Farage as PM? Could a Trump-style takeover happen in UK?

[AlterEgo]

That's what people voted for but we'll see if there is any opposition to this style of rule. If it remains popular, who are we to judge?

You’ve been quite judgemental about numerous social and political consequences which were enacted by governments here which were popular and kept getting voted in. As you’re entitled to of course!

Why, however, the protection from criticism for Trump’s oligarchy, and why do you think we’ll have to see if there is “any opposition to this style of rule”? There’s loads of opposition in the USA to it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Feb 2025 ==

You just see the world completely differently to myself and millions of others. I think we can leave it at that.

And you see the world very differently from most people in this country. Which is fine, but, as would apply to everyone, you can’t claim to speak for anyone but yourself. You can leave the appeal “and millions of others” out of that sentence.

 

[scarby]

There are many people on benefits who haven't worked a day in their lives. In Essex, in Lancashire, they're all over, they're unskilled, unemployable. Anecdotal from many people over the years who have been involved and well connected in these communities. Training them up and cutting their benefits is what this nation needs to do.

You said it yourself, they are unemployable.

"Training them up"? If only it were that simple. Most of these people will come with mental health problems, chronic illnesses and other difficulties, such as being very temperamental or violent, the result of a chaotic upbringing.

When National Service existed, the Forces did not want to take these people on - they had to do it. What they wanted were people who were bright, keen and eager to contribute. The "unemployable" people that came into National Service did not get "trained up" - more often they proved highly disruptive and made life difficult and unpleasant for everyone. Usually the only solution was for them to be discharged from service, to a sigh of relief.

 

[Yew]

The problem can be that in some sleepy towns, there often isn't the jobs to go around.

There are people out there who want to work and are sending countless CVs and not even getting a single interview.

Yes, maybe some with the financial means could relocate. This however is limited to a certain percentage of individuals.

Indeed, we're suffering the consequences of the laissez-faire approach to deindustrialisation, of the misguided belief that somehow we can cast the fate of so many towns onto the fickle winds of the free-market, and that market forces will mysteriously align with the best interests of our nation.

Unfortunately, investors and corporations don't care about the country, they care about their bottom line. Therefore, lots of former industrial areas still haven't healed from their wounds, and more people have been pushed into cities, exacerbating the housing crisis.

 

[Gostav]

You said it yourself, they are unemployable.

"Training them up"? If only it were that simple. Most of these people will come with mental health problems, chronic illnesses and other difficulties, such as being very temperamental or violent, the result of a chaotic upbringing.

When National Service existed, the Forces did not want to take these people on - they had to do it. What they wanted were people who were bright, keen and eager to contribute. The "unemployable" people that came into National Service did not get "trained up" - more often they proved highly disruptive and made life difficult and unpleasant for everyone. Usually the only solution was for them to be discharged from service, to a sigh of relief.

In fact, in most modern countries, developed industries and commodity economies are sufficient to provide these unemployed people with a basic standard of living - this should not become a heavy burden at all.

The real question is how much of these benefits are actually delivered to people, rather than lost in a series of bloated welfare departments/organizations? The same goes for the various left-wing initiatives to promote equality for minorities—how many of them are actually implemented in practice, rather than just showing a few people of colour and LGBT people in their propaganda videos?

This is why people began to question the left.

 

[The_Train]

On benefits.

Yes there are people out there who openly abuse the system. Yes, we need systems in place to prevent these types of people from abusing the system.

The problem can be that in some sleepy towns, there often isn't the jobs to go around.

There are people out there who want to work and are sending countless CVs and not even getting a single interview.

Yes, maybe some with the financial means could relocate. This however is limited to a certain percentage of individuals.

Even in larger towns or even cities, its not easy to get a job, even for the committed people who want to stand on thier own two feet and feel like they are actively contributing to society.

I am employed but have been without a job and on benefits in the past and was once for a year and 3 months. To say it was soul destroying was an understatement.

Yes, be hard on the benefit cheats, oh yes, please do.

But at the same time, please also understand that what with ghost jobs, companies that do not respond and a whole lot of other reasons, job seeking is not a 'walk in the park', and there needs to be long term solutions and not quick fix, band aid style solutions, that don't make any real difference in the long term.

I totally agree with all of this and it really riles me when politicians use benefits to belittle and batter people who, in most cases, are already at their lowest ebb.

