Show Trials: Labour’s Sinister Thirst for Public Inquiries

Ed(ward) Miliband calls for a public enquiry at any given opportunity, so much so it has become a joke. But is there not something more sinister going on?

Chief Scout Ed(ward) Miliband is a politician of so little substance that even at an anatomical level, he is barely held together. He must be surprised to see himself in the mirror each morning, since he is so forgettable he is barely corporeal. His policies are no less Lethean and his slogan of ‘One Nation’ (which cannot even be credited as an original) can surely only have been devised  on he basis that its brevity makes it memorable enough for Labour’s intellectually inanimate leader to remember. He’s described as ‘courageous’ in the same way one might describe a village idiot as a ‘colourful member of the community’. Despite being a punch-line in himself, one ongoing joke concerns the fact that Mr Miliband calls for public inquiries on a range of subjects almost weekly. Thus far, he has requested investigations into:

• The murder of Belfast solicitor Pat Finucane
• Jimmy Savile
• The West Coast Mainline franchise debacle
• GCSE English papers
• The banks
• PIP breast implants
• Cash-for-access
• London Riots
• Care home abuse
• The Press [1]

His bandwagons are so many that he could set up his own ‘used’ bandwagon dealership, since the very quantity of his requested inquiries has devalued the product. And like any charlatan, Mr Miliband can afford to  be insincere in the wares he peddles – he might be the butt of jokes for his repeated calls, but to those who only think about politics come election time, he looks like he is responding to public concerns in an earnest fashion. He can be seen to be standing up for public interests against vested ones in order to position the coalition as being on Goliath’s side. This is one of the virtues of opposition, since real responsibilities and the affairs of state are just toys in the waiting room.

And whilst he plays make-believe in opposition, Mr Miliband sees the taxpayer’s funding as monopoly money for his disingenuous demands – how very Labour of him. Public inquiries never fail to run into the millions. The Saville Inquiry into Bloody Sunday lasted twelve years and cost the taxpayer £195m [2]; the Leveson Inquiry is estimated to have cost at least £5.6m and climbing; the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry cost £12,959,390 [3]; the total cost of the Iraq War Inquiry since 2009 has cost £6,130,600 [4]; the Bristol Royal Infirmary (BRI) Inquiry cost an estimated £14 million, the BSE Inquiry around £27 million.

Now this is not to say that some of these inquiries are not important, but sheer cost is likely to skew the perception of an inquiry’s worth, especially in austere times. Tor Butler-Cole (who won the 2004 Woolf Scholarship for an essay examining ethical applications of public inquiries) succinctly concludes that ‘the duration and cost of public inquiries are arguments for limiting their use, but not for abandoning them altogether.’ [5] As a Labour politician, Mr Miliband is unlikely to be able to accept the absence of money as a means of denying his own political fortunes.

And it is here that the cynical, if not outright sinister aspect of Mr Miliband’s inquiry-mania seem to reveal itself. Alluding to the moral philosopher Onora O’Neill, Ms Butler-Cole writes of how ‘a “culture of suspicion” [..] has gripped Britain, creating a nation devoted to league tables and performance indicators, and obsessed with blame and compensation. The ubiquitous demands for public inquiries might be thought an illustration of this problem.’ [6] Such disintegration occurred under Labour with alacrity. They created a cosmetically ‘free’ and ‘equal’ society, whilst all the while ceding power to the EU and decimating hundreds of years of hard won legal and civil liberties in a state power grab. In the same way, public inquiries give the appearance of transparency and reform to parties like Labour, whilst deflecting attention away from  their appalling political, ethical, moral, social and intellectual record.

In effect Mr Miliband is proposing modern day variants of the show-trial. The truth that such inquiries may reveal is not as important as the political capital he and his clutch of metropolitan champagne socialist trendies hope to reap from the false sincerity that hides behind the phrases they employ, like ‘in the public interest’. Thanks to electioneering of this sort, public inquiries have begun to resemble an amalgamation of TV talent contests and reality TV shows, where the process of humiliation, implied slights and innuendo takes precedence over whatever the inquiries conclusions may be.

It would be incorrect to suggest that the principle of public inquiries is wrong, but the clamour for them often seems to outweigh the necessity. Of course this is not as exciting nor as lucrative for the ambitious Mr Miliband. Peter Hitchens has it exact when he remarks that ‘liberal bigotry is the worst of all because it thinks it is so enlightened.’ He could not have described Mr Miliband with greater precision. Mr Miliband’s ongoing calls for public inquiries are the stuff of self-aggrandisement; they are damaging because they do not appear discerning, and they are discredited because they are disconcertingly political.

