Nigel Farage is odds-on to become the next prime minister (Image: Getty)
For centuries the historic county of Sussex has been traditionally Conservative. But the political tectonic plates are shifting.
It was once ruled by big beasts like Sir Nicholas Soames, the grandson of wartime leader Sir Winston Churchill, but a turquoise tide is rising from its scenic coastline, across the South Downs, and on to the High Weald.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
While the Tories maintain control of East and West Sussex County Councils they suffered significant losses in 2023 local elections to the Lib Dems and Labour.
And in May it is where some 1.5m voters will elect county councillors for the first time in five years after elections due to be held last year were cancelled.
Sussex has never really been considered a political bellwether, but what happens here could indicate whether Reform UK forms the next government.
And to illustrate the importance of the old South Saxon kingdom, its leader Nigel Farage is in town tonight to address a rally in front of thousands.
Central to his message, delivered at the South of England Showground in Ardingly, will be one pertinent to this largely rural county but equally transferable across Britain: “A vote for Reform UK on May 7 is a vote to defend democracy, fix broken Britain, and finally put the British people first. Together, we stopped them from abolishing democracy. Now together, we can start rebuilding Britain, one council at a time.”
Nigel Farage will say Labour and Keir Starmer have been a disaster for Britain (Image: Getty)
The Tories lost control of Wealden District Council which is now run by a Lib Dem, with a Green deputy, who lead a ragbag cooperative coalition.
And for months Crowborough is where anger and frustration has fermented over Labour’s decision to house 600 single and unvetted men who entered Britain illegally at a former army training camp.
To its credit the local council formally opposed the idea and served a planning contravention notice against the Home Office.
But it made no difference, largely because the Government remains wilfully ignorant to the concerns of ordinary people.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood – who has stated that illegal immigration is “tearing our country apart” – has defended the decision to use the former military training base to house asylum seekers.
Her reasoning? It is cheaper than hotels.
That might be so, but the taxpayer still foots the bed and board bill and more importantly it does absolutely nothing to address the issue of arrivals.
Last year almost 50,000 illegal migrants made it across the Channel in small boats, an issue Mr Farage will doubtless point out.
Although he was born and raised in neighbouring Kent he will feel at home in Sussex, which has a long and rich history as the epicentre of political earthquakes, and whose unofficial motto is “We wunt be druv” (we will not be driven) asserting its people have a stubborn, independent spirit.
The Battle of Hastings in 1066 between the Norman-French army of William, Duke of Normandy, and Anglo-Saxon King Harold Godwinson, started the Norman Conquest of England.
In 1264 victory at the Battle of Lewes made Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester, the uncrowned King of England and led to the formation of the first Parliament.
Between 1555 and 1557, during the Marian persecutions of Queen Mary, 17 Protestants known as the Lewes Martyrs were burned at the stake for refusing to recant their faith.
And on October 12, 1984 the IRA attempted to assassinate members of the British government, including prime minister Margaret Thatcher, at the Grand Hotel in Brighton. Five people were killed, including Conservative MP Sir Anthony Berry, and more than 30 were injured.
Disruptor Mr Farage has already challenged established political norms, institutions, and party systems.
And seizing Sussex, once served by Tory big hitters including Sir Peter Bottomley, Ian Gow, Tim Loughton, Amber Rudd, and Sir Nick Gibb, would be the jewel in Reform’s crown.
Ahead of his arrival he said: “I’m coming to Sussex because it deserves better than the managed decline delivered by Labour and the Conservatives. They have broken Britain, and they refuse to admit it.
“This campaign is about telling the truth and offering real change. Reform UK is ready to fix Britain.”
Steal Sussex and he might just have the chance.
‘Benefits influencer’ craze sees claims surge as Brits ‘coached to apply for up to £62k’
A growing online trend dubbed the “sickfluencer” phenomenon is putting Britain’s welfare system under renewed scrutiny, with social-media creators and online communities accused of encouraging people to maximise health and disability benefit claims.
A report from the Policy Exchange think tank found evidence of large online communities discussing how to complete benefit forms, describe symptoms and increase the likelihood of receiving financial support. Some content was promoted with striking figures, including claims that people could receive “up to £62,000”.
