Synthetic Voters: A Thought Experiment
Through Bluesky, Stephen Bush of the Financial Times posted his thoughts on a hearsay about the government’s plans to use synthetic voters to gauge public reaction to proposed policies. Stephen isn’t a fan of the idea, but I see is as a fascinating thought experiment - effectively creating digital twin voters to test the waters of public opinion on policy proposals.
I vibed the idea and created a synthetic voter model to simulate reactions to a hypothetical government policy proposal. Code in GitHub along with the personas.
To test it out, I fed it the actual policy proposal (paraphrased) from the UK government regarding welfare reform - it is a controversial topic, so I was expecting some strong reactions, but what was returned was largely condemnation with some support from right-leaning members of our synthetic panel - it also didn’t help that most of the synthetic panelists thought that the government of the day is Conservative, rather than Labour.
Below is the results of the experiment, including the policy proposal and the reactions from the synthetic voters.
The Policy Proposal
The government proposes to tighten eligibility for health-related welfare benefits—specifically by restricting Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and the health component of Universal Credit to new claimants only from November 2026—while shielding existing recipients from cuts. It also pledges to increase the Universal Credit standard payment (to £106/week by 2029–30), uprate the health top-up with inflation, and launch a comprehensive PIP review co‑produced with disabled people, aiming to balance fiscal sustainability with support for the most vulnerable.
The Reactions from Synthetic Voters
Margaret - Traditional Conservative
Conservative
Immediate Reaction
This seems like a sensible attempt to control spending while protecting those already relying on the system, though I’m concerned about the complexity and potential for creating a two-tier system
Voting Impact
This reinforces my Conservative support - it shows they’re willing to make difficult decisions while protecting the most vulnerable, exactly the kind of balanced approach I expect
“It’s not perfect, but at least they’re trying to be fair to existing claimants while getting a grip on the benefits bill.”
Dave - Red Wall Switcher
Conservative
Immediate Reaction
Mixed feelings - I want to support people who genuinely need help, but I’m also worried about the system being abused while hardworking families struggle
Voting Impact
Would need to see how it’s implemented - if it hurts genuinely vulnerable people I’d be very concerned, but if it stops abuse while protecting those who need it most, I could support it
“I want a system that helps people who can’t work while encouraging those who can to get back into proper jobs.”
Zara - Urban Progressive
Labour
Immediate Reaction
This feels like a two-tier system that will create massive inequality between current and future disabled people - it’s fundamentally unfair and discriminatory
Voting Impact
This would seriously damage my support for whichever party proposed it - creating permanent inequality based on when someone becomes disabled goes against everything I believe about fairness and social justice
“You can’t build a fair society by telling future disabled people they’re worth less than current ones.”
James - Suburban Swing Voter
Swing
Immediate Reaction
This feels like a classic political fudge - protecting existing claimants to avoid immediate backlash while quietly restricting future support, which seems unfair and potentially short-sighted
Voting Impact
This kind of policy makes me less likely to support whoever proposes it - it’s neither principled nor practical, just politically convenient
“Good policy should be fair and consistent, not create arbitrary divisions based on when someone happens to fall ill.”
Connor - Young Liberal
Liberal
Immediate Reaction
This feels like a classic Conservative austerity move disguised as reform - protecting current voters while cutting support for future claimants, which will disproportionately harm young people and those entering the system
Voting Impact
This reinforces my preference for Lib Dem or Green parties who support comprehensive social safety nets and wouldn’t implement discriminatory eligibility restrictions
“Creating a postcode lottery based on when you became disabled is fundamentally unfair and will hit young people hardest when they’re already struggling with student debt and housing costs.”
Priya - Aspiring Homeowner
Labour
Immediate Reaction
I’m deeply conflicted - while I understand the fiscal pressures on public services, restricting disability benefits feels like abandoning our most vulnerable citizens when they need support most
Voting Impact
This makes me question Labour’s commitment to social justice - I’d need to see strong evidence this won’t harm vulnerable people before supporting it
“As a nurse, I see firsthand how disability doesn’t wait for convenient timing - restricting support based on when someone becomes ill feels fundamentally wrong.”
