Politics 2024/25 General Election Voting Intention (2022)

[Gwadien]

I mean, if you want to play the AI game...

Clacton has one of the highest rates of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) claimants in the UK, with approximately 9,627 residents receiving the benefit. This constitutes 18% of Clacton's working-age population, a rate that is more than double the national average.

'DEY TOOK ER JERBS' is not the message of Reform, it's 'Get rid of migrants, restore this fabled 'British culture' and everything will be perfect again.' Which actually translates to we'll make a tiny Government, be really nice to the wealthy, treat non-white people like absolute shit, and then when people realise that it's not fixing the shit situation of their lives we'll oppress the non-white people further and further. (The non-white part is intentional rather than migrants, because it's inevitable that Reform would eventually go for remigration.)

You would think they would vote for Labour, because they honestly can't believe that Reform would be mean to them - there's a guy on social media (forget his name) who dresses up in a full union flag suit and interviews people mainly in Reform voting areas, telling them well known information about Farage (such as the £5m thing) and their response is 'omg really?' and they're usually receptive of him because he's wearing a union flag suit.

It's almost the same reason why the Government feels like they need to remind people not to set fires when it's really dry...

 

[Scouse]

Actually, if you're bringing up Clacton, rather than looking at who votes reform, then you should read my post again - because Clacton is made up of the people described by my post.

The benefit claimants in clacton (the less than 1 in 5) probably all voted for Binface. Labour didn't stand...

 

[Gwadien]

Fascinating take.

In the Great Yarmouth constituency, approximately 9,376 to 9,800 people receive Personal Independence Payments (PIP). This equates to roughly 160.6 claimants per 1,000 working-age adults, giving Great Yarmouth one of the highest rates of PIP claimants per capita in England and Wales.

There are approximately 11,400 people claiming Personal Independence Payment (PIP) in the Ashfield district. Local data shows that roughly 13.3% of the working-age population in the area receives disability benefits like PIP or health-related employment support. [1, 2]

Boston local authority area, there are approximately 5,171 Personal Independence Payment (PIP) claims recorded. For the wider parliamentary constituency of Boston and Skegness, local economic and welfare profiles estimate roughly 4,280+ active entitlement caseloads, with the area noted as having a high proportion of claimants relying on health and disability support. [1, 2, 3]

Approximately 15% of the working-age population in the Runcorn and Helsby constituency receive a Personal Independence Payment (PIP). While the Department for Work and Pensions does not publish a live, fixed head-count for every individual parliamentary seat in real time, local data highlights an unusually high concentration of claimants in parts of the area. [1, 2]

 

[BloodOmen]

Reform proposes £50bn welfare bill cut with changes to disability payments system Pip

The party's proposed changes were they to come to power include a replacement for the disability payments system Pip.

www.bbc.co.uk

... voting for Christmas..

The current benefits (only benefits) bill is about £104billion (that's general benefits like PIP and Housing Benefits), i'd love to know where these fantasy economics where cutting £50billion seems feasible/humane are coming from, I think Jenrick has pulled them out of his arse.

The Conservatives tried this and what happened? thousands of people ended up dying because they couldn't afford electricity/gas and ended up dying from cold etc and/or were so mentally ill, they took their own lives because of the pressure dropped on them.

 

[Scouse]

Fascinating take.

Where as your list of the numbers of people on benefits in different areas says what, exactly?

It appears to just be a list and says nothing? The people in those places that vote reform aren't the benefit claimants.

 

[Raven]

Stupid people do stupid things, and getting bogged down by their pointless little outrages is holding humanity back.

Remove the vote from stupid people.

Edit, also, lying as an MP or prospective MP should be a criminal offence, with hefty prison time attached to it.

 

[Scouse]

The current benefits (only benefits) bill is about £104billion

As stated previously - the current UK benefits bill is £334bn.

 

[Gwadien]

As stated previously - the current UK benefits bill is £334bn.

55% of which is pensioners...

 

[Scouse]

55% of which is pensioners...

42% of the bill is pensions. There are pensioners who qualify for other benefits.