The findings have intensified an already significant political debate about the cost of disability benefits, the way assessments are conducted and the growing influence of social media on how people understand their entitlement.
But there is an important distinction between helping somebody understand a complicated benefits system and encouraging a person to provide inaccurate information.
What are “sickfluencers”?
The term “sickfluencer” has emerged to describe social-media personalities who produce content about health and disability benefits.
Policy Exchange said its research identified online communities containing thousands of participants, with discussions covering what benefits people might qualify for, how forms should be completed and how symptoms should be described.
Some of the material went further, according to the report.
Researchers found examples in which users were encouraged to emphasise the frequency or severity of symptoms rather than understating their difficulties. The report described this as a form of peer-to-peer coaching that could influence how applicants approached assessments.
Short-form video platforms were highlighted as particularly significant because algorithms can recommend content to people who were not necessarily searching for information about benefits in the first place.
That creates a different environment from traditional welfare advice.
Someone visiting Citizens Advice, for example, would normally be seeking assistance with a particular problem. On social media, by contrast, a person may encounter a video suggesting that they could qualify for thousands of pounds before they have even considered making a claim.
Where did the £62,000 figure come from?
The £62,000 figure has become one of the most eye-catching aspects of the controversy.
Policy Exchange reported that some online content advertised potential support using headline figures of “up to £62k”. One example related to ADHD and the possibility of accessing different forms of support.
However, the figure should not be interpreted as meaning that every person with ADHD, autism or another condition is automatically entitled to £62,000.
Benefits depend on individual circumstances, eligibility criteria and the particular schemes involved.
The report’s concern was therefore less about a single standard payment and more about the way large headline figures could be used to attract attention and encourage people to investigate claims.
This distinction is important because genuine benefit entitlement can be complicated.
People with disabilities or long-term health conditions may legitimately qualify for financial assistance, and obtaining information about available support is not itself evidence of fraud.
The problem arises when advice crosses the line from explaining the rules into encouraging somebody to misrepresent their circumstances.
The role of PIP
Personal Independence Payment, or PIP, is at the centre of much of the debate.
PIP is designed to help people with long-term physical or mental health conditions or disabilities with additional living costs. It is not a means-tested benefit.
The number of people receiving PIP for mental-health conditions has risen substantially in recent years. According to figures reported in March, around 1.5 million people were receiving PIP for mental-health conditions, an increase of roughly 100,000 in a year.
That increase has become politically significant because the government is facing a rapidly rising health and disability benefits bill.
The wider number of people receiving disability-related support has also increased.
Government figures cited in the reporting showed that 16.8 million people considered themselves disabled in 2023-24, compared with around 11.9 million in 2013-14.
Those figures do not demonstrate that the increase is caused by fraud or social-media coaching.
There are many possible explanations, including changes in population health, awareness, diagnosis, eligibility, application behaviour and the ability of people with previously unsupported conditions to access assistance.
That is why separating legitimate claims from fraudulent claims is central to the debate.
AI adds another dimension
The Policy Exchange research also examined the use of generative artificial intelligence.
Researchers found examples of people turning to AI tools to produce or improve answers for benefit applications.
The report said some users were seeking model answers designed to maximise awards, including situations where individuals acknowledged that they did not have medical evidence supporting particular claims.
This raises a new challenge for benefit administrators.
AI can obviously be used for legitimate purposes.
Someone who struggles with writing may use an AI tool to organise their experiences into clearer language. A claimant with a disability may find it easier to explain their circumstances after receiving help with structure and wording.
That is fundamentally different from using AI to invent symptoms or create evidence that does not exist.
The distinction again comes down to accuracy.
A well-written application is not necessarily a fraudulent application. What matters is whether the information provided accurately reflects the claimant’s circumstances.
Government response
The Department for Work and Pensions has acknowledged that misleading advice circulating online is a concern.
In a parliamentary answer in June 2026, the government said it was aware of social-media content that could advise claimants how to approach or potentially manipulate PIP assessments. It said this issue was being considered as part of wider work on the benefits system.
