Representations of economic inequality and welfare redistribution in British mainstream party programs, 2005–2024

<ns3:p>Background This article examines how political communication shapes the framing and interpretation of economic inequality and redistribution in the United Kingdom. Traditional approaches, rooted in a static epistemology, assume that concepts like “economic inequality” have fixed, shared meanings, allowing political engagement to be evaluated against abstract principles such as left-right ideology. In contrast, a dynamic epistemology treats economic inequality as context-dependent, constructed and reproduced through political discourse, such that it is not merely an abstract moral concept, but a communicative act shaped by the values and strategies of those who frame it. This perspective helps explain why sustained political engagement on inequality remains limited in Britain despite high levels of objective inequality. Methods We employ an exploratory convergent mixed-methods framework to analyse British mainstream party manifestos from 2005 to 2024, spanning the period before and after the global financial crisis, combining quantitative keyword frequency analysis with qualitative thematic analysis. Results Our findings show that parties frequently frame inequality through the lens of “equality of opportunity” and situate it within personal life-course narratives. Particularly on the left, these narratives build group identities and raise concern without necessarily fostering trust in concrete solutions, highlighting the central role of political communication in shaping the meaning and politicization of economic inequality. Conclusions We find that consensus around thinking about inequality is often framed as "equality of opportunity" and as normative beliefs regarding what the common experience should be. Political parties harness these motivations at varying points to advance strategic objectives, developing distinctive party identities aligned with the desires of the electorate, attributing blame to alternative groups, and positioning themselves as uniquely capable of addressing these issues.</ns3:p>