© thepanopticonblog, 2012

Notes

• 1. George Eaton. ‘How many independent inquiries has Labour called for?’ New Statesman. 16 October 2012.
• 2. Lord Saville’s salary was £2million and 14 other lawyers made more than £1million each from the investigation. They were: Sir Christopher Clarke £4,488,266; Edwin Glasgow QC, forces’ lead counsel, £4,065,817; Alan Roxburgh, inquiry counsel, £2,978,989; Cathryn McGahey, inquiry counsel, £2,268,093; Bilal Rawat, inquiry counsel, £2,203,633; Gerard Elias QC, for soldiers, £1,795,752; Allan Green QC, for soldiers, £1,522,441; Eilish McDermott, families’ counsel, £1,405,133; Arthur Harvey, families’ counsel, £1,326,426; David Bradly, soldiers’ counsel, £1,291,966; Barry J McDonald, families’ counsel, £1,203,275; Nicholas Griffin, Army counsel, £1,195,062; David Lloyd Jones QC, £1,095,966; Seamus Treacy £1,008,703. (Source: The Mirror)
• 3. ‘Inquiry Costs’ Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry.
• 4. See ‘Iraq Inquiry costs for the financial year 2011 to 2012’. The Iraq Inquiry. 
• 5. Tor Butler-Cole. ‘Public inquiries: a waste of time and money or a useful adjunct to the legal process?’ The Telegraph. 22 April 2004. 
• 6. Ibid.

More from The Panopticon:

• Why Labour cannot lose…
• The Gospel According to Miliband
• Miner Politician: The Unctuous Ed Miliband
• Labour: Pointless
• Through the Looking Glass
• Ed Miliband – Comprehensively Without Substance

Weak on Crime, Weak on the Causes of Crime

A survey has revealed that if witness to anti-social behaviour, two thirds of people would walk by rather than intervene. But in the UK’s permissive society, is it really any wonder?

The Home Office describes anti-social behaviour (ASB) as ‘any aggressive, intimidating or destructive activity that damages or destroys another person’s quality of life.’ The moniker of ‘ASB’ deflects attention away from what it often actually is: criminal activity. The police offer an extensive list of examples of anti-social behaviour, some of which are flagrantly criminal, if not immediately connected to criminal activity. [1]

Anti-social behaviour is nothing new, it has just become more prominent since successive governments are progressively worse at curtailing it. Their efforts to foster a socially democratic ‘tolerant’ and permissive society have been enacted simply because they have not only lost control of the systems used to regulate it (such as the police), but also because they do not want to pay for such systems to be repaired, let alone maintained. Social democracy is the cheap product of cheap thinking.

It is little wonder then that Mr Cameron – among the country’s leading un-intellectuals – allows others to think for him. His favoured think-tank, ‘Policy Exchange’ has revealed that two-thirds of the public would walk on by if they saw a group of teenagers drinking and issuing verbal abuse [2]. Their suggested solution to this problem is to create ‘Citizen Police Academies’ to empower the public, to make them confident in approaching and performing a citizen’s arrest on such groups if necessary.

Their suggestion is made on the basis that  36% of adults would be interested in attending free classes with police officers and volunteers to learn about combating anti-social behaviour and how to avoid danger when walking home alone. This is not an impressive statistic. The word ‘free’ probably accounts for half of this number – the thrill of getting something for nothing always evokes disproportionate enthusiasm, but such thrills often exhaust themselves in equal measure. So, too, the adoption of a ‘Citizen Police Academy’ would be the governmental equivalent of that same ‘something-for-nothing’ excitement, with the same disappointing returns.

Policy Exchange are quoted as remarking that “Citizen police academies are one way of helping the public feel more confident about their role in preventing criminal activity.” [3] But this wishful thinking ignores the real consequences of people exhausted by inaction on ASB, especially when cases like those of Gary Newlove are etched in the public conscience. Mr Newlove was attacked outside his house in Warrington, Cheshire, on 10 August 2007, having gone outside to confront a gang of youths who were vandalising his car. Having had his head kicked like a football, he died in hospital two days later. Indeed, there are a litany of cases where those who have intervened to prevent ASB have themselves been prosecuted. Such an imbalance in justice is as much a deterrent as the threat of violence.

And all this forgets the simple point: the electorate pays the police to do this job. Unfortunately, because of under-funding, cuts and mismanagement, seeing police on patrol in a preventative capacity is a rare occurrence. More often they are often assigned to come and clear up after a crime has been committed or even in progress. No wonder the scum that intimidate and threaten are emboldened by the lack of visible authority.

Who knows if Mr Cameron will adopt the thinking formulated by his sub-contracted brain, but whether he does or not, he is just as guilty of propagating the problem of ASB as Labour were before him. A citizen’s arrest on characters such as Mr Cameron and his left-wing tribe would be of inestimable and long term value.

