General Election June 2017

Also, Tim Harford isn't keen on anyone's economic policies.

The economic effects of the Brexit phoney war have been fairly benign.
The political ones have been abysmal. British politicians have been
stripped of both moderation and a commitment to truth-telling. Give a
blindfolded orang-utan a crayon and the 2010 ballot paper, and she
could hardly fail to pick a party to beat anything this election has
to offer. Theresa May, prime minister, and the Labour leader Jeremy
Corbyn share some characteristics: both distrust the modern world,
make policy surrounded by a small clique of advisers, and have no
interest in the pragmatic do-what-works approach to government. But
there are important differences in character. Mrs May’s defining trait
is a tendency to flinch under pressure and change her mind on freshly
announced policies at the first hint of opposition. Mr Corbyn, in
contrast, does not seem to have changed his mind on anything since
'71. Neither party leader has shown much reason to believe they are fit to
run the country. Mr Corbyn has run a shambolic opposition,
which suggests that he would run a shambolic government if he got the
chance. His own MPs despair of him. A line from the television comedy
Blackadder springs to mind: Grand Duchess Sophia will never agree to
marry Prince George, because she has met him. The Parliamentary Labour
party feels the same way about Mr Corbyn: it has met him, and seems to
break out in a cold sweat at the prospect that he might end up in
charge. That seems unlikely. Despite a tightening in the polls, Mrs
May is the strong favourite to win the snap election she promised she
would never call. We do not need to speculate about whether she is
competent to run the country: her paranoid style of leadership and
comical willingness to reverse policy under pressure have shown that
she is not. These, then, are the personalities. What of the policies?
On taxation, the Conservative manifesto is thin on specifics. Since
Mrs May turns every policy into an embarrassment within 72 hours, this
may be wise. The main tax cut promised by the party of low taxation is
an increase in the personal allowance. This is not smart. It bleeds
revenue without cutting marginal rates, and provides no benefit to the
millions of low-income households who already pay no income tax. The
Labour manifesto is much bolder in this area. It is highly
redistributive, which is nothing to be ashamed of, but panders to the
fantasy that there are pots of free money out there — called
“corporations” — which may be taxed with no adverse consequences.
Alas, corporate profits tend to evaporate when the taxman turns up the
heat. To the extent that corporate taxes are paid, they are ultimately
paid by you and me through higher prices and lower pensions. The
Institute for Fiscal Studies says Labour’s plans would not work,
contain factual mistakes and are propped up by optimistic assumptions.
On spending, the Tories plan to continue the squeeze they have applied
for the last seven years. There will be big cuts to working-age
benefits — the Tories seem unable to imagine that anyone under the age
of 65 could ever deserve money from the government. The National Health Service needs
hefty increases to serve an ageing population; but the Conservatives
will keep such a tight lid on these costs that the IFS says their
plans “may well be undeliverable”. This matters. Joint research from
Full Fact and the Nuffield Trust strongly suggests that the NHS is
creaking under the strain. Waiting times — for operations and
emergency care — are lengthening. NHS trusts are overspending.
Recruitment is tough and Brexit will make it tougher. Labour magical
thinking about corporation taxes gives it more money to play with, at
least on paper. There is little evidence that this will be well spent.
The party does not propose to reverse many of the welfare cuts that
the Conservatives have pencilled in. Instead, it plans to spend money
on students, who tend to come from more prosperous households and will
go on to be better off than non-graduates. Labour will also throw cash
at pensioners regardless of need. It is curious that a party that
frets so much about taxing the rich is so careless about reaching the
poor. Both sides have a garnish for their inedible policy sandwiches.
Labour offers nationalisation; the Conservatives grammar schools —
and, inevitably, sink schools to go alongside them. Nostalgic
hardliners will be delighted, but few people who have looked at the
evidence find either policy appealing. Finally, there is Brexit. The
Labour manifesto is contorted: it is a list of all the wonderful
things European integration has done for the UK (from labour
protection to Euratom) and a commitment to keep all those things —
along with a promise to leave. The Conservative manifesto is far
worse. Tory policy on Brexit is nothing more than a string of
Orwellian catchphrases: “strong and stable”, “smooth and orderly”,
“deep and special”. Freedom is slavery; ignorance is strength. For
this disheartened voter, ignorance would be bliss.