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

Labour accused of ‘scandalous attempt to subvert democracy’

Published

2 hours ago

December 4, 2025

admin

Four mayoral elections to be postponed - as Labour accused of 'scandalous attempt to subvert democracy'

Four mayoral elections due to take place in May 2026 are set to be postponed by two years, Sky News understands.

Elections for the new mayoralties of Essex, Hampshire and the Solent, Sussex and Brighton, and Norfolk and Suffolk will be pushed back until 2028.

The decision, first revealed by The Sun, is due to be announced by ministers today.

This is the second time elections are being delayed in these areas. Local elections due in May 2025 were delayed by then communities secretary Angela Rayner for a year in order to convert them into combined authorities led by mayors.

However, it is understood that these councils need more time to complete their reorganisation.

The news has sparked accusations Labour are delaying the elections for political purposes.

Reform UK’s head of policy Zia Yusuf said: “This is a blatant attempt to stop big Reform wins next May.

“It’s an act of a desperate government who are clinging onto power by any means necessary.

“Labour has proven time and time again that they’re not beyond denying democracy to millions of people in order to maintain their cosy status quo.”

The Tories’ shadow housing secretary James Cleverly said it was a “scandalous attempt to subvert democracy by a Labour government whose credibility and popularity are already in tatters”.

“The Conservatives firmly oppose this decision to delay the mayoral elections, especially when candidates have been selected and campaigning is well under way,” he added.

“Democracy is being denied yet again after the council elections cancelled by Labour this year.

“There is no credible justification for this move. The Labour government must reverse it immediately.”

The reorganisation is part of Labour’s manifesto commitment to widen devolution, which it argues will improve local economies.

The government wants to abolish the two-tier system of county and district councils and merge them together to create larger unitary authorities. It also wants more areas to have regional mayors, like Greater Manchester’s Andy Burnham.

Reform UK enjoyed success in the local elections in May, winning more than 600 seats and taking control of 10 councils stretching from Kent to County Durham. The party also toppled a 14,000-strong Labour majority in a parliamentary by-election.

The Liberal Democrats’ local government spokesperson Zoe Franklin called the postponed elections “a disgrace”.

“Democracy delayed is democracy denied,” she added. “We are fighting to end this blatant stitch up between Labour and the Conservatives over local elections.”

Politics

Reeves between a rook and a hard place after claims she ‘made up’ chess championship

Published

2 hours ago

December 4, 2025

admin

Reeves between a rook and a hard place after claims she 'made up' chess championship

As an opening gambit at PMQs, Kemi Badenoch attacked Labour’s knight, the prime minister, over his Treasury queen, Rachel Reeves.

“We now know the black hole was fake, the chancellor’s book was fake, her CV was fake – even her chess claims are made up,” said the Tory leader.

Politics Live: Labour MP who voted against inheritance tax suspended

“She doesn’t belong in the Treasury; she belongs in la-la land.”

Chess claims made up? Where did that attacking move from Kemi come from? Hasn’t the chancellor told us for years that she was a national chess champion in 1993?

Indeed she has. “I am – I was – a geek. I played chess. I was the British girls’ under-14 champion,” she declared proudly in a 2023 interview with The Guardian.

She posted a video showing her playing chess in parliament and before last week’s budget posed for photos with a chessboard.

But her chess champion claim has been disputed by a former junior champion, Alex Edmans, who has accused her of misrepresenting her credentials.

“Her claim was quite specific,” Edmans, now a professor of finance at the London Business School, told Ali Fortescue on the Politics Hub on Sky News.

“She said she was the British girls’ under-14 champion. There was one event that can go on that title, which is the British Championship. And in the year that she claimed, it was Emily Howard who won that title instead.

“She did indeed win a quite different title. There was a British Women’s Chess Association championship, but that’s a more minor title. I’ve won titles like the British squad title, but that’s not the same.

“Just like running a marathon in London is not the same as the London Marathon, there was one event which is very prestigious, which is the British Championship.