© thepanopticonblog, 2012

Notes

• 1. Nuisance neighbours; Vandalism; Graffiti; Intimidation; Drinking on the street; Litter and fly-tipping; Off road motorbike nuisance; Abandoned vehicles; Substance misuse such as glue sniffing; Begging; Prostitution related activity; Noise coming from alarms, pubs, clubs, business or industry; Inappropriate use of fireworks; rowdy or inconsiderate behaviour; Hoax calls to the emergency services; Pubs or clubs serving alcohol after hours; Malicious communication; Hate incidents where abuse involves race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age or disability; Firearms incidents such as use of an imitation weapon.
• 2. ‘Anti-social behaviour: Two-thirds would ‘walk on by”. BBC News. 12 December 2012.
• 3. Ibid.

The Centre Cannot Hold

The real victories of last night’s by-elections belonged to UKIP. But what might this signal and how will  Mr Cameron, Mr Miliband and Mr Clegg translate the messages?

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

 – ‘The Second Coming,’ W.B. Yeats

After last night’s by-elections, the only party that has cause to celebrate is UKIP. Coming second place in both Rotherham and Middlesbrough, and third in Croydon, is no small achievement for a party that has worked tirelessly along the tributaries of British politics into the mainstream in only a matter of years.

That Labour won in all three seats is no surprise, but as Daniel Hannan has remarked with regards to Rotherham in particuar, ‘I don’t want to hear any Rotherham Labour voters moaning about the arrogance of the political class’, since it was under the governance of that party that Denis MacShane resigned after criminally obtaining public money by deceit, and it was also the party that saw inactivity over child grooming cases and the removal of foster children from UKIP-voting parents [1]. Tribal voting is the stuff of primitive thinking, so of the 9,866 voters in Rotherham who voted Labour, it is probably fair to claim that some did so with only half their wits.

It is also no surprise that the Conservatives should made no progress in these areas. That the Liberal Democrats lost their deposits in Rotherham and Croydon proves beyond doubt that they are the party of insignificance and that they can no longer be used to amplify the voices of discontented voters. Expect them to be annihilated at the next General Election.

What of this? In a previous article, this blog suggested that UKIP’s ascent in Corby was not the result of a mid-term blues protest suggested by the Conservatives, it was the result of long-term disenchantment with useless politicians and their discredited parties. UKIP’s showing in Rotherham and elsewhere would seem to underscore this notion.

Mr Miliband need not break the habit of his leadership; he need do nothing, nor come up with credible policies – the coalition are perfectly adept at blustering incoherence and unravelling without the aid of parliament’s odious Chief Scout. Heaven help the UK when Prime Minister Miliband has to actually make the ‘tough decisions’ he bleats on about. Yet what the Rotherham vote has shown is that UKIP are not just a party of and for the right, they are increasingly a party of and for all political colours. If they can succeed in Labour ‘safe’ seats at the same level as they have in Rotherham, Corby and Middlesbrough, then Mr Miliband may actually have to call an inquiry into thinking about the direction in which he is heading.

And what of Mr Cameron? He is the best publicist of his own stupidity. He continues to alienate the sort of Conservative voters his party has haemorrhaged to UKIP under his leadership, not only because of his dogged determination to make social democrats out of the Tories, but also by refusing to  retract his typically immature remarks that UKIP members are mostly ‘closet racists’. The truth is that ‘centre ground’ politics is not only unpopular, it is inherently damaging to democracy. Yet it is clear that Mr Cameron is just a less uncomfortable looking version of the unhinged Gordon Brown: he is intractably stubborn, to the extent that an easy victory in the 2015 General Election will not be his for the taking. He will sooner listen to the likes of Matthew D’Ancona, who wrote in a wildly inaccurate and faintly bizarre recent article:

…the very worst thing Cameron could do now is to rip up his centre-ground strategy and hurtle off to the Right in search of these voters. Not many of them would come back. And many more centrist waverers would be lost in the process. [2]

Though this is precisely what Mr Cameron would want to hear – and certainly the only advice he is likely to listen to – it is at the cost of his own party and democracy. So Mr Cameron’s likeness to Mr Brown is evidenced once again: when a person (let alone a politician) cannot be seen to fight for their own survival, then it rings as defective. By heading off in the right direction, Mr Cameron could outflank UKIP’s ever growing number and bring under his wing the working class vote that UKIP appeals to: immigration, crime, withdrawal from the EU. Since the moribund Lib Dems have had their life support terminated, what consideration need Mr Cameron give to them? Yet he persists in targeting none of these matters, which appeal to all voters. The consequence is a further disenfranchised electorate and the collapse of his vote. As Yeats wrote:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

UKIP may yet have to win parliamentary seats, but it signals the direction in which any successful party or thinking person should be heading: a politics of consent, of decisiveness, of the nation state. Under their current leaders, Labour, the Lib Dems and the Conservatives are interested in ideology, not practicality. Ideology is cheap and easy, since it exists in the mind. Practicality and workable policies are much more credible victories, but intellectually beyond the reach of those on parliament’s front benches today.

