The Social Market Foundation has reacted to the Conservative manifesto, as well as specific policies – including those on housing, cutting taxes, net zero and immigration.
The Social Market Foundation’s response is as follows.
On the overall manifesto, SMF Director Theo Bertram said:
“This is a manifesto without credibility or identity, focused on the next three weeks not the future. Where previous Tory manifestos have been short and clear, whether on austerity or Brexit, this is a scattergun of pledges without a coherent plan or consistent narrative. We have reached the awkward point in the break-up between the Conservative government and the British public, where the Tories are embarrassing themselves with promises to be different in future, when the public has long since made up their mind it is over.”
Ambition – 5/10 – Hopeful on outcomes but lacking bravery on the means to deliver. The commitments on economic growth, housebuilding, and migration are not followed through with conviction: the ‘downpayment’ on the abolition of national insurance is aspirational, the pledge on housebuilding is not matched by reform, while the position on ECHR is fudged. It is good that the commitment on Net Zero remains but the new emphasis on a ‘pragmatic, proportionate and realistic approach’ and the need ‘to maintain democratic consent’ could be interpreted as opening the door to backsliding.
Originality – 3/10 – The Tories started the election campaign full of ideas on national service and scrapping low cost degrees to fund apprentices but the manifesto hasn’t matched that pace and there is not a whole lot of new thinking. There is an odd mix of populism and technocracy, with political rhetoric masking marginal changes.
Affordability – 2/10 – What you expect from a Conservative manifesto is credibility on the numbers but this is not what we get. While scepticism should equally be applied to opposition party claims to find savings from closing tax avoidance loopholes, it is simply not credible for a government of 14 years to imply that there is more easy cash to be found down the back of the sofa.
Detail – 7/10 – As manifestos go, this is a good-sized tome at 71 pages. There are areas where there is genuine detail in some very specific areas, such as on fraud.
Workability – 6/10 – The tax changes are not radical, tending towards tweaks rather than scrapping taxes altogether. The bigger picture is less plausible: between the fiscal rules, the spending commitments and the tax cuts, something has to give.
On the economy, Aveek Bhattacharya, Research Director at SMF, said:
“Despite promises to build a ‘dynamic and growing economy’, there is little in the Conservative manifesto to offer much optimism we can achieve the step change needed to shake up our stagnant economy. Having fired their shot with full expensing investment incentives and childcare expansion announcements in last Spring’s budget, it seems like all that is left is the traditional Tory playbook off cutting taxes and hoping for the best. Even if those tax cuts were credible, encouraging self-employment is likely to grow the long tail of inefficient firms, and tie the government’s hands on much needed public investment.”
On taxes, Sam Robinson, Senior Researcher at SMF, said:
“Cutting National Insurance is a laudable step from a tax design perspective – but only if it leads to a merger with income tax, ensuring that workers are not disadvantaged. Unfortunately, this cut to NICs is not part of a considered reform agenda but funded by magical thinking about the scope for efficiencies in welfare reform. And cutting self-employed NICs by more than employee NICs is a strange decision that will worsen the tax bias against employment.
“Stamp Duty is a bad tax, so bearing down on it is welcome. But a small tweak to the threshold lacks ambition when there is such a compelling case to scrap Stamp Duty entirely and completely rethink our iniquitous system of Council Tax, which arbitrarily punishes people in lower value properties.
“Committing to the Triple Lock Plus is a short-sighted policy that stores further fiscal challenges and intergenerational inequity down the line. There is no compelling reason for why older people should enjoy a higher personal allowance than working age people on top of existing Triple Lock protections, and there are bigger priorities on which this money could be spent.”
On homeownership and housebuilding, Gideon Salutin, Senior Researcher at SMF, said:
“Gillian Keegan said that Conservatives transform areas. But this manifesto is likely to barely tweak them. Home buyers might benefit slightly from maintaining stamp duty thresholds and lowering capital gains taxes for landlords to sell to their tenants. But reinstating help to buy is controversial, and given the low -estimated cost for the policy, it seems even the Tories recognise it will barely scratch the surface.
“It takes a lot of wishful thinking to say this plan will add up to an additional 1.6 million homes. The Conservatives have pledged no new money to increase social housing, as SMF has previously called for, and meagre changes to planning by reforming brownfield sites. So long as policymakers remain this timid, we’ll continue to see slow construction and rising prices.”
