12.02.2004

Damned lies and statistics

Around the web

There are few things more stomach-churning than tabloid hypocrisy, and there has been no shortage of it over the last few days. The tragic death of 19 migrant workers has occasioned the ritual shedding of crocodile tears by the likes of The Sun, Daily Express and The Mail. Yet these rags think nothing of fomenting hatred against all immigrants with their usual fare of ‘Asylum-seekers ate my hamster’ headlines.

Unfortunately these papers are but one component of an informal alliance of convenience between little England Europhobes, foam-flecked Tory fossils, Countryside Alliance supporters and the BNP. The Migration Watch UK ‘think tank’ (despite pretensions of being “an independent and non-political body”) slots nicely into this motley collection by providing a ‘respectable’ and ‘academic’ veneer to the right’s anti-asylum agenda.

“Concerned about asylum and immigration?” asks the website’s main field. Clicking on to the ‘We are’ link throws up a short piece on the rate of immigration from outside the European Union to the UK (implying that migration within the EU is fine by them). This is backed up by what purports to be a short analysis of a 2001 home office report (which is available here for download). Sadly for MW the numbers it dredges up are not referenced to any source, other than being ascribed to the “latest government projection”.

Turning now to the ‘Who we are’ statement, it is immediately apparent that MW is keen to stress its ‘independence’ and opposition to far-right hate-mongering. Instead it claims to be motivated by a wish to get all the facts about immigration into the open, free of misinformation, in order to stimulate “an open and frank policy debate”. Coincidentally the hacks at The Mail, etc justify their outrageous scapegoating with the same kind of line. Nevertheless this introductory piece does make interesting reading, as its position is firmly based on the same political terrain as New Labour. For instance, “We are not opposed to immigration that is moderate and managed” and “We entirely accept that genuine refugees should be welcomed” could have come straight from Blunkett’s Sunday morning sofa chats with Frost.

Like New Labour, MW wants to prove its anti-racist credentials by inviting viewers to peruse the “diversity” of its advisory council. I for one was not surprised to see a ‘respectable’ list of retired state bureaucrats, lawyers and academics. Weekly Worker readers from Sudan and Syria will be pleased to see they are represented by George Kronfli, “a businessman who has been resident in Britain for many years”. At just 25 words he has by far the shortest biographical notes, but I am confident his inclusion is not simply a tokenistic sop.

Next along is ‘News desk’, an archive of press releases from the last four years. Its publications page is very comprehensive indeed, with dozens of position papers available to download. These certainly require careful study if we are to effectively answer the Blairites and the right on immigration. ‘Overview’ takes a look at the history of immigration and policy. On the whole they back up their statements with government figures and references to legislative provisions, suggesting that “serious practical consequences” will ensue from the current rate of population inflow.

With its guarded criticisms of the ‘economic case for immigration’, and comparisons with the tough stances taken by other EU countries, it is not hard to see what kind of solution MW implies. This is doubly reinforced by the ‘Frequently asked questions’ page, where “myths” are posed - such as “migrants contribute a net £2.5 billion to the exchequer” - before MW hits us with “the facts”. The measured tone is dumped altogether on the donations page. In its bid for viewer’s cash, it proudly boasts of its robust challenge to the “multi-million-pound pro-asylum and immigration ‘industry’”.

‘Key messages’ is yet another page setting out the MW stall. ‘What you say’ is a selection from MW’s mail bag. Of course, in the interests of “open and frank policy debate” all of these dovetail nicely with the general thrust of the website as a whole. Do not expect any dissenting voices among these ‘Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells’ types. Finally, ‘What the papers say’ could really do with renaming as ‘The selected works of Sir Andrew Green’ - most of the articles/letters featured here are penned by MW’s chairman himself.

While it is relatively easy to expose MW’s bogus independence and political neutrality, shockingly it is a lot harder to get the left to look critically at these issues. Failing to so only hobbles our own working class internationalism.