General Election 2024: Five things the main parties aren’t talking about this election
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.
NHS spending grows more quickly than the ‘baseline’
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).
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
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.
Should the Bank of England be paying large sums in interest to banks? File pic: AP
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.
Brexit has barely featured in the election. File pic: Victoria Jones/PA
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.
Read more:
Why the US is imposing 100% tariff on Chinese electric cars
Rapid steps needed for Britain to compete in green revolution
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
Rachel Reeves says budget ‘non-negotiable’ on China trip – as former PM says she’s been ‘rumbled’ by market turmoil
The chancellor has said the budget is “non-negotiable” on a visit to China in the face of volatile markets back in the UK.
Rachel Reeves flew out on Friday after ignoring calls from opposition parties to cancel the long-planned trip because of economic turmoil at home.
The past week has seen a drop in the pound and an increase in government borrowing costs, which has fuelled speculation of more spending cuts or tax rises.
The Tories have accused the chancellor of having “fled to China” rather than explain how she will fix the UK’s flatlining economy, while the Liberal Democrats say she should stay in Britain and announce a “plan B” to address market volatility.
Former prime minister Boris Johnson said Ms Reeves had “been rumbled” and said she should “make her way to HR and collect her P45 – or stay in China”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Chancellor’s ‘pragmatic’ approach to China
The chancellor visits a Brompton bike shop in Beijing. Pic: AP
However, during a visit to Beijing’s flagship store of UK bike maker Brompton, Ms Reeves said she would not alter her economic plans, with the October budget designed to return the UK to economic stability.
“Growth is the number one mission of this government,” she said.
“The fiscal rules laid out in the budget are non-negotiable. Economic stability is the bedrock for economic growth and prosperity.”
The treasury added that making Britain better off will be at the “forefront of the chancellor’s mind” during her visit.
She said that “action” will be taken to meet the fiscal rules. That action is reported to include deeper spending cuts than the 5% efficiency savings already expected to be announced later this year, while cuts to the welfare bill are also said to be under consideration.
👉 Click here to follow Electoral Dysfunction wherever you get your podcasts 👈
The chancellor is being accompanied by Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey and other senior executives.
She met her counterpart, Vice Premier He Lifeng, in Beijing on Saturday to discuss financial services, trade and investment, before heading to Shanghai for talks with representatives across British and Chinese businesses.
She will also “raise difficult issues”, including Chinese firms supporting Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and concerns over constraints on rights and freedoms in Hong Kong, the Treasury said.
But it did not mention whether Ms Reeves would raise the treatment of the Uyghur community, which Downing Street said Foreign Secretary David Lammy would do during his visit last year.
Britain’s Foreign Secretary David Lammy and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Beijing. Pic: AP
On Friday, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy defended the trip, telling Sky News that the climbing cost of government borrowing was a “global trend” that had affected many countries, “most notably the United States”.
“We are still on track to be the fastest growing economy, according to the OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] in Europe,” she told Anna Jones on Sky News Breakfast.
“China is the second-largest economy, and what China does has the biggest impact on people from Stockton to Sunderland, right across the UK, and it’s absolutely essential that we have a relationship with them.”
Ed Conway analysis: The chancellor’s gamble with China
Grim economic news raises stakes for embattled chancellor’s controversial China trip
Rachel Reeves’s trip to China – the first by a British chancellor since 2019 – was always going to be controversial.
In recent years Conservative governments have been keeping Beijing at arm’s length – amid concern about espionage, the situation in Hong Kong, and the treatment of the Uyghurs.
David Cameron’s so-called “Golden Era” of engagement in the pursuit of economic investment, notoriously capped by a visit to an Oxfordshire pub for a pint with President Xi Jinping – has been widely written off as a naive mistake.
There are many – not least the incoming US President Donald Trump – who believe we should maintain our distance.
But in another era of economic turmoil, the pursuit of growth is the government’s number one priority.
