The BNP’s European leaflets have attracted some attention for their fake photos and the law suit arising from their use of another photo, but they’ve also got a made-up statistic.
Here’s the BNP claim:
However, Turkey’s population is only 75 million.
So even if you think that everyone in Turkey is low-waged, this wouldn’t be true. But as certainly not everyone is low-waged, it’s even less true.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
WATCH: Lib Dem Stop Brexit rally with Tim, former Labour MP backing Lib Dems, Layla and Vince (Caron Lindsay)
The Brexit Party is undemocratic! (Colin McGerty)
Labour panic as Lib Dems advance into second nationally and first in London (Caron Lindsay)
Why I returned to the Liberal Democrats (Mark Paine)
Addressing our lack of diversity (Callum James Littlemore)
Alistair Carmichael will not stand for the party leadership
An unexpected revelation from Lib Dem leader Vince Cable
Eurovision: Blame Simon Cowell not Brexit
With no guarantee of a People's Vote the PM will get no support from the Lib Dems
Helping hand from a Labour member
Tuesday reading
Was the SDP a success?
Suffolk - where self-help means doing something you've paid someone else to do...
My tweets
Why our electoral system is actually so vulnerable to being gamed by bad guys
Michael BG 22nd May - 12:32am
David Raw 21st May - 11:25pm
Innocent Bystander 21st May - 10:29pm
Mike Jay 21st May - 10:28pm
Glenn 21st May - 10:25pm
Michael 1 21st May - 9:52pm
30 Comments
According to last year’s census, one third of the population is either below or above working age, so that cuts it down too.
Top marks for observation, but is quibbling about the difference between 75m and 80m really the most effective way of countering BNP propaganda?
Why not try putting a positive case for immigration, rather than just saying there may not be quite so many of the foreign bastards trying to get in as they’re claiming?
I’m reminded of the story about Asquith who authorised the use of Troops against striking miners when he was Home Secretary in the 1890’s. Some miners were shot.
It haunted him for a while and he was famously heckled at a public meeting ” “Why did you kill the miners in 91 ? ” to which he is reported to have replied “It was 92 “
The BNP clearly scents an oppportunity to cash in on the current ‘anti politics’ sentiment. My town has been – for the first time I am aware of – leafleted by the BNP for the upcoming Euro elections. We have had nothing from the LDs.
Castigating the BNP for printing ‘errors’ is one thing but I’d echo Anonymous1’s point. If the BNP was factually accurate it wouldn’t stop being a nasty racist party.
Anonymous1: you talk about “quibbling about the difference between 75m and 80m”, but who is doing that? As I said in my original comment (and as Sara pointed out in her comment before you) it’s about a much bigger difference than that.
It does seem to me to sit rather oddly with your usual keenness to try to find grounds to criticise people to decide that it’s ok for the BNP, of all people, to make up numbers.
LiberalHammer: As the BNP like to try to present themselves as the one party that tells the truth, pointing out how they don’t tell the truth seems to me very relevant to arguing why people shouldn’t vote for them.
I agree that it’s not the only reason by any means, and that if they didn’t make up numbers they’d still be a nasty racist party, just as if the BNP didn’t have so many convicted criminals in their ranks, they would still be nasty racist party. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use that as one of the reasons that people shouldn’t vote for them.
“It does seem to me to sit rather oddly with your usual keenness to try to find grounds to criticise people to decide that it’s ok for the BNP, of all people, to make up numbers.”
Where on earth do you see in my post “it’s ok for the BNP … to make up numbers”?
It’s no more OK for the BNP to make up numbers than it is for you to make up things that people haven’t either said or implied!
Anonymous1: As I said in my previous comment, the only person suggesting that it’s a matter of 75m or 80m seems to be yourself. My post made clear that I think the difference is significantly bigger than that (and Sara’s comment that came before yours gives further reasons for this). You described the difference between the truth and what the BNP claimed as a matter of “quibbling”. Something is only “quibbling” if it is minor, so by using that word (based on the 75m/80m difference which is one I made clear was much smaller than the true gap) you’re defending the BNP’s use of its figures, which aren’t just out by a bit but are so exaggerated as to be fake.