So a few questions:

1) Which of their pension or their "other benefits" do you want to take off the pensioners?
2) If it's pensions, how do you justify that morally because to qualify for state pension you have to pay national insurance for 30 years. They feel that they've "paid in" - and are getting £12k p/a at the end of their working life (from 67 years old).
3) If it's "other benefits" - then do you also take those benefits from other qualifying people? Because if they qualify, they qualify.

There seems to be a lot of anti pension stuff going on at the moment. Should people work till they drop?


Edit: One more question - teachers get gold plated pensions. The also qualify for the state pension. Do you think you should not qualify for the state pension? Happy to give that up because you're already going to be rolling in it?

 

[Scouse]

A certain type of person doesn't seem to want to look at the growing disability benefits bill (the second largest) which is growing rapidly and amongst working age young as a particular demographic (18-34 years old) -when previously they'd have to suck it up and work.

But suck it up and work they did - they didn't appear in the figures because they remained in work despite their health problems.

 

[BloodOmen]

As stated previously - the current UK benefits bill is £334bn.

That's with pensions etc, pensions take up the majority of the welfare bill, I was only talking about things like pip/housing benefit etc, which is what Jenrick likely has in his crosshairs.

 

[Scouse]

Pension takes up a very substantial amount but less than half - and all that is addressed in my questions to @Gwadien above m8.

 

[BloodOmen]

Pension takes up a very substantial amount but less than half - and all that is addressed in my questions to @Gwadien above m8.

It's roughly half either way, DWP measure it at £171.7 (55.1%) billion where as OBR measures it at £161.2 billion (48.4%)

 

[caLLous]

 

[BloodOmen]

Pretty much...

Also - Stop immigration so we can use it as a smokescreen while we all grossly enrich ourselves and our mates

 

[Scouse]

Rising number of people seeking ADHD diagnosis without treatment, say experts

Psychiatrists in Channel 4 documentary argue it is more a ‘social construct’ than a medical condition

www.theguardian.com

 

[BloodOmen]

Rising number of people seeking ADHD diagnosis without treatment, say experts

Psychiatrists in Channel 4 documentary argue it is more a ‘social construct’ than a medical condition

www.theguardian.com

yup, loads of them on Twitter with it in their bio, its mad, people self diagnosing with ADHD, Autism etc.

 

[Scouse]

yup, loads of them on Twitter with it in their bio, its mad, people self diagnosing with ADHD, Autism etc.

So, you look at PIP claimants. ~70% of new claims are for mental health conditions and ADHD is increasingly prevalent in PIP claims, if not primary, then an additional factor - in maybe as much as 1-in-5.

But what people here appear to be saying is there no scope to reduce benefit claims. That everyone who receives benefits is, despite evidence to the contrary, has a severe disability, is actually in a wheelchair and absolutely 100% unable to work.

Nobody is over-diagosed (often by private providers with a profit motive), nobody is swinging the leg, nobody is sat at home on benefits when they could actually contribute.


Clearly, I stand corrected. Lets increase benefits across the board. Tax the lot of us. Remove pensions from pensioners. Fuckers are old anyway, and they should live in poverty. They had their chance, eh? Time for them to move aside for the young - and the same time we could stop them voting, because after a lifetime of experience the way they vote isn't in-step with how younger people think...

 

[Gwadien]

Rising number of people seeking ADHD diagnosis without treatment, say experts

Psychiatrists in Channel 4 documentary argue it is more a ‘social construct’ than a medical condition

www.theguardian.com

I can talk from what I know about - and I'll later explain how this can translate for adults...

So I taught 2 kids.

We'll start with Kid A (excellent album, by the way) - He was kicked out of a private school and came to us, whilst he was with us he got an ADHD diagnosis (we get sent around forms, to talk about his behaviour, attention in lessons etc) and I could see from the form that there was 0 signs of ADHD - just a rich kid that was basically neglected by his parents and wanted anything to blame other than themselves, he got his ADHD diagnosis but what completely unmedicated, BUT his response to every challenge to his behaviour was 'you can't tell me off/give me detentions/exclude me etc, I KNOW MY RIGHTS'. If he felt 'overwhelmed' he could just leave the classroom at any point, go to the SEN unit and have a cup of tea and biscuit, ALL because his parents 'knew his rights' and would apply immense amounts of pressure on the school to get access to more resources than any other child, without a net positive. Really clever kid, but only wanted to use his intelligence to get one over 'authority'. If I were to predict what would happen to this kid after school - probably do fuck all and work for his parents until they retire and then the business collapses, but it won't be his fault because he doesn't understand accountability. OR use his intelligence to play the system and go on PIP - something that he'd probably get away with under a £50bn cut to welfare too.

