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.
The former leader of Reform UK in Wales has been sentenced to 10 and a half years after he admitted accepting tens of thousands of pounds in cash to make pro-Russian statements to the media and European Parliament.
Nathan Gill had “abused a position of significant authority and trust” and was “motivated by financial and political gain”, said Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb during remarks at the Old Bailey on Friday.
Gill, 52, of Anglesey, North Wales, had previously pleaded guilty to eight counts of bribery between 6 December 2018 and 18 July 2019, corresponding to his time as an MEP.
Nathan Gill is surrounded by media as he arrives at the Old Bailey. Pic: PA
The Old Bailey heard his activities were linked to pro-Russian statements about Ukraine while he was a member of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) and subsequently the Brexit Party.
Following an investigation by counter-terrorism police, officers said they believe Gill likely took a minimum of £40,000 in cash and was offering to introduce other British MEPs so they could be bribed. Officers also said they believed some individuals in this case had a direct link to Vladimir Putin.
Nathan Gill pleaded guilty to eight counts of bribery. Pic: Met Police
Prosecutor Mark Heywood KC previously told the court the bribery offences related to Gill’s association with pro-Russian Oleg Voloshyn, who had been a Ukrainian government official before 2014 and was sanctioned by the UK in 2022.
Gill’s activities emerged in WhatsApp messages after he was stopped at Manchester Airport on 13 September 2021.
He was about to board a flight to Russia to be an observer in elections there.
Bundles of cash recovered
Police said the messages revealed Voloshyn had tasked Gill to make pro-Russian statements on a reward basis. Counter-terrorism officers said the text of some speeches was provided to Gill, which he delivered almost word-for-word.
In other cases, he was paid to offer commentary to news outlets, such as the pro-Russian media organisation 112 Ukraine.
A search of his home in Wales also uncovered thousands in euros and dollars.
Bundles of cash were recovered from Gill’s home. Pic: Met Police
Pic: Met Police
Greed ‘primary motivation’
Commander Dominic Murphy, head of the Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism Command, described Gill as being motivated by money.
“It appears… greed was his primary motivation. But I think there’s an element of him that had a pro-Russian stance as well, but only he can answer that question, to be honest with you, he never told us that.”
Gill was interviewed in March 2022 and made no comment. He was charged and appeared in court in February 2025.
Gill said no comment when interviewed by officers in 2022. Pic: Met Police
‘A grave betrayal of trust’
During sentencing, Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb described Gill’s offending as “sophisticated” and “a grave betrayal of the trust vested in you by the electorate”.
She told him: “You accepted payments from foreign nationals, made statements on important international matters at their behest, utilised scripted material presented as your own, and orchestrated the involvement of other MPs.
“Your misconduct has ramifications far beyond personal honour, which is now irretrievably damaged. It erodes public confidence in democracy when politicians succumb to financial inducement.”
Gill was paid to offer commentary to pro-Russian media outlet, 112 Ukraine. Pic: Met Police
Other UK politicians at risk
Commander Murphy said that police were continuing to investigate other MEPs, including some from the UK.
“What we do know from the conversations with [Oleg] Voloshyn is that Nathan Gill actually offered his services to contact other MEPs, mostly UK MEPs, to also make statements that might be supportive of a Russian position in Ukraine,” he said.
He added: “I do believe that some of the individuals in this case do have direct connections to Vladimir Putin. And I have no doubt that if we were able to, we could follow this trail and it would lead straight to Moscow.”
Commander Dominic Murphy believes greed was Gill’s primary motivation
Gill led the Welsh wing of UKIP between 2014 and 2016 and was a member of the Senedd between 2016 and 2017.
He was an MEP between 2014 and 2020, but left UKIP in 2019 to join Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party – later Reform UK.
Political fallout after prison term
Police have confirmed Nigel Farage has not been part of this investigation, but political rivals have called on the Reform UK leader to launch a thorough investigation.
Defence minister Al Carns, a former colonel in the Royal Marines, said Gill’s actions were “a disgrace”. He added: “I just think wherever we see Russian influence in UK politics, it’s got to be weeded out.”
Read more from Sky News:
Zelenskyy reacts to peace plan
Europe cannot reject Trump’s plan
Britain warns Russia over spy ship
Meanwhile, Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said “a traitor was at the very top of Reform UK”, referring to Gill, but also launched a direct attack on Mr Farage by calling him, and his party, “a danger to national security”.
“Nigel Farage himself was previously paid to be on Putin’s TV channel, Russia Today, and said he was the world leader he admires the most.
“We must all ask – where do his loyalties really lie? We need a full investigation into Russian interference in our politics,” he said.
Reform UK, which previously kicked Gill out of the party, said in a statement: “Mr Gill’s actions were reprehensible, treasonous and unforgivable. We are glad that justice has been served and fully welcome the sentence Nathan Gill has received.”
Liz Saville Roberts, Plaid Cymru’s Westminster leader, welcomed Gill’s jail sentence “for his acts of betrayal in taking bribes from Russia”.
In a statement, she said: “If the former Reform UK leader in Wales was part of a broader, co-ordinated effort to advance Moscow’s agenda within our democratic institutions, then the public deserves to know the full truth, and how far Russian money and influence reached into Nigel Farage’s inner circle.”
There is rampant speculation that the government might do something to bring down energy bills in the budget next week – but what could this look like, and will other taxes go up?
The high rates people pay for heating and electricity is becoming a more salient issue as temperatures drop, and the confirmation the price cap is rising will do nothing to help public opinion on the topic.
