Benefit-of-the-doubt Toryism, or why the debate on immigration is getting denser by the day

On the Today programme this morning the Conservative MP Stewart Jackson did something sadly characteristic of people who bang on about immigration: he called for an honest debate on the issue before proceeding immediately to distort it. The distortion was in the claim that during the last Labour government, England became the most densely populated country in Europe because of immigration.

This is an old canard that has been insufficiently challenged. The figures that Jackson refers to are contained in this Daily Telegraph report, which states that England’s population density reached 395 people per square kilometre in 2008. I’m going to take this figure on trust, because it’s clearly attributed to figures obtained from the Office of National Statistics in a Parliamentary answer. In any case, although this number sounds like a lot, it’s not the source of the problem.

What the Telegraph did next was claim that England had become the most densely populated nation in the European Union. Unfortunately it based this claim on figures that appear to have been made up. Here is the key sentence: “Latest figures from Holland show that its population density was 395 a square kilometre in 2002 and 393 in 2005.” This is significant because the Netherlands (as it’s known to grown-ups) has for a long time been the most densely populated country in Europe (this detail has led to an ugly debate on immigration across the North Sea and spawned such Multatuliesque antagonists as Geert Wilders, but that needn’t detain us here).

Fortunately the Dutch, being a fastidious people, keep detailed records of these trends and the true figures took about five minutes to track down. According to the government agency Statistics Netherlands, the population density was 475 per square kilometre in 2002 and 483 in 2005, or around 120% higher than the bogus figures cited in the Telegraph. For the record, Dutch population density hasn’t been as low as 395 since 1972. Since reaching that level the country has largely prospered, and its current economic woes, as with the rest of the Eurozone, have mainly been caused by the failures of well-educated indigenous white men working in banks.

Anti-immigration campaigners often complain that they are unable to debate the issue because their concerns are dismissed as racist. I agree that such crass labelling misses the real issue. Because as Stewart Jackson demonstrated, there is a far more pressing need to dismiss their concerns as factually malnourished, alarmist crap.

Correction: This post originally attributed the comments made by Stewart Jackson to his fellow Conservative MP Rory Stewart. This was a case of mistaken identity for which I apologise.

5 comments

  1. Could you point out the Dutch equivalent of the Lake District, Dartmoor or the Yorkshire Moors? Thanks.

    Once you take out of the equation those parts of the country that are basically uninhibited and uninhabitable, the overcrowding of England becomes obvious.

    • There’s the Hoge Veluwe Nationaal Park in the middle of the country. Not many people live there. You’re welcome.

      I’m not sure how the Lake District is uninhabitable. Water is quite a useful thing to have when you’re trying to settle a place. Similarly, Lincolnshire and the Fens have a very similar landscape to the Netherlands yet nothing like the same population density.

      I’m more interested in your point about the “uninhibited” parts of the country contributing to the problem. If people overindulging in sex is driving up the numbers that’s surely an issue for the native population, not the migrant one?

  2. Gordon – you tweeted out to 1500 people that I was ‘talking baseless rubbish” on immigration. When you had got completely the wrong person. Do you even understand why someone might that upsetting? Or perhaps understand why ‘Sorry, for what?” . “Um, I already have” and “You wrote that without checking didn’t you? We all do it sometimes. Let’s stop this grandstanding now” suggests you simply just don’t get it.

    • Rory, I don’t want this to get personal. I mistook you for someone else in haste and I apologise for that. It was stupid and careless. Once I’d understood what the mistake was I corrected it promptly, both here and on Twitter. I’m not sure what else you think you’re entitled to, but you’re welcome to email me if you want to discuss this further.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s