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.

Politics

Regulators must catch up to the new privacy paradigm

Published

6 hours ago

November 9, 2025

admin

Regulators must catch up to the new privacy paradigm

Opinion by: Agata Ferreira, assistant professor at the Warsaw University of Technology

A new consensus is forming across the Web3 world. For years, privacy was treated as a compliance problem, liability for developers and at best, a niche concern. Now it is becoming clear that privacy is actually what digital freedom is built on.

The Ethereum Foundation’s announcement of the Privacy Cluster — a cross-team effort focused on private reads and writes, confidential identities and zero-knowledge proofs — is a sign of a philosophical redefinition of what trust, consensus and truth mean in the digital age and a more profound realization that privacy must be built into infrastructure.

Regulators should pay attention. Privacy-preserving designs are no longer just experimental; they are now a standard approach. They are becoming the way forward for decentralized systems. The question is whether law and regulation will adopt this shift or remain stuck in an outdated logic that equates visibility with safety.

From shared observation to shared verification

For a long time, digital governance has been built on a logic of visibility. Systems were trustworthy because they could be observed by regulators, auditors or the public. This “shared observation” model is behind everything from financial reporting to blockchain explorers. Transparency was the means of ensuring integrity.

In cryptographic systems, however, a more powerful paradigm is emerging: shared verification. Instead of every actor seeing everything, zero-knowledge proofs and privacy-preserving designs enable verifying that a rule was followed without revealing the underlying data. Truth becomes something you can prove, not something you must expose.

This shift might seem technical, but it has profound consequences. It means we no longer need to pick between privacy and accountability. Both can coexist, embedded directly into the systems we rely on. Regulators, too, must adapt to this logic rather than battle against it.

Privacy as infrastructure

The industry is realizing the same thing: Privacy is not a niche. It’s infrastructure. Without it, the Web3 openness becomes its weakness, and transparency collapses into surveillance.

Emerging architectures across ecosystems demonstrate that privacy and modularity are finally converging. Ethereum’s Privacy Cluster focuses on confidential computation and selective disclosure at the smart-contract level.

Others are going deeper, integrating privacy into the network consensus itself: sender-unlinkable messaging, validator anonymity, private proof-of-stake and self-healing data persistence. These designs are rebuilding the digital stack from the ground up, aligning privacy, verifiability and decentralization as mutually reinforcing properties.

This is not an incremental improvement. It is a new way of thinking about freedom in the digital network age.

Policy is lagging behind the technology

Current regulatory approaches still reflect the logic of shared observation. Privacy-preserving technologies are scrutinized or restricted, while visibility is mistaken for safety and compliance. Developers of privacy protocols face regulatory pressure, and policymakers continue to think that encryption is an obstacle to observability.

This perspective is outdated and dangerous. In a world where everyone is being watched, and where data is harvested on an unprecedented scale, bought, sold, leaked and exploited, the absence of privacy is the actual systemic risk. It undermines trust, puts people at risk and makes democracies weaker. By contrast, privacy-preserving designs make integrity provable and enable accountability without exposure.

Lawmakers must begin to view privacy as an ally, not an adversary — a tool for enforcing fundamental rights and restoring confidence in digital environments.

Stewardship, not just scrutiny

The next phase of digital regulation must move from scrutiny to support. Legal and policy frameworks should protect privacy-preserving open source systems as critical public goods. Stewardship stance is a duty, not a policy choice.

It means providing legal clarity for developers and distinguishing between acts and architecture. Laws should punish misconduct, not the existence of technologies that enable privacy. The right to maintain private digital communication, association and economic exchange must be treated as a fundamental right, enforced by both law and infrastructure.

Such an approach would demonstrate regulatory maturity, recognizing that resilient democracies and legitimate governance rely on privacy-preserving infrastructure.

The architecture of freedom

The Ethereum Foundation’s privacy initiative and other new privacy-first network designs share the idea that freedom in the digital age is an architectural principle. It cannot depend solely on promises of good governance or oversight; it must be built into protocols that shape our lives.

These new systems, private rollups, state-separated architectures and sovereign zones represent the practical synthesis of privacy and modularity. They enable communities to build independently while remaining verifiably connected, thereby combining autonomy with accountability.

Policymakers should view this as an opportunity to support the direct embedding of fundamental rights into the technical foundation of the internet. Privacy-by-design should be embraced as legality-by-design, a way to enforce fundamental rights through code, not just through constitutions, charters and conventions.

The blockchain industry is redefining what “consensus” and “truth” mean, replacing shared observation with shared verification, visibility with verifiability, and surveillance with sovereignty. As this new dawn for privacy takes shape, regulators face a choice: Limit it under the old frameworks of control, or support it as the foundation of digital freedom and a more resilient digital order.

The tech is getting ready. The laws need to catch up.

Opinion by: Agata Ferreira, assistant professor at the Warsaw University of Technology.

This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.