This week’s difficult market news – with the cost of government borrowing surging, and the value of the pound falling – has thoroughly raised the stakes.
It is the first UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue (EFD) since 2019, building on the Labour government’s plan for a “pragmatic” policy with the world’s second-largest economy.
Sir Keir Starmer was the first British prime minister to meet with China’s President Xi Jinping in six years at the G20 summit in Brazil last autumn.
Relations between the UK and China have become strained over the last decade as the Conservative government spoke out against human rights abuses and concerns grew over national security risks.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
How much do we trade with China?
Navigating this has proved tricky given China is the UK’s fourth largest single trading partner, with a trade relationship worth almost £113bn and exports to China supporting over 455,000 jobs in the UK in 2020, according to the government.
During the Tories’ 14 years in office, the approach varied dramatically from the “golden era” under David Cameron to hawkish aggression under Liz Truss, while Rishi Sunak vowed to be “robust” but resisted pressure from his own party to brand China a threat.
The Treasury said a stable relationship with China would support economic growth and that “making working people across Britain secure and better off is at the forefront of the chancellor’s mind”.
Ahead of her visit, Ms Reeves said: “By finding common ground on trade and investment, while being candid about our differences and upholding national security as the first duty of this government, we can build a long-term economic relationship with China that works in the national interest.”
UK
Grim economic news raises stakes for embattled chancellor Rachel Reeves’s controversial China trip
Rachel Reeves’s trip to China – the first by a British chancellor since 2019 – was always going to be controversial.
In recent years Conservative governments have been keeping Beijing at arm’s length – amid concern about espionage, the situation in Hong Kong, and the treatment of the Uyghurs.
David Cameron‘s so-called “Golden Era” of engagement in the pursuit of economic investment, notoriously capped by a visit to an Oxfordshire pub for a pint with President Xi Jinping – has been widely written off as a naive mistake.
There are many – not least the incoming US President Donald Trump – who believe we should maintain our distance.
But in another era of economic turmoil, the pursuit of growth is the government’s number one priority.
Rachel Reeves visits a Beijing bike shop. Pic: AP
This week’s difficult market news – with the cost of government borrowing surging, and the value of the pound falling – has thoroughly raised the stakes.
Both the Tories and the Lib Dems argued the visit should be cancelled.
Prominent China hawk and former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith MP summed up both arguments against it.
“The trip is pointless,” he wrote on X. “As the disastrous ‘Golden Era’ showed, the murderous, brutal, law-breaking, communist regime in China will not deliver the growth the Labour government craves.
“Instead, she should stay home and try to sort out the awful mess her budget has created.”
President Xi Jinping and David Cameron in 2015. Pic: PA
Yet cancelling the trip would have been a diplomatic disaster and far from adding to economic stability would surely have spread a sense of crisis (with inevitable comparisons to Denis Healey’s abandoned visit to Hong Kong in 1976, months before he was forced to apply from an emergency loan from the IMF to save the pound from collapse).
Instead, the government argues the current market situation is a result of “global trends”, and Reeves insists she will be sticking to the decisions taken in the budget.
Read more from Sky News:
Reform councillors quit over Farage leadership
Bibby Stockholm barge contract ends
“Growth is the number one mission of this government. The fiscal rules laid out in the budget are non-negotiable. Economic stability is the bedrock for economic growth and prosperity.”
Improving the UK/China relationship should “boost our economic growth for the benefit of working people in both of our countries” she said during her meeting with vice premier He Lifeng.
In a speech to media afterwards, Reeves was delighted to announce a big, concrete number to justify the value of the trip, claiming the agreements reached would be worth £600m to the UK economy over five years.
Pragmatism is the new order of the day. Labour argues re-establishing “pragmatic engagement” with China is in the national interest, and it’s a word Reeves used four times in five minutes during her speech.