The department also pointed to existing safeguards, including stronger identity verification, greater scrutiny of supporting evidence and additional training for case managers and healthcare professionals.
It encouraged people seeking help with claims to use reliable sources such as Citizens Advice and recognised charities.
The government’s approach therefore involves two objectives that can sometimes appear to conflict.
It must ensure that people who genuinely qualify receive the support to which they are entitled.
At the same time, it must prevent people from deliberately manipulating the system.
Fraud is already a criminal offence
The distinction between legitimate assistance and fraud is also reflected in existing law.
The government defines benefit fraud as deliberately claiming benefits to which someone is not entitled, including by providing false information or failing to report changes in circumstances.
People suspected of fraud can face investigation by the DWP, HMRC or another relevant authority.
The government has also warned that actively promoting, encouraging or assisting benefit fraud is a criminal offence.
That means social-media advice could potentially become a serious matter if it deliberately encourages people to deceive benefit assessors.
However, simply discussing benefits online or explaining how a legitimate application works is not automatically fraudulent.
That distinction will be important if authorities attempt to address the growing “sickfluencer” phenomenon.
Why claims are rising
The rise in benefit claims has prompted competing explanations.
Critics of the current system argue that eligibility rules and assessment processes can be exploited, particularly when applicants have access to increasingly sophisticated online coaching.
Others point to broader social changes.
Mental-health awareness has increased significantly. More people are being diagnosed with conditions such as ADHD and autism, while employers and medical professionals have become more aware of the difficulties some people face in employment and daily life.
Recent Nuffield Trust analysis found particularly rapid growth in PIP claims among 16- and 17-year-olds with ADHD and autism in affluent parts of England. The number receiving PIP nationally in that age group rose from 16,045 in 2019 to 51,148 in 2025.
That does not establish that these young people are being coached by influencers.
It does, however, demonstrate the scale of the broader change in health-related benefit claims.
A difficult balance for the welfare system
The controversy presents the government with a difficult balancing act.
If assessments become excessively restrictive, people with genuine disabilities could lose access to support.
If assessments are too easily manipulated, taxpayers could end up funding claims that do not meet the legal criteria.
The government’s independent review of mental health conditions, autism and ADHD is examining some of these issues. Proposed changes have included a more “needs-based” approach to ADHD diagnosis, with greater emphasis on the level of impairment rather than simply whether someone meets diagnostic criteria.
That debate is closely connected to welfare policy because diagnosis and benefit entitlement are related but not identical questions.
Having a diagnosis does not automatically guarantee a particular benefit award.
Likewise, the absence of a formal diagnosis does not necessarily mean someone cannot experience substantial difficulties.
Social media has changed the way people access advice
Perhaps the most significant development is that welfare advice is no longer confined to government websites, charities and professional advisers.
TikTok, YouTube, Instagram and online forums now provide enormous amounts of information about the benefits system.
Some of it can be useful.
People can share experiences, explain complicated forms and tell others where to find official information.
But algorithms can also reward sensational claims.
A video promising thousands of pounds is more likely to attract attention than a detailed explanation of eligibility criteria and evidential requirements.
That creates an incentive for some creators to simplify complicated rules or present maximum possible awards as if they were typical.
The result can be unrealistic expectations among potential claimants.
What happens next?
The “benefits influencer” controversy is unlikely to disappear as social media becomes more influential.
The government is already examining how online advice affects the welfare system, while ministers are increasing efforts to detect fraud and strengthen assessment procedures.
For claimants, the most important distinction is straightforward: seeking advice about benefits is legitimate, but applications must accurately describe a person’s circumstances.
For policymakers, the challenge is more complicated.
They must protect public money without creating barriers for people who genuinely need support.
And for social-media platforms, the controversy raises questions about how algorithms distribute content that makes potentially misleading claims about government benefits.
The emergence of “sickfluencers” therefore represents more than another argument about welfare spending.
It shows how Britain’s benefits system is increasingly being discussed, promoted and even coached through social media — creating new opportunities for legitimate support, but also new risks of misinformation and deliberate abuse.