William - Rural Conservative
Conservative
Immediate Reaction
Mixed feelings - I support helping those genuinely in need but worry about creating dependency and the impact on working families like mine who struggle to make ends meet
Voting Impact
Won’t change my Conservative vote but expect the party to ensure rural areas aren’t forgotten in the implementation and that genuine need is properly assessed
“We need to support those who truly can’t work, but not at the expense of hardworking families who are already stretched thin.”
Lisa - Working Mum
Non-voter
Immediate Reaction
This feels like they’re making it harder for people who really need help while throwing us a few extra pounds to keep us quiet - it’s just moving money around rather than fixing the real problems
Voting Impact
Makes me even less likely to vote - they’re just shuffling deck chairs while ordinary people struggle with real costs of living
“It’s like putting a plaster on a broken leg - doesn’t fix the real problem that working families like mine are still left behind.”
Raj - Cosmopolitan Professional
Liberal
Immediate Reaction
This feels like a clumsy attempt at welfare reform that risks creating a two-tier system while potentially undermining London’s reputation as an inclusive, progressive city that attracts global talent
Voting Impact
This reinforces my move away from Conservative politics - it’s the kind of poorly designed policy that prioritizes headlines over evidence and could harm both vulnerable people and London’s competitiveness
“Good governance requires evidence-based policy that supports both fiscal responsibility and social cohesion, not arbitrary cuts that create unfair distinctions.”
Betty - Pensioner Pragmatist
Conservative
Immediate Reaction
I’m worried this sounds like another way to cut support for people who genuinely need help, though I appreciate they’re not touching existing claimants like myself
Voting Impact
Makes me a bit more cautious about the Conservatives - I support fiscal responsibility but not at the expense of genuinely vulnerable people
“It’s all well and good protecting us older folks, but what about the young people who’ll need this support in future?”
Michael - Caribbean Heritage Labour
Labour
Immediate Reaction
This feels like another attack on the most vulnerable in our society, dressed up as ‘fiscal responsibility’ - it’s creating a two-tier system that will hurt disabled people who need support the most.
Voting Impact
This makes me question Labour’s commitment to social justice - if they’re behind this, it’s a betrayal of our values, and I’d seriously consider my vote or at least make my displeasure known through my union
“You can’t claim to support working people while pulling the ladder up behind those who’ve already climbed it - disability doesn’t discriminate by date.”
Kemi - Young British Nigerian
Labour
Immediate Reaction
This feels like a two-tier system that could leave vulnerable people worse off in the long run, even if it’s trying to balance the books
Voting Impact
Makes me more cautious about Labour - I support helping vulnerable people but worry this could create a postcode lottery of support that affects my community and employees
“You can’t build a fair society by creating different rules for different generations of people who need the same support.”
Tariq - Pakistani Community Leader
Labour
Immediate Reaction
This feels like a two-tier system that’s unfair to people who become disabled in the future - everyone should have equal access to support when they need it most
Voting Impact
This makes me question Labour’s commitment to equality and fairness - I’d need to see how they justify creating different classes of disabled people
“A policy that treats people differently based on when they become disabled goes against basic principles of fairness and equality that I expect from Labour.”
Fahima - Bangladeshi Student
Labour
Immediate Reaction
This feels like a typical austerity measure disguised as reform - protecting existing claimants while making it harder for future disabled people to get support they need
Voting Impact
This pushes me further toward the Green Party - Labour seems to be accepting Conservative framing on welfare spending rather than challenging it
“It’s wrong to create a system where your birth year determines how much support you get when you become disabled.”
Gary - Reform Supporter Reform
Immediate Reaction
Typical politicians trying to balance the books on the backs of ordinary people while protecting their own. At least they’re not cutting existing claimants but making it harder for new ones feels like kicking people when they’re down.
Voting Impact
Still sticking with Reform UK - they’re the only ones who understand that British taxpayers’ money should go to British people first, not be handed out to everyone who turns up at our borders
“Help our own people properly before we help anyone else - that’s what any decent government should do.”
Jordan - Disillusioned Non-Voter
Non-voter
Immediate Reaction
Sounds like they’re making it harder for people who need help while throwing around promises they probably won’t keep - classic politician move
Voting Impact
Still probably won’t vote - they’re just rearranging deck chairs while making it harder for working people like me to get help when we need it most
“They’re promising more money with one hand while making it harder to get help with the other - typical politician double-talk that won’t change anything for people like me.”