Ed Conway analysis: The chancellor’s gamble with China
The government insists this new closer relationship will make it easier for them to raise tricky issues and we did hear the chancellor flagging concerns about Hong Kong and the role of China in connection with Russia’s war in Ukraine – though not the Uyghurs, or the imprisoned British citizen and pro-democracy activist Jimmy Lai.
The challenge going forward will be to show that cosying up to China is worth it.
There’s a lot riding on it for the chancellor – with questions being openly asked about her economic strategy given the growing likelihood that to meet her fiscal rules on balancing tax and spending she will be forced to make deep cuts to government departments this spring.
We are promised a big speech from the chancellor on the government’s plans for growth in the coming weeks.
In many ways, the trip to China may have been a welcome break from the difficult decisions which await her return.
Former Manchester United footballer David May has shared his fears about developing dementia – and the impact that would have on his family.
It comes after the ex-footballer revealed David Windass, the former Hull City, Bradford City and Middlesbrough striker, has been diagnosed with stage two dementia.
During the early stages of dementia, people show a very mild cognitive decline, including occasional memory loss and struggles finding words, according to Dementia UK.
May shared 55-year-old Windass’s diagnosis – with his permission – during a BBC Breakfast interview.
“I actually said, ‘Would you mind if I mentioned it?’ And he went, ‘No. 100% – you mention it. Get it out there’. Not to put Deano under the spotlight, but the issue,” he told Sky News’ sports correspondent Rob Harris.
“I’d hate my children to go through that, knowing their dad doesn’t know them, doesn’t recognise them, can’t speak to them. It’s tragic.”
May, a defender with United’s 1999 treble-winning team, also revealed he is worried about his long-term health.
“Ask me would I do it again? Football? 100% – because I love football. It’s my life,” the 54-year-old said.
“Would I have done as many headers through training, and continuously heading in training? Maybe not.
“But I have just got to wait and see. It’s a waiting game. Are you going to be the one that’s going to miss it?
“One in three-and-a-half people will get dementia who have become professional footballers.”
May (top centre) won the treble with Manchester United in 1998/99. Pic: firo Sportphoto/ J’rgen Fromme/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images
Asked if he thought heading would eventually be banned, he said: “No, I don’t think you need to eradicate heading. It’s part of the game, and you don’t want to take that out of the game.
“It has been an incredible, and still is a wonderful, wonderful game.
“But maybe the amount of headers you do in training can change.
“I know that before, probably 15, 20 times, you’d head a ball in training. And then on a Friday you’d go through it to get your timings right, maybe another five or six before the game starts, and then all the heading in games.
“It’s a lot. It’s a hell of a lot of headers in a footballer’s career.”
May has joined campaigners pushing for more help for footballers affected by neurodegenerative diseases.
The diagnosis at such a young age for Windass has brought home the reality that this remains a major problem in football.
“It’s not going to go away. Day in, day out, players are heading the balls in games, and you know, are they aware of it? Probably not,” said May.
“We need to keep fighting for the right answers and the right funds.”
David May speaking to Sky News’ sports correspondent Rob Harris
Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham and the Mayor of the Liverpool City Region Steve Rotheram have given their backing to the cause.
The Football Families for Justice (FFJ) campaign has the support of former England captain David Beckham, and is now seeking to secure an amendment to the Football Governance Bill which would give the independent regulator the power to make it a statutory duty on the football authorities to develop a comprehensive dementia strategy, including a care fund agreed with affected players and their families.
“When you think of how much money comes into the Premier League now, it’s billions,” said May.
“It’s a pittance what they could donate to these lads who drastically need help and care.”
Read more from Sky News:
UK records coldest January in 15 years
Man crushed to death crossing Channel in small boat
In addition to funding research, the Football Association is also working to remove deliberate headings from youth football up to under-11s by 2026. It has also introduced rules on high-force headers in training at all levels of adult football to reduce the risks to individuals.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports9 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports3 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business2 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway