Tag Archives: benefits

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:


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

In no particular order, some reasons why Labour will, one way or another, win the next general election either as a government or as a majority party in coalition. Please feel free to add your own…

  • It promises benefits and big spending to country addicted to ‘free’ money and profligacy
  • It has managed to position itself as the party of fairness to an ill-informed, benumbed electorate
  • It does not discriminate in any way whatsoever, so the good are as bad as the bad, and the bad are as good as the good – anything and anyone goes
  • It does child-care, education and thinking for you, so personal/public responsibility need not be exercised
  • It promotes ideological fancy, which is much easier to cultivate than practical, workable policies
  • It still maintains an entrenched tribal loyalty in parts of the UK despite it having long since having forgotten working people
  • It has created a generation unable to think and critically analyse the follies of voting Labour thanks to its bankrupting of the education system
  • It is not the Conservative Party, nor the Lib Dems, which for many people is reason enough to vote Labour

© thepanopticonblog, 2012


No you have not been out of the loop, nor is your memory failing you – the 2012 Lib Dem conference has been the usual blend of forgettable people and forgettable policies, save for those ones which are so brain-numbingly stupid that they leave one incredulous.

What has emerged out of the Lib Dem conference in Brighton is the Robin Hood rhetoric of easy/lazy policy making and demagogic politics, that is ‘take from the rich and give to the poor’. Cries like these, usually the stuff of the vacuous Ed Miliband to his ignorant tribal voters, are what one expects from sixth form or student politicians, not professionals. Quad erat demonstradum.

Mr Clegg made it quite clear that under his plans the wealthy top 10% of earners would be obliged to pay more to foot the bill for the feckless and for the poor decisions made by government. Thus, anyone earning over £50,500 would have the collection plate thrust at them with even greater eager righteousness than before by the Deputy PM and his league of crackpots.

Andrew Neil, quizzing the nature of this enterprise, pressed Jeremy Browne MP (yes, this man is an MP – a bag of boiling micturate has greater substance) on the point that the top earners already foot 55% of the UK’s income tax bill, asking in what way should the top 10% pay more? Browne, naturally, did not answer the question, instead deciding to deploy a dribbling, meandering response that puts one in mind of the drunken ramblings of a village idiot [1].

Today, Mr Clegg has more sensibly suggested that those pensioners with over £1 million in assets could probably do without the universal benefits afforded to OAPs. This announcement was probably made to take the sting out of his previous proposal, but it leads to an essential point missed by Mr Clegg and the politicians of big government: the wealthy should not be penalised for what they have earned, rather the government should better apportion, spend and invest the money it has at disposal. It is not the job of high earners to take care of or bail out the state because it is incapable of balancing the books.

It is a skewed understanding of ‘fairness’ that is preached by the Lib Dems and those operating on the left. The Lib Dems cannot talk of a fair(er) society since none of their policies connect with the real world that they are meant to serve. A fair society should no more penalize the wealthy for their money than they should the poor for their lack of the same.  For the Lib Dems, a fair society is finding any way they can to fund the realisation of their mandate, one which promises the ongoing ruination of the UK.

© thepanopticonblog, 2012


Ed Miliband’s speech to the Durham Miner’s Gala was the usual mix of obsequiousness and hypocrisy that has characterised Mr Miliband’s leadership and his party at large.

‘Community. Looking out for each other. Never walking by on the other side. These are the value of the people of Durham. These are the values of the people of the North East. These are also the values of the British people.’

With these words, Mr Miliband addressed the Durham Miner’s Gala with sentimentalism and insincerity that only tribal Labour voters would be unwilling to spot. His message about community was delivered sans irony – irony because the party he leads, whilst in office, was almost entirely responsible for the breakdown of social cohesion, autonomy, personal responsibility and community spirit with its fattening mixture of surveillance, state benefits and its augmentation of permissive society and dependency culture.

His attack on the current government included an allusion to the ‘lost a generation of young people’ who face long-term unemployment. This was picked up by a plucky young fellow who reminded Mr Miliband that under Labour’s watch, youth unemployment increased by 40%. This lad also tried to pin Mr Miliband down on his union affiliations, quizzing the Labour leader: ‘Do you think your pandering to your union paymasters will be your downfall in the Labour party?’ [1] It was a question that caused the gurning smile of Mr Miliband to crush itself into steely displeasure.

Labour’s feeble leader listed in his speech some of those who had spoken before him at past galas, including Keir Hardie, Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson and Barbara Castle, remarking ‘I am proud to follow in their footsteps.’ Indeed, following is something Mr Miliband does well; like an ambulance chasing lawyer, he follows band wagons, in pursuance of his demagogic agenda.

His policies, such as they are, remain no less credible than his infantile leadership. Like a latter day Robin Hood his desire to ‘tax the bankers’ bonuses and get young people working again’ is exactly the sort of simplistic and unworkable idea that shows Mr Miliband is incapable of thoughts rational or intellectual. Indeed, like the stories recounting the legend of Robin Hood, his speech had nothing new to add, instead repeating embarrassingly uninspired lines such as ‘A few years ago the Tories tried to say “we’re all in it together”. But now we know they never meant it. Because we have seen what they do when they get back in power’, or otherwise ‘One rule for those at the top and another rule for everybody else. [The Tories] cut taxes for millionaires and they raise taxes on pensioners. It’s business as usual in the banks, and small businesses go under.’ Thus he sidestepped the fact that Labour were responsible for the ‘hands off’ approach towards the banks and the fact that they actively solicited the banks to win favour if not financial capital.

