Tuesday, April 01, 2008
If The Evidence Doesn't Suit, Ignore It
We're going to be reading the House of Lords report on immigration later today (they haven't yet made it available to mere taxpayers), but it reportedly says:
"Our general conclusion is that the economic benefits of positive net immigration are small or insignificant...
... The available evidence suggests that immigration has had a small negative impact on the lowest-paid workers in the UK and a small positive impact on the earnings of higher-paid workers."
On the basis of our own researches, that is precisely what we would have expected them to conclude- it is after all what THE EVIDENCE says (see many previous blogs, especially here).
So it's very interesting to hear how the left's "evidence based"... er... thinkers have reacted.
Home Office Minister Liam Byrne on BBC R4 Today maintained his £6bn pa GDP benefit was a lot of money in anyone's book. But as the Lords Report explains, that measure is "irrelevant and misleading" since, as we've blogged many times, what matters to real people out here is per capita GDP.
But the winner is Dr Danny Sriskandarajah (pictured with Yasmin), head of migration at the Institute for Public Policy Research, who reckons that to say there are no economic benefits is "simplistic and misleading":
"Recent immigration has brought immense benefits to the UK in terms of economic growth, increased competitiveness and the delivery of public services."
Not according to THE EVIDENCE Dan.
No, not your ideological prejudices pickled into a rigid dogma... the E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E.
Thank God we're not reliant on the Home Office, the IPPR, and all those other lefty propagandists for our facts.
PS It will be very interesting to watch what happens to IPPR funding once Labour are out of power. Will big companies like Accenture, BP, BT, Centrica, Deloitte, GlaxoSmithKline, HBOS, PriceWaterhouse, Shell, and Unilever still think it's worth funding their hugely staffed programmes? Hmm. (See this blog).