Politics 2024/25 General Election Voting Intention (2022)

[Scouse]

Reading about Burnham on the Guardian, it seems like he has some ideas that aren't totally terrible.

On the face of it.

I actually like the man - although he lost to Starmer during the last ding-dong. He did well with Hillsborough. And his instincts are right.

But he's economically illiterate. The UK's benefit bill outweighs income tax receipts.

So, unless he's going to fix that, which he won't, then it's more of the same shit.

 

[Overdriven]

Woman who can't do her job praises man who can do his job for leaving, so she can continue to not do her job without risk of being fired.

More at 10.

 

[DaGaffer]

But he's economically illiterate. The UK's benefit bill outweighs income tax receipts.

No it doesn't.

And I'm not sure how that makes him economically illiterate anyway as income tax is only about a quarter of general taxation..

Which isn't to say he's not going to face major funding problems, and Labour inherited a total financial shitshow, but they knew that was going to happen and didn't make a proper and honest manifesto to face up to it, and have been living with the consequences. Burnham doesn't have a magic bullet to fix that; certainly not quickly and "Manchesterism" is not a short term fix.

I wish him well and I suspect he'll at least be decisive (from what I've read) but anyone expecting sunlit uplands any time this decade is going to be sorely disappointed.

 

[Scouse]

No it doesn't.

Yes it does. And has done every year since 2013/14.

In the 2025/26 financial year, UK welfare spending reached £333 billion. Income tax receipts were £331 billion.

Under Starmer tax and welfare spending have both increased - so materially they're clearly tax and spend. But jobs metrics are going in the wrong direction, freedom of speech is going in the wrong direction, and like you said - there aren't any golden shores or sunlit uplands...

 

[DaGaffer]

Yes it does. And has done every year since 2013/14.

In the 2025/26 financial year, UK welfare spending reached £333 billion. Income tax receipts were £331 billion.

Under Starmer tax and welfare spending have both increased - so materially they're clearly tax and spend. But jobs metrics are going in the wrong direction, freedom of speech is going in the wrong direction, and like you said - there aren't any golden shores or sunlit uplands...

Oh shush, you're taking out NI to make a pointless point even though it's classed as Income Tax (as is capital gains which makes the number even higher).

HMRC tax receipts and National Insurance contributions for the UK (annual bulletin)

www.gov.uk

 

[Scouse]

Oh shush, you're taking out NI to make a pointless point even though it's classed as Income Tax (as is capital gains which makes the number even higher).

NI <> Income tax
Capital Gains <> Income tax

Income tax is what you get charged on the full pot of PAYE receipts in the UK, subject to different levels based on income. You're bending the definitions here, not me.

Regardless - even if I was wrong (I'm not) and it was just close (which it isn't) then it's not on, frankly. The knowledge that everything I pay in income tax is going on a benefits bill is disgraceful.

 

[Embattle]

Welfare payments have not exceeded income tax ‘for the first time ever’ – Full Fact

Welfare spending, which includes state pensions, has been higher than income tax for at least 13 years, contrary to a claim in the Conservatives’ Alternative King’s Speech.

fullfact.org

 

[Scouse]

Welfare payments have not exceeded income tax ‘for the first time ever’ – Full Fact

Welfare spending, which includes state pensions, has been higher than income tax for at least 13 years, contrary to a claim in the Conservatives’ Alternative King’s Speech.

fullfact.org

Did you read it @Embattle? (As I can't believe you posted in my support)?

like I said: And has done every year since 2013/14 - which your page shows, including a graph.




So then. Who's for massively cutting benefit payments? Because I, for one, am.

 

[Gwadien]

Isn't this the metric that matters?

If so, doesn't this mean we should shoot the elderly and disabled? It's not a 'you're all lazy' issue?

 

[Scouse]

Isn't this the metric that matters?

Nope. They're ideological metrics produced by Torsten Bell - Labour Politician - Labour thinktank's numbers, showing what Torsten wants to show.

So, the real story is that nominal GDP is growing because of inflation - so Torsten's graph shows % staying flat. But real GDP is flatlining too - so what's actually happening is the tax burden is rising massively and people feel it in their pockets (fiscal drag being a main culprit) whilst our economy flatlines.

If Real GDP was rising, then that'd be something I could potentially support. But what the two graphs together show is that working taxpayers are getting rinsed for benefit claimants.

Torsten's graph is ideological labour shithousery.

 

[Embattle]

Did you read it @Embattle? (As I can't believe you posted in my support)?

like I said: And has done every year since 2013/14 - which your page shows, including a graph.

View attachment 52067


So then. Who's for massively cutting benefit payments? Because I, for one, am.

You seem to think I didn't read it, I did, and it is a fact, whether it supports your position doesn't really matter. This is also a fact:

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8513/

Every party knows the triple lock pension is unaffordable, but none of them seems to want to change it once in power.

 

[Scouse]

Every party knows the triple lock pension is unaffordable, but none of them seems to want to change it once in power.

