General Election 2024: Five things the main parties aren’t talking about this election

Published

1 year ago

July 1, 2024

admin

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) says there’s a conspiracy of silence this election – that all of the major political parties aren’t being honest enough about their fiscal plans this election.

And they have a point. Most obviously (and this is the main thing the IFS is complaining about) none of the major manifestos – from Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative parties – have been clear about how they will fill an impending black hole in the government’s spending plans.

No need to go into all the gritty details, but the overarching point is that all government spending plans include some broad assumptions about how much spending (and for that matter, taxes and economic growth) will grow in the coming years. Economists call this the “baseline”.

But there’s a problem with this baseline: it assumes quite a slow increase in overall government spending in the next four years, an average of about 1 per cent a year after accounting for inflation. Which doesn’t sound too bad except that we all know from experience that NHS spending always grows more quickly than that, and that 1 per cent needs to accommodate all sorts of other promises, like increasing schools and defence spending and so on.

If all those bits of government are going to consume quite a lot of that extra money (far more than a 1 per cent increase, certainly) then other bits of government won’t get as much. In fact, the IFS reckons those other bits of government – from the Home Office to the legal system – will face annual cuts of 3.5 per cent. In other words, it’s austerity all over again.

But here’s the genius thing (for the politicians, at least). While they have to set a baseline, to make all their other sums add up, the dysfunctional nature of the way government sets its spending budgets means it only has to fill in the small print about which department gets what when it does a spending review. And that spending review isn’t due until after the election.

The upshot is all the parties can pretend they’ve signed up to the baseline even when it’s patently obvious that more money will be needed for those unprotected departments (or else it’s a return to austerity).

So yes, the IFS is right: the numbers in each manifesto, including Labour’s, are massively overshadowed by this other bigger conspiracy of silence.

But I would argue that actually the conspiracy of silence goes even deeper. Because it’s not just fiscal baselines we’re not talking about enough. Consider five other issues none of the major parties is confronting (when I say major parties, in this case I’m talking about the Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem manifestos – to some extent the Green and Reform manifestos are somewhat less guilty of these particular sins, even if they commit others).

Taxes going up

First, for all their promises not to raise any of the major tax rates (something Labour, the Conservatives and Lib Dems have all committed to) the reality is taxes are going up. We will all be paying more in taxes by the end of the parliament compared with today.

Indeed, we’ll all be paying more income tax. Except that we’ll be paying more of it because we’ll be paying tax on more of our income – that’s the inexorable logic of freezing the thresholds at which you start paying certain rates of tax (which is what this government has done – and none of the other parties say they’ll reverse).

Second, the main parties might say they believe in different things, but they all seem to believe in one particular offbeat religion: the magic tax avoidance money tree. All three of these manifestos assume they will make enormous sums – more, actually, than from any single other money-raising measure – from tightening up tax avoidance rules.

While it’s perfectly plausible that you could raise at least some money from clamping down on tax avoidance, it’s hardly a slam-dunk. That this is the centrepiece of each party’s money-raising efforts says a lot. And, another thing that’s often glossed over: raising more money this way will also raise the tax burden.

Third is another thing all the parties agree on and are desperate not to question: the fiscal rules. The government has a set of rules requiring it to keep borrowing and (more importantly given where the numbers are right now) total debt down to a certain level.

But here’s the thing. These rules are not god-given. They are not necessarily even all that good. The debt rule is utterly gameable. It hasn’t stopped the Conservatives raising the national debt to the highest level in decades. And it’s not altogether clear the particular measure of debt being used (net debt excluding Bank of England interventions) is even the right one.

Which raises another micro-conspiracy. Of all the parties at this election, the only one talking about whether the Bank of England should really be paying large sums in interest to banks as it winds up its quantitative easing programme is the Reform Party. This policy, first posited by a left-wing thinktank (the New Economics Foundation) is something many economists are discussing. It’s something the Labour Party will quite plausibly carry out to raise some extra money if it gets elected. But no one wants to discuss it. Odd.