Sarah - Apathetic Non-Voter
Non-voter
Immediate Reaction
This sounds quite technical and doesn’t seem to affect my family directly, but I worry about what happens if we ever needed these benefits ourselves
Voting Impact
This probably wouldn’t change my voting on its own, but it adds to my general unease about the direction things are heading
“I don’t follow politics closely, but this makes me nervous about what safety net would be there for my family if we ever needed it.”
Pradeep - Tamil Professional
Liberal
Immediate Reaction
This feels like a short-sighted approach that creates unfair divisions between current and future claimants, potentially deterring skilled professionals from coming to the UK if they develop health conditions
Voting Impact
This makes me question if current government truly understands how social safety nets affect skilled immigration decisions - might push me toward parties with stronger commitments to universal welfare principles
“A strong social safety net isn’t just about compassion - it’s about attracting and retaining the skilled workforce Britain needs to compete globally.”
Jasbir - Sikh Business Owner
Swing
Immediate Reaction
This feels like a sneaky way to cut support for disabled people while pretending to be fair - protecting current claimants but making it harder for future ones doesn’t sit right with me
Voting Impact
This makes me question Labour’s commitment to working people - if they’re cutting support for future disabled claimants, what else might they cut that affects hardworking families
“A fair system should help everyone who needs it, not just those lucky enough to be in the system before an arbitrary date.”
Hyacinth - Elderly Caribbean Non-Voter
Non-voter
Immediate Reaction
Another complicated government scheme that sounds like they’re trying to help but really just making things harder for people who are already struggling - I’ve seen this before
Voting Impact
This doesn’t make me want to vote - it’s just more politicians making promises they probably won’t keep, and it won’t affect me directly anyway
“They’re protecting the old folks like me but making it harder for the young ones - that’s not right.”
Moira - SNP Independence Supporter
SNP
Immediate Reaction
This feels like Westminster imposing another round of cuts on Scotland’s most vulnerable people, dressed up as ‘reform’ - exactly the kind of social security attack that independence would allow us to escape
Voting Impact
This reinforces exactly why I vote SNP - only independence can protect Scotland from Westminster’s ideological attacks on social security and build the compassionate society we actually want
“This is precisely why Scotland needs independence - to escape Westminster’s cruel welfare cuts and build a social security system that actually supports our most vulnerable citizens.”
Hamish - Scottish Conservative
Conservative
Immediate Reaction
This seems like a sensible approach to welfare reform that protects current recipients while ensuring the system is sustainable for future generations, though I’m concerned about implementation details and whether it’ll provide adequate support for genuinely disabled folk in rural areas
Voting Impact
Would support this if implemented fairly, but Conservative government needs to prove it won’t harm genuinely disabled people or give SNP ammunition to attack the Union
“It’s about time we had welfare reform that’s both responsible with taxpayers’ money and fair to those who genuinely need help, but Westminster better not give the SNP excuses to undermine the Union.”
Eileen - Scottish Labour
Labour
Immediate Reaction
This feels like another attack on the most vulnerable people in our society, dressed up as reform. Creating a two-tier system where new claimants get less support than existing ones is fundamentally unfair and will hit working-class communities hardest.
Voting Impact
This makes me deeply uncomfortable about supporting Labour if they’re behind this - it goes against everything I believe about social solidarity and supporting the most vulnerable in our society.
“You can’t build a fair society by creating different classes of disabled people - everyone deserves the same level of support regardless of when they became ill.”
Rhian - Plaid Cymru Supporter
Plaid Cymru
Immediate Reaction
This feels like a typical Westminster approach - cutting support while making it sound reasonable, with no consideration for how it will impact Welsh communities disproportionately
Voting Impact
Reinforces my belief that only with independence can Wales design a welfare system that truly serves our communities and respects our values of solidarity and mutual support
“Wales needs the power to create a compassionate welfare system that supports our people in their own communities and language, not Westminster’s penny-pinching approach.”