© thepanopticonblog, 2012

Notes

• 1. Daniel Hannan. ‘Can you blame MPs for taking their voters for granted?’ The Telegraph. 30 November 2012. 
• 2. Matthew D’Ancona. ‘The PM should avoid Ukip — it’s a state of mind, not a party.’ London Evening Standard. 28 November 2012.

More from The Panopticon:

• Rotherham: Notes on a Scandal
• Corby By-Election: ‘Mid Term Blues’? Keep Fooling Yourself Mr Cameron!
• Why Labour cannot lose…
• The Five Year Itch: Lessons in Democracy
• David Cameron: No One Left to Lie To
• Through the Looking Glass

You may also like:

• Peter Hitchens: The Centre Ground

Rotherham: Notes on a Scandal

The news that a married couple fostering children of an ethnic background had the children in their charge removed from their care by Rotherham Children’s Services on the basis of their support for UKIP is an alarming but, frighteningly, not a surprising story given Labour’s record. 

In the summer, the odious Edward Miliband graciously gave the British public permission to talk candidly about their anxieties concerning immigration: ‘Worrying about immigration, talking about immigration, thinking about immigration, does not make them bigots. Not in any way. They’re anxious about the future.’ [1] It was quite a u-turn, given that his party – a party in which he held seniority during the tenures of the illiterate Mr Blair and the unstable Mr Brown – actively sought to stifle debate about the reckless policy of open-door immigration by smearing not just those who opposed it, but even dared raise doubts over it.

In light of the Rotherham scandal, one might say ‘old habits die hard’, but this might suppose there was ever really an effort to change this gravely cynical policy. No, such cynicism is policy, with Mr Miliband only making such remarks in an attempt to steal the initiative from Mr Cameron (not difficult) and to reach out to the voters his party marginalized by deliberately creating an ‘underclass’ voter base. Old habits are alive and well, never more so than in South Yorkshire, it would seem.

The action of Rotherham’s degenerate Labour council – which was recently exposed for covering up  systematic child abuse and whose MP was the discredited criminal Denis MacShane – was overseen by Joyce Thacker, the council’s strategic director of children and young people’s services, who claimed: “I have legal advice I have to follow for the placement of children and I was criticised before for not making sure their cultural and ethnic needs were met. If the party mantra is, for example, ending the active promotion of multiculturalism I have to think about that… I have to think of their longer-term needs.”

Ms Thacker seems to have consulted hearsay and opinion from the left, whose stock phrases of ‘racism’ and ‘xenophobia’ are the emotive attacks they mount when encountering UKIP. She may have done worse than consult the party’s website, which quite clearly reveals a colour blind party motivated by a practical response to the pressing concerns of immigration and multiculturalism.

Thinking of any kind seems to elude Ms Thacker; her hopeless obfuscations cannot mask the inadequacy of her competence, nor do they conceal the latent, insidious traces of Labour’s ‘old school’ smear tactics. Labour cannot and will not understand why perfectly intelligent people would vote for UKIP because they cannot and will not understand (let alone tolerate) free individual thinking. Not really a surprise given the socialist rabble that makes up their parliamentary party alone.

The effect of Ms Thacker and Rotherham council’s actions has, however, gone a long way to vindicate UKIP, despite, even, the gag reflex of the BBC who cannot mention ‘UKIP’ without alluding to the BNP in the same sentence. Today, for the first time, UKIP has been publicly acknowledged as a mainstream party with legitimate concerns supported by a great many of the electorate; Mr Gove, the Education Secretary, is probably the most high profile figure to have suggested as much. Even village idiot Edward Milliband decreed through gritted teeth that it was ‘okay’ to be a foster parent and support UKIP.

But whilst UKIP continues to prosper, the stink of state controlled thinking, political correctness and anti-Britishness lingers around the Labour party. Despite the cynical efforts of their Chief Scout, they remain the party of intolerance and aggressive single-mindedness.

‘One nation party’? They’re not kidding.

© thepanopticonblog, 2012

Notes

1. ‘Ed Miliband Immigration Speech in Full.’ Politics.co.uk. 22 June 2012.

More from The Panopticon:

• Why Labour cannot lose…
• Discrimination: How Exceptions Determine the Rules
• Miner Politician: The Unctuous Ed Miliband
• Immigration Mythology
• Through the Looking Glass
• Ed Miliband – Comprehensively Without Substance

Fraudulent Euroscepticism: The Disingenuous Mr Cameron

When it comes to the EU, one should trust Mr Cameron as they would adders fang’d…

Does any serious person think that EU reform will see them include ceding powers or the acceptance of a decrease in funding?