Kid B - Kid B comes from a poor background - parents don't really care about her education, she was clearly ADHD when she joined in year 7, but standard procedure in education - primary school catches onto their needs in year 4/5 - would rather just put up with it rather than getting it addressed because it's not their problem in a couple of years and it's lots of work to get it addressed. She is clearly ADHD, possibly autistic (we'll come onto that) but the approach to the school up to her diagnosis was 'no excuses, log everything, detentions etc'. She got excluded probably a dozen times or so in her first 2 years of school, for all sorts of standard ADHD behaviours, but every time I spoke to her one on one she understood, apologised but said 'I can't do anything about it' and you could clearly tell that she was telling the truth. She was awful 19/20 of the time but then for that 1/20 she'd be amazing - I remember teaching her about slavery and when she went home she spent the evening researching it further, came back and was teaching me shit - Talking about moments that make it worth it, @Tom. Then she got her diagnosis and her drugs. She was a zombie, she hated it, but her behaviour was fine, parents didn't get called all the time, CAHMS which is overstretched and underfunded stopped getting harassed by school/parents, so everyone was happy. She'll take nothing from education now, but she's not a massive strain on school resources anymore but that's good, because we need those resources for kids like Kid A.

I completely agree that lots of people are on PIP/benefits when they shouldn't be, but I don't think the solution is an en-mass punishment, because the result you're going to see is a massive mental health crisis when you've got pretty intelligent people being forced to do jobs that don't challenge them and they'll be constantly struggling to make ends meet anyway, but it depends on what you want to achieve - is it purely about reducing the bill or is it about getting people into careers that they'll enjoy and actually have a positive contribution to society.

I'd argue that we need to spend more on other areas in order to spend less on PIP/benefits, this is an example but you can apply it to other areas - why would you want a plumber who's at the end of his career working for a company for all his life and decides to do something 'easier' like teaching plumbing when they turn up and can't be arsed, whereas we should probably be spending more on getting people that are passionate about it, running their own companies to come in and inspire kids that aren't fit for academic routes for a couple of hours a week.

Then generally we need more accountability for parents - especially 'well to do' ones, how you do that? Fuck knows.

 

[Scouse]

I can talk from what I know about - and I'll later explain how this can translate for adults...

Very interesting @Gwadien.

I completely agree that lots of people are on PIP/benefits when they shouldn't be, but I don't think the solution is an en-mass punishment, because the result you're going to see is a massive mental health crisis when you've got pretty intelligent people being forced to do jobs that don't challenge them and they'll be constantly struggling to make ends meet anyway, but it depends on what you want to achieve - is it purely about reducing the bill or is it about getting people into careers that they'll enjoy and actually have a positive contribution to society.

The suggestion isn't "en-masse punishment". But if you can work, you should work.

Asking working people - 70% of whom hate their jobs/don't find them challenging or rewarding but still do them anyway because they understand they should earn a wadge and pay for themselves - to fund people who can work but don't need/want to undermines social cohesion and is immoral.


In an ideal world we'd have everyone get jobs they liked, found challenging and rewarding. But if we can't provide those jobs - you still don't get to sit on benefits. You have to work. And "tough titties" - because whole swathes of society are doing exactly that.

we should probably be spending more on getting people that are passionate about it

I can count on one hand the number of people I've met who are truly passionate about what they do. That doesn't mean people who can work get to sit on benefits.


I don't disagree we should be funding other areas though. We're not a million miles apart.


Whilst you're about:

42% of the bill is pensions. There are pensioners who qualify for other benefits.

So a few questions:

1) Which of their pension or their "other benefits" do you want to take off the pensioners?
2) If it's pensions, how do you justify that morally because to qualify for state pension you have to pay national insurance for 30 years. They feel that they've "paid in" - and are getting £12k p/a at the end of their working life (from 67 years old).
3) If it's "other benefits" - then do you also take those benefits from other qualifying people? Because if they qualify, they qualify.

There seems to be a lot of anti pension stuff going on at the moment. Should people work till they drop?