I experienced being out of work, a process which started pre-covid for me and so with covid went on for a long time. After so much rejection, in most cases via ignorance and silence, I was very close to giving up when the company I now work for actually approached me. Visits to the job centre consisted of them going through what jobs I had applied for with a fine toothcomb, under the threat of not being paid any benefits, whilst the shouting scumbag next to me was just handed his money on a platter when he had clearly never applied for a job in his life. Then when they tried to be proactive it was with offers of getting my HGV license (I hate driving) or doing pointless courses that bore no relevance to my skillset or job path I wanted to take.

And if people think that living a reasonable life on £77 per week is possible, then I would ask them to give it a go and see how their standard of living disintegrates.

The most bizarre part of this argument is that the voters this sort of rhetoric is aimed at, are the people who are more likely to be claiming benefits. Farage says he wants to go after "benefit cheats" whilst he is the MP of an area with some of the highest statistics for unemployment in the whole country. None of it ever seems to make sense!

 

[FinsburyPark]

In fact, in most modern countries, developed industries and commodity economies are sufficient to provide these unemployed people with a basic standard of living - this should not become a heavy burden at all.

The real question is how much of these benefits are actually delivered to people, rather than lost in a series of bloated welfare departments/organizations? The same goes for the various left-wing initiatives to promote equality for minorities—how many of them are actually implemented in practice, rather than just showing a few people of colour and LGBT people in their propaganda videos?

This is why people began to question the left.

When it comes to DEI. I think it can be a double edged sword.

DEI can be very useful and beneficial to promoting a diverse workforce and a workforce where anyone can feel a part of the team/company.

I'm part of my employers LGBTQ+ network for example, and i find it invaluable.

The time when DEI or equality and diversity as it was called in the UK can become problematic is when you get diversity quotas and the poverbial 'we dont want to hire stright white men'.

Yes as a whole I support DEI (or whatever we now call it in the UK) but when you actively have politicies in recruitment that ask for no more straight white men, or however else its said, this can become problematic.

In more recent times both Aviva and the Royal Air Force have recieved scrutiny for recruitment policies like this.

In conclusion, I disagree with Trump when he says it should be scrapped, but we also need to keep it in check (see above)

 

[Ediswan]

Yes, this needs to be made clear. Reeves was correct to clamp down on a blatant loophole, and most farmers will not be affected. Although it is right to protect small family farming businesses, there is no reason why larger farm businesses should be exempt from IHT.

Not a loophole. Agricultural Property Relief was explicitly introduced in the Inheritance Tax Act 1984.

 

[Wivenswold]

I totally agree with all of this and it really riles me when politicians use benefits to belittle and batter people who, in most cases, are already at their lowest ebb.

I experienced being out of work, a process which started pre-covid for me and so with covid went on for a long time. After so much rejection, in most cases via ignorance and silence, I was very close to giving up when the company I now work for actually approached me. Visits to the job centre consisted of them going through what jobs I had applied for with a fine toothcomb, under the threat of not being paid any benefits, whilst the shouting scumbag next to me was just handed his money on a platter when he had clearly never applied for a job in his life. Then when they tried to be proactive it was with offers of getting my HGV license (I hate driving) or doing pointless courses that bore no relevance to my skillset or job path I wanted to take.

And if people think that living a reasonable life on £77 per week is possible, then I would ask them to give it a go and see how their standard of living disintegrates.

The most bizarre part of this argument is that the voters this sort of rhetoric is aimed at, are the people who are more likely to be claiming benefits. Farage says he wants to go after "benefit cheats" whilst he is the MP of an area with some of the highest statistics for unemployment in the whole country. None of it ever seems to make sense!

Totally agree with you.

I suffered a Neurological event in 2016. I have "Central Sensitisation Syndrome" which has a number of unpredictable and life-changing secondary conditions such as the full suite of Fibromyalgia problems, Chronic Anxiety, Exhaustion, sudden mood swings, cognitive impairments, Restless Leg Syndrome, sensory anomalies and more recently Colitis.

I've been off long-term sick because stress makes all of the symptoms worse, anxiety in particular. My employer took 4 years to understand just the chronic pain element, but the mental health issues have just baffled them. I was crying out for help because I was overwhelmed with work and nobody listened. In the end I suffered so much discrimination from colleagues that I started looking for new jobs while off sick.

