Zia Yusuf’s message was unequivocal. From the 34th floor of the Shard, with London’s skyline as his backdrop, the chairman of Reform UK unveiled an economic strategy aimed at demonstrating his party’s serious intent.

During a full English breakfast briefing with national journalists on Friday morning, Yusuf pointed out that reform leader Nigel Farage had flown in from a hotel 5,000 miles away in Las Vegas.

As he addressed the press, an outline of St. Paul’s Cathedral and the Square Mile surrounding the banks and asset managers was visible. Even if the policy ideas might echo Donald Trump’s initiatives, they are decidedly pulled from the Westminster Playbook.

Yet, the real issue with Yusuf’s message to the city wasn’t the dubious reliability of the code. The West of the Finance — it was the party’s wider tax and spending policies that raised eyebrows.

Yusuf has been polling well, and scrutiny of reform and economic plans is intensifying. Recently, Farage’s tax and spending framework faced criticism from a Labour politician who labeled it as based on the same “fantasy economics” that led to the disruptive outcomes of Liz Truss’s policies.

The fear is that Yusuf and Farage might trigger a financial meltdown akin to the disastrous mini-budget of the former prime minister. Despite the grand view from the Shard, many economists remain skeptical about the practicality of their priorities.

The proposed reforms suggest a massive tax pledge of at least £600 billion. A significant portion of the expenses revolves around raising the personal income tax allowance to £20,000, an impressive leap from the current £12,570. Furthermore, they plan to raise the threshold for the UK’s 40% higher tax rate from £50,271 to £70,000.

Richard Tice, the party’s financial spokesperson, has questioned whether the total outcome of the reforms can be accurately assessed. Most politicians seem unaware of the Laffer curve. Named after US economist Arthur Laffer, this theory suggests that there exists an optimal tax rate that maximizes government revenue.

The premise is that tax reductions can invigorate economic activity, ultimately increasing revenue. While a 100% tax rate halts economic incentive altogether, the notion that tax cuts can offset their own costs has faced considerable backlash, including critique from prominent economists like Greg Mankiw, who referred to Laffer’s supporters as “charlatans and cranks.”

Tice admits there is an “optimal point,” while Yusuf asserts that reforms should “prioritize tax cuts appropriately and ensure that the figures add up.” Economists also caution that tax hikes announced by Labour could hinder economic growth.

Nevertheless, criticisms persist that the proposed reforms promise significant tax breaks without providing reliable strategies to avoid exacerbating the country’s fiscal deficit, which exceeds £10 billion.

Alongside a low UK economic growth rate, inflation that surpasses targets, rising national debt, and escalating global borrowing costs amid fears of a trade war initiated by Donald Trump, the room for further borrowing appears quite constrained.

After Farage’s recent welfare commitment, the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimated that the fiscal policies proposed by the reforms could ultimately cost between £600 billion and £800 billion annually, taking into account previous revenues and additional expenditures. The IFS cautioned that this isn’t yet balanced by equivalent spending cuts or tax hikes elsewhere.

Yusuf mentioned that the reform plans are a work in progress and may evolve as the party formulates its 2029 manifesto. “You shouldn’t just transfer or copy-paste all the policies from the 2024 document,” he added, implying that assumptions about the manifesto for the next general election need to be reconsidered.

That seems a reasonable concern given the time frame until the next election, as the economy can shift at any moment. Workers are also criticized for backtracking on early commitments from 2024. Yet, voters are likely to demand higher expectations from government parties, especially with rising public discontent toward politicians who shift their targets.

However, Yusuf contended that savings could reliably stem from initiatives like “net-zero disposal,” eliminating overseas aid entirely, reducing “Quango expenditures” by 5% annually, and halting all funding for “exile hotels.”

“The figure I just provided could amount to as much as £7.8 billion?”

Economists at the Government Institute have expressed doubts about the feasibility of these savings, pointing out that a significant portion of the £45 billion net zero savings referenced by the reforms actually pertains to spending by the private sector rather than government expenditure.

When Truss opted for the mini-budget, she backed it with over 40 pages of financial documentation to validate her tax strategy, yet it still eroded investor confidence.

There is a genuine risk that history might repeat itself with the current reform initiatives.