Why isn’t there a political party who sit in the middle

Except for benefits, most of your views are what I consider left wing. Plenty of people with right wing views would not agree with putting more into healthcare, education and public facilities.
Traditionally Lib Dems were in the middle politically, but not now. I think Labour is just left of centre under Starmer - similar to Tories back in the 1950s/60s. Corbyn was too far left. Tories have moved much further right. I know other people would not agree with this.

surely there’s topics that the majority of the country agree on

If there are, they're not really the ones you've posted here.

Most of your ideas here aren't actually centrist at all. They're basically just right-wing populism. You also seem to be missing the point that it isn't just policies that make someone left or right-wing - it's also how they're funded.

For example, pretty much everyone would probably like to see better schools and hospitals, but the difference between left and right would be how that's funded and run. For example, most people would agree that it's in the country's interest to have decent schools. That's a pretty centrist position. But some people would want to see that achieved through increased income tax and initiatives like Labour's plans to add tax to private school fees, or even the abolition of private schools entirely - those would be left-wing positions. Others might want to see it achieved by privatising the entire school system and making parents pay a fee per child to give their kids an education, or by refusing to educate children with additional needs, or by allowing kids to leave school and get a job at 13 - those would be right-wing positions.

’Claiming benefits’

Yeah, l worked my entire life. I’m not claiming ‘benefits’

Im claiming help for my severe disability.

Its not like I’ve spent a life in the dole really is it?

So you say your family member got all her kids diagnosed with adhd when they don’t have it, so that she can fraudulently claim benefits? Who diagnosed them? It’s incredibly hard to get a diagnosis even when the adhd is having a severe effect on someone’s life.
Please let me know who these doctors are who throw out diagnoses so easily. I have a family member who without doubt has adhd, and desperately needs the workplace adjustments that would help them cope. Their choice is a 12 month+ NHS waiting list, or hundreds of £ to go private.
And please report your relative for benefit fraud.

With respect to disability benefits.

These are split by age group and by whether you have contributed national insurance.

If you are disabled and under 16 you claim DLA

If you become disabled after state retirement age you can claim attendance allowance if you need care but there is no benefit specifically for disability. If you already get PIP then it will continue into retirement age but it's usually reviewed every 3/5 years.

So PIP is for 16-67 only plus people still on it after retirement. It's meant to be for extra costs incurred because of disability and it's not about whether you can work or not.

There are 3.4 million people in PIP in England and wales. www.gov.uk/government/statistics/personal-independence-payment-statistics-to-april-2024/personal-independence-payment-official-statistics-to-april-2024

(Scotland has a new system of disability benefits which they are moving to so they are not included)

Half of all claims of PIP are turned down.

Because pip awards continue into retirement some of the people on pip will be beyond retirement age. Pip awards beyond retirement age tend to have review periods of 10 years or ongoing (no review).

So you can't say that the 3.4 million are all working age because they are almost certainly not.

I can't find data by age to try to work out how many are working age - the dwp don't seem to have it.

No one has said you’re “stealing” anything. however you did say you were claiming benefits. I’m not at all “pissed off” with you. You’re a stranger on the internet.

I’m talking about PIP as a whole. It’s extremely costly and I don’t think it’s value for money. Many conditions are very subjective and I agree with the op that I don’t think the benefit reflects any additional costs.

And yet it appears that this is why the Conservatives are falling apart.

Most people support benefits, and do t want to cut them.

https://bylinetimes.com/2024/05/03/conservative-nasty-party-as-voters-reject-plan-to-cut-benefits-sick-and-disabled/

I do benefits including PIP and AA for a living.

On that basis, and having done my share of Mandatory Reconsiderations and Tribunal appeals I can assure you it's no cakewalk.

As alluded to by PP one reason we've so many people on PIP and or income replacement benefits is becuase the condition that stops them doing stuff isn't treated while they're on waiting lists.

Before we start casting aspersions at people on health benefits we need to understand WHY they're on them.

without wishing to state the obvious too much, information about asylum seekers from a group called “Refugee action” will be one (obviously pro refugee) side of the story and there will be another side and many in between positions too. You have to decide for yourself- there is no one answer

PIP is not means tested, it is based on need.

You can work and claim PIP, and you might find it benefits you if it's something that you want.

If you're comfortably within an environment consistently that meets your needs and you specifically do not feel that you need additional support or incur additional costs from your disability then you do not need to apply. Nobody is forcing you to.