Brexit impact

Anyway, the fourth issue everyone seems to have agreed not to discuss is, you’ve guessed it, Brexit. While the 2019 election was all about Brexit, this one, by contrast, has barely featured the B word. Perhaps you’re relieved. For a lot of people we’ve talked so much about Brexit over the past decade or so that, frankly, we need a bit of a break. That’s certainly what the main parties seem to have concluded.

But while the impact of leaving the European Union is often overstated (no, it’s not responsible for every one of our economic problems) it’s far from irrelevant to our economic plight. And where we go with our economic neighbours is a non-trivial issue in the future.

Anyway, this brings us to the fifth and final thing no one is talking about. The fact that pretty much all the guff spouted on the campaign trail is completely dwarfed by bigger international issues they seem reluctant or ill-equipped to discuss. Take the example of China and electric cars.

Just recently, both the US and European Union have announced large tariffs on the import of Chinese EVs. Now, in America’s case those tariffs are primarily performative (the country imports only a tiny quantity of Chinese EVs). But in Europe‘s case Chinese EVs are a very substantial part of the market – same for the UK.

Raising the question: what is the UK going to do? You could make a strong case for saying Britain should be emulating the EU and US, in an effort to protect the domestic car market. After all, failing to impose tariffs will mean this country will have a tidal wave of cars coming from China (especially since they can no longer go to the rest of the continent without facing tariffs) which will make it even harder for domestic carmakers to compete. And they’re already struggling to compete.

By the same token, imposing tariffs will mean the cost of those cheap Chinese-made cars (think: MGs, most Teslas and all those newfangled BYDs and so on) will go up. A lot. Is this really the right moment to impose those extra costs on consumers.

In short, this is quite a big issue. Yet it hasn’t come up as a big issue in this campaign. Which is madness. But then you could say the same thing about, say, the broader race for minerals, about net zero policy more widely and about how we’re going to go about tightening up sanctions on Russia to make them more effective.

? Click here to follow The Ian King Business Podcast wherever you get your podcasts ?

Parochial election

Elections are always parochial but given the scale of these big, international issues (and there are many more), this one feels especially parochial.

So in short: yes, there have been lots of gaps. Enormous gaps. The “conspiracy of silence” goes way, way beyond the stuff the IFS has talked about.

But ’twas ever thus.

Think back to the last time a political party actually confronted some long-standing issues no one wanted to talk about in their manifesto. I’m talking about the 2017 Conservative manifesto, which pledged to resolve the mess of social care in this country, once and for all.

It sought to confront a big social issue, intergenerational inequality, in so doing ensuring younger people wouldn’t have to subsidise the elderly.

The manifesto was an absolute, abject, electoral disaster. It was largely responsible for Theresa May‘s slide in the polls from a 20 point lead to a hung parliament.

And while most people don’t talk about that manifesto anymore, make no mistake: today’s political strategists won’t forget it in a hurry. Hence why this year’s campaign and this year’s major manifestos are so thin.

Elections are rarely won on policy proposals. But they are sometimes lost on them.

UK

Starmer vows to fight any plots to oust him – as Labour MPs fear major budget backlash

Published

6 hours ago

November 12, 2025

admin

Starmer vows to fight any plots to oust him - as Labour MPs fear major budget backlash

Sir Keir Starmer is vowing to fight any challenge to his leadership rather than stand aside, amid claims of plotting by MPs being compared to TV’s The Traitors.

Number 10 is going on the attack ahead of a difficult budget this month, with fears it could prove so unpopular that Labour MPs may move against Sir Keir.

But Sky News political editor Beth Rigby reports the prime minister “has no intention of giving way”, with allies warning any challenge would lead to a “drawn-out leadership election, spook the markets, and create more chaos that further damages the Labour brand”.

One senior figure told Rigby any move against Sir Keir would be more likely to arrive after next May’s elections, rather than the budget.

