Andy Burnham slammed for ‘snobbery’ as he plots betting shop tax raid – ‘hypocrisy!’
Andy Burnham has been accused of “elitist snobbery” amid warnings that a proposed tax increase on betting shop gaming machines could threaten jobs, damage high streets and put further pressure on Britain’s greyhound racing industry.
The criticism comes as the Government faces growing questions over the potential consequences of increasing Machine Games Duty in the upcoming Budget. Under the reported proposal, the standard rate of the tax could rise from 20% to 40%, doubling the levy applied to qualifying gaming machine income.
Industry representatives fear the increase could make some betting shops financially unviable, particularly where businesses are already struggling with operating costs and changing customer habits. The consequences, they argue, could extend beyond bookmakers to employees, neighbouring shops and the sporting organisations that depend on betting revenue.
Abbie MacGregor, director of corporate affairs at the Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB), has launched a fierce criticism of the Government’s reported plans, accusing ministers of failing to consider the people whose livelihoods depend on the sector.
She also challenged Burnham’s recent comparison between the impact of betting shops on the high street and businesses that avoid paying tax, arguing that the remarks risk portraying an entire industry as socially undesirable.
“This Government wants more jobs, fewer empty shops and stronger communities, but apparently only if those jobs and businesses meet Westminster’s approval,” Ms MacGregor said.
“Indeed, Andy Burnham’s recent comments that betting shops are as damaging to the high street as tax dodging businesses is exactly the kind of elitist snobbery he purports to be against.”
The remarks place the Prime Minister under pressure to explain how his Government intends to balance tax policy with its stated commitment to employment, thriving town centres and support for working people.
However, the proposed increase has not been presented in the supplied source as a final, confirmed policy. Its eventual impact will depend on the measures announced in the Budget, the precise tax rules and how individual businesses respond.
Betting shop tax proposal sparks jobs warning
At the heart of the dispute is Machine Games Duty, a tax applied to income from certain gaming machines in venues such as betting shops.
Under the reported proposal, the standard rate could increase from 20% to 40%. If implemented as described, the change would substantially increase the tax burden on the affected machine income, potentially forcing operators to reconsider how they run their businesses.
Greyhound racing in Romford (Image: Getty)
The GBGB argues that gaming machines should not be treated as an isolated source of revenue when assessing the financial health of a betting shop. According to the organisation, income from these machines can help support the wider operation of a premises, including staffing and other running costs.
Ms MacGregor warned that the consequences of a higher levy would not necessarily stop at the machines themselves.
“While machines do not receive redundancy notices, people will,” she said.
The comment captures the industry’s central argument: although the tax would apply to machine income, any resulting financial pressure could ultimately affect workers.
If a shop became less profitable, an operator might respond by cutting staff hours, reducing investment, closing a branch or reviewing its presence in a particular town. These are possible outcomes rather than confirmed consequences, and the scale of any impact would depend on the business and the final policy.
Nevertheless, the warning raises a wider question about the relationship between taxation and employment. A higher rate could generate additional revenue for the Treasury if businesses continued operating and taxable income remained sufficiently strong. But if the increase encouraged closures or significantly reduced machine activity, the overall effect could be more complicated.
The Government would also have to consider whether its wider objectives for town centres could be affected by changes to the betting shop sector.
Betting shops are a familiar feature of many British high streets, particularly in towns where traditional retailers have faced pressure from online shopping, rising property costs and shifts in consumer spending.
Supporters of the industry argue that these premises provide local employment and contribute to commercial activity. Critics, however, may question whether every betting shop provides the same wider benefits and whether gambling-related harms justify stronger taxation or tighter regulation.
That disagreement is central to the political controversy. The question is not simply whether bookmakers should pay more tax, but whether the Government can pursue its social and fiscal objectives without creating consequences that conflict with its promises on jobs and local economic renewal.
Burnham faces hypocrisy accusations
Ms MacGregor’s criticism has focused particularly on the language used by Burnham when discussing betting shops and the high street.
Her accusation of hypocrisy rests on an apparent contradiction between the Government’s stated support for working people and what the industry sees as a dismissive attitude towards certain jobs and businesses.
She argued that ministers cannot credibly promise stronger communities and more employment while overlooking the people working in sectors that may be unpopular with some voters.
The intervention also taps into a broader political debate over which industries are considered worthy of support. Betting shops operate in a controversial area of the economy, where commercial activity intersects with concerns about addiction, household finances and the social cost of gambling.
Those concerns give governments a legitimate reason to consider how betting is taxed and regulated. Yet the GBGB argues that policy should distinguish between concerns about gambling and the livelihoods of the people employed in associated businesses.
For workers, the debate may be less about the political reputation of the industry and more about whether their jobs will remain available.
A betting shop employee facing redundancy may have limited control over tax policy, customer behaviour or the financial decisions made by a large operator. In towns with fewer alternative employers, even the closure of a single premises can create difficulties for staff searching for replacement work.
