Migrationwatch Watch

In a spot on 'Health tourism', Rachel Burden's Radio 5 live show http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/programmes/burden.shtml featured Sir Andrew Green as its sole studio guest expert yesterday morning. The discussion focused upon the government's 'discussion' of options for potentially restricting refused asylum seekers and 'illegal immigrants' access to primary health care services. The proposed measures would affect the right to register with a GP and be treated free at the point of delivery other than in the area of emergency health care. Refused asylum seekers are already denied access to secondary health care services, so these proposals would further extend restrictive measures on the health care available to them.


Presumably in order to 'balance' the views of Sir Andrew Green, the discussion also included Jill Rutter, who was identified as representing the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR). Gill Rutter put in a impressive performance to counter and refocus attention from the slick and super media savvy arguments of Green. But whilst he spoke from the studio, Jill Rutter's contribution, by contrast, was delivered via a (slightly crackly) phone line. At the very least it seemed to me, this placed her at a distinct disadvantage in terms of conveying her status as a credible 'expert'. Speaking from a microphone in the studio during a radio phone in attributes the 'invited guest expert' a privileged position, clearly setting them apart from the 'listener contributor'. In addition, a studio guest could also benefit from their physical presence in the studio - establishing a rapport with the presenter perhaps, and possibly using visual cues to their advantage as a guide for timely interventions. Indeed, at one stage, this disadvantage seemed to be signalled when the host, Rachel Burden even voiced her uncertainty about whether or not Jill Rutter was 'still there'.

Equally as concerning however in this programme, was the seemingly unquestioned acceptance of Sir Andrew Green's Migrationwatch as an appropriate organisation to speak on these issues (and indeed the unquestioned acceptance that Migrationwatch is actually an 'organisation' as such, rather than essentially consisting of Andrew Green). There was no real attempt to explain to listeners why this particular individual deserved such a privileged public platform, nor why he might represent a good choice as a voice of authority on the topic. It is not that I would wish to silence Andrew Green or necessarily seek to entirely prevent his point of view from being heard in the media. However, I do think it is important that a convincing justification be provided by broadcasters for the inclusion of his perspective in particular, and the extent to which attention is paid to it. It would also be useful if something of the political background and the nature of such pressure groups were to be clearly stated (e.g., in this case that Migrationwatch is essentially a one man show, and as such is by no means the equivalent in terms of political credibility and legitimacy of a think tank such as the IPPR). At least then listeners may be provided with a more informed context through which to engage with the 'expert' arguments that are advanced.

All a bit disappointing on a Sunday morning really, but on the bright side, one strong voice (albeit over crackly lines) was at least there to challenge the beguilingly packaged bile and circumscribed terms of the debate as articulated by Green this time. I'm tempted to begin a Migrationwatch Watch series of posts, but perhaps this would be to attribute further unwarranted attention to an already infuriatingly over-exposed source. Views on this question would be very welcome!