In spite of overwhelming historical and contemporary evidence to the contrary, Mr Cameron seems to think so, as do Messrs Miliband and Clegg. Having returned from irresolute discussions in Brussels, Mr Cameron is walking tall after not capitulating to the EU Commission’s unreasonable demands for a substantial increase to their budget. Bravo Mr Cameron – except, that is, for your track record on Europe.

His policy of ‘Practical Euroscepticism’ has time and again proven to be neither practical nor Eurosceptic. His modus operandi observes the following pattern:

• Express exasperation and concern about EU policy
• Adopt a ‘no nonsense approach’ to look strong
• Capitulate and beg for mercy from his EU master

It follows, therefore, that having appeared strong on Europe at these recent talks, that at the next round of negotiations he will not hesitate to genuflect to the Commission, then claim to the British public that a satisfactory deal has been reached on their behalf. But who is he trying to fool?

At no point has Mr Cameron called for cuts to the EU budget, and his ‘real terms freeze’ will still see the UK debited for even more than the £53 million a day it currently pays. Worse still, Mr Cameron and friends are still willing to sign the UK up to a political ideology that has not had its accounts signed off by auditors for some fifteen years. The EU is a one-armed bandit against which the UK will only lose.

The only person aside from Mr Cameron who feels that the Conservatives will win the next election is Conservative Home’s Tim Montgomerie. Both characters have devised elaborate strategies to see the Tories regain power, peppered with newspeak and initiatives to ‘re-connect’ with voters – but they all choose to miss the essential point: that if Mr Cameron were to offer an EU referendum, with a positive vision of how the UK would manage (quite easily) without the EU, he would secure a second term and a majority.

This will not be done, however, because Mr Cameron is no more a Eurosceptic than the recently discredited Labour criminal Denis MacShane. In terms of difference and monetary returns, expect no change.

© thepanopticonblog, 2012

More from The Panopticon:

• Necropolis: Defending the EU
• The EU: Fear & Awe
• The Five Year Itch: Lessons in Democracy
• David Cameron: No One Left to Lie To
• David Cameron – He was the future once

Corby By-Election: ‘Mid Term Blues’? Keep Fooling Yourself Mr Cameron!

The result of the Corby by-election has wider implications beyond the borders of this disputed constituency…

That the Conservatives lost their Corby seat in today’s by-election came as a surprise to no one, least of all the Conservatives. Their majority was always precarious, but not unmanageable. Their mistake was to ever think that the lobotomized Louise Mensch was ever a credible MP, let alone one strong enough to hold on to such a narrow margin, especially when the potent forces of her own ego would always come before public service.

Whilst the odious Edward Miliband paraded the victory of his candidate, the Liberal Democrats were not only beaten into fourth place by UKIP, they lost their deposit after receiving a woeful 1,770 votes.  The Conservatives only beat UKIP by a mere 4368 votes, a statistic that should have them very afraid, especially in a seat seen as a litmus paper for the views of middle England.

At this point one might suggest that Mr Cameron has some thinking to do – he could lurch to the right and cast off his social democrat colours in favour for radical Tory reform – but as has been implied, this would mean Mr Cameron has to not only think, but think strategically and perform acts of self-evaluation and intellect that he is woefully incapable of commanding.

Instead, what do Mr Cameron and his cronies say? They spin the result as simply the mid-term blues that all incumbent governments undergo as voters register their discontent with the direction of the ruling party.

It is a line that typifies the disconcertingly patronising tone of politicians from all the main parties. It suggests that to them it is almost a badge of honour, a virtuous failure, to be mauled by the electorate halfway through a parliament, as if governing in the interests of the electorate and securing or sustaining a popular mandate are laughable impossibilities. They chose to ignore what is in front of them – whether it is the striking election results by UKIP or by the success of independent candidates as Police Commissioners – this is not a mid-term blues protest: it is the result of long-term disenchantment with the useless politicians and the discredited parties they serve.

By voting Labour, Conservative or Lib Dem, the electorate are merely changing the guard, all of whom protect the same thing: their interests, which are dependent upon their mutual survival as political parties. Today’s results are a victory for independent candidates away from Westminster, and it is a story of success for UKIP, whose ascent is damaging the three party system, and above all, Mr Cameron, who had better watch his back from his own party members before anyone else.

Mid-term blues? Hardly! Things have rarely looked better…

© thepanopticonblog, 2012

More from The Panopticon:

• A Perspective on the PCC Elections
• The Five Year Itch: Lessons in Democracy
• David Cameron: No One Left to Lie To
• Through the Looking Glass
• David Cameron – He was the future once

Abu Qatada: The Bitter Truth of the UK’s Impotence

As if proof were needed that the British Government is incapable of looking after its people, the case of  Abu Qatada serves to underline this bitter truth.