Edit: One more question - teachers get gold plated pensions. The also qualify for the state pension. Do you think you should not qualify for the state pension? Happy to give that up because you're already going to be rolling in it?

?

 

[Gwadien]

Very interesting @Gwadien.


The suggestion isn't "en-masse punishment". But if you can work, you should work.

Asking working people - 70% of whom hate their jobs/don't find them challenging or rewarding but still do them anyway because they understand they should earn a wadge and pay for themselves - to fund people who can work but don't need/want to undermines social cohesion and is immoral.


In an ideal world we'd have everyone get jobs they liked, found challenging and rewarding. But if we can't provide those jobs - you still don't get to sit on benefits. You have to work. And "tough titties" - because whole swathes of society are doing exactly that.



I can count on one hand the number of people I've met who are truly passionate about what they do. That doesn't mean people who can work get to sit on benefits.


I don't disagree we should be funding other areas though. We're not a million miles apart.


Whilst you're about:



?

But when the Tories tried to make cuts (which were no near 50bn that Reform are suggesting) there were so many people that clearly couldn't work that were told they should - and we're still finding this today, there's a tiktoker/youtuber family where there's a 40 something Filipino woman married to a 62 year old bloke who was in the Army, worked in procurement and continued procurement but was recently made redundant, he went on benefits and they immediately put him on a bricklaying course where in the height of summer he was training with a bunch of kids in a metal tin, clearly wanted to do as he was told, but ended up having a heart attack - why are we putting people through that? I don't necessarily blame 'lazy' people, I blame the 'lazy' system where if you have people that bow down to authority quickly it's seen as a win for DWP/Job Centre - whereas it's a waste of time to put effort into people that are clearly going to say no at every turn, whereas they could put some effort into finding stuff that actually suits them and gives them an idea of future positive prospects rather than you can do this course, do this job but you'll still have a shit life. Which brings into the second bit, I guess I don't really mean people that are passionate about their jobs, but even maybe 'look at me, I've got a 4 bedroom house, go on holiday 3-4 times a year and I do this trade.'

Pensions I really don't know enough, but what I do know is that I'm uncomfortable with people that own 2-3 care homes and are millionaires which essentially comes from the tax payer, in a similar vein I'm uncomfortable with CEO of school trusts that are earning 250k~ a year, for essentially turning the schools into prison camps and given a pat on the back for it (until Panorama does an investigation into them.)

I still don't understand why the focus isn't addressing wealth inequality, why does it have to be your taxes that are increased?

 

[Scouse]

But when the Tories tried to make cuts (which were no near 50bn that Reform are suggesting) there were so many people that clearly couldn't work that were told they should - and we're still finding this today, there's a tiktoker/youtuber family where there's a 40 something Filipino woman married to a 62 year old bloke who was in the Army, worked in procurement and continued procurement but was recently made redundant, he went on benefits and they immediately put him on a bricklaying course where in the height of summer he was training with a bunch of kids in a metal tin, clearly wanted to do as he was told, but ended up having a heart attack - why are we putting people through that? I don't necessarily blame 'lazy' people, I blame the 'lazy' system where if you have people that bow down to authority quickly it's seen as a win for DWP/Job Centre - whereas it's a waste of time to put effort into people that are clearly going to say no at every turn, whereas they could put some effort into finding stuff that actually suits them and gives them an idea of future positive prospects rather than you can do this course, do this job but you'll still have a shit life. Which brings into the second bit, I guess I don't really mean people that are passionate about their jobs, but even maybe 'look at me, I've got a 4 bedroom house, go on holiday 3-4 times a year and I do this trade.'

For every tragic story, there's someone sat on benefits not having to work who could work - robbing all of us of a better funded NHS, more money for some other social good - (or (gasp!) more money in your pocket because you spend 8 hours a day in a job you hate).

You're right that it's a systems problem - and incompetence and apathy and dealing with fraud etc - makes it a very hard ask. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing it. It's not fair that some people are working their arses off because they can, and there are people who can work, but get to choose not to.

It's not an amazing existence for most of them. But then there's plenty of working people who struggle. Not working when you can is immoral. Suck it up. Your chances of finding a better job are much better if you're already in a job. It shows a propensity for doing work - which is the first thing all employers look at.