I've got a good CV for my sector and I usually get offered an interview, at which point I ask if they noted the introduction which points out that I'd need to work from home most of the time to keep my symptoms under control. They never call me back to arrange an interview time.

I've written to the PM, Liz Kendall and the DWP to complain about the language used regarding those who have to claim disability payments. Getting the disabled back to work should only be a thing if working doesn't make the disability worse. For people like me who do genuinely want to work but need to do so from home, the "remote working culture" is dead. In one bizarre case, I was having a back and forth with a job agency about how many days per week in the office I could commit to, two was the minimum. Another interview opportunity slipped from my grasp.

I expected the Tories to treat me like a second class citizen but not Labour. No response yet from Kier, Liz or the DWP.

After assessment, I am entitled to £290 per month. This doesn't even cover my utility bills let alone my mortgage. People with Central Sensitisation have, on average, a lifespan of 10 years less than someone without it. Not because the syndrome kills you but because so many with it take their own lives. The way we are treated and the BS we have to hear on the news about "getting the disabled back into work" probably cause hundreds if not thousands to consider whether they'd be best off no longer being alive. Prior to therapy, that's exactly how I felt and I still have bad days (like today). At a chronic pain seminar organised by the local NHS trust what was the first thing they told a room full of people in wheelchairs? "Pain conditions like yours cost the economy over £2bn per year", there was no heating in the room and the promised cup of tea and biscuits weren't available either. I left feeling like I was the problem, I cried all the way home. Language is important. Blame is unhelpful.

So be careful not to fall for the Government's gas-lighting. With companies finding legal ways not to pay tax on profits and the rich finding ever more ingenious ways of reducing their contribution to the upkeep of hospitals, schools, the military and the welfare system, it's not those on benefits that are bankrupting this country.

 

[JGurney]

With companies finding legal ways not to pay tax on profits and the rich finding ever more ingenious ways of reducing their contribution ....... it's not those on benefits that are bankrupting this country.

Quite agree.

 

[simonw]

Not a loophole. Agricultural Property Relief was explicitly introduced in the Inheritance Tax Act 1984.

It was, but then it lead to people buying farm land not to farm but to shelter their wealth. It resulted in farm land values having no relationship to the income generated by farming it.I

 

[Bevan Price]

Historically, when far right - or far left - parties achieve power, they don't want to lose it, and that has led to people like Hitler, Mussolini & Stalin. So far, it has never happened in UK, but it was getting close in the 1930s with Oswald Mosley and his nationalist blackshirt thugs. I am not saying that Farage is dangerous - but can we say the same about his eventual successors ??

Personally, I would not trust Reform to give us a stable government that aims to benefit all of the population (rather than a favoured minority.)

 

[brad465]

Totally agree with you.

I suffered a Neurological event in 2016. I have "Central Sensitisation Syndrome" which has a number of unpredictable and life-changing secondary conditions such as the full suite of Fibromyalgia problems, Chronic Anxiety, Exhaustion, sudden mood swings, cognitive impairments, Restless Leg Syndrome, sensory anomalies and more recently Colitis.

I've been off long-term sick because stress makes all of the symptoms worse, anxiety in particular. My employer took 4 years to understand just the chronic pain element, but the mental health issues have just baffled them. I was crying out for help because I was overwhelmed with work and nobody listened. In the end I suffered so much discrimination from colleagues that I started looking for new jobs while off sick.

I've got a good CV for my sector and I usually get offered an interview, at which point I ask if they noted the introduction which points out that I'd need to work from home most of the time to keep my symptoms under control. They never call me back to arrange an interview time.

I've written to the PM, Liz Kendall and the DWP to complain about the language used regarding those who have to claim disability payments. Getting the disabled back to work should only be a thing if working doesn't make the disability worse. For people like me who do genuinely want to work but need to do so from home, the "remote working culture" is dead. In one bizarre case, I was having a back and forth with a job agency about how many days per week in the office I could commit to, two was the minimum. Another interview opportunity slipped from my grasp.

I expected the Tories to treat me like a second class citizen but not Labour. No response yet from Kier, Liz or the DWP.

