The stage is set. Get a front row seat and the run up the election by subscribing to the spectator for just three pounds for three months.

We'll even send you a free election mug. Go to Spectator.

Kowdukk. Hello and welcome to Coffeyc Shots The Spectators Daily Politics Podcast.

I'm Cindy U and I'm joined by Katie Balls and the Financial Times of Stephen Bush.

So earlier this week the Institute for Fiscal Studies came out with a report

analyzing all of major parties financial pledges. Katie, tell us what it says.

So I was looking into the manifest as having had time to dig into some of the

details in terms of spending

commitments. Now it was pretty withering all round when it comes to the Paul Johnson

I have asked verdict and I think there's particular aim at some of the smaller parties, such as reform and suggesting what they want to do is fell and this trust would have gone and you can see how the Marcus reacted to that.

Similarly, the Greens and others and it was saying these smaller parties are not making things easier because they know that it's very unlikely they're about to be in government as the main party.

They're not having to make the numbers add up in the same way.

But I think where the report was most interesting is on the Tories

and Labour manifestos. Both parties claim that they are fully costed. Paul Johnson

was effectively saying no such thing and there is a conspiracy of

silence which is a line that I of S have used before but I think it was more

delving a bit more into the detail the point that Paul Johnson was trying to

make is that if you look at aging population

social care if you look at the current debt interest if you look at the size of the

welfare bill if you look at what we're expecting in terms of the need for

public service costs to go up on even on the current trajectory, it's really hard to avoid

the sense that there are some tricky decisions coming up the track and

...