Next year a limitation on the number of immigrants allowed from Eastern Europe into the UK will no longer be viable, just in time for immigrants from the new EU nations of Romania and Bulgaria to travel to arrive and claim the benefits and jobs that any rational country would issue to its own populace as a priority. This is on top of the immigrants from across the EU and the world who recognise that the UK is a soft touch, with its skewed cultural values and its prolongation of a damaging permissive society. Among these people will be a serious criminals including the possibility of terrorists who could quite easily exploit the weaknesses of the UK’s borders to their own nefarious ends.

Is anything done about this? Of course not. EU law binds the UK to an open borders policy which means that the most one can hope for is containment of the problem, certainly not resolving it. As was alluded to in the previous post, some 320,000 immigrants are likely to be granted an amnesty to stay in the UK because the Border Agency have (no thanks to political parties of all persuasions) not been provided with the adequate resources to stop this from spiralling out of control. And to emphasise, the Government is not serious about patrolling the UK’s borders because their loyalty is to the EU and its ideology before their own territories.

Not only is the problem coming from without, the problem is also from within. When an alleged Al-Qaeda affiliate like Abu Qatada, the ‘the spiritual leader” of this rat-bag organisation in Europe, who has been connected to several terrorist plots and attacks is kept in the UK on account of his human rights, then it is clear something is fundamentally wrong with the system of justice, which is meant to protect the people of the UK. And, of course, it indicates how seriously defective the government is for having the UK signed up to a charter that allows the ECHR to supersede the decisions made my British courts.

The real threats to the UK do not come from without, they come from the government and their inability and unwillingness to assert the rights of its people and its principles from within. So the government sends troops out to die in the  futile and regressive conflict in Afghanistan under the auspices of keeping the streets of Britain safe, but fails at every turn to address the real threats to jobs, welfare, social cohesion and benefits posed by uncontrolled immigration. Furthermore, it fails to  act decisively against known criminal threats like Abu Qatada because it prizes the sovereignty of the EU as a political project before the rights, liberties, freedoms and democracies of its people every time.

Do not think for a second that the government has yet to decide on its relationship with the EU, that decision has long since been made and so long as it lines the pockets and furthers the careers of the political class, so the people of the UK – soldiers and citizens – will pay for it.

© thepanopticonblog, 2012

More from The Panopticon:

• Afghanistan: War Without End
• Discrimination: How Exceptions Determine the Rules
• Immigration Mythology
• Doubt of the Benefit
• Immigration: The Policy of Deliberate Ignorance

Endnotes: MacShane, Obama, Dorries, the BBC & Immigration

Some notes on matters that have arisen over the last week

Europhile Denis MacShane is a criminal – no, I am sorry, he’s not a criminal – he made a ‘mistake’ and because of some technicality cannot be prosecuted for defrauding the taxpayer with their own money and using it to further his own political and financial ends.

Mr MacShane attempted to blame the BNP and other members of the political right for his actions, doing nothing to disprove that those on the left are incapable of applying personal responsibility for their actions. Indeed, in an effort to make it sound like he was doing the taxpayer a favour, he alluded to his efforts to tackle anti-Semitism – did he hope this would somehow justify his criminality to an already squeezed taxpayer?

One thing is for certain – as both a Europhile and a criminal, Mr MacShane is perfectly qualified to obtain a position on the European Commission.

*

I cannot have been the only one nauseated by the expressions of uninhibited delight that greeted Mr Obama’s re-election as US President, especially in the UK. The suspension of critical faculties was total, so in awe of the image of Mr Obama were those expressing adulation. No one seemed to mention the way in which Mr Obama is saddling future generations of Americans (and, let’s face it, the world) with trillions of dollars in debt, nor was his flaky attitude towards the Middle East situation probed with any purpose.

So star-struck were the Media Politburo of the Labour Party (the BBC), that they interviewed an actor who had played the part of a communications director, who worked for a fictional president, during an imagined Democratic presidency. Could his opinions be any less important? I hope that on matters of national security they will consult Daniel Craig, or else on matters of scientific revelation, they will grill Dr Who.

*

Every time there is a crisis at the BBC, commentators tend to remark that this blighted corporation needs to regain the trust of the British public, as if it were a long-term relationship were suddenly imperilled by indiscretion. But does any thinking person ever really trust  the BBC any more than any other company or media outlet? To do so would seem rather incautious, but I dare say there are those so slavishly devoted to the idiot box that nothing short of relationship counselling will help reconfigure their dependency.