“So the dispute is not whether she was a good or bad chess player. That shouldn’t be the criterion for a chancellor. But if you weren’t the British champion, you shouldn’t make that statement.”

Oh dear! So now, along with allegations of plagiarism, a dodgy CV and “lying” – according to Ms Badenoch – about the nation’s finances, the chancellor is between a rook and a hard place.

Or is she? “This story is absolute nonsense,” a Treasury mate told Sky News. No word from the No.10 knight, Sir Keir Starmer, or his Downing Street ranks, however.

Emily Howard, as it happens, is now an accomplished composer, having graduated from the chessboard to the keyboard.

The chancellor’s opponents, meanwhile, claim her budget blunders means the Treasury queen has now become a pawn, there for the taking.

But since Rachel Reeves did indeed win a chess title, just not the one she claimed, her supporters insist she can justifiably claim to have been a champion.

So it’s too soon for Kemi Badenoch and the Conservatives to claim checkmate. The dispute remains a stalemate. For now.

Politics

Connecticut orders Robinhood, Crypto.com, Kalshi to stop prediction markets

Published

4 hours ago

December 4, 2025

admin

Connecticut orders Robinhood, Crypto.com, Kalshi to stop prediction markets

The US state of Connecticut has hit Robinhood, Kalshi and Crypto.com with cease and desist orders, accusing the platforms of offering unlicensed sports betting through event contracts.

The Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection sent letters to the three platforms on Wednesday, claiming they were “conducting unlicensed online gambling, more specifically sports wagering,” with event contracts available online.

“None of these entities possess a license to offer wagering in our state, and even if they did, their contracts violate numerous other state laws and policies, including offering wagers to individuals under the age of 21,” said DCP Commissioner Bryan Cafferelli.

DCP Gaming Director Kris Gilman accused the platforms of “deceptively advertising that their services are legal,” adding that they operate outside of the state’s regulatory environment, “posing a serious risk to consumers who may not realize that wagers placed on these illegal platforms offer no protections for their money or information.”

Prediction markets have come under legal scrutiny in several US states, as the use of these platforms has skyrocketed this year and attracted billions of dollars in investment for allowing users to bet on the outcome of a variety of events.

*Prediction markets saw huge volumes in November. Source:* *Token Terminal*

Kalshi fires back in court

A Kalshi spokesperson told Cointelegraph that it is “a regulated, nationwide exchange for real-world events, and it is subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction.

“It’s very different from what state-regulated sportsbooks and casinos offer their customers. We are confident in our legal arguments and have filed suit in federal court,” Kalshi added.

In a complaint filed on Wednesday against the DCP, Kalshi claimed that “Connecticut’s attempt to regulate Kalshi intrudes upon the federal regulatory framework that Congress established for regulating derivatives on designated exchanges.”

It added that its platform was subject to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s “exclusive jurisdiction” and its sports event contracts “are lawful under federal law.”

“As we’ve previously shared, Robinhood’s event contracts are federally regulated by the CFTC and offered through Robinhood Derivatives, LLC, a CFTC-registered entity, allowing retail customers to access prediction markets in a safe, compliant, and regulated manner,” a Robinhood spokesperson told Cointelegraph.

Crypto.com did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

In its statement, Connecticut’s DCP said that prediction market platforms pose serious risks to consumers because they lack the required technical standards and security protections for financial and personal data.

*Source:* *Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection*

The agency claimed that such platforms also lack integrity controls to prevent insider betting or manipulation, operate without regulatory oversight of their payout rules, advertise to self-excluded gamblers and on college campuses, and permit betting on events with known outcomes, thereby giving insiders unfair advantages.

Only three platforms are legally licensed for sports wagering in Connecticut: DraftKings, FanDuel and Fanatics, all of which require users to be at least 21 years old.

Kalshi under fire in at least 10 US states

Connecticut is not the only state to take a hard stance on prediction platforms; regulators in two neighboring states have previously taken action.

New York sent a cease and desist to Kalshi in late October, and the company responded on Oct. 27 by suing the state. Meanwhile, the Massachusetts state attorney general sued Kalshi in the state court in September.