Economic Policy Costings Scorecard
Independent economic analysis of Reform UK's key policy proposals, drawn from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Tax Policy Associates, and the Resolution Foundation. The IFS analyses every major party's manifesto at each general election; their verdicts are the UK's standard non-partisan benchmark for fiscal credibility.
This scorecard presents the published verdicts of independent economic institutions on Reform UK's stated policy proposals. The IFS analyses every major party's manifesto at each general election and is widely regarded as the UK's authoritative non-partisan fiscal watchdog. Presenting their findings is not editorialising — it is the same standard applied to Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, and Green manifestos. All ratings reflect the published conclusions of the cited institutions, not this dashboard's own assessment.
Independent Economic Verdicts by Policy
The IFS found Reform's own costings showed this would cost £70bn — but Reform's claimed offsetting savings were 'not credible'. The package as a whole was described as 'problematic'.
IFS sourceTax Policy Associates found Reform's plans were out by 'tens of billions', with the income tax cut alone costing far more than claimed when dynamic effects were properly modelled.
SourceNot specifically analysed.
The IFS noted that Reform's claimed savings from immigration were 'highly uncertain' and that the £17bn figure was not credibly funded. The NHS spending increase was described as 'unfunded'.
IFS sourceTax Policy Associates found the immigration savings claim — which underpinned much of Reform's spending plans — was not supported by evidence.
Not specifically analysed.
The IFS did not accept this figure. The LSE Grantham Institute (March 2026) separately found that Reform-led councils were unable to demonstrate financial savings from 'scrapping net zero', and that the party's claims of savings 'lack clarity'.
IFS sourceNot specifically analysed.
The IFS noted this would cost approximately £15bn per year in lost revenue. The claimed growth dividend was described as 'speculative'.
IFS sourceTax Policy Associates found the revenue cost was understated in Reform's own calculations.
SourceNot specifically analysed.
The IFS published a specific response in March 2026: 'This is not credible. Specifically, the evidence that tax cuts pay for themselves via higher economic growth does not match the evidence.'
IFS sourceNot specifically analysed.
Not specifically analysed.
The IFS described this as 'highly speculative' and noted that migrants on balance contribute positively to public finances, particularly in the NHS and social care sectors.
IFS sourceTax Policy Associates found the savings figure was not supported by OBR or independent modelling.
SourceThe Resolution Foundation has published research showing that restricting immigration would reduce GDP and tax revenues, contradicting Reform's savings claims.
Independent economists found the claim does not hold up to scrutiny
Significant methodological disagreements; outcome uncertain
Independent economists broadly accept the direction, if not the precise figure
Independent economists broadly accept the claim
About the Independent Analysts
The UK's leading independent economic research institute. The IFS analyses every major party's manifesto at each general election and is widely regarded as the authoritative non-partisan voice on UK fiscal policy. Director Paul Johnson is frequently cited across all media.
An independent, non-partisan tax policy think tank. Published a detailed line-by-line analysis of Reform UK's 2024 manifesto tax proposals.
An independent think-tank focused on improving living standards for those on low to middle incomes. Has published research on immigration's fiscal contribution that directly contradicts Reform UK's savings claims.