They said many Labour MPs could probably get behind measures like tax rises for wealthier workers, pensioners and landlords, as well as scrapping the two-child benefit cap, if that’s what the chancellor announces on 26 November.

But there are a series of potentially damaging elections in May, including in London and for the Senedd in Wales, as Labour face a challenge from Reform UK on the right and parties like the Greens and Plaid Cymru on the left.

Rigby said there is a “settled view among some very senior figures in the party that Starmer lacks the charisma and communication skills to take on Nigel Farage and win over the public, particularly if or when he breaks a bunch of manifesto pledges”.

Sir Keir and Rachel Reeves have refused to rule out breaking their manifesto promises not to raise income tax, national insurance, or VAT at the budget.

The Number 10 operation to ward off a challenge comes after Sky News deputy political editor Sam Coates likened the febrile mood in the Labour high command to the TV hit The Traitors.

Speaking on the Politics At Sam And Anne’s podcast, he said: “A minister got in touch at the start of the weekend to say they believe that there’s some quite substantial plotting going on.

“They say there was at least one cabinet minister telling colleagues that Keir Starmer, and I quote, is finished.”

We’ve been here before…

Jon Craig

Chief political correspondent

@joncraig

When Boris Johnson was facing mutiny from Conservative MPs, his allies launched “Operation Save Big Dog”.

When Margaret Thatcher was about to be ousted by her rebellious MPs in 1990, she declared: “I fight on, I fight to win.”

And Harold Wilson, constantly paranoid about plots, famously quipped in 1969: “I know what’s going on. I’m going on.”

Boris Johnson was ousted less than six months after “Operation Save Big Dog”, Margaret Thatcher resigned the following morning after saying “I fight on”, and Harold Wilson lost a general election to Edward Heath a year after vowing that he would go on.

Just saying.

Coates said the cabinet minister “absolutely and totally denies they are up to anything nefarious whatsoever”.

“I actually do think that this is all in the style of The Traitors, because I’m not sure that there is hard and fast evidence of plotting – there might be some hints from some quarters,” he added.

“But what seems to be completely logical is that if you’re a bit worried in Number 10, you’re trying to pitch roll and ward off people who are maybe thinking about the need to position themselves by starting to get out rumours of plots and hoping that the political system turns against them for disloyalty.”

Cloak-and-dagger

Reports emerged on Tuesday night in The Times, The Guardian, and from the BBC of a “bunker mode” in Number 10, “regime change”, and “plotting” to replace Sir Keir.

Responding to the reports, Health Secretary Wes Streeting denied he was seeking to oust the prime minister.

A spokesperson for Mr Streeting told Sky News: “These claims are categorically untrue.

“Wes’s focus has entirely been on cutting waiting lists for the first time in 15 years, recruiting 2,500 more GPs and rebuilding the NHS that saved his life.”

However, there is clearly a co-coordinated campaign by allies of the increasingly unpopular Sir Keir to try to prevent a leadership challenge by a cabinet minister or stalking horse.

Sir Keir’s biographer Tom Baldwin questioned the logic of those briefing from within the corridors of power.

“I’m at a loss to understand why anyone would think this sort of briefing will help Keir Starmer, the government, or even their own cause,” he said on social media. “Some people just can’t resist, I guess, but it’s all a bit nuts.”

What next?

It comes ahead of Prime Minister’s Questions this lunchtime, handing Tory leader Kemi Badenoch the chance to make it an awkward afternoon for Sir Keir.

The health secretary will start his day on Sky News’ Morning With Ridge And Frost and will then speak at an NHS providers’ conference.

Watch and follow live coverage across Sky News – including in the Politics Hub.

UK

Government to reconsider whether to give compensation to Waspi women

Published

6 hours ago

November 12, 2025

admin

Government to reconsider whether to give compensation to Waspi women

A decision not to award compensation to the Waspi women will be reconsidered by the government because of undisclosed “evidence”, the Work and Pensions Secretary has said.

