A Peerage to far.

It is strange that there appears to be silence from the media od the news and most political parties over Sir Andrew Green, a leading opponent of  immigration to Britain, is to become a peer.

David Cameron personally nominated the chairman of MigrationWatch for a seat in the House of Lords as a crossbencher for his public service as a former diplomat and for

Sir Andrew is a regular commentator on immigration and asylum matters in the British media. He is frequently quoted or interviewed and writes numerous articles for the major daily newspapers including right-of-centre newspapers such as theDaily Mail, Daily Telegraph, Daily Express and Daily Star.^[12] He has also written for The Times^[14] and for guardian.co.uk,^] A 2005 Demos publication states that Andrew Green was quoted on the topic of asylum at least once a week in the Daily Express and Daily Star, starting from early 2003. Green also featured prominently in the BBC's "asylum day" coverage of the topic in 2003.
In October 2011, Andrew Green started a petition on the UK government's e-petitions website, calling on the government "to take all necessary steps to get immigration down to a level that will stabilise our population as close to the present level as possible and, certainly, well below 70 million".^[When the petition closed on 20 October 2012, it had attracted 145,536 signatures.

Its perhaps points to the nature of UK politics that if Migration Watch was led by ordinary member of the public it would have met greater opposition but because Green comes from the same class of public school educated elite as Cameron he is treated differently

Migration Watch are also clever in thier choice of name  rather than call them selves Immigration Watch which would be more accurate but would lead to accusation of racism and maybe greater annalysis.


Bernhard Gross, Kerry Moore and Terry Threadgold of the Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies at Cardiff University have criticised the broadcast media's use of MigrationWatch to 'balance' reports on immigration. In a study of broadcast coverage of the issue of asylum, they state:

It is clear from our interviews with broadcast journalists that taking 'too soft a left, liberal' approach to asylum is seen as contradicting everything they believe about the values of objectivity and impartiality. This explains why one television editor told us that "perhaps the Mail and the Express had got it right". This anxiety about taking a position seen to be supportive of asylum seems to produce an over-compensation in terms of using easily accessible right-wing sources such as MigrationWatch UK as a 'balance'. The whole idea of 'balance' in these contexts needs to be re-thought and re-imagined. There are never just two sides to any story and two negative sides do not add up to ‘balance’. Journalists do not seem at present to know where else to go with this issue.

It is remenisive of the treatment of Farage and Ukip  as compared with Nick Griffin and the BNP.
One is treated with respect even fawned over whilst the later is rightly treated with derision.

The appointment of Green to the  already overcrowded Second Chamber is a Pathetic attempt by Cameron to appear to be tough on Immigration and stop the advance of Ukip.

The whole idea that  some one should be given a peerage for  "his role in the immigration debate" when that  role is simply to oppose Immigration masking as opposing "Mass Immigration" is deplorable.

Oh and by the way . Why is opposing Immigration to the UK acceptable whilst expressing concerns about the influx of Non welsh speakers to Y Fro Cymraeg and claiming that it damages the Welsh Language . symtoms of Narrow Welsh Nationlism?