Energy bills are also rising as a direct result of government policy, including on net zero, with some criticising Energy Secretary Ed Miliband for his stalwart defence of the project.
Politics latest: Follow live updates
Technology Secretary Liz Kendall told Sky News that the government is looking at taking “more action” on the cost of living, when asked if bills were coming down.
In their election manifesto last year, Labour promised to get energy bills down by £300 by 2030. Here’s how this year’s budget could work towards that.
Remove VAT
Currently, bill payers have to fork out 5% of their charge in VAT.
This would be an easy target for the government if it wants to knock a lump off everyone’s bills, with estimates it could save people about £80 from their annual payments.
Read more:
‘No shortcut’ to cheaper bills, warns minister
Badenoch: ‘get Britain drilling again’
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
What’s driving energy prices higher?
However, there are warnings that this cut would benefit those who spend more on energy more than the poorest households, as it is a percentage tax – which might draw criticism for not aligning with the government’s “working people” mantra.
And with budgets tight, it is unlikely the government would be able to find the estimated £2.5bn in savings from axing VAT on energy, so tax would need to be raised elsewhere to account for it.
Remove policy costs
As Sky News business and economics correspondent Paul Kelso pointed out with the announcement of the rising price cap, wholesale energy prices have fallen.
But household tariffs are going up because of government policy, according to Ofgem, Paul says, with taxpayers forking out for the Sizewell C nuclear power station, the warm homes discount and changes being made to the grid.
Some think tanks and action groups have called for these payments to be moved off bills and into general taxation – like with VAT – in a bid to make those with the “broadest shoulders” carry more of the burden.
Some estimates suggest moving policy payments off bills and to tax could save people again about £80 from their annual bill.
Combined with the VAT change, this leaves a potential for about £160 to be knocked off the average yearly bill – but the money would be raised elsewhere from the expected tax rises.
Changing net zero targets
The most unlikely measure is a change to the government’s net zero targets, but major changes to the policy could knock money off the average bill.
The cost of reaching net zero by 2030 – a key goal of Mr Miliband – is borne out in bills as the reform is being paid through levies of energy bills.
By delaying the 2030 target, it would allow costs to be spread over a longer period, with the trade-off being a longer period of time exposed to higher gas prices.
If this was imposed on Mr Miliband by the Treasury, it would raise speculation about whether he could continue as energy secretary.
Ed Miliband is championing net zero
There are a myriad of other problems with the energy system that are causing higher bill prices.
One is curtailment costs – about £40 a year of every bill is paid to green energy producers to stop them making electricity.
This is because the grid is so old it cannot transport power from areas like Scotland to the rest of the UK when a lot is being generated. This power also cannot be stored for reuse.
The government is trying to resolve issues with the grid, but this is happening alongside net zero projects.
The Treasury does not comment on budget speculation.
The leading Bitcoin mining application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) manufacturer, Bitmain, which is based in China, is reportedly under investigation in the US over national security concerns.
According to a Friday Bloomberg report, an unspecified US official and six other anonymous people familiar with the matter said that Bitmain’s hardware is at the center of a federal investigation known as “Operation Red Sunset.” The investigation, led by the US Department of Homeland Security, reportedly seeks to determine whether the ASICs could be remotely controlled for spying or to sabotage the US power grid.
US authorities previously investigated Bitmain-linked Chinese chip designer Xiamen Sophgo over an alleged business relationship with US-sanctioned company Huawei in October 2024. This was followed by the US Customs and Border Protection Agency halting the delivery of thousands of Bitmain ASICs the following month. Authorities only began releasing the hardware in March this year.
Consequences for the US crypto mining industry could be far-reaching, since Bitmain controls over 80% of the Bitcoin mining ASIC market, according to a Cambridge report. Chinese dominance in the industry is even more ironclad, with both Bitmain and the second-largest manufacturer, MicroBT, based in mainland China, controlling 97% of the market share on their own.
Related: Bitmain to open first US-based ASIC chip factory: Bloomberg
In some cases, investigators even disassembled Bitmain ASICs to look for malicious capabilities, the anonymous officials told Bloomberg. They declined to say whether anything was found.
A Bitmain spokesperson told Bloomberg that it’s “unequivocally false” that the company is capable of remotely controlling its machines. Instead, the company representative claimed that it “strictly complies with US and applicable laws and regulations and has never engaged in activities that pose risks to US national security,” and is unaware of the investigation.
Donald Trump’s skin in the game
Imposing restrictive measures on Bitmain machines is also likely to lead to consequences for US President Donald Trump’s family. In August, a Bitcoin mining company backed by members of Trump’s family, American Bitcoin, acquired a fleet of 16,299 Antminer U3S21EXPH units from Bitmain.
Related: Bitcoin ASIC producer Canaan pilots US production, exits AI business
The company also inherited “substantially all” of Hut 8’s ASICs. This includes the 31,145 Bitmain Antminers S21+ machines it acquired about a year ago.
In September, American Bitcoin announced that it has “preferential access to next-generation ASIC compute infrastructure,” without explicitly citing Bitmain. US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings also reveal that American Bitcoin “paid through the pledge of Bitcoin” with a “redemption period of 24 months from each pledge date,” terms which The Guardian reports are unusually generous.
With Bitmain so dominant in the space, American Bitcoin is far from the only major US-based crypto mining company that may be affected by the findings of this investigation. The industry already got a taste of what might happen when, in mid-February, publicly traded mining companies in the US felt the effects of trade tensions between the United States and China through delays in receiving shipments of their ASICs.
Magazine: Bitcoin’s long-term security budget problem: Impending crisis or FUD?
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024