He accused the Conservatives of ‘Not building for the future but ripping up the foundations. Not healing our country, but harming it. Not uniting our country, but dividing it.’ This from the Labour party is quite an accusation.

In all Mr Miliband’s flat and unprofitable speech continues to evidence the assertion that he is capable of only a disingenuous rhetorical register, that he is a nakedly demagogic politician espousing dangerous ideological whimsy. Particularly toe-curling are his unctuous efforts to win those voters he is loathed to court, proving beyond doubt what a charlatan and a fraud both he and his party are.

Whilst the electorate continues to rightfully show disenchantment with the coalition, it is regrettable that such short term memory may well give Labour the chance they need to further dismember the UK. Mr Miliband may think he serves as a leader, but so far as the thinking public are concerned, he only serves to remind one that British politics is now at the very bottom of the trough. If the public are reminded of this enough times, however, the fatuous Mr Miliband may yet serve a worthwhile cause: hemorrhaging votes to UKIP.

© thepanopticonblog, 2012


1. ’14 Year Old Boy Confronts Ed Miliband.’ YouTube. 15 July 2012. <>

You may also like to read:

The issue of benefits remains contentious. Whether or not this is Mr Cameron trying claw the initiative back from Mr Miliband by addressing an issue that elicits much passion, the matter requires some scrutiny. Is it a case of ‘the poor and the undeserving poor’? This article suggests that excessive state benefits perpetuate more problems than they offer solutions.

Frequently, a neighbour of mine reminds me of how hard it is living on benefits. She tells me of the bureaucratic struggle she goes through in order to gain these sums – it sounds like a frustrating experience. Her rent, which amounts to several hundred pounds pcm, along with additional housing benefits, are paid for her. Nice though she is, my inner voice has often  retorted ‘imagine how hard it can be to living on no benefits at all!’.

Every claimant’s situation is unique and each person has their case to make, but the overriding impression remains, that however true or false it may be, there now seems little distinction between those who really need benefits and those who have just got used to receiving them. Even in the unlikely event that benefits are properly regulated and that all those being paid these sums are deserving, the perception that this is not the case, even if it is misguided, has been substantial enough to make the issue political reality.

In my previous article (‘Through the Looking Glass‘), I suggested that if Mr Milliband wishes to tackle the issue of immigration, then he must address the matter of benefits. If he is serious about  British workers being afforded the first refusal on jobs, then he must cut the incentives for immigrants to travel to the UK and occupy such positions; equally he must pull the rug of benefits out from beneath those who are using it to furnish a ‘can’t work, won’t work’ attitude. If the argument is that foreign workers are taking British jobs, then it follows that those Britains on long term unemployment benefits seeking work should occupy the jobs undertaken by a great many foreign workers, be it as cleaners, as farm labourers or otherwise. If you are fit to work then you should be compelled to work; if you refuse, your benefits should be cut.

It is no exaggeration to say that the great sums paid in benefits have not enabled social mobility, they have caused social stagnation. For example, a family funded by state benefits begets a generation who  are naturally inclined to be fostered by state funds. Is it any wonder that parents of this ilk feel that once they have had their children, their job is done? That it is then up to the state to educate, cultivate and nourish them? The removal of autonomy and personal responsibility is the sorry realisation of big government and a damning indictment against socialist agendas. Labour’s unprecedented engorgement of this dependency culture was their not-so-subtle means of buying the electorate and furthering these dubious ends.

A bit like the issue of immigration, benefits need proper enforcement to eek out bogus claims and bogus claimants; they require regulation to best serve the people who really need them. Indeed, I would add that benefits are not something operating in isolation, they are enmeshed in a web of economic, social and political factors which may make the proposals below appear simplistic. The moment benefits are paid, the emphasis should be on weaning the claimant off them. This need not be draconian, it should simply emphasise that unless one faces exceptional circumstances, benefits are a temporary stay.

Benefits have not broken down distinctions between the poor and the undeserving poor, they have reaffirmed the notion. Since equivocation is the undoing of clarity, I would propose:

  • Benefits should be accessible to those in genuine need
  • Benefits should be advertised as a last resort and a short term solution, not a long term entitlement
  • Long term unemployed on benefits must be compelled to work or face having their payments withdrawn
  • Foreign immigrants should not be entitled to any state benefits until they have worked in the UK for at least five years
  • Where child benefit is paid, it should be paid for two children at most to discourage the baby-benefits-boom that furnishes the idle

To enact a dramatic paraphrase, a culture is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself within [1]. A point has been reached whereby even the slightest curtailment of excess is seen as an infringement upon a perceived right or entitlement, so it is little wonder that the mention of cutting benefits is the cause of wails of anguish and indignation, especially from the left.

Excessive benefits are one of the root causes of a culture of dependency, of permissiveness and of the ceding of individual irresponsibility. Governments owe a duty of care to the people, but in recent times what we have seen is mollycoddling; excessive state intervention rather than occasional assistance smothers rather than stimulates the growth of any nation. Economically it is unaffordable; morally, it is unsustainable.

© thepanopticonblog, 2012


  • 1. Will & Ariel Durant. The Story of Civilization (Vol 3 Caesar And Christ. Epilogue—Why Rome fell). ‘A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself within’