The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[gabrielhj07]

Daft idea.

“How shall we encourage people into work?”

“We could pay for them to watch television?”

 

[Topological]

Daft idea.

“How shall we encourage people into work?”

“We could pay for them to watch television?”

Gogglebox

I agree - daft

 

[TravelDream]

Pretty devastating poll for Welsh Labour released this morning by Cardiff University/ Yougov.

PC: 33% REF: 30% LAB: 10% CON: 10% GRN: 9% LD: 6% OTH: 2%

https://x.com/WalesGovernance/status/2001181075742023857

Labour in joint third with 10% and easily could be fifth based on the margin of error.

It's an image, so I can't quote, but 41% of Labour 2024 voters plan to vote Plaid Cymru, 10% Greens and 10% ReformUK. Pretty devastating if that's true. Of course, it's just one poll, but the recent Caerphilly by-election result doesn't exactly show promise for the party.



I don't see a way Starmer stays as leader if Welsh/ Scottish/ English local elections (well... the ones that haven't been cancelled) go that badly for Labour.

 

[Topological]

How I wish that would be the opinion poll on the night before the election.

Unless admitting you vote Labour is now as bad as admitting you vote Conservative.

 

[Gloster]

It is difficult to get full details of the Licence Review, but it does lead me to suspect that the various papers are producing rage bait. (What a surprise!) The idea of tv licences for the unemployed looks as though it may well be a very selective interpretation of one possible idea for consideration in the review. Of course, Labour is making a right cack of its presentation and allowing the various papers to claim it is all part of Starmer’s plan to destroy Britain.

 

[brad465]

Shock horror, when PR voting exists, more options seem viable so voters feel less compelled to back one of the two "main horses".

 

[TravelDream]

Shock horror, when PR voting exists, more options seem viable so voters feel less compelled to back one of the two "main horses".

You dramatically overestimate the electorate.
The number that know a new more proportional system (it's not PR) is going to be used in 2026 is small. The number who understand that is tiny.

I think the poll should be seen as though people think they are voting in a first past the post style election.

 

[brad465]

You dramatically overestimate the electorate.
The number that know a new more proportional system (it's not PR) is going to be used in 2026 is small. The number who understand that is tiny.

I think the poll should be seen as though people think they are voting in a first past the post style election.

Maybe if before it was pure FPTP, but in this instance before it was a hybrid system where a regional list existed, so there was always a selection of seats decided by PR, and yes it is PR, the D'Hondt method of determining seats is arguably one of the most proportional possible.

 

[TravelDream]

Maybe if before it was pure FPTP, but in this instance before it was a hybrid system where a regional list existed, so there was always a selection of seats decided by PR, and yes it is PR, the D'Hondt method of determining seats is arguably one of the most proportional possible.

The new system is not proportional/ PR. It is based on sixteen six-member constituencies using the d'hondt system. It's fairly proportional most of the time, but not always.
It is quite possible (theoretically) to get 10% of the vote nationally and get zero seats out of the 96 up for grabs. But, obviously, 10% of 96 is not 0, it's 9.6 so 9-10 seats.
Only getting 14.29% in any seat mathematically guarantees a seat.

The most proportional with 96 members would be national list direct PR (so 1.04% would guarantee one seat, 2.08 to seats etc.).

And, believe it or not, I am pretty certain a clear majority of 2026 Welsh voters will not understand the system when they vote.

Plus voters, even those who vote in Senedd elections, do not understand the current/ old electoral system of first past the post + d'hondt additional member seats.
Historic polling proves that point.

 

[brad465]

The new system is not proportional/ PR. It is based on sixteen six-member constituencies using the d'hondt system. It's fairly proportional most of the time, but not always.
It is quite possible (theoretically) to get 10% of the vote nationally and get zero seats out of the 96 up for grabs. But, obviously, 10% of 96 is not 0, it's 9.6 so 9-10 seats.
Only getting 14.29% in any seat mathematically guarantees a seat.

The most proportional with 96 members would be national list direct PR (so 1.04% would guarantee one seat, 2.08 to seats etc.).

And, believe it or not, I am pretty certain a clear majority of 2026 Welsh voters will not understand the system when they vote.

Plus voters, even those who vote in Senedd elections, do not understand the current/ old electoral system of first past the post + d'hondt additional member seats.
Historic polling proves that point.