Gareth - Welsh Valleys Labour
Labour
Immediate Reaction
This feels like another example of the government protecting existing voters while making life harder for future generations - typical short-term thinking that doesn’t address the real issues facing our communities
Voting Impact
This reinforces my view that we need a Labour government that will properly fund public services and support working people through illness and disability, not create arbitrary cut-off dates
“You can’t build a fair society by drawing lines in the sand based on calendar dates - everyone deserves dignity and support when they’re struggling with health problems.”
Robert - DUP Unionist
DUP
Immediate Reaction
Mixed feelings - I support reducing welfare dependency and controlling spending, but I’m concerned about how this might affect genuine disabled people in our community who need support
Voting Impact
Would need to see how this affects Protestant communities specifically - if it genuinely helps deserving cases while reducing fraud, I’d support it, but if it hurts our own people unfairly, I’d have concerns
“I support helping those who truly need it while stopping those who take advantage, but this mustn’t punish decent hardworking people who fall on hard times through no fault of their own.”
Máire - Sinn Féin Supporter
Sinn Féin
Immediate Reaction
This feels like another attack on the most vulnerable in our communities, wrapped up in fancy language about protecting existing claimants - it’s still creating a two-tier system that will harm disabled people who need support in the future.
Voting Impact
This reinforces why I could never vote for parties that attack the vulnerable - it strengthens my commitment to Sinn Féin’s vision of a united Ireland with proper social protections for all
“Any policy that makes it harder for disabled people to access support they need is fundamentally wrong, regardless of how it’s dressed up or delayed.”
David - Alliance Moderate
Alliance
Immediate Reaction
This feels like a classic political fudge - protecting current voters while quietly making the system harder for future claimants, which doesn’t address the real issues around work incentives and support quality
Voting Impact
Neutral - I appreciate the attempt at balance but want to see the actual PIP review outcomes and whether reforms genuinely improve the system’s effectiveness
“Real reform means fixing the assessment process and work incentives, not just changing who gets assessed when.”
Zoe - Gen Z Climate Activist
Green
Immediate Reaction
This feels like another cruel austerity measure disguised as reform - cutting support for disabled people while the government refuses to tackle the real issues like fossil fuel subsidies and corporate tax avoidance that are bankrupting our future
Voting Impact
This reinforces why I could never vote for parties that scapegoat the vulnerable instead of addressing the root causes of inequality and environmental destruction
“How can we build a just transition to net zero when the government is literally creating new barriers for disabled people to access basic support?”
Alex - Housing Crisis Millennial
Labour
Immediate Reaction
This feels like a classic political trick - protecting current voters while creating a two-tier system that screws over future claimants, including people like me who might need support but haven’t accessed it yet
Voting Impact
This pushes me further toward Green - Labour’s becoming too willing to cut support for vulnerable people, and as someone who could need these benefits in future, I can’t support this kind of discriminatory policy
“Creating a system where your access to support depends on when you get sick rather than how much you need it is fundamentally unjust.”
Helen - Generation X Sandwich
Liberal
Immediate Reaction
This feels like a stealth cut that will hurt vulnerable families while creating a two-tier system - I’m deeply uncomfortable with restricting support for disabled people who need it most
Voting Impact
This pushes me away from supporting the government - it’s exactly the kind of policy that sounds reasonable but will create real hardship for working families dealing with disability
“Any policy that restricts support for disabled people while families are already juggling so many pressures is heading in the wrong direction.”
Sam - LGBTQ+ Rights Advocate
Labour
Immediate Reaction
This feels like a backdoor way to cut support for disabled people while trying to avoid immediate political backlash - it’s deeply concerning that they’re creating a two-tier system where future claimants get less help
Voting Impact
This would make me question Labour’s commitment to protecting vulnerable communities - it feels like Tory-lite welfare policy that I’d expect to oppose
“You can’t claim to support equality while creating a two-tier system that leaves future disabled people worse off than those who came before them.”
Emma - Disabled Rights Voter
Labour
Immediate Reaction
I’m deeply worried about this two-tier system that will leave future disabled people worse off while protecting current claimants - it feels like kicking the ladder away after we’ve climbed up
Voting Impact
This would seriously damage my trust in Labour - it goes against everything I believe about universal support and dignity for disabled people
“You can’t build a fair society by telling disabled people that support depends on when you became disabled rather than what you need.”
