Should you cost manifesto commitments?

There were two interesting interviews on the Today programme this morning. 

John McDonnell, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, was talking about Labour’s manifesto and comparing it with the Tory’s and Ken Clarke MP was stating that in his opinion you shouldn’t cost manifesto commitments.

John McDonnell claimed that, in the Labour manifesto, all of their policy commitments had been fully costed so that the source of funding for each policy was shown in detail. He compared that with the Tory manifesto which doesn’t cost any policy commitments. 

In contrast, Ken Clarke said that it’s crazy to expect chancellors to refer to the last manifesto before taking decisions about spending and taxation. I can see his point, but effectively Ken Clarke, who is an experienced and wily old politician, was using one of the classic debating tricks that I was taught at school. You take a statement from the opponent and you extend the argument so that it begins to appear ridiculous, but you take care to ignore the original purpose of the opponent’s statement.

Clearly you can’t set out 4 or 5 years of budgets in a manifesto! But if Labour hadn’t costed their policies the Tories would say, “Look at all these spending commitments. Where is the money coming from?”  The political reality is that Labour is generally considered to be the tax and spend party, whilst the Tories are expected to be prudent with public finances, and are ideologically opposed to increasing spending.  So the Tories can get away with not costing anything while Labour can’t! But what if some Tory policies (ignoring brexit for a change) are detrimental to the economy?

Let’s take immigration.

The Tory manifesto on page 54, proposes to limit net migration to an undefined number "in the tens of thousands p.a."  This is the most recent in a series of such commitments that were also in the 2010 and 2015 manifestos, none of which have been adhered to. This commitment has also not been costed. In addition the Tories will double the Immigration Skills Charge on employers wishing to employ migrant workers to £2,000. Recent reports have, however, asserted that the UK needs about 200,000 migrants p.a. to maintain fiscal stability in the face of skills shortages and an ageing population. Furthermore, it's in danger of self-harm if the current number of migrants is artificially restricted.

Labour’s manifesto, on page 28 of the pdf, states that “working with businesses, trade unions and devolved governments to identify specific labour and skills shortages, they will put in place a system which regulates immigration in line with the UK’s economic needs”.

It’s clear which of these two policy approaches is likely to have the most simplistic appeal to voters and which is too subtle and reasonable to be easily absorbed and understood. But which is going to deliver what’s best for the UK economy?

I’m not a natural Labour voter but, in comparison with their recent chaotic leadership, their manifesto is a well thought out and well considered document. There are certainly things that I disagree with, like the re-nationalisation of several industries (which is not costed), but there are lots of other subjects where their policies are reasonable, more detailed and more sensible than those of their opponents.

If you are a life-long Labour voter, thinking of switching to the Tories, before giving Theresa May a landslide majority, and a blank cheque, perhaps you should first read the manifestos. The UK desperately needs a strong and stable opposition not a dictatorship!