Source: Bigstock
A strange new phenomenon is taking place in U.K. skies. Paralyzed Indians are flying into the country needing wheelchairs and then quite happily springing up and walking away from their seats cured as soon as they set foot on blessed British soil.
According to Air India, the number of international passengers requesting airport wheelchairs—which allow them to bypass waiting lines at passport control and board the plane first—has risen to 100,000 per year, with demand particularly strong on flights to the U.K. Once they get there, these stricken souls then miraculously get up and walk (or maybe even jog, sprint, or somersault) away, instantly “cured,” thus earning them the nickname “Jet-Stream Jesuses.” Surely “Jet-Stream Jeets”?
The fakirs-cum-fakers may sound like canny operators, but if they truly knew how to swing the lead and exploit the generosity paid for and provided by others, they would have remained rooted to their chairs, before shamelessly asking for yet more free goodies besides; that’s what everyone else on the make in Great Britain is doing these days.
Budgeting for Disaster
The clearly socialist Labour Party government and their Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel “Crybaby” Reeves have just wept out their annual budget, widely condemned as the worst in living memory—including by the chancellor’s own uncle, who publicly said she didn’t know what she was doing. I disagree. Reeves knows precisely what she is doing: bankrupting the country by stealing large sums of cash from productive voters before doling it back out to unproductive ones in a naked attempt to buy the latter’s votes.
“And as to handing out free motorcars to 770 persons suffering issues with ‘alcohol misuse’—what could possibly go wrong there?”
The cumulative tax burden will rise to 38 percent of national income, a record high. It is estimated the cost in sickness and disability benefits alone will increase by 33 percent across five years to reach £104B; that compares to a U.K. defense budget of £66B at present.
Thanks to Reeves, total spending on all forms of welfare combined will hit £406B, from £315B right now: In technical economic terms, that’s an increase from “already unaffordable” to “even more so.” But when the government says it will spend cash on “disabled” people, what does it mean? Primarily, the rough domestic equivalent of malingering airborne Indians in wheelchairs.
Sick Influences
One growing class of welfare recipients are an entire class of professional layabouts with reputed “special needs” who are entitled to a potential £70,000 per annum for “support and equipment” lest they otherwise encounter difficulties attending a job interview. How far away must the interview be if the bus ticket costs £70,000?
But no, wait, the wonderful Access To Work (ATW) scheme doesn’t just buy people who claim to be really sad in the mornings their bus tickets to the interview. If, for example, they suffer “anxiety,” they will be offered “free” (to them) noise-canceling headphones to wear on the bus, lest they get intimidated and distracted by the sound of the wheels going round. Or what if the poor interviewee has trouble waking up in time to attend the interview? Then the kind chancellor will give them a gratis alarm clock, or even a “white noise machine,” to help them gain a good night’s rest beforehand.
Under its ruinously lenient terms, ATW recipients are open to absolutely anyone with a job opportunity who self-identifies as having a disability or “mental health condition” of any kind—no formal doctor’s diagnosis necessary, no financial means-testing either, and little real assessment of whether the claimed items are even of any legitimate use, just so long as “a customer knows their support requirements.” Consequently, “customers” have been able to effortlessly self-prescribe themselves free computer accessories, desks, and laptops for “administration,” and high-end smartwatches for “time management,” not to mention calming wobble boards and fidget spinners.
At the last count, this all cost £321M a year, with the average claim being for around £4,000. It will soon cost even more, as several successful applicants have since begun careers as “sickfluencers,” posting videos online demonstrating to all and sundry how best to game the system. So, in a sense, the ATW scheme has succeeded in getting some of these people jobs after all: jobs showing other indolent parasites how to leech off the welfare state even more effectively.
Driving Miss Lazy
Some disabled Brits are given subsidized lease of specially adapted cars. Fair enough…if you have no legs. But thousands of “disabled” people accessing the U.K.’s present £600M per year Motability Car program possess slightly less significant ailments like the following:
(1) Food intolerance: 20 cars
(2) Failure to thrive: 10 cars
(3) Constipation: 20 cars
(4) Tourette’s: 230 cars
(5) Drug misuse: 220 cars
(6) Alcohol misuse: 770 cars
(7) Generalized anxiety: 1,030 cars
(8) Stress: 20 cars
(9) Depressive disorder: 7,460 cars
(10) Obesity: 800 cars
(11) Dyslexia: 320 cars
(12) Tennis elbow: 40 cars
How can cars be “specially adapted” for stuff like that? Tourette’s: The in-car satnav is expressly programmed not to get offended if the driver calls it a twat. Dyslexia: It has no registration plates because they can’t read them anyway. Constipation: The suspension is so poor, it shakes all stubborn stools loose onto the driver’s seat by the end of the journey.
