article_snippet.sent: In a withering verdict, it said all the main parties were keeping voters 'in the dark' about what voters would do, adding: 'None of all the main parties has provided anything like full details of all the main parties fiscal plans for each year of the coming parliament.'
article_snippet.sent: IFS director Paul Johnson said the gap between all the main parties plans was 'bigger than any time since 1992' – giving voters a clear choice between more taxes, spending or borrowing.
article_snippet.sent: Carl Emmerson, deputy director of the IFS, added: 'The electorate has a real choice, although The electorate can at best see only the broad outlines of a real choice.'
article_snippet.sent: the IFS said Labour's plans were broadly compatible with those of Labour potential post-election partners in the SNP.
article_snippet.sent: The Scottish nationalists want to spend an extra £4billion on benefits.
article_snippet.sent: Labour said the think-tank had made 'wrong assumptions' about Labour plans.
article_snippet.sent: any political party is also committed to allowing the terminally ill with the 'greatest care needs' to have the right to die in any political party own homes.
article_snippet.sent: the IFS the IFS said the Lib Dems deserved a 'small tick' for being the most transparent – although the Lib Dems were also criticised for failure to spell out £12billion of planned spending cuts.
highlights_snippet.sent: Said the gap 'between the parties' was 'bigger than any time since 1992'
  