Promises, promises

What a surprise.  The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) rated the Liberal Democrats as having the most transparent, best costed manifesto of the major national parties.  It always is the case with the Lib Dems but precious little good it does them the way the electoral system is stacked.  What was most amusing was that The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph both cited the IFS as their major web headlines but with diametrically opposed slants.  Now coming from each stable that maybe isn't a surprise, except that that they're both quoting from from the same 'impartial' organisation.  The Guardian had it that a £30bn black hole in spending had been exposed and The Telegraph that the Tories were the 'only party' who could 'balance the books'.  As incompatible as these statements first appear, there is wriggle room but The Telegraph are the ones it seems stretching the truth the most (especially when it says the IFS declares that Labour will spend less on the NHS than the Tories - in trying to shoot the Labour goose on the NHS, they make Labour sound more financially prudent).  Though it is highly unlikely that I would ever vote Tory, I would never rule it out as that would deny me my democratic rights at my own hand, yet I have been very unimpressed by how vague the Conservative manifesto is this time around - evasive about where the cuts will fall, uncosted spending and tax cuts for the well-off, it all appears very unprofessional compared to manifestos of Labour and Lib Dems.  It may be about not committing oneself at the prospect of another coalition or unduly frightening the horses, I mean the votes, but it is disappointing that a party in government can not be clearer to the electorate about where it wants to take the country.