It's not the pensions tbh. Pension spending as a proportion of GDP in the UK (real GDP) is pretty low compared to the rest of the G20. And you've "paid into" (lol) your pension all your working life - for a paltry 12k/year. Some people don't have private pensions, so that's all they've got to live on.

This is about us spacking more money on benefits in total than we're bringing in in Income Tax.

And all the time debt as a proportion of GDP is growing. We're at material risk of an IMF bailout a la the 1970s. And if the IMF come in, then we'll cut fucking everything - because we'll have been told to by our technocrat masters.

If Britain doesn't want to get treated like the slave country it is, then it needs to stop spunking so much money on welfare. The pension bill hasn't increased in-line with that graph - that's people paying out in-work benefits. Labour refusing to keep the two-child benefit cap (which was popular with large swathes of the population - because why the fuck should working people fund non-working people's children).

If you turn around and say "benefits = food stamps and a roof over your head and nothing more" then maybe a lot more people would get behind it.

 

[Embattle]

https://ifs.org.uk/articles/what-are-effects-triple-lock-and-how-could-it-be-reformed

 

[Raven]

I like Burnham, and fuck it, we might as well give it a go, instead of more of the same.

 

[DaGaffer]

NI <> Income tax
Capital Gains <> Income tax

Income tax is what you get charged on the full pot of PAYE receipts in the UK, subject to different levels based on income. You're bending the definitions here, not me.

Regardless - even if I was wrong (I'm not) and it was just close (which it isn't) then it's not on, frankly. The knowledge that everything I pay in income tax is going on a benefits bill is disgraceful.

No I'm not, as the GOV.uk website clearly shows.

 

[Scouse]

https://ifs.org.uk/articles/what-are-effects-triple-lock-and-how-could-it-be-reformed

I mean, it's an opinion isn't it. But pension is still fuck all in the big scheme of things - after a lifetime of "paying in".

Meanwhile, if you have say, two married couples, 3 kids - one family on benefits, both unemployed, one unable to work full time because of disability, and the other family, earning equivalent to the benefits family - london rents. The family on benefits have easier day-to-day lives. The working family ends up better off in the end because of pension contributions, but that's cold comfort for a life of hard work, watching the guys on benefits being better off than you.

Significantly better off day to day.

Spoiler

Category	Working Family (£40k gross)	Benefits Family (£38k–£48k total)
Gross income	£40,000	£38,000–£48,000 (non‑taxable support)
Tax & NI	–£7,000 to –£8,000	£0
Net take‑home	~£32,000	£38,000–£48,000 equivalent (no deductions)
Rent	–£9,000 to –£12,000 (private) or –£6,000 (social)	£0 (covered by Housing Benefit/UC)
Council Tax	–£1,500 to –£2,000	£0 (Council Tax Reduction)
Childcare	–£3,000 to –£10,000 (if used)	£0 (not working)
Work costs (commute, clothes, food)	–£1,500 to –£3,000	£0
Free School Meals	No	Yes (£1,500–£1,800 taxpayer cost)
NHS prescriptions/dental	Pay full price	Free
Warm Home Discount	Maybe	Yes (£150)
Water social tariff	No	Yes (£100–£200)
Uniform grants	No	Yes (£150–£450)
Disposable income after essentials	£12k–£18k (depends heavily on rent & childcare)	£18k–£25k (higher because essentials are paid)
Savings potential	Low–moderate	Very low (income fixed, no progression)
Ability to move area	Yes (if income supports rent)	No (restricted to LHA rates & social housing)
Long‑term prospects	Career progression, pension, mortgage potential (unlikely at london rents)	None — income flat, no pension, no assets
Stress level	Work stress + financial pressure	Low financial stress, but no advancement
Lifestyle	Tight but independent	Stable but static

 

[DaGaffer]

I mean, it's an opinion isn't it. But pension is still fuck all in the big scheme of things - after a lifetime of "paying in".

Meanwhile, if you have say, two married couples, 3 kids - one family on benefits, both unemployed, one unable to work full time because of disability, and the other family, earning equivalent to the benefits family - london rents. The family on benefits have easier day-to-day lives. The working family ends up better off in the end because of pension contributions, but that's cold comfort for a life of hard work, watching the guys on benefits being better off than you.

Significantly better off day to day.

