2019 51
1
S
o long asthey disappear within 48
hours, manifestos seldom matter. Yet
everyone recalls the 2017 Tory “dementia
tax” to fund social care that was hastily
dropped days later—one reason why this
year’s Conservative prospectus is so bland.
And manifestos count in government, as
well as setting the tone for an election. This
time, the three main ones offer two related
themes—and, in the shape of Brexit, one
big elephant in the room.
The first theme is of a bigger state. It is
not just that austerity is over, but that pub-
lic spending (and, more slowly, tax) seems
on an inexorable upward course. Linked to
this is the notion that, with long-term in-
terest rates so low, more borrowing to fi-
nance infrastructure or green investment
is not just easy but positively desirable.
Worries about excessive public debt have
been forgotten, though the Liberal Demo-
crats chart a path to a current budget sur-
plus. Ironically, given Brexit, the resultant
size of the state puts Britain closer to other
European countries like Germany—and
well above America or Japan.
The second theme is that differences
between the parties are huge. Labour is out
on its own in terms of spending, with a rad-
ical plan for European-style socialism and
a huge rise in current spending of over
£80bn ($103bn) a year. The more cautious
Tories are the least lavish, though they too
prefer spending to tax cuts, while the Lib
Dems come in between (see chart on next
page). This break with the centrist consen-
sus is historically unusual. In both 1997 and
2010, opposition parties carefully matched
the government’s spending plans.
That said, the parties’ spending priori-
ties are similar. All three promise to pay ex-
tra tribute to the insatiable National Health
Service, to education and to policing. There
is new enthusiasm for help with child care,
with the Lib Dems being the most gener-
ous. Labour reveals a fondness for univer-
sal freedom in scrapping prescription
charges and university tuition fees and
promising free broadband for all. It even
proposes a “right to food”, perhaps to
match the Tories’ promise to fill the na-
tion’s potholes. As the creator of the nhs,
Labour also plans a national education and
national care service.
Although Labour has long attacked Tory
cuts in benefits for the poor, it proposes to
restore only a quarter of them. Its plans to
replace universal credit, the Tories’ unpop-
ular welfare system, are vague. And it is no-
table how many goodies go to the old. All
three parties keep the costly “triple lock”
that more than inflation-proofs pensions.
Labour wants to scrap plans to raise the
pension age beyond 66 and to compensate
the so-called waspi women, a cohort
whose retirement age was raised from 60 at
short notice, at a one-off cost of £58bn. Tor-
sten Bell of the Resolution Foundation, a
think-tank, suggests that politicians still
think, wrongly, that the old are poorer than
the young (they certainly vote more). The
Tories notably sidestep the time-bomb of
under-funded social care, though a pro-
mise that nobody should ever be forced to
sell their home to pay for it looks poten-
tially expensive.
When it comes to financing all this, the
parties come over all coy. The message to
most taxpayers is that somehow others—
companies, the rich, tax-avoiders—will
bear most of the burden (see box on next
page). The Lib Dems are at least honest in
suggesting a 1p rise in income tax, plus a tax
on frequent flyers. Labour relies more opti-
mistically on higher taxes on top earners, a
Party manifestos
The spree to come
Whoever wins next month, the state is about to get bigger—perhaps much bigger
Britain
52 Politicsandreligion
53 Swingseats:Warwick
54 Bagehot: Power to the people
Alsointhissection
52 Who pays tax?
