Nigel Farage has emerged victorious in the battle of the manifestos

After the underwhelming launches of the Conservative and Labour manifestos last week, Nigel Farage and Richard Tice produced a “contract” that has much to offer disillusioned supporters of either parties in the new leftist centre ground.

Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer each had one job to do – but both failed, miserably. Such ineptitude (or was it cowardice?) does not bode well for the economic management of the country or our personal finances for the next five or so years.

To the extent that party manifestos matter – politicians have a bad habit of finding excuses to quickly ditch their promises – these pitch documents should inform us about what to expect so we can make informed choices.

On Monday, Reform tackled that brief with seriousness and candour – not only offering tax cuts, but accepting these had to be balanced by cutting back spending.

Needless to say those who support continued structural growth in the size of the state’s share of the economy and an inevitable climb in the tax burden were not impressed.

After three years of Tories freezing the £12,570 personal allowance, Reform is promising to raise it to £20,000 – taking seven million of the lowest earners out of income tax altogether, and saving £1,500 a year for those earning above the new £20,000 threshold.

The higher rate would shift from £50,000 to £70,000. The policy does come with a risk of reducing the number of people with “skin in the game” of contributing directly to state expenditure, although they would likely baulk at other parties forcing them to pay income tax in the future.

Reform’s approach does, however, mean a tax cut for everyone rather than the Tory National Insurance cut that still results in the overall tax burden rising (because the thresholds would remain frozen). It also makes work look more attractive and could help encourage people back into work, reducing welfare payments.

Other personal tax changes include raising the £325,000 inheritance tax nil-rate band to £2m and taxing those above that threshold at 20pc rather than 40pc. To boost the domestic property market and housebuilding, stamp duty on properties below £750,000 would be cut to 0pc – from £750k-£1.5m 2pc – and over £1.5m 4pc.

For businesses, the VAT threshold would be increased from £90,000 to £150,000 and for the self-employed “cumbersome bureaucratic” IR 35 rules abolished.

Corporation tax would be reduced from 25pc to 20pc, and then 15pc five years later. For the hospitality and retail sector, the VAT refund scheme for tourists would be reintroduced, raising an expected £10bn by encouraging more tourists and higher spending.

Reform’s offer of providing tax incentives for parents to use independent education makes a great deal of sense – it encourages greater parental responsibility, relieves the burden on the state and consequently can later produce savings in expenditure.

Why the Conservatives did not introduce this policy since being freed of the Liberal Democrat millstone in 2015 remains a puzzle.

Reform’s tax cutting proposals are not the same as that previously proposed by Liz Truss and her chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng as they do not focus tax cuts on the highest paid (which attracted a great deal of political pushback) and there has been an attempt at making the tax cuts fiscally neutral.

The failure to present a balanced budget was, ultimately, that administration’s downfall. In that regard, Farage and Tice are being more cautious and prudent – if their figures are to be believed – and it’s the numbers where their critics will focus.

The total cost of Reform’s tax changes is put at £88bn and is balanced against scrapping net zero policies, ending commercial bank interest subsidies, clawing back government waste of 5p in the pound, economic growth bringing improved revenues, and other savings in immigration, transport and foreign aid costs.

It’s a big bus figure and will at least get people thinking: ‘why not?’

The main criticism will be the proposal to fund much of Reform’s tax cuts by ending the voluntary payment by the Bank of England of £30-40bn per year to commercial banks of Bank Rate interest on the printed money reserves, known as quantitative easing (QE) reserves.

This is a highly complex and contentious issue that is possible to do, but does not come without cost. While other central banks do not pay this subsidy, if that cost to the Treasury ends then banks will recover funding by increasing their charges, including mortgages and lending. It could reduce government taxes but must be paid by commercial pricing.

In the bigger picture, what Reform appears to be offering is an economy pivoting towards helping the low paid, encouraging work, potentially improving wages and raising productivity. It looks like an economic policy targeting the Red Wall.

In comparison to last week’s efforts, the contrast could not be greater.

The task for the Rishi Sunak was to try and regain trust by showing how past policy failures were now behind him so the tax burden would be reduced. For Keir Starmer, his job was to go beyond his dubious pledge of no increase in income tax, National Insurance or VAT by allaying fears the tentacles of Labour taxes would extend elsewhere instead.

I set both Sunak’s Conservatives and Starmer’s Labour a range of reasonable questions they needed to answer to establish their real intentions so we can decide who to vote for, but both failed.

The end result of the Tory manifesto is that after another five years of Conservative government, the tax burden on British people might be lower than originally planned – but,  crucially, will still have climbed higher than it is now.

That’s like Tyson Fury saying he’s only going to punch you in the face once, rather than twice in the solar plexus.

For Labour, there was a requirement to at last be honest about how it can afford to invest in public services without increasing the tax burden. We needed transparency, but Starmer’s manifesto was as clear as mud.

The fear must be Rachel Reeves will simply broaden the scope of taxes and introduce new ones. It is like escaping the guillotine only to face death by a thousand cuts.

In the battle of the manifestos, the Reform document attempts to offer hope not pain, while encouraging the lowest paid back into work and become less reliant on benefits.

It will undoubtedly attract criticism and argument over the numbers but many will find it attractive even if only half of its ambition could be delivered.