Spoiler

Category	Working Family (£40k gross)	Benefits Family (£38k–£48k total)
Gross income	£40,000	£38,000–£48,000 (non‑taxable support)
Tax & NI	–£7,000 to –£8,000	£0
Net take‑home	~£32,000	£38,000–£48,000 equivalent (no deductions)
Rent	–£9,000 to –£12,000 (private) or –£6,000 (social)	£0 (covered by Housing Benefit/UC)
Council Tax	–£1,500 to –£2,000	£0 (Council Tax Reduction)
Childcare	–£3,000 to –£10,000 (if used)	£0 (not working)
Work costs (commute, clothes, food)	–£1,500 to –£3,000	£0
Free School Meals	No	Yes (£1,500–£1,800 taxpayer cost)
NHS prescriptions/dental	Pay full price	Free
Warm Home Discount	Maybe	Yes (£150)
Water social tariff	No	Yes (£100–£200)
Uniform grants	No	Yes (£150–£450)
Disposable income after essentials	£12k–£18k (depends heavily on rent & childcare)	£18k–£25k (higher because essentials are paid)
Savings potential	Low–moderate	Very low (income fixed, no progression)
Ability to move area	Yes (if income supports rent)	No (restricted to LHA rates & social housing)
Long‑term prospects	Career progression, pension, mortgage potential (unlikely at london rents)	None — income flat, no pension, no assets
Stress level	Work stress + financial pressure	Low financial stress, but no advancement
Lifestyle	Tight but independent	Stable but static

Well that's a lovely table, with the slight issue that the "benefits family" is pretty much imaginary.

 

[Scouse]

Well that's a lovely table, with the slight issue that the "benefits family" is pretty much imaginary.

Two people unemployed, three kids, one on disability?

Aside from the fact that that level of benefit shouldn't be allowed (but happens). Fair enough. Lets ditch them. Lets talk UK average:

Average benefit claimants get £11-12k per annum in the UK. That takes all of the income tax for three average taxpayers.

 

[Scouse]

BTW - in Wales - only 30% of adults pay enough tax to be net contributors (i.e. >£1000 in income tax). 30% of the workforce is council. 45-50% are either not on benefits/working/retired.

1 in 3 welsh adults are net contributors.
2 in 3 welsh adults are net recipients.

Scotland fairs slightly better, but you have to come to England to get to 45% of adults being net contributors. Still less than half.

 

[Overdriven]

Two people unemployed, three kids, one on disability?

Aside from the fact that that level of benefit shouldn't be allowed (but happens). Fair enough. Lets ditch them. Lets talk UK average:

Average benefit claimants get £11-12k per annum in the UK. That takes all of the income tax for three average taxpayers.

It's not just the raw cash which is the problem though, or are you just considering the money side of it? £1k a month to "live on", post everything else being dealt with, puts a lot of claimants in better positions than a lot of working class people. My sister who works in London, after rent/etc probably has sub £1k to live on and she works.. A lot. (Health service adjacent)

There's medicines, services, rent, bills - All subsidised/covered.

 

[Scouse]

I agree @Overdriven - work should pay. If you're slaving every day - 40/50 hours a week - then you should have a considerably better life than a family on benefits.

I'd argue that if one of you is slaving every day - the old traditional man goes to work, mum stays at home, looks after kids - that model of a single parent at work should still provide a better standard of living than benefits.

To be clear - I'm not making an argument that being on benefits is always easy (although if you walk around Knowsley or Speke then absolutely that's a 'lifestyle choice' being made by huge swathes of the population). What people can claim benefits for needs severely curtailing tbh. The level of cash we're spending on benefits, and what people can claim benefits for, and the form of those benefits (cash in your pockets) needs deep (and harsh) review. And it'll be politically unpopular.

But we either do that, or potentially the IMF comes in and cuts it for us...

 

[Bodhi]

After the Mid Staffs NHS scandal Bodybags Burnham can get in the bin.

 

[Scouse]

So. 5 PM's in 5 years.

Lets call this what it is: a complete "fuck you" to the electorate.

Why? Bear with me:

So, Game Theory. When a two-party system produces two parties that are effectively the same - paper thin policy between them, no meaningful material change despite what you vote for, repeatedly, then the only rational response from the electorate, according to Game Theory, is to "burn it all down".

i.e. Brexit. Reform. When you're desperate for change and it's not on offer then vote the shitheads out - replace them with anyone - is the only thing you've got left.

So far, so this is actually what is happening. It's two things - "preference compression" (nothing to vote for) and voters seeking "off-equilibrium strategies"...

But what's the play now?

Well, the parties could offer better to the electorate, but they're now eating themselves - completely ignoring the electorate - and this is what happens. Internal power struggles within the parties become more important than the electorate - so we get 5 PMs in five years. It's the same sort of thing that happens in Italy's revolving door governments, Japan's factional coups, France's collapse of their old status quo.

So, what does that mean next?

If Labour are going to have a hope they need a big, non-cosmetic ideological pivot. And with Burnham, that is likely much more stridently left. And he's not had to run on a manifesto. (If it doesn't happen, they're out and they're dead).

The other option is that they change the rules of the game to suit themselves. I.E. proportional representation. Which may lead into the danger of ineffectual miasma if the players can't get used to working together in coalition...


Either way - all of the politicians right now are screaming: Fuck You.

 

[Tom]

Rattled.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btQJsxgnON0

 

[Gwadien]

Rattled.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btQJsxgnON0

The way he plays the victim makes me sick.