Painful Truths

British versus European workers

I don't often wash my car but when I do I usually go to one of the numerous "hand car washes" that have sprung up in some parts of Britain. Many of these washes have been started up by Poles, Kosovars and other Europeans over the past four or so years.

The car wash that I usually go to has hitherto been manned by a mixture of Poles, Kosovars and Romanians. They are hard working, meticulous and deliver excellent value for money. Above all, they are super-efficient and  manage to clean an extraordinary number of cars at a fantastic  rate without cutting corners or in any way compromising on quality.

Last weekend I took my car to be washed at the usual place. However, instead of the usual continental Europeans, I found two Englishmen. There were no other cars in the queue: I was the only customer. It was 2 p.m. I told the guys I’d be back by 5 p.m. They said no problem. “We’ll do your car right away,” they reassured me.

I returned to the car wash at 5.20 p.m. – 20 minutes later than I said I would. And guess what? The car wasn’t ready. They had just started washing it. One car in three hours and 20 minutes and they still couldn’t finish it. Worse than that, they hadn’t done a great job either.

The Poles, Kosovars and Romanians would have washed and cleaned 10-15 cars in the same time. And, judging by my previous experience with them, they would have done a brilliant job.

Nowadays, you will often hear native Britons complaining about Poles and other citizens of new members of the European Union taking their jobs. The natives argue that the only advantage the Poles and others have over them is that they are prepared to accept lower wages. 

I would argue that the problem is far more fundamental than that. As the above examples seeks to demonstrate, the continental Europeans also have the advantage of working hard and working with a conscience. They still care about service, quality and giving value for money. They don’t take their jobs and their income for granted and so will do their best to please their customers.

I have given just one example but I could recount numerous others. The native Britons had better wake up before it’s too late. In an open Europe-wide marketplace, shoddiness, poor service and a rip-off culture will only consign them to the garbage bin of history. Unless, of course, their government intervenes with legislation that discriminates against other Europeans.

Unequal opportunities

Britain, we are told, is a country of equal opportunites. This means that everyone is treated without discrimination, negative or positive, especially on grounds of colour, religion, ethnic backgound or gender.

The concept of equal opportunities is referred to most frequently in relation to employment, where it is purported that getting a job or being promoted is determined solely by objective criteria, such as qualifications and experience.

For many jobs, especially manual, clerical or junior administrative or management ones, that may well be true, although it is very difficult to prove discrimination in a court of law. However, in large swathes of the British "Establishment", such as the upper echelons of the civil service, the national media and academia, different sets of criteria operate, ones that are often invisible to outsiders.

One such set relates to the "old school tie" system. Actually, this is not so invisible and seems to be accepted by the British people as a fact of life which they cannot change. What it means is that if you went to the right school, associated with the right people, joined the right clubs and partook in the right recreational activities, you will find that many doors in the Establishment, whether in government, big business or the national media, swing open for you and glass ceilings shatter before you.

British-based readers of this blog will probably have their own stories to illustrate the workings of the old school tie system. In any case, one only has to look at the legal profession, the national media and the indigenous financial houses in the City of London to see evidence of it. It would not take long to spot the predominance of people from the public (i.e. private) schools and Oxford and Cambrige universities. Within this elite, a sizeable proportion would also likely belong to the Freemasons, a secretive society that is widely believed to have a presence in many important spheres of life.

Another, less visible set of criteria that seems to operate within the British Establishment and outside the parameters of equal opportunities relates to membership of the military, the police and the security apparatuses.

A careful observer of the core components of the Establishment, such as the national media, cannot fail but notice that former members of the armed forces and the police, and those with ties to the security services, have a far greater chance of getting employment and promotion in those core components than people competing solely on the basis of educational qualifications and experience. Whether this happens because of a misplaced sense of duty towards those who had previously chosen to work in the military and the security agencies or because of a deliberate policy by the state-run parts of the Establishment to employ otherwise unemployable former members of the armed forces and perhaps still serving security agents is difficult to tell.

The reader may wonder at this point why a supposedly rational society such as Britain tolerates these networks and corrupt practices whose cumulative outcome can only drag the country backwards. Personally, I am reminded of the way armed forces are structured and led in most Arab countries, where entire officers corps are selected on the basis of loyalty to the regime rather than merit. The result? One defeat after another by Israel.

The answer to the British puzzle may lie in the fact that the most important parts of the British economy are run by foreigners, not native Britons, who are virtually a minority in those sectors. Thus, in the National Health Service a substantial minority of doctors are from the Indian subcontinent and Eastern Europe, while in the technology sector it is the Americans, the Indians and the Chinese who are predominant. Even in the financial services and City of London financial institutions, the British are more or less a minority.

The reason for this imbalance is quite simple: the foreigners are better educated, more motivated and harder working than the native Britons. So, in a straightforward, free and fair competition for jobs in conditions of real equal opportunities, the natives would stand little chance of success.

Therefore, the only way the native Britons can remain in control is through bypassing free and fair competition and discriminating positively in favour of ethnic Britons with a particular educational background (public schools, Oxford and Cambridge Universities) and/or connections to the armed forces, the police or the security services, irrespective of ability.

Rule Britannia

One question has been uppermost in my mind today: how did Britain ever manage to rule the world?

This is not the first time that I find myself pondering this. As I observe the seemingly unstoppable meteoric rise of mediocrities around me, I am compelled to think about the state of Britain as a whole and how it manages to coast along in this age of globalization and fierce competition.

Mediocrity is the key word when one thinks about modern Britain, a country that is best described as a "mediocracy", as opposed to a meritocracy.

The "mediocrat" can be seen in almost every nook and cranny of the British "Establishment", from local and central government, to the media and the police. He (or she) is vertically and horizontally pervasive, so you will find him on the shop floor as well as in middle and senior management.

The British mediocrat is easily recognizable through his incompetence, his ineptitude and his indifference to his customers and/or staff.

Your typical British mediocrat will be socialy inadequate, and this will be manifested in a variety of ways, including aggression, rudeness and heavy drinking.

Those who rely on the British mediocrat to supply a service will be left angry, frustrated and despondent. And those who must work with him will have a choice of either stooping to his level of incompetence or else be dumped upon with tasks which, if successful, he will claim credit for, and if not, he will be only too willing to blame others. Evasion of responsibility, "passing the buck" and hiding out of sight in his office are among his operational traits.

The British mediocrat is omnipotent and self-perpetuating. However, in contrast to an invertebrate creature that reproduces asexually, each cycle of mediocratic reproduction takes place with evolution in reverse, so each new generation of mediocrats is actually more retarded than its predecessor. That is how the British mediocrat protects himself against those who might challenge him or rock his boat.

Where does all this leave Britain? The answer is clear to anyone who works in, or has had any dealings with, corporate Britain, whether public or private. Stripped of its illusions of grandeur, it is a second-rate power which, in a generation or so, will be well on its way to being a third- or even fourth-rate appendage of a superior patron state.