At the same time, the Government could argue that taxation decisions should be judged by their broader public impact rather than solely by the interests of businesses affected. Additional revenue might support public services, while a higher levy could be intended to reflect concerns about gambling or the returns generated by gaming machines.
The political challenge for Burnham and Chancellor John Healey will be to explain the rationale for any increase and demonstrate that its likely consequences have been properly considered.
Without the final Budget details, it remains unclear whether the reported doubling of Machine Games Duty will be adopted, modified or abandoned.
Prime Minister Andy Burnham (Image: Getty)
Greyhound racing fears financial blow
The dispute has implications beyond betting shop operators, with greyhound racing leaders warning that the sport could also suffer if bookmakers face higher costs.
The GBGB argues that British greyhound racing relies on the betting industry to help finance the infrastructure supporting the sport, including arrangements connected with greyhound welfare.
Ms MacGregor said: “Greyhound racing, Britain’s first working class sport, would be decimated – not least because we rely on bookmakers to fund the welfare infrastructure that sits at the heart of everything we do.”
The warning comes as the sport marks 100 years since its introduction at Belle Vue in Manchester in 1926. The venue’s history gives the debate a particular connection to Burnham’s home city, where greyhound racing became part of the wider story of British working-class entertainment.
For supporters, the sport represents more than a betting opportunity. It has a longstanding place in local sporting culture and provides work across a network of venues and related businesses.
However, the industry’s future depends on its ability to maintain public support, meet animal welfare expectations and sustain its financial arrangements. Any claim that a tax increase would devastate the sport remains a warning from an interested industry body rather than a confirmed outcome.
The extent of the risk would depend on how bookmakers responded, how much financial support for racing changed and whether alternative sources of funding were available.
The Government must also weigh those concerns against the broader debate surrounding gambling. While betting businesses provide employment and support associated sports, policymakers must consider the potential harm that gambling can cause to individuals and families.
That makes the decision more complicated than a straightforward choice between supporting jobs and raising taxes. Ministers must assess the fiscal benefits of any change alongside its economic, social and regulatory consequences.
Ms MacGregor has urged the Prime Minister and Chancellor to consider the wider effects of the proposed measures, arguing that the industry supports priorities the Government itself claims to champion.
These include local employment, training opportunities for younger people, part-time work and accessible leisure activities at a time when many households remain under pressure from the cost of living.
She added: “A Government claiming to represent working people cannot pick and choose which working people deserve a future.”
Industry seeks equal treatment on remote betting tax
The dispute over gaming machines comes alongside a separate tax concern for greyhound racing.
General Betting Duty on remote bets is due to rise from 15% to 25% in April 2027 under the policy described in the source, while remote betting on British horse racing is set to remain at 15%.
Greyhound racing representatives are calling for an equivalent exemption, arguing that the sport should receive treatment comparable to horse racing.
The distinction matters because betting increasingly takes place online rather than exclusively in physical shops. Tax rules affecting remote gambling can therefore influence the commercial relationship between betting operators and the sporting events on which customers wager.
The GBGB’s position is that additional pressure on remote betting could further weaken the financial support available to greyhound racing. However, the practical effect would depend on the final rules, the behaviour of operators and the arrangements governing funding for the sport.
The debate also raises questions about how the Government decides which sporting activities merit special tax treatment. Ministers may need to explain the reasons for maintaining different rates and exemptions, particularly if other sectors argue that they also support employment, regional economies and sporting traditions.
Budget decision could shape the industry’s future
The forthcoming Budget will be a key moment for betting operators, greyhound racing and the workers whose livelihoods depend on both.
If the Government proceeds with the reported increase in Machine Games Duty, businesses will need to assess how the higher rate affects their finances and whether they can absorb the additional cost. If ministers change or reject the proposal, the industry may avoid some of the immediate pressure it fears.
Either way, the controversy highlights the difficulty of designing tax policy for industries that are economically significant but socially contentious.
Burnham’s critics argue that the Government risks undermining its own employment promises if it imposes higher taxes without adequately considering the impact on workers and local communities. The GBGB has made that argument particularly forcefully, describing the approach as elitist and inconsistent with the Government’s stated ambitions.
But the outcome cannot be determined by industry warnings alone. Ministers will need to consider the evidence on business viability, public finances, gambling-related harm, employment and the future of British racing before deciding which measures to adopt.
For the greyhound racing sector, the stakes extend beyond the immediate tax bill. Its leaders fear that pressure on betting businesses could weaken a funding model that has supported the sport for generations.
For betting shop employees, the immediate concern is more direct: whether changes to taxation could affect their hours, job security or the continued existence of their workplace.
The Government’s decision will therefore be judged not only on how much revenue it raises, but also on whether ministers have taken the wider consequences seriously.
Until the Budget confirms the final measures, the reported doubling of Machine Games Duty remains a proposal rather than a settled outcome. But the backlash from greyhound racing leaders has ensured that the political argument over betting shops, working-class jobs and the future of the sport is firmly in the spotlight.