After assessment, I am entitled to £290 per month. This doesn't even cover my utility bills let alone my mortgage. People with Central Sensitisation have, on average, a lifespan of 10 years less than someone without it. Not because the syndrome kills you but because so many with it take their own lives. The way we are treated and the BS we have to hear on the news about "getting the disabled back into work" probably cause hundreds if not thousands to consider whether they'd be best off no longer being alive. Prior to therapy, that's exactly how I felt and I still have bad days (like today). At a chronic pain seminar organised by the local NHS trust what was the first thing they told a room full of people in wheelchairs? "Pain conditions like yours cost the economy over £2bn per year", there was no heating in the room and the promised cup of tea and biscuits weren't available either. I left feeling like I was the problem, I cried all the way home. Language is important. Blame is unhelpful.

So be careful not to fall for the Government's gas-lighting. With companies finding legal ways not to pay tax on profits and the rich finding ever more ingenious ways of reducing their contribution to the upkeep of hospitals, schools, the military and the welfare system, it's not those on benefits that are bankrupting this country.

I wouldn't be surprised if, and I know I bring this up a lot, our FPTP system bears some responsibility here. Under this system only a small % of swing voters matter, so the major parties target them above all others. I wouldn't be surprised if those swing voters are largely anti-benefits/welfare/social support, you name it, so enjoy this rhetoric. If that's the case, there are two solutions specific to this: one, introduce PR so these voters (or any other group of voters) have far less sway over both elections and party manifestos compared to other voters, and/or two, enact a mass education drive targeted at this group explaining why they are wrong and what the right way is. Both of these though are not easy: PR is a big electoral system reform and will have lots of sceptics trying to derail it, while the latter has to be done carefully, as there is nothing voters hate more than being told they are wrong by politicians, even if they are actually wrong.

For the record, I'm not condoning Kendall or any of the other users of this rhetoric, my point is this behaviour is not as simple as it appears on the surface.

 

[muz379]

There are many people on benefits who haven't worked a day in their lives. In Essex, in Lancashire, they're all over, they're unskilled, unemployable. Anecdotal from many people over the years who have been involved and well connected in these communities. Training them up and cutting their benefits is what this nation needs to do. A stronghand Trumpian approach would put some people in line.

Ahh yes , I've seen this response to the lack of people willing to work in care homes . Get those that dont want to work at all and force them to do what can be a difficult job . Cant possibly see how that could go wrong

I suppose pensioners will have something else to complain about instead of losing their WFP then .

Tbh yes there are groups of people that have never worked a day in their lives , and among those people will be those that have abolutely been fraudulently gaming the system , shockingly even in some cases it will be multiple generations of families that live like this . But these are a staggeringly small minority and certainly nowhere near the numbers needed to fill the numbers of jobs currently filled by migrants that your typical reform voter thinks we should get rid of . And lets be honest this small minority of families have been doing this for decades , do you think they even care who is in government ? theyll find a way , they have seen successive governments come and go with a promise to crack down on this kind of thing .

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Feb 2025 ==

As I suggested in another thread earlier, I think one of Farage's main problems would be assembling a team of somewhere over 400 supporters who would have all three of being able to appeal to the broad electorate, being willing to loyally support Farage (not turn on him like Johnson's and May's supporters did when things get challenging, or be angling to take over from him) and being capable of performing parliamentary and cabinet functions effectively.

I think this is a really important point actually . Being Viral and popular enough to win elections is one thing , but actually the business of governing is not an easy task . I personally think the wheels would very quickly come off if they got a chance of governing . Their style would be very trump like , banning press agencies that don't ask the right questions for example is something that Farage has precedent for .

Looking at their current 5 MP's The only one that seems to actually get out and about in his constituency is Lee Anderson , and to be honest he isn't someone I'd call loyal given his political journey to date . Certainly not the person I would want in my cabinet anyway .

Another thing that I think will hinder Reform UKi in being able to govern is that the 'Party' doesn't have any democratic structures . Local party organisations formally have no real input even in who their candidates are locally .Whilst this might be ok for a protest movement ultimately it will hold them back from attracting people of the required calibre to stand as candidates for the party and govern successfully . I know Farage has claimed that he is going to hand control over to the party members and the proposed mechanism by which he will do that is changing Reform Uk to a company limited by gurantee , it will be interesting to see how this pans out .

At the last election they fielded numerous paper candidates , in some cases even facing serious questions about if those candidates even existed , partly probably so that they could get as many votes as physhically possible even when they knew they faced no prospect of winning to boost what short money they get from parliament .