On rental market and affordable housing, Jamie Gollings, Deputy Research Director at SMF, said:
“Renters will be suffering déjà vu with the return of a pledge to abolish no-fault evictions, this time with caveats about the court system baked in. Would the Tories make it happen in the next parliament, or would the landlord lobby successfully kick it into the long grass once more? Looking at international evidence, we have found that landlords’ bark worse than they bite, and do not follow through in large numbers on threats to exit the market. But I wouldn’t bet against the Conservatives being cowed once more.”
“There is a pledge to ‘support’ community housing schemes, but zero detail on what form that support could take. For community led housing to flourish, easier access to finance is critical. The Community Housing Fund should be reestablished to cover the costs of developing such schemes, from architects to planning consultants, whilst a co-operative housing lender, backed by a state guarantee would provide the capital for these projects to scale”.
On migration, Jonathan Thomas, Senior Fellow at SMF, said:
“The Conservatives have come down decisively against the large immigration flows their own policies helped to create. The Prime Minister is campaigning on a future vision which – aside the consequences for the economy – seeks to fundamentally undermine the largely sensible post-Brexit labour immigration system this government itself put in place.”
On fraud and policing, Richard Hyde, Senior Researcher at SMF, said:
“The manifesto is notable by the lack of ambition in its proposals for tackling fraud, the most commonly experienced crime, costing the UK more than £200 billion a year. The measures set out largely repeat ideas in the current fraud strategy, and while they might make a difference at the margins, they do not match the scale of the problem.
The lack of ambition on fraud is reflected in the failure to explicitly dedicate some of the 8,000 more police officers the Conservatives plan to recruit to economic crime. While growing police numbers is generally a positive move, the pledge is a clear missed opportunity to substantially increase the capacity of law enforcement to disrupt and pursue fraudsters”.
On criminal justice, prisons, and rehabilitation, Jake Shepherd, Senior Researcher at SMF, said:
“The Conservatives’ pledge to increase investment in rehabilitative services and reduce reoffending is positive. However, its commitment to tougher sentencing and building new prisons – when it already holds one of Europe’s largest prison populations – undermines that goal, signalling a shift away from humanely changing the behaviour of offenders to even harsher conditions and punishment.”
On opportunities and skills, Dani Payne, Senior Researcher at SMF, said:
“It is unclear how the Conservatives’ proposals to cut funding for ‘low quality’ university courses and support more apprentices will meet the needs of learners or the economy. Using crude measures of the quality of a university course, such as graduate outcomes, would disproportionately punish institutions succeeding in widening access and participation. If the Conservatives really wish to improve quality then we will need better monitoring and measurement – whether in the form of common assessments, some form of teaching inspection or a sample survey measuring ‘learning gain’.”
On apprenticeships, it is not enough to just say you will create more of them without addressing issues of employer engagement and placement availability.
On both quality in HE and access to vocational routes, it is not enough to just have a plan – it has to be a plan that works. Unfortunately, this pledge feels motivated more by signaling and stoking the ongoing culture wars than actually getting its teeth into the real issues faced by either the FE or HE sector.”
On the net zero rollbacks, Niamh O Regan, Researcher at SMF said:
“On the surface the Conservatives seem to still be committed to achieving net zero, but the plan to get there shows just how low a priority it is for them. Plans to increase domestic electricity generation are welcome, but failing to pair them with an explicit commitment to electrify our heating systems is a missed opportunity. The £6 billion for energy efficiency of a million homes is nothing new and pales in comparison to the scale of the problem, where 8 million homes in England and Wales are ranked below EPC C. When it comes to transport, they have repeated past announcements, aiming to turn back the clock on green commitments.
Moreover, cutting the cost of net zero by guaranteeing no new green levies or charges is a false economy. Achieving net zero requires both substantial, certain and continuous investment and public behaviour change, and green levies present a unique opportunity to do both. Claiming that changes to net zero policies will save families money is short term thinking: SMF analysis has shown that retreating on key net zero policies is likely to actually cost families.”
On mental health, Jamie Gollings, Deputy Research Director at SMF, said:
“The proposed improvements to mental health support are positive, with the rollout of Individual Placement and Support for those with severe difficulties, and school support teams especially welcome. But any benefit these reforms achieve risks being undermined by threats to withdraw Personal Independence Payments from some of those with mental health difficulties, adding worry to vulnerable people.”
Notes
- SMF will be responding to all major parties’ manifestos.
- SMF’s reaction to the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto can be found here: https://www.smf.co.uk/the-social-market-foundation-reacts-to-the-liberal-democrats-manifesto/
Contact
For media enquiries, please contact Impact Officer Richa Kapoor, at richa@smf.co.uk