For a lot of us there are so many hidden costs like the costs of transport, the costs of outsourcing tasks, the costs to replace items, the costs associated with losing your job due to being unable to remain employed as not all employers are willing or able to make accomodations nor are they all understanding, the additional household costs incurred due to not being able to manage a house properly, the cost of additional talking therapies or specialised therapies that aren't offered on the NHS just to stay afloat, sometimes the cost of diagnosis itself.

That's pretty much my take too although it's important to understand that Asylum is granted to those who can show a well founded fear of persecution. There is no requirement for a 'qualifying family member' though one major reason for coming to the UK is family, even if it's remote, or kith/kin in the sense of a well established community here.

Many of the countries they are coming from are ex-Empire nations, or where the UK has meddled/exploited been involved in either recently or longer ago. They may have family already living here. They may already speak some English.

There is no obligation to seek asylum in the first safe country. But despite this most people do. The UK does not take in many refugees and asylum seekers compared to many poorer countries closer to where these people are fleeing from. We don't have the semi-permanent camps with tens of thousands of refugees living in tents, other countries do. And whenever the foreign aid budget is cut we're reducing the support to those countries that are bearing the greatest refugee burden and only encouraging refugees to keep moving onward, and eventually a few end up on UK shores.

Now if we weren't so arsey about working with other countries (including the EU) and we were prepared to cooperate in processing centres further from us on the edges of Europe, and accept our fair allocation of refugees, then perhaps the countries they were passing through would be more inclined to cooperate with the UK on reducing these movement. But the UK prefers to go it's own way.

Where does your perception come from? It is not fact-based.

UK benefits are lower than many European countries.

UK also takes in fewer asylum seekers than many other European nations.

Look at empire history, language, family ties. This helps explain why certain people want to move to certain places.

About 10% of all working age people are in receipt of PIP (about 3.8 million people or so). That’s a huge cost and doesn’t seem to indicate it’s rare or hard to get.

Noonehas made any comments on your daughter nor would we. We’re talking about pip as a whole

I’m genuinely curious why they come to UK after they have arrived in France when they could stop there - what is the draw?

The top 3 reasons are:

1. They don't qualify for asylum in France. Their qualifying family member is in the U.K.

2. They speak English, not French.

3. They had contact with British armed forces during the war that forced them to flee and because of that they think Britain must be a decent, fair and moral place to live.

I think that's the wrong approach though.

You can't expect the leaflets through the door to educate you - the aim of those is to persuade you to vote for them.

To properly understand politics you have to get into the reasons why party A proposes this while party B proposes that - the philosophy, the people they're trying to persuade, the history of the issue, the change they want to make.

It is complicated. I think wanting complicated things to be made simple is an error. Surely better to grow your understanding.

I don't think it's good to actively want things 'dumbed down'! That makes you vulnerable to lies and manipulation.

I'm not sure all your views are traditionally centrist, but they're mostly in the centre of where things stand now. Mostly. Leaning to Centre-Right on a few things.

To come back to the NHS from my earlier reply, and something Wes Streeting almost managed to say a couple of days ago on WATO. The NHS waiting lists have grown exponentially in the last 14 years. The costs of the NHS (and Social Care) rise as the waiting lists grow, because many of those waiting for treatments that might fix their health issues will see their situation deteriorate. They require more patch-up treatments whilst waiting. Their mobility declines and they need additional care support. Although it will take a huge investment to clear the waiting lists, there are massive savings to be made by doing this and reducing the patch-up health intervention and social care costs associated with these treatments not being delivered.

Likewise, investment in Sure Start was proven to deliver long term benefits that lasted into adulthood for the children that passed through these schemes. They are healthier, more likely to be in employment, less likely to be in the criminal justice system, etc. The payoff takes a decade, but it's long lasting.

Labour might need to either raise debt or raise revenue to make the original investments, but the long term benefit to the public finances and society is there.

There's some information here on asylum seekers, why some come to the UK and what access to benefits they have www.refugee-action.org.uk/facts-about-asylum/?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwvvmzBhA2EiwAtHVrb7uAEoZp3gQ3QvgADshRDDIivDJVOKUxRBEAnPofTsLgedZegKFK-BoCI_8QAvD_BwE

You have no fucking idea.

We both got it first time. So severe there was no argument or need to appeal. Get your head round that.

I have an income of my own. I’m not stealing your money. But l kind of wish l was to piss you off even more.

I think you should look at the pip criteria. It is difficult to get pip. I also think that some people will need benefits longer term. My dd aged 19 has similar abilities to a three year old and cannot speak in sentences. Is she supposed to earn her own living?

So that’s correct that neither of you work.

as I said, these benefits are supposed to be for extra costs but it’s not clear in many cases that they are working as intended. They are very expensive and I think should be reviewed as a whole.

Ha ha you bit😂

As if