Waspi women – Women Against State Pensions Inequality – are those born in the 1950s who say they were not given sufficient warning of the state pension age for women being lifted – to be in line with men – from 60 to 65.

Politics Live: Who are the Waspi women and what happened to them?

They have long argued that this was done too quickly, leaving some women financially unprepared to cope with the number of years when they were no longer able to claim their state pension.

The government said in December that they would not be compensated, because most women knew the changes were coming.

But Pat McFadden told the Commons on Tuesday: “Since then, as part of the legal proceedings challenging the government’s decision, evidence has been cited about research findings from a 2007 report.”

The cabinet minister was referring to the rediscovery of a 2007 Department for Work and Pensions evaluation which had led to officials stopping sending automatic pension forecast letters out.

Mr McFadden said: “In light of this, and in the interest of fairness and transparency, I have concluded that the government should now consider this evidence. This means we will retake the decision made last December as it relates to the communications on State Pension age.”

Around 3.6 million women were impacted by the change to the state pension age. The government has previously said compensating them could cost £10.5bn.

Mr McFadden stressed that reviewing the decision should not be taken as an indication that the government will “decide that it should award financial redress”.

Angela Madden, the chair of Waspi, said the decision was a “major step forward”.

“The government now knows it got it wrong, and we are pleased they are now trying to do it properly,” she said.

“The only correct thing to do is to immediately compensate the 3.6 million Waspi women who have already waited too long for justice.”

The decision to refuse compensation was made despite a recommendation by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) that the women should be paid up to £2,950 each.

The PHSO’s findings are not binding, and last year the then-work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall said that the cost could not be justified as most women knew about the changes.

Sir Keir Starmer also said compensation would “burden” the taxpayer.

UK

New law could help tackle AI-generated child abuse at source, says watchdog

Published

6 hours ago

November 12, 2025

admin

New law could help tackle AI-generated child abuse at source, says watchdog

Groups tackling AI-generated child sexual abuse material could be given more powers to protect children online under a proposed new law.

Organisations like the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), as well as AI developers themselves, will be able to test the ability of AI models to create such content without breaking the law.

That would mean they could tackle the problem at the source, rather than having to wait for illegal content to appear before they deal with it, according to Kerry Smith, chief executive of the IWF.

The IWF deals with child abuse images online, removing hundreds of thousands every year.

Ms Smith called the proposed law a “vital step to make sure AI products are safe before they are released”.

How would the law work?

The changes are due to be tabled today as an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill.

The government said designated bodies could include AI developers and child protection organisations, and it will bring in a group of experts to ensure testing is carried out “safely and securely”.

The new rules would also mean AI models can be checked to make sure they don’t produce extreme pornography or non-consensual intimate images.

“These new laws will ensure AI systems can be made safe at the source, preventing vulnerabilities that could put children at risk,” said Technology Secretary Liz Kendall.

“By empowering trusted organisations to scrutinise their AI models, we are ensuring child safety is designed into AI systems, not bolted on as an afterthought.”

AI abuse material on the rise

The announcement came as new data was published by the IWF showing reports of AI-generated child sexual abuse material have more than doubled in the past year.

According to the data, the severity of material has intensified over that time.

The most serious category A content – images involving penetrative sexual activity, sexual activity with an animal, or sadism – has risen from 2,621 to 3,086 items, accounting for 56% of all illegal material, compared with 41% last year.

Read more from Sky News:
Protesters storm COP30
UK stops some intel sharing with US

The data showed girls have been most commonly targeted, accounting for 94% of illegal AI images in 2025.

The NSPCC called for the new laws to go further and make this kind of testing compulsory for AI companies.

“It’s encouraging to see new legislation that pushes the AI industry to take greater responsibility for scrutinising their models and preventing the creation of child sexual abuse material on their platforms,” said Rani Govender, policy manager for child safety online at the charity.

“But to make a real difference for children, this cannot be optional.

“Government must ensure that there is a mandatory duty for AI developers to use this provision so that safeguarding against child sexual abuse is an essential part of product design.”