 

[Magdalia]

I think this is a really important point actually . Being Viral and popular enough to win elections is one thing , but actually the business of governing is not an easy task . I personally think the wheels would very quickly come off if they got a chance of governing . Their style would be very trump like , banning press agencies that don't ask the right questions for example is something that Farage has precedent for .

Looking at their current 5 MP's The only one that seems to actually get out and about in his constituency is Lee Anderson , and to be honest he isn't someone I'd call loyal given his political journey to date . Certainly not the person I would want in my cabinet anyway .

Another thing that I think will hinder Reform UKi in being able to govern is that the 'Party' doesn't have any democratic structures . Local party organisations formally have no real input even in who their candidates are locally .Whilst this might be ok for a protest movement ultimately it will hold them back from attracting people of the required calibre to stand as candidates for the party and govern successfully . I know Farage has claimed that he is going to hand control over to the party members and the proposed mechanism by which he will do that is changing Reform Uk to a company limited by gurantee , it will be interesting to see how this pans out .

At the last election they fielded numerous paper candidates , in some cases even facing serious questions about if those candidates even existed , partly probably so that they could get as many votes as physhically possible even when they knew they faced no prospect of winning to boost what short money they get from parliament .

The business of winning a general election is not an easy task.

For Reform to form a majority government it has to win 325 seats in a General Election. It currently has 5 seats, and came second in a further 98 seats. That means that, to form a majority government after the next General Election, it has to win more than 200 seats where it was third or worse in 2024. To do that it has to identify more than 200 seats where it thinks it has potential to win from third place or worse, select candidates for those seats, and campaign effectively in a General Election under high levels of media scrutiny.

If Reform is serious about being a party of government, not a party of protest, then it has about 3 years to build a party organisation that has some prospect of achieving the above.

 

[Cross City]

Reform are not going to win the next election. Despite what bots on Twitter would have you believe.

It'll be Labour with a reduced majority or a Lab-Lib coalition.

 

[gg1]

The business of winning a general election is not an easy task.

For Reform to form a majority government it has to win 325 seats in a General Election. It currently has 5 seats, and came second in a further 98 seats. That means that, to form a majority government after the next General Election, it has to win more than 200 seats where it was third or worse in 2024. To do that it has to identify more than 200 seats where it thinks it has potential to win from third place or worse, select candidates for those seats, and campaign effectively in a General Election under high levels of media scrutiny.

If Reform is serious about being a party of government, not a party of protest, then it has about 3 years to build a party organisation that has some prospect of achieving the above.

The more likely route into power for Reform is winning 50 or so seats and entering a coalition government with the Tories.

The dynamics of this would be very different to the Tory/Lib Dem coalition of 2010, virtually all Lib Dem MPs and members were to the left of the overwhelming majority of their Tory counterparts so there was a clear ideological divide within the coalition, greatly limiting Lib Dem influence. With Reform it's far more muddy, the right wing of the Tory party (forming a large minority of their MPs and the majority of their members) are probably ideologically closer to Reform than they are to one nation Tories.

In such a coalition there would be a very real risk of the Reform tail wagging the Tory dog.

 

[AlterEgo]

The more likely route into power for Reform is winning 50 or so seats and entering a coalition government with the Tories.

That is more likely, but still unlikely. This relies on the Tories being able to rejuvenate themselves which involves sacking their leader, replacing them, and sacking that one, and so on.

 

[Harpo]

Coalitions are short-term fudges and fraught with risk for all involved.

Having to make compromises can easily give the appearance of selling your soul for a few ministerial cars, as Nick Clegg may (or may not) reflect.

Students, future students and their families certainly proved to have very long memories.

 

[JGurney]

The more likely route into power for Reform is winning 50 or so seats and entering a coalition government with the Tories.

While a number of Conservative voters might accept that, I think many local level Conservative party activists and helpers would not. Many of those who are involved at the level of regularly attending local party meetings, being branch treasurers, taking the minutes, sending out the newsletters, etc, loathe both Farage and Reform. Some would drop their active roles if the party formed such a coalition, and the Conservative Party relies upon them to run.

 

[brad465]

Coalitions are short-term fudges and fraught with risk for all involved.

Having to make compromises can easily give the appearance of selling your soul for a few ministerial cars, as Nick Clegg may (or may not) reflect.

