State of the parties as 2015 General Election looms.

[Beef Oven!]

Actually my concern was mainly to differentiate MigrationObservatory, which is not a campaign group but simply an organisation that produces studies on the effects of migration, from Migration Watch which is self-confessedly a campaign group, that is it has a particular view about migration. I would rather read reports by organisations that are not promoting particular views but simply studying the evidence and drawing conclusions - hence my use of the one by MigrationObservatory.

Your prerogative to ignore reports if the people undertaking them don't fit in with the way you think research should be carried out, of course. But what if Migration Watch UK have added significant understanding to the topic?

And, surely it's a virtue, is it not, to be 'self-confessed' and up front about where you're coming from, rather than having the pretence that most think tanks, consultancies etc have?

[aeolium]

And, surely it's a virtue, is it not, to be 'self-confessed' and up front about where you're coming from, rather than having the pretence that most think tanks, consultancies etc have?

I don't think so, no. It means that you're more likely to select evidence that fits your case and ignore evidence that doesn't, as well as providing only one sort of interpretation on it. I'd rather look at studies from groups which have no particular axe to grind.

[ahinton]

I don't think so, no. It means that you're more likely to select evidence that fits your case and ignore evidence that doesn't, as well as providing only one sort of interpretation on it. I'd rather look at studies from groups which have no particular axe to grind.

And, quite obviously, rightly so. I don't know who funds the one to which you have drawn attention, but the need for pragmatic presentation of statistics of all knows that are directly relevant to the topic should and indeed must always take precedence over the findingts of overtly axe-grinding "think tanks" - an appropriate term, I "think", to the extent that it implies an image of tanks rolling over possible dissent.

One aspect of immigration into UK that now appears to exercise some people is a widely inculcated fear of overcrowding and it possible consequences, yet no one seems ever to throw into the ring of such arguments the question of what would happen about such "overcrowding" and what might be an appropriate response to it were even a few per cent of Brits living outside Britain to decide to return - and here we're not considering citizens of other EU member states, or those from outside EU applying to enter and settle in Britain, or indeed illegal immigrants but those non-resident British citizens whose passports entitle them to live in Britain whenever they feel like doing so - I don't know how many of them there are in total, but the number is hardly small.

[MrGongGong]

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/newsevents/news/newsrecords/2013/07-July/Perceptions-are-not-reality-the-top-10-we-get-wrong.aspx

[ahinton]

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/newsevents/news...get-wrong.aspx

I've seen some of this elsewhere recently but cannot now recall the source. Leaving aside the question of who funds IPSOS Group (which owns Ipsos MOri), the possibility that a couple of the statistics might seem somewhat questionable and the perennial problems associated with the drawing of large-scale conclusions from opinions expressed by and collected from largely randomly selected small groups of individuals, this is nevertheless of some value in drawing attention to and attempting to debunk a series of widespread public misperceptions on certain topics of national importance.

[MrGongGong]

I've seen some of this elsewhere recently but cannot now recall the source. Leaving aside the question of who funds IPSOS Group (which owns Ipsos MOri), the possibility that a couple of the statistics might seem somewhat questionable and the perennial problems associated with the drawing of large-scale conclusions from opinions expressed by and collected from largely randomly selected small groups of individuals, this is nevertheless of some value in drawing attention to and attempting to debunk a series of widespread public misperceptions on certain topics of national importance.

I think what IS important about this kind of thing is that perceptions are usually very different from reality.
And some things which are presented as "problems" often are nothing of the sort (children who speak English as a second language in schools being a classic example)

[ahinton]

I think what IS important about this kind of thing is that perceptions are usually very different from reality.

Indeed - as I suggested above.

[Beef Oven!]

I don't think so, no. It means that you're more likely to select evidence that fits your case and ignore evidence that doesn't, as well as providing only one sort of interpretation on it. I'd rather look at studies from groups which have no particular axe to grind.

I think you've missed my point. All think tanks, research-bodies etc are susceptible to subjectivity. And if you limit your view to agencies that 'have no axe to grind' you might lose out on the best work, and end up with something, in absolute terms, that is not very good.

[ahinton]

I think you've missed my point. All think tanks, research-bodies etc are susceptible to subjectivity. And if you limit your view to agencies that 'have no axe to grind' you might lose out on the best work, and end up with something, in absolute terms, that is not very good.

You might, but you're almost certainly far more likely to lose out from the risk of being influenced by the conclusions of such organisations who are funded by other organisations that themselves might seek to influence the outcomes; furthermore, the inherent dangers of drawing hard-and-fast nationwide conclusions from the recorded views of any randomly selected (if and when indeed they are so) small group of people are surely obvious in any case, regardless of who might be conducting the poll on behalf of whom and funded by whom.

