Welcome to The Conversation’s Manifesto Check, where academics subject each party’s election manifesto to unbiased, expert scrutiny. Here is what our experts had to say about the Conservative Party’s top policies. Follow the links for further analysis.

Health

Andrew Street, Professor, Centre for Health Economics at University of York

The party claims to have “cleared out bureaucracy” and, indeed, there are 20,000 fewer managers and support staff now than in May 2010. NHS productivity has improved year-on-year, mainly due to slower recruitment of staff. And the manifesto correctly claims that The Commonwealth Fund has ranked the UK as having the best health system among 11 countries.

But other statements don’t stand up to scrutiny. The official statistics contradict claims that fewer patients are waiting longer than target times. In February 2015, 18,804 more patients were waiting longer than 18 weeks – and 6,019 more than 26 weeks – for hospital admission, compared with May 2010. And although 194 fewer patients were waiting more than 52 weeks, many more patients were also waiting longer for outpatient care.

Even if the claim that those waiting over a year for cancer treatment has fallen from over 18,000 to under 500 is correct (I have not been able to verify this), the evidence shows that achievement against all cancer waiting time standards has deteriorated over the parliamentary term.

And the statement that “patients are reporting the highest levels of satisfaction for years” is true if compared to 2011, when 58% reported being at least “quite satisfied” with the NHS, which has risen to 65% in the most recent survey. But satisfaction remains below the all-time high of 70% recorded in 2010, prior to the re-organisation.

Read more here.

Welfare

Duncan McVicar, Professor of Economics at Queen’s University Belfast

The common theme is reducing payment levels (albeit with some exceptions, most notably state pensions) and tightening the eligibility criteria for them. The Conservatives argue this will increase incentives for people to work and, via increased employment, reduce poverty.

On the first point they are likely to be right. Although these particular reforms are yet to be evaluated, there is a wealth of research evidence showing that reducing payment levels and tightening eligibility criteria for welfare benefits tends to move people off benefits often into some form of employment.

There is also evidence that tightening some benefit payments but not others tends to shift some people around the welfare system – think of squeezing a balloon – rather than into employment. The proposed Universal Credit reforms recognise this. The proposed benefit freezes for some working age payments but not others, however, does not.

The second claim – that tougher welfare will reduce poverty – is much more questionable, with less supportive research evidence. The rapid growth in food bank use, with benefit changes cited by many as the primary reason for their referral to a food bank, suggests recent reforms may be having the opposite effect, at least in the short term.

Read more here.

Stay tuned for more checks.

Andrew Street receives funding from the National Institute of Health Research and the Department of Health's Policy Research Programme.

Duncan McVicar has received funding from various public and third sector organisations in the past to support research and other work, including from government departments and agencies in Northern Ireland and Australia. This includes the following in the past five years: Department of Social Services (Australian Government); Department of Education and Early Child Development (Victorian Government); and the National Centre for Vocational Education Research. At the time of writing, he is not receiving any relevant funding.