*

There is a backlog of immigration cases in the UK equivalent to the population of Iceland – this blog has said more than once that if this was any other department, heads would role. But why don’t  they? Because the main political parties a) do not care and b) because, as Theresa May alluded to today, despite temporary curbs imposed on immigration from the EU in 2005 to protect the British labour market, these are set to expire and that it is not possible under EU law to extend them.

Miss May also suggested that the government was on target to cut immigration into the UK from people outside of the EU as a way of deflecting the point that it is largely people from within the EU, flooding the labour market and seeking benefits who are the most prominent strain on the country’s already overstretched resources.

*

I’m a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here! – a celebrity reality TV show – a televised equivalent of the stocks returns soon enough to offer vital life support to the ever swelling legions of the UK’s brain-dead populace. One does not even need close analysis of the title of this sub-genre to realise that neither celebrities nor reality are constituent ingredients in this soup of human indignity.

That Conservative MP Nadine Dorries has decided to participate in this year’s series of the programme has caused her to be suspended by her party. This is not an unreasonable course of action from the Conservatives, especially since she will continue to be paid her salary whilst being absent from her constituency and from parliament – rather like that moulding potato Gordon Brown.

Ms Dorries’ has claimed that with an audience of some 16 million viewers (what did I say about ‘the ever swelling legions of the UK’s brain-dead populace’?), she will be able to profile who she is and what she stands for to an audience who are probably generally concerned with neither. Of course, one can hardly imagine a better place for Ms Dorries to champion her campaign to lower the point during a pregnancy at which an abortion can be performed than from a jungle in Australia.

Speculation has arise over whether or not she will defect to UKIP, especially since she is to the right of the Conservatives and a welcome stone in Mr Cameron’s flip-flopping shoes. Some seem excited about this prospect, but one may also be inclined to think that a discredited Ms Dorries could undermine UKIP’s efforts to make its outfit more professional and a part of the celeb-chasing culture that characterized the New Labour years.

© thepanopticonblog, 2012

A Perspective on the PCC Elections

Gareth Shanks (Yorkshire Young Independence Regional Secretary) presents his take on the forthcoming Police Crime Commissioner Elections.

I’m no fan of how the Government is running the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections: high deposits which lock out smaller parties, an expensive not to mention at times wasteful campaign, and a projected turnout of just 18.5% – to put that into context, my local ward election attracted 29.05% turnout. This does not bode well for the Conservative Party which has traditionally been seen as ‘tough on crime’.

However, the idea of electing my Police Commissioner is an interesting one and a notion I support. Policing is a pressing issue in every community; regardless of how poorly organized the elections are, they present a chance for some unique changes in policing in the UK.

One of the benefits of the PCC elections is that one can pick which types of crimes are prioritised by their local force, no longer (I add a very generous ‘hopefully’ in here) will crime targets be dictated by Whitehall. The post also adds a slightly increased sense of localism: different areas, rural or urban, will have very different policing needs, so it is a chance to elect someone who understands one’s local area. Worried about anti-social behaviour? Vote for a candidate tough on anti-social behaviour – if you like to keep cannabis for personal use, vote for the ‘soft on drugs’ candidate.

It is likely only a small percentage of people are able to name who is in charge of their Local Education Authority, or their local NHS health board. The PCC elections present a public face to policing in your area, instead of being run by anonymous and arguably unaccountable police force chiefs.

With the advent of this election I believe it will bring more scrutiny to the top job.  Other parties and journalists looking to smear their opponents will hopefully allow for a more transparent police force, something I believe has been needed for a long time. The actions of a very small number of police officers  has led to a skewed perception of policeman as being needlessly aggressive against protesters, for instance (that the protesters normally throw bricks and abuse at the police first is often omitted). Nevertheless, anything that improves the transparency of the police force is surely a good thing.

The single most important matter heralded by these PCC elections is that elected PCCs are just that: elected. They are accountable to the electorate; if crime goes up, don’t re-elect them, if they backtrack on promises, don’t re-elect them, if they are found dressed in a Nazi uniform in a compromising position with some livestock, don’t re-elect them – although that may increase popularity in some areas.

Gareth Shanks

• Young Independence Yorkshire Secretary
• @garethshanks

Remember that The Panopticon is always happy to consider publishing articles written by its readers. Email: thepanopticonblog@gmail.com

No Country for Old Men

Retiring in the UK is a bleak prospect for many. Whilst fuel poverty blights and sometimes takes the lives of among the most vulnerable in society, a protected budget of £11 billion is committed to aiding poverty abroad. In the UK, the government’s charity does not begin at home.