I was (seriously) offered a job the other day whilst riding at Dyfi bike park - simply because I was moaning about some cunt at work who was shirking, and describing what I was having to do to pick up her slack. So if I'm moaning about someone who's actually got a job, who isn't pulling their weight - how do you think a lot of people feel about people on benefits who can work? They're a drag on everyone.

Pensions I really don't know enough, but what I do know is that I'm uncomfortable with people that own 2-3 care homes and are millionaires which essentially comes from the tax payer, in a similar vein I'm uncomfortable with CEO of school trusts that are earning 250k~ a year, for essentially turning the schools into prison camps and given a pat on the back for it (until Panorama does an investigation into them.)

The existence of millionares and CEO's does not justify the anger towards the state pension which is 12k/year for people who've "paid in" for 35 years.

The fact that all governments have lied and we don't have a pension pot and pensions come out of general taxation isn't the people who've worked for 35 years and paid their taxes for the "minium safety net" retirement benefit's fault. They're innocent.

But working age people who can work but find it hard. Sorry. You can work.

I still don't understand why the focus isn't addressing wealth inequality, why does it have to be your taxes that are increased?

It's easy to punch suckers is the answer.

 

[BloodOmen]

So, you look at PIP claimants. ~70% of new claims are for mental health conditions and ADHD is increasingly prevalent in PIP claims, if not primary, then an additional factor - in maybe as much as 1-in-5.

But what people here appear to be saying is there no scope to reduce benefit claims. That everyone who receives benefits is, despite evidence to the contrary, has a severe disability, is actually in a wheelchair and absolutely 100% unable to work.

Nobody is over-diagosed (often by private providers with a profit motive), nobody is swinging the leg, nobody is sat at home on benefits when they could actually contribute.


Clearly, I stand corrected. Lets increase benefits across the board. Tax the lot of us. Remove pensions from pensioners. Fuckers are old anyway, and they should live in poverty. They had their chance, eh? Time for them to move aside for the young - and the same time we could stop them voting, because after a lifetime of experience the way they vote isn't in-step with how younger people think...

The entire system needs an overhaul, the issue with benefits in general in the UK is that they're so deep-rooted in the nation now, it's not as easy as just flicking a few switches and it's something I don't think any party can ever fix short of killing thousands of people (a bit like the Tories did when they went ham with the DWP forcing people with terminal illnesses etc to work and/or removing people that are on the edge of suicide from benefits causing them to take their own lives) - and I don't mean killing them on purpose, but short of mass change, it's hard to directly target people "Faking it" because you might target someone who is genuinely on the edge by accident.

 

[Scouse]

This is the issue with benefits Mr Omen. They create dependency.

Just like in any animal. I've been telling the o/h not to feed the birds every day in the summer because when winter comes around, if we go away then they'll have lost their foraging skills and local knowledge. Standard advice is to not let animals become dependent on handouts. They need to be resilient themselves. There's a point where handouts become harmful.

Once you've opened that box you find it hard to shut without causing harm. But unless you want to perpetuate harm down the line - our legions of family lines that are benefit dependent - then at some point you're going to risk damage.

For the majority - they were designed to be a safety net if you were in real trouble. But now they're ubiquitous.

 

[Scouse]

The Great ADHD Myth? review – the most controversial show of the year is here

Dr Max Pemberton isn’t uncompassionate or especially radical, but he assembles a team of medics whose stance on the condition is clear from the off. This is a documentary that will incense and offend many

www.theguardian.com

 

[Billargh]

Pretty much...

Also - Stop immigration so we can use it as a smokescreen while we all grossly enrich ourselves and our mates

We know this lot don't want to stop immigration at all too. They need a scapegoat, and using non natives is a lot easier than using British citizens, no matter how woke/trans/gay/lefty they are.

 

[Scouse]

We know this lot don't want to stop immigration at all too. They need a scapegoat, and using non natives is a lot easier than using British citizens, no matter how woke/trans/gay/lefty they are.

I think it's pretty clear they want to stop immigration.

They also want to kick the non-working half of working classes and make them do the work that we've imported immigrants to do instead of paying benefits.

 

[BloodOmen]

I think the important distinction here is that wanting to reduce illegal immigration does not mean being against immigration in general. I’m actually all for immigration, my wife isn’t a native either, so I have no issue with people coming here legally and becoming part of the country.