Tony - Military Veteran
Conservative
Immediate Reaction
Mixed feelings - I support fiscal responsibility but I’m deeply concerned about how this affects veterans with combat injuries and PTSD who might need to claim PIP in the future
Voting Impact
This makes me question my Conservative loyalty - any policy that potentially abandons future veterans goes against everything I believe the party should stand for
“You can’t ask people to serve their country then pull the rug out from under them when they need help most.”
Sharon - Seaside Town Decline
Conservative
Immediate Reaction
This feels like another way to cut support for vulnerable people while making it sound reasonable - I see this every day at work and these folks need more help, not less
Voting Impact
Makes me less likely to vote Conservative again - this isn’t the levelling up I was promised, it’s just more cuts dressed up nicely
“They’re protecting existing claimants because they know it’s wrong to cut support, so why make it harder for new people who’ll need the same help?”
Rachel - University Town Professional
Liberal
Immediate Reaction
I’m deeply concerned about creating a two-tier system that could harm vulnerable students and staff in our university community, while the research review element feels like a positive step toward evidence-based policy
Voting Impact
This reinforces my Liberal Democrat support - they would likely oppose this discriminatory approach and champion equal access to both benefits and higher education
“Creating barriers for disabled people contradicts everything universities stand for about equal opportunity and inclusive education.”
Michelle - Single Parent
Labour
Immediate Reaction
I’m worried about what happens if me or my kids develop health issues in the future - this feels like they’re pulling up the ladder after others have climbed it
Voting Impact
Makes me less likely to vote for whoever’s proposing this - feels like they’re balancing the books on the backs of future vulnerable people
“It’s not fair to say ‘we’ll help you if you’re sick now, but tough luck if you get sick tomorrow’ - that’s not how life works when you’re already struggling.”
Patricia - Family Carer
Labour
Immediate Reaction
I’m deeply worried about this two-tier system that will leave future disabled people and carers worse off while protecting current recipients like myself - it feels unfair and short-sighted
Voting Impact
This makes me question Labour’s commitment to supporting the most vulnerable - I’d want to see their alternative before deciding whether to stick with them
“As someone who’s seen the care system from both sides, this feels like abandoning future generations who’ll need the same support we’re protecting for ourselves today.”
Jack - Recent Graduate
Labour
Immediate Reaction
This feels like another policy that’ll hit people my age hardest - we’re the ones who’ll face these stricter rules when we need support, while older generations keep their benefits protected
Voting Impact
Makes me question Labour’s commitment to helping young people - this looks like typical politics where current voters matter more than future ones
“Just another policy where my generation gets the raw deal while everyone else stays protected.”
Andrew - Empty Nester Professional
Conservative
Immediate Reaction
This feels like a sensible approach to welfare reform that protects existing recipients while introducing more rigorous eligibility for new claimants, though I’m concerned about the long-term fiscal implications of maintaining dual systems
Voting Impact
This reinforces my Conservative voting intention as it demonstrates fiscal responsibility while showing compassion for existing recipients, exactly the kind of balanced approach I want to see
“It’s a pragmatic compromise that protects the vulnerable while addressing unsustainable spending growth, which is exactly what competent economic management should look like.”
Conclusion
Can I see the value in using synthetic voters to gauge public reaction to policy proposals? Absolutely. While the reactions are not representative of real-world voters, they provide an interesting insight into how different personas might react to a policy proposal. The diversity of opinions highlights the complexity of public sentiment and the challenges policymakers face in crafting policies that balance fiscal responsibility with social equity.
It also highlights that vibing the idea of synthetic voters is an exceptionally crude way of testing public policy. The reactions are not nuanced, and the personas are not fully fleshed out, but they do provide a starting point for understanding how different segments of the population might react to a policy proposal.
However, I also see the potential pitfalls of relying too heavily on synthetic voters. The personas are not real people, and their reactions are not based on lived experiences. They are a simplification of complex human emotions and opinions, which can lead to oversimplified conclusions about public sentiment.
And if I were an unscrupulous market researcher, I could easily manipulate the personas to produce the desired outcome. This is why it’s essential to use synthetic voters as a tool for exploration rather than a definitive measure of public opinion.