Okay maybe a majority don't know the system, but a critical mass are more likely to know, and critical mass in elections is never a majority, even under some form of PR (although it is a much larger voter share than under FPTP, which can be as little as a few % of all votes).

Labour in Wales though do have three other problems besides the voting system providing more viable alternatives: 1) The obvious poor showing nationally. 2) Welsh Labour has run Wales for 25 years; inevitably voters will get tired of the same party prevailing. 3) Vaughan Gething's dodgy dealings compounded 2)

 

[Broucek]

Daft idea.

“How shall we encourage people into work?”

“We could pay for them to watch television?”

It's just dumb control freakery. The benefits system should, in general, give people the dignity of spending their own money. Any targeted help should be focused on essentials such as prescriptions or free school meals. Free TV is just silly....

 

[martin butler]

OK, so how much of these reports are factual? and how much is made up misinformation by a press and media owned by people who have an agenda? take a possible measure, and make it into something it's not, What's the big plan?

Is it to undermine a party they hate, or is it a power play? undermine Labour and influence the easily offended into voting in a populist who they have in effect bank rolled, in the expectation, they can say, OK,we gave you power, now you have to pay our fee, which will be what? and when even more people realise it's all a bunch of lies, and they have been taken for fools, and turn on the establishment what then?

 

[Harpo]

and when even more people realise it's all a bunch of lies, and they have been taken for fools, and turn on the establishment what then?

Arguably how we have a Labour government now.

 

[Yew]

Daft idea.

“How shall we encourage people into work?”

“We could pay for them to watch television?”

Benefit claimant does not necessarily equal unemployed.

 

[martin butler]

Benefit claimant does not necessarily equal unemployed.

That is where a lot of people allow their own biases to cloud their thinking, they want to imagine anyone as being on benefits as being a scrounger, yet many are not, often they are told, often by an multi-millionaire that person does not deserve your slice of the pie, yet they themselves have the biggest slice, classic, look over there, not at me, after all, if we took a small slice of their pie, how many others would not be hungry?

 

[Richard Scott]

That is where a lot of people allow their own biases to cloud their thinking, they want to imagine anyone as being on benefits as being a scrounger, yet many are not, often they are told, often by an multi-millionaire that person does not deserve your slice of the pie, yet they themselves have the biggest slice, classic, look over there, not at me, after all, if we took a small slice of their pie, how many others would not be hungry?

But reality can be ask the wealthier to contribute more, they leave the country so pie gets even smaller. Much less ideal.

 

[Gloster]

But reality can be ask the wealthier to contribute more, they leave the country so pie gets even smaller. Much less ideal.

This has never been proven one way or the other. However, the general opinion among the experts (pah, what do they know) is that unless the rates went up by a ludicrous extent, the number leaving would be small and the overall tax yield would be greater.

This is frequently claimed without any solid evidence, but surely those paragons of virtue who keep us informed about the terrors of higher taxes don’t do it because they don’t want to pay for the services they use. And how many of them have their money carefully organised to minimise the tax liability, here and abroad. ‘Only the little people pay taxes’.

 

[Richard Scott]

This has never been proven one way or the other. However, the general opinion among the experts (pah, what do they know) is that unless the rates went up by a ludicrous extent, the number leaving would be small and the overall tax yield would be greater.

This is frequently claimed without any solid evidence, but surely those paragons of virtue who keep us informed about the terrors of higher taxes don’t do it because they don’t want to pay for the services they use. And how many of them have their money carefully organised to minimise the tax liability, here and abroad. ‘Only the little people pay taxes’.

I do know of people who have upped and left so it does happen. Ok, whether net tax collected goes up or down may be yet to be proven.
As for paying for services I use then I'm due a massive rebate! I'd rather not pay any more thanks, already had to cancel some charity donations due to tax rises, money has to come from somewhere.

 

[brad465]

I do know of people who have upped and left so it does happen. Ok, whether net tax collected goes up or down may be yet to be proven.
As for paying for services I use then I'm due a massive rebate! I'd rather not pay any more thanks, already had to cancel some charity donations due to tax rises, money has to come from somewhere.

While I'm not convinced the additional tax money you're now paying will go to the best places, you've actually reminded me about how a large amount of charity work only exists because of successive governments not being competent and responsible.