What I do have an issue with is mass and uncontrolled illegal immigration. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect a country to have control over who enters, especially when our infrastructure is already under a huge amount of pressure. Housing is already a major problem, public services are stretched, and there are genuine concerns about whether the system can keep up with the level of demand being placed on it.

If the government genuinely wants to reduce illegal immigration, then I think they need to be far more serious about actually enforcing the rules. At the moment, saying you want to stop it is one thing, but actually having a system capable of preventing it, processing cases quickly and removing people who have no legal right to remain is another.

You can support legal immigration while still believing that illegal immigration needs to be dealt with properly. I don't think those positions contradict each other.

 

[Gwadien]

I think the important distinction here is that wanting to reduce illegal immigration does not mean being against immigration in general. I’m actually all for immigration, my wife isn’t a native either, so I have no issue with people coming here legally and becoming part of the country.

What I do have an issue with is mass and uncontrolled illegal immigration. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect a country to have control over who enters, especially when our infrastructure is already under a huge amount of pressure. Housing is already a major problem, public services are stretched, and there are genuine concerns about whether the system can keep up with the level of demand being placed on it.

If the government genuinely wants to reduce illegal immigration, then I think they need to be far more serious about actually enforcing the rules. At the moment, saying you want to stop it is one thing, but actually having a system capable of preventing it, processing cases quickly and removing people who have no legal right to remain is another.

You can support legal immigration while still believing that illegal immigration needs to be dealt with properly. I don't think those positions contradict each other.

I don't think there's anyone that would argue that they want illegal migration.

Facts are it's the legal migration that is 'the problem' because they're the ones who bring families and are the actual burden on services etc, illegal migrants are illegal so therefore are much less likely to engage with services because they'll get deported.

Weirdly enough it's almost the opposite of what we want - legal = women & children included - tend to be the bigger 'burden'. Illegal = Young men without their own families - likely to send a bit of money back to their own country for their parents etc, but will be focused on starting a life here...

 

[BloodOmen]

I don't think there's anyone that would argue that they want illegal migration.

Facts are it's the legal migration that is 'the problem' because they're the ones who bring families and are the actual burden on services etc, illegal migrants are illegal so therefore are much less likely to engage with services because they'll get deported.

Weirdly enough it's almost the opposite of what we want - legal = women & children included - tend to be the bigger 'burden'. Illegal = Young men without their own families - likely to send a bit of money back to their own country for their parents etc, but will be focused on starting a life here...

I actually agree with part of what you're saying. Legal migration can absolutely have problems of its own, particularly when the rules are being used in ways that weren't really intended, or when large numbers of dependants are brought over. There are also legitimate questions around how the system deals with people coming from cultures where multiple wives are accepted, for example.

That said, I don't think it's quite as simple as saying legal migrants are the bigger burden and illegal migrants are less of a problem. A lot of legal migrants are working, paying income tax, National Insurance, and the evidence does show that certain groups, particularly skilled workers, are a net positive to the public finances. The Migration Advisory Committee estimated that the average Skilled Worker migrant had a net fiscal contribution of around £16,300 in 2022/23, compared with around £800 for the average UK born adult.

Obviously that doesn't mean every legal migrant is a net contributor, because it varies depending on income, age, dependants and the route they came through. I think that's an important distinction.

Where I probably differ from you more is that I still think uncontrolled illegal immigration is a problem in its own right. I'm not saying every person who enters illegally is a criminal or a burden, and I certainly don't think someone's immigration status tells you what sort of person they are. There are plenty of decent people who have come here illegally and want nothing more than to work and build a life.

The problem is that you also get bad apples, and unfortunately when those individuals commit serious crimes, it ends up being used to paint everyone who came here illegally with the same brush. I don't think that's fair either.

For me, the answer is a properly controlled immigration system. Legal immigration should be based on what the country actually needs and what we can realistically support, while illegal immigration should be dealt with consistently.


Edit: I also think that native Brits should always have priority over legal or illegal migrants when it comes to housing needs. If someone has lived here their entire life and is struggling to find somewhere to live, I don't think they should be pushed down the list because someone who has recently arrived in the country has a greater claim.