Students, future students and their families certainly proved to have very long memories.

The irony is that, with the benefit of hindsight, that coalition was the most stable part of the Tories' period with dominant power. The coalition completed 5 years and none of the top brass, including the PM or Chancellor, changed hands. Even Johnson's 80 seat majority failed to prevent a parliament with 3 different PMs, including the shortest-serving PM in history, plus 5 different Chancellors.

 

[jon0844]

In conclusion, I disagree with Trump when he says it should be scrapped, but we also need to keep it in check (see above)

This. But that doesn't suit the narrative.

DEI is being attacked with the suggestion that disabled dwarves are being hired to become airline pilots (or whatever) and to scare people into thinking that if they see a black person in a safety critical role, they're in danger because they're quota hires. It's disgusting, but happening (and has been happening for some time in the USA, with DEI the safe alternative word to the N-word).

Here we now have examples of people unable to be deported because their kid doesn't like chicken nuggets in other countries and so on, with Reform quick to use this as ammunition to get us out of the ECHR.

No, we need DEI (style) policies and the ECHR but must just improve the systems in place.

It's the whole bendy/straight banana nonsense to attack the EU but with far worse consequences for people if they fall for the right-wingers who aren't trying to do these things to help us.

 

[RailWonderer]

I wouldn't be surprised if, and I know I bring this up a lot, our FPTP system bears some responsibility here. Under this system only a small % of swing voters matter, so the major parties target them above all others. I wouldn't be surprised if those swing voters are largely anti-benefits/welfare/social support, you name it, so enjoy this rhetoric. If that's the case, there are two solutions specific to this: one, introduce PR so these voters (or any other group of voters) have far less sway over both elections and party manifestos compared to other voters, and/or two, enact a mass education drive targeted at this group explaining why they are wrong and what the right way is. Both of these though are not easy: PR is a big electoral system reform and will have lots of sceptics trying to derail it, while the latter has to be done carefully, as there is nothing voters hate more than being told they are wrong by politicians, even if they are actually wrong.

For the record, I'm not condoning Kendall or any of the other users of this rhetoric, my point is this behaviour is not as simple as it appears on the surface.

I totally agree with all of this and it really riles me when politicians use benefits to belittle and batter people who, in most cases, are already at their lowest ebb.

I experienced being out of work, a process which started pre-covid for me and so with covid went on for a long time. After so much rejection, in most cases via ignorance and silence, I was very close to giving up when the company I now work for actually approached me. Visits to the job centre consisted of them going through what jobs I had applied for with a fine toothcomb, under the threat of not being paid any benefits, whilst the shouting scumbag next to me was just handed his money on a platter when he had clearly never applied for a job in his life. Then when they tried to be proactive it was with offers of getting my HGV license (I hate driving) or doing pointless courses that bore no relevance to my skillset or job path I wanted to take.

And if people think that living a reasonable life on £77 per week is possible, then I would ask them to give it a go and see how their standard of living disintegrates.

The most bizarre part of this argument is that the voters this sort of rhetoric is aimed at, are the people who are more likely to be claiming benefits. Farage says he wants to go after "benefit cheats" whilst he is the MP of an area with some of the highest statistics for unemployment in the whole country. None of it ever seems to make sense!

I'm not anti benefits, I understand people sick or between jobs need some income to keep them going and it's already the lowest any country in Europe offers. The problem is the ballooning sickness benefits bill post Covid which is unlike any other European nation. Why has the UK suffered much worse - or has it? Was the nation really so unhealthy already or is it easier to falsely claim sickness benefits? This needs a study and claimants should need a doctors assessment to prevent abuse with a trust but verify approach where no one gets their benefits cut and they have a grace period to get a GP/specialist's assessment to continue claiming.

 

[nlogax]

I'm not anti benefits, I understand people sick or between jobs need some income to keep them going and it's already the lowest any country in Europe offers. The problem is the ballooning sickness benefits bill post Covid which is unlike any other European nation. Why has the UK suffered much worse - or has it? Was the nation really so unhealthy already or is it easier to falsely claim sickness benefits? This needs a study and claimants should need a doctors assessment to prevent abuse with a trust but verify approach where no one gets their benefits cut and they have a grace period to get a GP/specialist's assessment to continue claiming.