German comedian Henning Wehn many years ago famously said: "We don't do charity in Germany, we pay taxes. Charity is a failure of governments' responsibilities."

How true that is in Germany today is debatable, but the general principle stands.

 

[oldman]

German comedian Henning Wehn many years ago famously said: "We don't do charity in Germany, we pay taxes. Charity is a failure of governments' responsibilities."

How true that is in Germany today is debatable, but the general principle stands.

It wasn't true when he first said it.

There have always been German charities - two major church-based ones are the Diakonie (evangelical, founded 1848) and Caritas (catholic, founded 1897). Some of their work is funded by government, but that is true in Britain for charities like Barnardos. They have environmental and medical research charities just as we do.

The Tafel charity claims to operate over 970 foodbanks helping 1.5 million people (English information here), mostly be volunteers and without public financing.

 

[JamieL]

That is where a lot of people allow their own biases to cloud their thinking, they want to imagine anyone as being on benefits as being a scrounger, yet many are not, often they are told, often by an multi-millionaire that person does not deserve your slice of the pie, yet they themselves have the biggest slice, classic, look over there, not at me, after all, if we took a small slice of their pie, how many others would not be hungry?

I find the current system very frustrating. Those in favour of enhanced benefits often say make the multi-millionaires pay more. But that is not what is really being asked - it is asking ALL taxpayers to fork up the cash for the claimants, hence the hammering at the last budget. We are in a position now where groups in society are absolutely taking the mickey out of others. For normal low income working households it doesn't pay to save, work or plan. In my view, the welfare state has lost all credibility.

 

[weeklycommuter]

I find the current system very frustrating. Those in favour of enhanced benefits often say make the multi-millionaires pay more. But that is not what is really being asked - it is asking ALL taxpayers to fork up the cash for the claimants, hence the hammering at the last budget. We are in a position now where groups in society are absolutely taking the mickey out of others. For normal low income working households it doesn't pay to save, work or plan. In my view, the welfare state has lost all credibility.

I am sure Labour Government ministers are aware but lifted the two child benefit cap to stop some Labour backbench MPs rebelling.
I note that they have frozen the overall benefit cap of around £25K a year in London and £22K a year outside London for anyone working less than 16 hours a week at April 2023 levels. The Labour Government have not increased this cap at all since taking office and they have kept very quiet about that.

 

[brad465]

"I want benefits cut, but if the government dare cuts [insert specific allowance/benefit], off with their heads!"

See Winter Fuel Allowance and PIP uproar as proof of the many hypocrites in this area.

 

[Topological]

"I want benefits cut, but if the government dare cuts [insert specific allowance/benefit], off with their heads!"

See Winter Fuel Allowance and PIP uproar as proof of the many hypocrites in this area.

To be fair, most people who want benefits cuts are more about cutting the benefits paid to working aged adults who are able to work.

Aside from ensuring entitlement checks are suitable, I have no desire to see any cuts from those who cannot work.

However, not working should not be a choice. Cue someone saying no one makes that choice. Cue someone else pointing out the mismatch between available jobs and skills, and someone else pointing out that there are jobs that anyone is qualified to do available. Rinse and repeat that debate.

If there is anyone who genuinely wants to cut benefits for those who cannot work then they must be very frustrated that there is no political party to represent them.

 

[weeklycommuter]

"I want benefits cut, but if the government dare cuts [insert specific allowance/benefit], off with their heads!"

See Winter Fuel Allowance and PIP uproar as proof of the many hypocrites in this area.

I have to agree. I was happy with limiting the Winter Fuel Allowance to people on Pension Credit and some on other benefits. I see no justification for this paying this £200 or £300 (over 80s) Winter Fuel Payment each year to everyone over the State Pension age when the new State Pension increased by £470 a year in April 2025 alone.

I agree with the Labour Government's revised policy limiting this to people with an annual taxable income of less than £35,000, this still saves £500 million a year, and I certainly do not blame the Labour Government at all for this partial U turn. They were faced with many people over the State Pension age voting against them on this issue even though many of those people do not need this Winter Fuel Payment.

I do not agree with this Winter Fuel Payment and I have opted out of receiving it for the rest of my life.

