Minky, that headline says they've got 6% support in a smattering of seats. It's fuck all. I can't read it, think it's paywalled- maybe it's free access in whichever country you are? But what it won't say, or it'll be lying if it does, is that they've any chance of winning more than a couple of seats at absolute best. Does it mention the possibility of them splitting the right wing vote and leading to more Labour seats, as Tice's last project likely did in 2019? I'd expect the Telegraph to have some concerns about that, actually. You should have a look at the link I posted a few pages back that shows predictions for seats.
Honestly, I do get that your worries about this are genuine, but the UK is a first past the post multi party system. It's counter intuitive, but the vote percentage a party gets really don't tell you much. Parties can get thumping majorities with support in the 40-45% bracket. The Tories did last time. They can get millions of votes and have one seat or none, ask the Greens. I realise it's a strange way of doing things, and certainly I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else, but it's how it works.
In answer to your question, as I've already explained to you, I don't think support for Tice's lot is going to have any impact at all on the most disadvantaged. Positive or negative. It will be irrelevant. I can't explain why I think that will have a positive impact because I don't think it will have an impact at all.
And you've not answered mine: is it your view that the timelines given in the article and the comments attributed to the scientists are wrong?