Chris Bryant, shadow immigration minister, has belied his party affiliation by getting the facts right: ‘I have very high levels of youth unemployment in my constituency; it has risen by some 200 per cent in the last year,’ he told Newsnight.
Having diagnosed the problem, he then vindicated his party affiliation by misrepresenting its aetiology: ‘I do get quite angry with some British employers, who’ve decided not to bother train British youngsters to work in the hospitality industry or the construction industry.’
Instead those unpatriotic fat cats hire all those Johnny Foreigners from Latvia, Estonia and other low-rent parts of Europe. Young Etonians clearly aren’t seeking jobs in Mr Bryant’s local trades, so here come young Estonians instead.
Why are British employers so virulently anti-British? Mr Bryant hints, perhaps inadvertently, at some of the reasons: ‘…often people from Estonia and Latvia have so much get up and go they’ve got up and gone.’
That’s half of the problem but, spurning strictly arithmetical logic, I’d suggest it’s the smaller half. Of course those immigrants have get up and go: they have to make a new life for themselves in a new country. Some of them have figured out that working hard is still the best way of achieving this, even though the lure of welfare is sometimes hard to resist.
The bigger half of the problem is that the British youngsters from Mr Bryant’s constituency in southern Wales, or indeed from most other constituencies, lack the much needed get up and go. And that’s not the only thing they lack.
Also manifestly absent from their prospective CVs are any kind of educational and social skills required for working not only in ‘the hospitality industry’ but even in construction. Not to cut too fine a point, they are savages, which is to say people completely disconnected from our civilisation.
Today’s reports show that children enter school simply unable to communicate with humans in anything resembling human language. Gone are the days when most five-year-olds could read, write and add up. Today’s lot can’t even speak.
‘It is a very sad fact,’ says education minister Elizabeth Truss in her impeccable education-ministerish, ‘that 33 per cent of children arrive at school without the requisite communication and language skills to take part in school education’.
Like little Mowglis they communicate in some semiotic messages barely comprehensible to themselves and not at all to those who rely on words and sentences. But the original Mowgli was raised by wolves, so until he rejoined the human community he could only communicate in lupine interjections. These youngsters were raised by, well, us.
More specifically, they are products of our society, which Mrs Thatcher, as she then was, said didn’t exist. The lefties have been dining on this turn of phrase ever since, but all she meant was that collective ‘society’ shouldn’t be used as the scapegoat for individual failings.
By and large that’s true – but what about the little ones? A five-year-old isn’t responsible for his upbringing; his parents are. So is his school. So is his social environment. So is the whole ambient ethos. Without joining the debate of nature versus nurture, a child isn’t just a product of his DNA. He’s also a product of his society.
Our society actively promotes a situation wherein children grow up in an environment that more closely resembles a wolves’ lair than a human family. Our tax laws take a lion’s share of a man’s earnings, making it hard for a woman to stay with her children.
In any case, our welfare state often makes it futile for a man to seek work – effectively the state assumes the father’s role, making him redundant. So he ups his sticks and goes – leaving the missus in her council-estate squalor, where she subsists on handouts. Most of those arrive in the form of child benefits, rewarding her for every nipper she produces by numerous tattooed savages.
These poor children, and I’m not using this adjective in its strictly fiscal sense, grow up surrounded by crushed beer cans and syringes. And when they do go to school, they’re taught that they’re anyone’s equals and hardly anything else. Our comprehensive education is custom-made for promoting comprehensive ignorance and barbarism – all in the name of equality.
In the unlikely event they eventually try to enter the job market, what chance have they got against those young Balts who at the same age used to read more complex English texts than the Brits? Who grew up in countries where the only handouts one could ever receive came from one’s family? Who had the courage to leave their own homes and try their luck in a foreign land?
Blaming British employers in ‘the hospitality industry’ for preferring these youngsters to their British counterparts is spurious. What sort of training does Mr Bryant suppose those malevolent bosses are denying young Brits? Let’s face it, a hotel receptionist isn’t a brain surgeon.
Any personable and literate youngster – especially if he’s also literate in languages other than his own – can learn the required skills in a week. An illiterate savage can’t, but it’s not a hotel manager’s job to bring people to civilisation. It’s his job to bring guests to his hotel.
Yet mention to Mr Bryant that the god of equality at whose altar his party worships is really the devil, and he’ll recoil in feigned horror (every emotion evinced by today’s politicians is feigned). It’s much easier to be cross with bosses and foreigners.