The UK has suffered more than other European countries in terms of heath-related benefit claim increases. While it's not ideal to cherry-pick from a large bit of (still in progress) analysis from the IFS on precisely this problem, one paragraph does stand out to me.

https://ifs.org.uk/publications/hea...ms-post-pandemic-uk-trends-and-global-context

More plausible explanations involve the interaction between recent health and income shocks and the condition of the UK’s economy, welfare system and public services. The UK’s health system has struggled to cope since the pandemic, and this may mean COVID has (directly or indirectly) had a greater impact on health and health-related benefit claims in the UK than elsewhere. The design of the UK’s benefit system (including employment support) also matters. For instance, the level of basic unemployment support is lower relative to earnings in the UK than in most comparable countries and the UK system has demanding job-search requirements. This may mean that following a shock to real incomes, more people with health conditions in the UK apply for health-related benefits than in other countries. There have also been some changes to the application process for disability benefits, which could have played some role in the increase in applications and claimants. More research is needed to untangle potential causes and their interactions.

It's a messy and convoluted mess that we find ourselves in partly as a result of how the UK economy has been shaped by decades of suspect policies over successive governments, Brexit (no-one can deny that at this stage) and at-best spotty regional investment. The Musk & co approach of broad-brush cuts to anything not considered core to the populist cause is a complete non-starter. Unless of course those in charge want to add 'performative cruelty' to their CVs.

 

[AlterEgo]

claimants should need a doctors assessment to prevent abuse with a trust but verify approach where no one gets their benefits cut and they have a grace period to get a GP/specialist's assessment to continue claiming.

That is currently what happens and has happened since 2008. https://www.gov.uk/employment-support-allowance/your-esa-claim (same assessment applies if you claim UC based on sickness or disability too)

The UK was poorly prepared for COVID partly because of the entrenched austerity and reduced public spending that entails.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Here we now have examples of people unable to be deported because their kid doesn't like chicken nuggets in other countries and so on, with Reform quick to use this as ammunition to get us out of the ECHR.

We have stories about these people bringing claims under the Human Rights Act/ECHR. What we don't have quite so many of is examples of where these claims have been successful.

Why do we think the outcomes of these cases don't get the same coverage in the media?

This needs a study and claimants should need a doctors assessment to prevent abuse with a trust but verify approach where no one gets their benefits cut and they have a grace period to get a GP/specialist's assessment to continue claiming.

I mean this with the greatest respect, but have you ever actually claimed benefits or worked with people who have had to claim benefits?

I have.

In order to claim Employment Support Allowance or Universal Credit on the basis of being unable to work, you must have a 'fit note' from your doctor saying you are not well enough to work. This will put you into the 'assessment phase' where you get a basic amount of ESA/UC.

You will then be invited to a 'Work Capability Assessment', where a DWP-appointed "medical expert" (usually someone like an occupational health therapist) will assess you and prepare a report. The DWP will use that report to decide whether you are a) well enough to work, b) well enough to work towards going back to work, or c) not well enough to do either.

If you are in group a your benefit stops, group b your benefit is at a basic amount equivalent to JSA/UC, and only group c is where you get additional benefit.

So what you propose for 'getting tough on claimants' is, actually, what already happens.

As for the accuracy of these reports from these "medical experts", there's an alarming statistic that the appellant (i.e. the benefit claimant) is successful in about 70% of appeals. This means that, in 70% of cases where someone appeals, the DWP is proven to have made the wrong decision in stopping someone's benefit.

A lot of what has been posted by the more right-leaning posters on this thread is illuminating. We have a real issue with disinformation these days and it's remarkable how so many people on this thread are simply regurgitating whatever it is that the far right repeat.

People who have little or no experience about how life actually works form opinions based on what they're told by people who are, to be quite frank, liars. Benefit claimants are scroungers and nobody checks on them. Asylum seekers get put up in five star hotels. The ECHR just allows anyone to stay in the country. You get the gist.

I don't blame individuals for this- you can't know what you don't know, so without lived experience you have to listen to what others say. And sadly we seem to be living in a world where the voices of far right grifters get amplified and anyone who actually has lived experience and knowledge of how stuff happens gets labelled a lefty liberal snowflake. Nobody wants to listen to experts anymore.

 

[nanstallon]

We have stories about these people bringing claims under the Human Rights Act/ECHR. What we don't have quite so many of is examples of where these claims have been successful.

