Such poor numbers underline analysts’ disappointment in the manifestos, with even the party most associated with businesses struggling to inspire vigorous support.
Nonetheless, the Institute of Directors found reasons to back the Conservatives’ tax and spending plans.The party’s “commitments to keeping corporation tax down and raise income tax thresholds are positive,” said IoD director general Stephen Martin, though he added that “there has been little discussion of the deficit”.
In contrast he said Labour’s plans for higher corporate taxes and the “massive increase in spending needed for the re-nationalisations will be worrying businesses.”
The panel backed the Conservatives’ industrial strategy over that of Labour, but in that area too had reservations over the Prime Minister’s plans.
“The Conservative Party’s pronouncements on restricting foreign takeovers and boosting employment rights for workers are of some concern,” said Daniel Mahoney at the Centre for Policy Studies. “The UK’s flexible labour market is the fundamental reason why we are experiencing low unemployment compared to many other EU countries.”
Even in pensions and social care - where Ms May suffered an embarrassing climb down on her plans to pay for care - the Conservatives came out ahead with a score of five beating Labour’s three.
“Both parties recognise the burden of social care costs will increase significantly but neither has come up with a satisfactory solution.
Labour is leaning towards yet another increase in general taxation (with a range of options including a potentially impractical and unfair ‘wealth’ tax),” said the Institute of Economic Affairs’ Julian Jessop.“The Tories at least accept the case for those benefiting the most to make a larger contribution where they can.
However, the U-turn on a cap on contributions is likely to mean that the very wealthy pay less than they would have done under the original proposals.”The Conservatives’ also won praise for pledging to ditch the guarantee that pensions will rise by a minimum 2.5pc per year, instead using a ‘double lock’ which hitches pensions to inflation and average wages.
Ruth Lea at Arbuthnot Banking Group is a rare example of an economist who approves of the Conservative pledge to cut immigration down to below 100,000.
She said it is “fair to restrain immigration”.“There are social & economic costs to high net immigration as well as benefits. The costs are far too infrequently discussed,” she said, awarding the policy a rating of eight out of 10.
By contrast Vicky Pryce from the Centre for Economics and Business Research gave the Tory plan just one out of 10, arguing that slashing immigration risks damaging the economy.“They claim they can’t cost impact on the economy as they don’t know when target of tens of thousands will be achieved.
But all economic work at their disposal shows clear negative impact on growth, deficit and debt to GDP ratio of a fall below roughly 200,000 in net migration,” she said.“It seems not to be a target but an aspiration so why should it be taken seriously?
But it is, and it is concerning businesses as they plan ahead.”
BUT....from the comments section....
So the torygraph has scooped a handful of economists to make tories seem viable? Recently over 120 very credible economists wrote to the guardian in support of Labour's economic approach. 120!!! And also now Stephen Hawking (the worlds smartest man) supports JC. Just saying.
120 economists support:
120 economists support:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/jun/03/the-big-issue-labour-manifesto-what-economy-needs
Stephen Hawking support:
Stephen Hawking support:
The economics led world delivered the new normal of secular stagnation globally, which is why the public are moving in a different direction. Even now, interest rates are set at ultra low levels and the ECB and BoJ are having to pump in massive levels of liquidity to keep the dead duck of the global economy on life support.
Why were the economists so hopeless?
In the 18th and 19th century small state, raw capitalism actually existed and is probably a more accurate guide than the imagination of Milton Freidman, which is where today’s economics comes from.
Adam Smith:
"But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin."
Exactly the opposite of today's thinking, what does he mean?
When rates of profit are high, capitalism is cannibalising itself by:
1) Not engaging in long term investment for the future
2) Paying insufficient wages to maintain demand for its products and services
Today’s problems with growth and demand.
Amazon didn't suck its profits out as dividends and look how big it's grown (not so good on the wages).
Using debt based consumption to compensate for low wages eventually maxes out as can be seen in the US and UK.
The US:
The UK:
Economists really should have started questioning their economics after 2008.