It is no secret that the UK’s population is taking longer to shuffle off its mortal coil. A recent report by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) has indicated that Britain’s ageing population is growing at its fastest rate since the 19th century and is projected to hit 70 million by 2027, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).  The current 62 million UK population is rising at 0.8% a year and may increase by 4.9 million to 67.2 million by 2020 and to 73 million by 2035. The ONS also suggests that the oldest age groups are the fastest growing and the number of people over the age of 85 is expected to more than double from 1.4 million now to 3.5 million within 25 years. Centenarians are set to rise more from 13,000 in 2010 to 110,000 in 2035, with the median age rising from 39.7 years in 2010 to 39.9 in 2020 and to 42.2 by 2035 [1]. Of course, this does not include mass uncontrolled immigration into the UK’s porous – rather – non-existent border.

Yet, in the present day, there is good reason to fear old age. Hardly a week seems to pass without reports of the appalling physical and psychological abuses dispensed by manipulative  sadistic and criminal employees at ‘care’ homes. Such abuses include:

• Not being given adequate support to eat or drink, in particular those with dementia
• Home helps not carrying out vital tasks such as washing and dressing because of lack of time;
• Financial abuse, such as money being systematically stolen;
• Talking over older people (sometimes on mobile phones) or patronising them;
• Physical abuse, such as rough handling or unnecessary force. [2]

Even those not occupying care homes face difficult times, especially during the winter months. In 2007-09, around 35% of single pensioners were living in fuel poverty (defined as when someone needs to spend 10 per cent or more on heating their home) with many cutting back on food to meet their energy bills; around 2 million elderly people are so desperately cold that they go to bed when they are not tired or else move into a single room, in an attempt to keep their energy bills down.

The UK government has every reason to feel embarrassed at this shameful state of affairs, especially since the ‘Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000’ is meant to eliminate fuel poverty by 2016 [3]. Worse still, a number of the UK’s main energy suppliers have decided Christmas will arrive early for them this year:

• EDF announced they will raise prices for domestic gas and electricity by 10.8%, meaning its typical dual-fuel bill for a direct debit customer will rise by £122 to £1,251 a year.
• SSE, which trades as Southern Electric, Swalec and Scottish Hydro, increased its tariffs by 9% on October 15, the same day as Scottish Power announced plans to hike bills by an average 7% from December 3.
• British Gas will impose an average increase of 6% affecting 8.5 million customers from November 16, with Npower planning an average rise of 8.8% for gas and 9.1% for electricity from November 26.

The government previously estimated that the total number of deaths relating to fuel poverty in the UK at 2,700 a year, but according to Prof. Christine Liddell (University of Ulster), some 7,800 people die during winter because they cannot afford to heat their homes properly. This figure suggests that there are 65 such deaths a day [4].

In the mean time, the government has responded by suggesting consumers ‘Switch utility providers and use price comparison sites’ – hardly a possibility for the computer illiterate pensioners who make up those most in need.

At the present time the government has budgeted £7.3bn for elderly social care in 2012, whilst the budget for overseas aid in 2013 is projected to be £11bn, ring-fenced by the philanthropic Mr Cameron. Both sums are large, but why should Mr Cameron be prepared to spend more on foreign aid than combating poverty within the UK’s borders? It is not a question of one life being more important than another, it is about dutifully serving his fellow countrymen, or (if one wishes to put it clinically) assisting British taxpayers who have paid money to the state all their lives, trusting that when they need assistance in turn, their taxes may well help them.

It is not even remotely cynical to suggest that committing £11bn in foreign aid is much more glamorous to career politicians like Mr Cameron than it is committing the same amount to help the vulnerable at home.

Domestically, Mr Cameron and his cross-party kin preside over a flat-lining economy, a crumbling society, a decrepit rule of law, an increasingly undemocratic politics and a talent for populist policy (which never comes to fruition either).

On the international stage, however, Mr Cameron has a chance to radiate statesmanship and policy. Whether it is preaching democracy in other countries, demanding the cessation of conflict, insisting that important things are attended to, or patronising third world countries with the British taxpayer’s money, there is a chance to cast himself in the role of a world leader.

It is all sound and fury, signifying nothing, but what else might one expect from the likes of Mr Cameron, Mr Miliband and Mr Clegg, who have only ever seen their parliamentary careers as an apprenticeship to their entrance on the world stage. Whilst their future (like their past) will be comfortable and they will never know what it is to endure, elderly men and women will have to suffer  all manner of indignities and hardships because they are less efficient political capital.

© thepanopticonblog, 2012

Notes

• 1. Alan Travis. ‘UK population to reach 70m by 2027.’ The Guardian. Wednesday 26 October 2011.
• 2. Daniel Martin, ‘Cruelty of the carers: Damning report into home help for the elderly finds neglect so appalling some wanted to die.’ Daily Mail. 23 November 2011
• 3. Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000
• 4. Simon Read. ‘Fuel poverty deaths three times higher than government estimates.’ The Independent. 28 February 2012.