By ignoring the digital world, the party manifestos ignore the future

At the end of our recent event on what the various manifestos mean, the panel were asked what the parties had missed out. The response of The Times columnist Rachel Sylvester was the one that I wish I had thought of myself: “The whole digital world, the Wild West … how much screen time you should allow your kids, online abuse, identity, cyber fraud”. Rachel’s answer was spot on, and not only because she captured a heap of largely ignored issues that preoccupy present day voters (and particularly parents). 

The digital world is more than just a place to let our kids roam unmonitored while we steal a momentary break from childcare. It plays an outsized role in the future of our economy, underpins – or undermines – our national security, redraws the battle lines of our democracy, and has changed the way we communicate, learn or see ourselves. It is the source of the largest fortunes, and many of the thorniest policy issues, such as the balance between freedom of speech and protection from harm, or how online shopping has devastated the high street. Indeed, it is possible to write with scarcely any hyperbole that the digital world is going to define our future.

The party manifestos take only the most cursory glance at digital matters

Other than a few fierce words about cracking down on online abuse, a small nod towards our excellence in digital matters and a promise from Labour of a Charter of Digital Rights, the party manifestos ignore the digital world.

Such evasion is understandable in an election unlikely to be determined by the subtleties of online law. But the relative silence should not be taken as a sign of indifference. In fact, the political posture towards digital policy has been in considerable flux. The 2010 Conservative–LibDem coalition began in an atmosphere of techno-optimism, with then Prime Minister David Cameron bemoaning the UK’s inability to create its own world-conquering tech company. The Conservatives saw a transparent online world acting as a searchlight into the dusty offline one, exposing public spending, pointless regulation and expenses claims to the harsh wisdom of the crowd.

This atmosphere gradually soured, starting with a slew of stories about online tax, but also reflecting a growing unease at the idea of “internet harms”. Controversies over online bullying, political interference, terrorist and other criminal content have increased in salience every year. Now the government’s attitude is best captured by the balancing act inherent in this preamble to the Digital Charter (2018), which “sets out a programme of work intended to make the UK both the safest place to be online and the best place to start and grow a digital business.”

A combination of digital regulation and an overhaul of digital competition is vital

We want it both ways. Is that possible? There are signs that the politicians think so – that there is no longer a contradiction between the management of online behaviour (by both citizens and corporations) and the enjoyment of the full fruits of the internet age. 

This reflects two broader trends in political thinking. First, there is no longer a simple-minded belief that growth must mean deregulation. Around five years ago, politicians began to talk instead of smart regulation, of how even the most cutting-edge of industries needs a modern and predictable framework within which to expand; the Department for Transport reminds people that much of how we regulate taxis stems from legislation written in the 1800s. Bringing this up to the era of car-sharing and micro-mobility is not “red tape gone mad”. Similarly, the Consumer Rights Act of 2015 set out rights to digital content in legislation – helping the consumer, of course, but law-abiding companies too.

Second, there have been some really interesting developments on the role of competition in the economy. I personally date the growth of interest in this topic to a superb speech by Jason Furman when Chair of the Council of Economic advisers under President Obama, but credit must go also to a steady campaign by The Economist and a hugely influential article in the Yale Law Review by Lina Khan, called Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox. 

Together they have helped suggest that something has gone awry with competition regulation, and that this might help explain some of the broader problems with the economy like weak growth and poor returns to labour. Crucially, improving competition is meant to be a win-win – it forces companies to behave better to their consumers, and also helps growth and innovation. And digital competition – the subject of an influential review under Professor Jason Furman, commissioned by former Chancellor Philip Hammond – is where many think competition regulation is in greatest need of an overhaul.

The proposed new digital regulatory bodies would require almost superhuman capabilities and fine political judgment

The Online Harms white paper, the Furman review, even some tentative moves towards a Digital Services Tax – all of these suggest a political class no longer overawed by the success and power of the digital giants. But you only need to glance through the vision in that white paper to realise what a difficult balancing act the politicians aim to pull off in addressing this topic.

They aim to protect freedom of expression, discourage harmful behaviour, produce a thriving digital economy, keep everyone safe online, restore trust in online companies, while keeping the internet free and open. Both the white paper and Professor Furman’s review propose the creation of a new regulatory body of almost superhuman capabilities. For the former, this would enforce against companies failing in their duty of care to consumers, while presumably protecting all the other elements of that vision. The Furman review proposes a Digital Markets Unit that would develop a code of conduct, enforce more openness and help with data mobility.

Theresa May's administration left office before it could carry through the next phase of work on these super-regulators. This is more than just the slog of implementation: such bodies would be enforcing rules of behaviour that contain genuinely new value judgments. For example, should a regulator prevent an internet giant from buying a tiny start-up, just because that start-up might one day be enormous itself? When does legitimate expression morph into online bullying or deliberate deception? There are an awful lot of details to follow, and very little from the manifestos to guide us as to where the result will lie.