Tory manifesto: 'foggy' tax cuts and 'punitive' immigration policy

British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak unveiled the Conservative party’s manifesto today at the Silverstone race track.

His party is tipped to lose to the Labour party, with voters heading to polls for election day on Thursday 4 July.

There were few surprises in the manifesto, which broadly fell in line with the campaign trail so far.

From a tax perspective, the Tory party pledged £17bn in tax cuts by the end of the next Parliament, with a focus on National Insurance.

Immigration was another focus of Sunak’s speech. He reasserted his plan to see irregular migrants sent to Rwanda starting in July, but did not commit either way on whether or not Britain would leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Experts from across City, University of London reacted to the manifesto.

No “costless” Tory tax cuts, says finance expert

Professor Steve Schifferes is an Honorary Research Fellow at City, University of London. His research expertise includes business and finance journalism.

He argues there are unlikely to be easy and politically costless ways for political parties to fund their promises, and that a fog clouds tax cut debates with numbers not adding up.

He said:

There is often a fog that clouds debates over spending.

The Conservatives have promised large tax cuts – amounting to around £18bn – if they are elected and say these are fully costed.

There are good reasons to be sceptical about the ways they propose to fund their tax cuts – by raising £6bn through cracking down on tax evasion and cutting the welfare bill by £12bn by getting more sick people back to work.

Tax evasion is notoriously difficult to police, especially with an HMRC depleted of resources and unable even to answer phone calls from the public.

The government itself says that the most promising place where the most tax avoidance occurs is among the small businesses and the self-employed, whom the government are aiming to help by abolishing their national insurance contributions.

The welfare bill has risen sharply, and mental illness among younger people is an important part of that story.

That does not mean that living on benefits has become a lifestyle choice for many young people, as Rishi Sunak asserts, and that a modest investment in therapy combined with further sanctions on those who refuse work will produce to a mass return to work.

There are unlikely to be easy and politically costless ways for political parties of all political stripes to raise enough money to fund their promises.

The Conservative manifesto proposes punitive immigration measures that are unlikely to be fully achievable and raise deep ethical concerns.

Their immigration policies – like the Rwanda bill and tighter asylum controls – appear to be more about appealing to a particular voter base rather than addressing the UK's economic needs.

The UK would benefit from a well-managed immigration policy.

What’s missing from the manifesto is a balanced approach to immigration that considers the humanitarian aspects, along with the next steps in creating a more inclusive immigration system.

An inclusive immigration system would focus on creating policies that recognise the contributions of migrants, provide clear pathways to citizenship, support integration through language and employment programs, and address the root causes of migration.

If one assumes that the Labour Party will form the next government, the Conservative manifesto is a clever document insofar as it accomplishes two goals:

1) Minimises as much as possible the likely loss to Labour, particularly from voters who might be tempted to defect to Reform.

2) Creates a good basis by which to criticise the policies that Labour will implement after the election.

There are lots of rhetoric about lowering immigration, reducing the number of people receiving out of work benefits and getting these people back to work. Yes, these are serious problems, but little detail on how they will implement these changes.

The drop in national insurance and the rest is not really affordable and the clearest indication that they do not anticipate having to actually follow through with any of these proposals.

The March budget only satisfied the fiscal rules by clever accounting and unrealistic assumptions and this only compounds that.