[Serial_Apologist]

You might, but you're almost certainly far more likely to lose out from the risk of being influenced by the conclusions of such organisations who are funded by other organisations that themselves might seek to influence the outcomes; furthermore, the inherent dangers of drawing hard-and-fast nationwide conclusions from the recorded views of any randomly selected (if and when indeed they are so) small group of people are surely obvious in any case, regardless of who might be conducting the poll on behalf of whom and funded by whom.

And by turning a blind eye as to who is behind organisations that just confirm ones prejudices, what criteria are there to depend on in making a judgement as to the veracity of their case?

[Beef Oven!]

You might, but you're almost certainly far more likely to lose out from the risk of being influenced by the conclusions of such organisations who are funded by other organisations that themselves might seek to influence the outcomes; furthermore, the inherent dangers of drawing hard-and-fast nationwide conclusions from the recorded views of any randomly selected (if and when indeed they are so) small group of people are surely obvious in any case, regardless of who might be conducting the poll on behalf of whom and funded by whom.

Nonsense. For example, the Migration Watch UK report takes the UCL report and challenges, quite correctly, the assumptions it makes about the level of tax paid by immigrants and the level of benefits claimed. UCL's assumptions are wrong. The assumptions have been adjusted, and it therefore gives different, more accurate values.

Nothing wrong with that.

If you like, the Migration Watch UK report is identical to the UCL report. It uses exactly the same methodology as UCL (UCL's!), but improves the basic assumptions. No-one is arguing with this except, perhaps you.

What you say is fine in the abstract, but doesn't really apply here.

[Beef Oven!]

And by turning a blind eye as to who is behind organisations that just confirm ones prejudices, what criteria are there to depend on in making a judgement as to the veracity of their case?

Acknowledging the 'prejudice' is the complete opposite of turning a blind eye. In this case it is Migration Watch UK who have the 'veracity' of case.

All you're really saying is that you don't like studies that conclude that immigration doesn't lower the tax burden. Fine!

[teamsaint]

I think what IS important about this kind of thing is that perceptions are usually very different from reality.
And some things which are presented as "problems" often are nothing of the sort (children who speak English as a second language in schools being a classic example)

Or the problems that follow may in fact be rather different from those presented in the media....one "problem" masking another.

[ahinton]

Nonsense. For example, the Migration Watch UK report takes the UCL report and challenges, quite correctly, the assumptions it makes about the level of tax paid by immigrants and the level of benefits claimed. UCL's assumptions are wrong. The assumptions have been adjusted, and it therefore gives different, more accurate values.

Nothing wrong with that.

If you like, the Migration Watch UK report is identical to the UCL report. It uses exactly the same methodology as UCL (UCL's!), but improves the basic assumptions. No-one is arguing with this except, perhaps you.

That doesn't appear to be the case, even here on this forum!

In any event, I'm not even necessarily rubbishing every conclusion contained in that report for the sake of so doing; I merely seek to draw attention in more general terms to the possibility that conclusions drawn in some such reports might be at more at risk than others of apparent bias in favour of the agendas of certain paymasters who funded them.

That said, I note that you make no comment on the widespread and noisy inculcation of fear of overcrowding and its possible consequences in the context of those many Brits who can come here at any time without the possibility of challenge or questioning; whilst that's not "immigration" per se, of course, it's still free and unfettered "migration" from one country to another and affects population levels.

What you say is fine in the abstract, but doesn't really apply here.

By so saying, do you mean to suggest that there are no possible problems associated with the drawing of overarching national conclusions from the interviewing of a small group of randomly selected individuals, sometimes in only one part of the country, regardless of who conducts or funds them?

But let's not get too hung up on immigration, emigration or any other kind of migration, lest such discussion provides more posts on the party that you accuse some others here of disproportionately banging on about and whose principal fame (or notoriety, if you will) rests upon such matters, not least in the context of UK's current participatory rôle in the free movement of labour between member states of an organisation which said party seeks to curb by means of British secession from said organisation! As a distinguished member here rightly pointed out not so long ago, there are other political parties besides that one which will be contesting the next General Election!

[amateur51]

I think you've missed my point. All think tanks, research-bodies etc are susceptible to subjectivity. And if you limit your view to agencies that 'have no axe to grind' you might lose out on the best work, and end up with something, in absolute terms, that is not very good.

Could someone else bring to the poster's attention that Migration Watch refuses to publish details of it funding sources and as such it is an organisation of some dubiety.

Thank you.