There is a dearth of practical proposals for how the UK should balance immigration levels with social cohesion, job creation and economic stability. Indeed the debate is further compromised by the selective use of published statistics and / or the avoidance of fact in favour of exaggeration and half truth. A recent substack post by British commentator and former academic Matt Goodwin provides a useful example of this.

In a long and wide ranging post he claims that the elites have become radical whereas his views are moderate. He also outlines his objections to immigration providing little in the way of constructive solutions to remedy his list of ills. In the first instance he states (of immigration) that “research shows it creates low-trust societies that are more divided, polarised, segregated, less supportive of welfare, and more violent.” The only “research” Goodwin provides for this particular claim is a link to a tweet made a few days earlier when he wrote, “Sweden used to be one of the safest places to live in the world. Wonder what happened.” He includes the following graph of victims of homicide by firearms in European nations whereby Sweden places second highest.

It’s public knowledge that Sweden has been grappling with a spike in gangland crime which police say is concentrated in disadvantaged areas. However when we examine the statistics which include all homicides (not just gun deaths) we gain a wider insight. These UN figures are presented in digestible format on this wikipedia page where the source database is also linked. I’ve included a screen grab of figures for the Northern European nations below which presents a different picture.

When all intentional homicides are factored in (and not just gun deaths as Goodwin highlighted) Sweden comes out looking fairly average, or by a slight measure safer than England and Wales. Suffice to say that the reasons for the homicide rate vary by country but in truth Goodwin’s only motivation is to perpetuate the oft repeated claim that Swedish society is imploding for one reason. Immigration. Goodwin wants to sow the seeds of fear that the same could happen to the UK.

Goodwin often references his own articles as if to provide objective proof of claims he makes. He also asserts that state policy “encourages different ethnic and religious groups to live separate ‘parallel lives’, rather than integrate into a wider, shared community”. Surely he is aware that the clustering of certain ethnic groups has happened for generations? Think of Irish, Jewish and Italian immigrants who lived in pockets across the UK. The immigrants arriving in the modern era often chose to live close to friends and relations, where they can speak their native language and practice their religion. It’s a clear misrepresentation by Goodwin to say these trends represent official policy. It’s equally instructive to note that Goodwin has no suggestions for how he would approach the issue or exactly what we would gain from forcing changes to where people choose to live and who they associate with.

No article on reasons to fear immigrants is complete without a reference (or two in Goodwin’s article) to the existence of grooming gangs in the UK. Policing failures are widely acknowledged and a specialised unit has been established to target such gangs. What is never referenced by anti-immigration campaigners is that the Home Office commissioned a study of the available data in 2020. They stated that “group-based child sexual exploitation offenders are most commonly white” and that “no one community or culture is uniquely predisposed to offending”. You’ll never hear Goodwin refer to the conviction of a group of white men, and a woman, for abusing 30 children in Cornwall. Goodwin also reveals that he is concerned that Muslims don’t respect the rule of law but provides little in the way of objective fact to prove the assertion. On a positive and wider note the overall levels of crime across the UK are lower than they were 20 years ago. Goodwin has no suggestions as to how we can further improve policing to protect the public or reduce crime other than putting repeat offenders in prison which already commonly happens.

Goodwin claims that the radical elites and woke mainstream media want to censor and silence free speech. The success of Nigel Farage MP shows how little censoring happened in the last 30 years. Goodwin also points to the dangers of Islamic extremism in the UK as if it’s a taboo subject – it’s not. MI5 say that “Islamist terrorism is the most significant terrorist threat to the UK by volume.” What I can agree with Goodwin is that immigration has reached record levels and political parties are certainly guilty of breaking promises to reduce it. But here’s the crux:

Listing complaints and claiming that there’s a conspiracy orchestrated by a radical elite is easier than trying to balance the competing demands of a modern economy. What you won’t find anywhere in Goodwin’s article are ideas about how to solve the myriad challenges that would arise once a reduction in immigration might happen. There is no admission that immigrants are expanding the workforce, paying taxes and filling job vacancies in critical sectors like health and education. There is no admission that a reduced flow of migrants would according to the Office for Budgetary Responsibility increase borrowing and debt levels in the UK. The UK economy was struggling long before Brexit but an inspiring vision for a prosperous and vibrant economy will need more than platitudes about immigration. These are complex questions and Goodwin has little more than soundbite and clichés to offer.