Why do we think the outcomes of these cases don't get the same coverage in the media?


I mean this with the greatest respect, but have you ever actually claimed benefits or worked with people who have had to claim benefits?

I have.

In order to claim Employment Support Allowance or Universal Credit on the basis of being unable to work, you must have a 'fit note' from your doctor saying you are not well enough to work. This will put you into the 'assessment phase' where you get a basic amount of ESA/UC.

You will then be invited to a 'Work Capability Assessment', where a DWP-appointed "medical expert" (usually someone like an occupational health therapist) will assess you and prepare a report. The DWP will use that report to decide whether you are a) well enough to work, b) well enough to work towards going back to work, or c) not well enough to do either.

If you are in group a your benefit stops, group b your benefit is at a basic amount equivalent to JSA/UC, and only group c is where you get additional benefit.

So what you propose for 'getting tough on claimants' is, actually, what already happens.

As for the accuracy of these reports from these "medical experts", there's an alarming statistic that the appellant (i.e. the benefit claimant) is successful in about 70% of appeals. This means that, in 70% of cases where someone appeals, the DWP is proven to have made the wrong decision in stopping someone's benefit.

A lot of what has been posted by the more right-leaning posters on this thread is illuminating. We have a real issue with disinformation these days and it's remarkable how so many people on this thread are simply regurgitating whatever it is that the far right repeat.

People who have little or no experience about how life actually works form opinions based on what they're told by people who are, to be quite frank, liars. Benefit claimants are scroungers and nobody checks on them. Asylum seekers get put up in five star hotels. The ECHR just allows anyone to stay in the country. You get the gist.

I don't blame individuals for this- you can't know what you don't know, so without lived experience you have to listen to what others say. And sadly we seem to be living in a world where the voices of far right grifters get amplified and anyone who actually has lived experience and knowledge of how stuff happens gets labelled a lefty liberal snowflake. Nobody wants to listen to experts anymore.

I recall a pro-Brexit politician telling us during the referendum campaign that we didn't need any more experts. Just go by your gut instincts. We know where that leads to.

 

[Bald Rick]

Looking at their current 5 MP's The only one that seems to actually get out and about in his constituency is Lee Anderson

Quite. I particularly enjoyed one of the Reform MPs shipping wife and kids out to Dubai ‘because of VAT on school fees’. in other words, being an immigrant to another country because they feel they want a better life.

Why has the UK suffered much worse - or has it? Was the nation really so unhealthy already

Yes. Us British are an unhealthy bunch. In large* part because we are fat, sedentary, and have an appalling diet (on average). By far the easiest and cheapest way to improve the UK‘s health outcomes, and significantly ease pressure on the NHS, would be for everyone to go for a 5 mile walk every day and eat less ultra processed food. It would transform the country in 5 years, and make us all healthier, wealthier and happier.
(In my opinion.)

*pun intended.

 

[DarloRich]

Nothing, it's simply a waste of money

So why are you so worried? It isn't your money.

We're tackling issues of today, not of 40 years time when we don't even know in what place the country will be in.

So why vote for Farage or Trump if it is going to take them 40 years to get the brown people out? That seems quite a while! I maintain: who is next after the brown people? Someone will be next. There always are.

You just see the world completely differently to myself and millions of others. I think we can leave it at that.

I am sure you would like that. The problem is you view seems thin and lacking in any intellectual rigour. You have no idea about my views. I am simply testing yours and you seem unable to offer anything beyond what you have seen on Richard Tice's twitter account.

This needs a study and claimants should need a doctors assessment to prevent abuse

You do know how benefits are administered don't you? Have you ever claimed them?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Feb 2025 ==

I don't blame individuals for this- you can't know what you don't know, so without lived experience you have to listen to what others say. And sadly we seem to be living in a world where the voices of far right grifters get amplified and anyone who actually has lived experience and knowledge of how stuff happens gets labelled a lefty liberal snowflake. Nobody wants to listen to experts anymore.

is the correct answer.

 

[MP33]

There are a number of people that I would recommend a daily five-mile walk to. At the end of the week, they would be 35 miles away from me.

 

[Harpo]

There are a number of people that I would recommend a daily five-mile walk to. At the end of the week, they would be 35 miles away from me.

Only if they’ve got Sundays inside.

(Luckily, those that really need that walk probably won’t get this.)