And as to handing out free motorcars to 770 persons suffering issues with “alcohol misuse”—what could possibly go wrong there? My dad was an alcoholic, and he got free money from the Welfare Department every week. Guess what he spent it on? And guess what happened to him then? That’s right, he died of free, government-subsidized liver failure. Today he would just die in a free, government-subsidized car crash. Together with a busful of screaming schoolchildren.
Yet welfarists have refused to reexamine the criteria for qualifying for Motability cars, so they just go to cripples again like they were originally supposed to, even though it is literally now easier for a convicted drunk-driver to get a discount vehicle than it is for them to get a driving ban.
Oh, but some reform of the system is now afoot, say our politicians. Reeves’ budget proclaimed “harsh” new plans to prevent claimants from receiving any luxury cars like BMWs and Mercedes anymore, just ordinary ones. They should never have been able to get them in the first place.
Constantly, the state pisses away precious gold on unnecessary nonsense and then, as a displacement activity, concentrates purely upon addressing minor epiphenomena caused by the initial needless largesse, before pretending it is thereby actually cutting something. It isn’t. Other than the nation’s own neck, naturally.
Baby Sham
Another of Reeves’ key budget measures was scrapping the “two-child cap” policy. Previously, the Treasury would only pay parents a set fee to babysit their own children up to a maximum of two hungry gobs per family unit. Now that is to be lifted to an upper maximum of infinity, thus to “end child poverty.” Not if you’re one of the soon-to-be-impoverished children of those endlessly put-upon working parents who are actually going to have to pay for this thoroughly dysgenic measure.
Right now, a single parent with three kids can get £21,000 in benefits. Once the cap is lifted, that will be £24,500. Then add an extra £3,500 for each subsequent child, of which there will inevitably soon be many. The take-home pay of someone working a forty-hour week on the minimum wage is £22,000. So, it would literally be more profitable for that worker, should she be female, to drop out of the workforce entirely, spread her legs, and get perpetually pregnant like a furless rabbit.
Giving birth to large numbers of small, squealing welfare checks will soon become a viable professional occupation. According to one analysis, a family with three kids, with at least one jobless parent claiming average amounts of benefits, will be bringing in £46,000—£18,000 more than an average modestly earning working family with no kids. In other words, the latter couple are funding the former couple to breed, all while the latter couple probably feel they cannot afford to breed themselves.
But let’s put it another way instead: The working white couple are funding the nonworking non-white couple to breed—and systematically replace them in their own homeland, a form of quietly unannounced jizyah-tax, or indentured slave labor. Not many white British families have three or more kids: Figures show only 14 percent. Meanwhile, 41 percent of Pakistani families and 38 percent of Bangladeshi families do. By complete noncoincidence, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis also happen to be the two measurable ethnic groups in the country who pay the least, per capita, in taxes.
Other analysis shows that rates of households who will qualify for extra subsidy under the abolition of the two-child cap will be twice as large in high-immigration areas across Britain as in low-immigration areas (apparently, there still are some). As non-whites tend to vote for the left, the Labour Party is literally stealing from the pockets of the native people of these islands to fund the production-line replication of massed generations of what it cynically imagines will be its own future voters—apparently oblivious to the fact that, once the demographic balance has been shifted enough, the baby Bangladeshis will all slip away from socialism over toward shariah.
Morally Bankrupt
Still, there are always other special-interest groups the chancellor can try buying the votes of instead. Animal rights activists, for example. In the same week Rachel Reeves told us all our taxes would have to rise, it also emerged £700M has been spent on ensuring no fish will die during the operation of a new nuclear power plant. A “fish disco” has been installed there that blasts out walls of sound to repel any incoming aquatic life, so tadpoles and trout won’t get fatally caught up in cooling systems.
How many fish will it save? A grand total of 0.083 salmon per year—that’s about half a tail fin short of one single fish per decade. As a result, when it (supposedly) opens in 2031, the £46 billion facility will have “more fish protection measures than any other power station in the world.” That’s because all the other ones in the world are primarily designed by adults to generate nuclear power, not by children to win votes from fish.
But to govern is to choose, and in order choose to splash the cash on boosting our islands’ populations both piscine and Pakistani, corresponding cuts in public spending have to be made, with the end result that, also in the very same week of Reeves’ budget, Labour announced the possible near-scrapping of a petty little triviality called “trial by jury,” as waiting lists for court cases were now so long it would allegedly cost too much to fix the backlog.
How much? Estimates vary, but the bill may be perhaps £1B. Which is still less than it costs to save 28 percent of a trout per decade combined with giving out free cars to people who can’t have a shit.
What kind of insane country prioritizes funding wobble boards and fish discos over juries? Great Britain, evidently.