I’m not defending anything the BNP has said, and you bloody well know it!
Pretending someone is defending the BNP just because they’ve criticised your approach is absolutely contemptible.
How many Turkish citizens living in Germany would get the right of residence in the UK if Turkey joined the EU?
The BNP might at least have got that figure right by mistake.
Anonymous1: If someone (me) is saying they got a figure badly wrong and you’re saying they only got it slightly wrong (hence “quibbling”), then that’s defending what the BNP said.
Mark
Even if I had said “they only got it slightly wrong” – which I didn’t – that wouldn’t amount to defending what they said.
I have never defended the BNP, I never would, and if you’re suggesting otherwise, you’re a liar.
One of my concerns about LDV, which in many ways I love, is that criticism of the ideas expressed in the main pieces is often dismissed as trolling or trouble-making. Mark, you quite clearly imply that the anonymous commentator is a BNP-sympathiser, which is pretty embarrassing. His point was legitimate, and you answered it. Couldn’t you have left out the bit where you smeared him?
Russ: I don’t think I did imply that, but in case anyone has any doubt just to be clear what I was criticising was one specific comment from Anonymous1. I’ve no doubt that he dislikes the BNP greatly.
Mark
Then please can you withdraw your statements that I was “defending what the BNP said” and that I had decided “that it’s ok for the BNP … to make up numbers”?
Anonymous1: Your comment was a defence of something that they did and so words you’ve quoted of mine are ones I’m happy to stand by. I agree that defending a BNP claim on one occasion isn’t the same as supporting them generally, but then that’s why I’ve not made that more general assertion, which I know wouldn’t be true. By the way, as you’re keen on accuracy, perhaps you’ll acknowledge that I didn’t claim the difference was only one of 75m or 80m, but did actually point out that it was much bigger 🙂
Turkey joining the EU is very important
The argument must be made broadly in terms of economics, the geo-polital stability of the EU and finally about the nature of the EU itself were decentralized and expansionist is good as opposed to those who wish to consolidate power in Brussels.
I’ve got a meeting in 5 mins so I can’t go into that but generally speaking
the accession will be alot easier to sell if its a joint negotiation for Georgia, the Ukraine and Turkey
Moving them all into the European Economic Area would be a good intermediate step
Mark
“Your comment was a defence of something that they did …”
That is a lie.
My comment was a criticism of something you did. There was not one word in defence of the BNP.
Your tactics are those of the gutter.
doh!
European Free Trade Association
Well spotted. All political parties should be very careful about how they handle statistics. Of course, there are more ways to abuse figures than just making them up, but we’ve already discussed that with respect of Lib Dem candidates this week.
However, in this case, getting the figures right wouldn’t make a substantial difference to the underlying political argument. In other words, someone considering voting BNP because they fear/dislike 80m “low-waged Muslim Turks” having the right to work in the UK is unlikely to change their view if that figure is corrected to say, 10m.
Anyone who inteprets any part of this post as defending the BNP won’t even be graced with a reply. Whether the underlying issue in this case is deceit or stupidity, the real problem with the BNP is their politics.
Either way what ever number is the right one the last thing the UK needs is millions more Muslims entering. So in spirit what the BNP are saying is right.
Firstly the info regarding the growth rate in Wiki is wrong based on the figures supplied, ie its 1.3% not 13%.
Secondly on the subject of immigration The Govt (Lib,Lab,Con) have already blocked the Romanians and Bulgarians from entering the UK labour market.
So is this not discrimination already?
Some people have short memories!
It’s perfectly legitimate to round up to a point (after all, to the average BNP voter, 75m Turks is as threatening as 80m). In reality, Turkey’s population probably isn’t 75 million – in fact, it’s 76.8 million according to the CIA World Factbook.