 

[davews]

I agree with the Labour Government's revised policy limiting this to people with an annual taxable income of less than £35,000, this still saves £500 million a year, and I certainly do not blame the Labour Government at all for this partial U turn. They were faced with many people over the State Pension age voting against them on this issue even though many of those people do not need this Winter Fuel Payment.

Small correction, it is income, not taxable income, ie your income before allowances taken off. I was too late to opt out of the payment this year so have received it but it will be taken back in next year's tax bill.

 

[TravelDream]

I have to agree. I was happy with limiting the Winter Fuel Allowance to people on Pension Credit and some on other benefits. I see no justification for this paying this £200 or £300 (over 80s) Winter Fuel Payment each year to everyone over the State Pension age when the new State Pension increased by £470 a year in April 2025 alone.

Absolutely not. The tying on benefits to each other is one of the worst aspects of the welfare state.

It makes it so there are cliff edge scenarios.
Those who have just under the pension credit threshold get a whole raft of additional benefits whilst those above get nothing meaning those just below are significantly better off then those just above.

It also discourages people from saving for retirement which is, obviously, the opposite of what government should do.

It's the same with all benefits. If you were a single mother with two young kids, you'd be mad to go to work a minimum wage job as you'd be so much better off on benefits - especially when you add together all the linked benefits which people seem to forget about. It's wrong, but that's the system we have.

And with the benefits/ tax system tapers we use. They are always way too harsh and punitive.


For the winter fuel allowance, I agree that not all pensioners should get it and it's silly that very well off pensioners get that extra spending boost, but the link to pension credit was totally wrong.

Though, honestly, we have too many micro benefits. I'd abolish it and raise the state pension by £3 a week to 'compensate' and dampen any criticism.


Pensioners being protected whilst workers get slammed is just an element of our electoral system. Pensioners vote in large numbers and young people don't. They actually prefer to Tories/ Reform to Labour, but Labour feels beholden to them. The result of that is obvious.

 

[martin butler]

What's really needed is jobs, jobs that pay a wage people can live on, without having to rely on state top ups, And that means capital expenditure to create those jobs, and the add Ons in the supply industries, after all every producer needs the bare components to start with,

How could this be done? by the state funding projects, such as the new 5th gen Tempest, and optimising it for export to make it the optimum European Nato strike aircraft, by increasing defence funding to counter future expected threats, increasing the size of our armed forces, these jobs will mean people paying tax, and income to the state to offset increases elsewhere,

Through GBR announce an electrification scheme to finish off stalled projects, including continuing electrification to Plymouth and hopefully to Penzance, a design of EMU capable of running with low scale mods on Overhead 3rd rail and battery, to become the standard design, built in UK, By low scale, I mean mods done in depot, that would enable an already battery fitted unit to also operate off 3rd rail, or overhead,

A funded local transport scheme, that also includes some reopening schemes, where there is a strategic need for safeguarding against possible loss of routes to erosion, landslips etc,

It will cost money, but you can't build an economy without spending it, to create the wealth that then can get re invested.

 

[edwin_m]

How could this be done? by the state funding projects, such as the new 5th gen Tempest, and optimising it for export to make it the optimum European Nato strike aircraft, by increasing defence funding to counter future expected threats, increasing the size of our armed forces, these jobs will mean people paying tax, and income to the state to offset increases elsewhere,

Worth noting that defence spending is probably less effective at stimulating the economy pound for pound than many other spending areas, though I don't disagree that it's necessary for other reasons.

Spending in any sector increases general economic activity, but sectors other than defence also generate benefits for people using the products or services produced as a result. Defence "products" are (we hope) never used so don't bring that second benefit, so it's really about avoiding disbenefits.

(note, I use "benefits" here in the wider sense of good things that happen, not that of payments to people deemed to need extra funds)

 

[weeklycommuter]

Those who have just under the pension credit threshold get a whole raft of additional benefits whilst those above get nothing meaning those just below are significantly better off then those just above.

Nobody who reached the State Pension age on or after 6 April 2016 (currently men under age 75 and women under age 73) with enough years of National Insurance to receive the full new State Pension will be entitled to Pension Credit.

The threshold for Pension Credit is set just below the full new State Pension as it is intended to top up the income of those receiving the old State Pension (as they reached their State Pension age before 6 April 2016) who do not have enough additional income to bring their income up to the level of the full new State Pension.

The clear intention is the number of people entitled to Pension Credit will diminish over time and it will eventually disappear.