Of course, the underlying premise is the usual BNP tactic of screaming ‘that Turk is a MUSLIM!!!!’ which is not legitimate. It also reminds me of the fact that some of them talk about ‘Mohammedians’ and ‘Mussulmen’ because Muslim is a MUSLIM WORD!?! It’d be funny if it weren’t so tragic.
Liberals object to Islam because it is illiberal. The British Nazi Party objects to Islam because most of the people who adhere to it have dark skins. That’s the crucial difference.
Mark,
To suggest that the BNP’s big mistake is to round up from 76.8M to 80M is ridiculous. To then quibble about who is low-waged and who is below or above working age (NB, emigrating families do usually bring their kids with them!) just makes it more ridiculous.
If we argue in this cack-handed way, the BNP will win, unjustly. We should point out that the BNP’s figures are crazy scaremongering. A nation of 80M people aren’t all going to emigrate, leaving their home country as an empty desert!
It doesn’t end there, though. People know perfectly well that this country recently had a much bigger influx of Poles than anyone expected, when it was first permitted. People are entitled to ask us whether we would or would not support doing the same again, if we had the chance again. Do we in fact have a clear policy on this? We should.
David: I agree it would be ridiculous to “suggest that the BNP’s big mistake is to round up from 76.8M to 80M is ridiculous”. But I didn’t say that in my post. I started with the 75/80m figure and then went on to say that the error was much more than that and briefly gave a reason why. I also, at the start of the post, made clear that even this much bigger figure is by no means the only thing to criticise in the BNP literature.
As for children etc, the BNP are making claims about 80 million “low-wage Muslim Turks”. That’s a wording that excludes children. (Imagine if I said “there are two low-waged people living in the house next to you”. That wouldn’t be taken to mean it might be one adult and one three year old child.)
There are several tens of millions fewer “low-wage Muslim Turks” than the BNP claim. I agree that’s not the only thing wrong with the BNP by any means, or indeed the only thing wrong with their comments about possible Turkish immigration. But I do think one good ground for attacking them is to highlight where they’ve made up figures about foreigners as that helps paint the overall picture of them as being racist and frequently dishonest (a picture I think we both agree on.)
Adrian: I would draw a parallel with ID cards. There are both principled and pragmatic reasons to be against them. Although principled arguments are often those that appeal most to keen opponents, in order to persuade other people pragmatic arguments are often the best to use. They open the door to changing minds, and to persuading people of the principled arguments in due course.
Similarly for the BNP. I think a mix of arguments works best, and in some cases undermining the BNP’s claim to be the one party that honestly tells things as they are is important. For others, certainly, other arguments work best. But just because an argument isn’t the most important reason to you or me doesn’t mean it may not be the best to use with others. Calling them out for made up statistics I think is one of these.
Even if all their numbers were true, I would still have a barrel load of reasons to dislike them. But for some people I’ve come across who are BNP supporters or possibly supporters, made-up numbers are a good starting point to persuade them not to vote BNP.
Mark
If you want to respond to a racist statement like the one you quoted by quibbling about numbers, that’s your decision.
I think that approach is absolutely misguided, because if you object to the numbers and don’t object to the racism, then people will quite naturally conclude that it’s the numbers you disagree with, and not the racism.
But when you respond to people who criticise your approach – as have most of the contributors to this thread – by trying to characterise them as “defending” the BNP when, as you have admitted, you know very well they have no sympathy with the BNP at all, that is worse than misguided. It’s completely dishonest.
The worst thing about it is that you are the one who is, in fact, adding weight to the BNP’s argument, by debating the arithmetic and letting the racism go unchallenged.
Whew! Only 75 million, what a relief.
Er…, no. Far less than that.
Griffin actually said: 80 million Turks would have the right to come here.
Correct?
If only 1 million take up this offer….I trust our good “liberals” will find room for them in their houses. Or shall we give up more greenbelt land to accommodate them and to satisfy the “liberal” conscience.