Umm… How exactly? I speculated (with tongue firmly planted in cheek) that Spiked may be a Cato front. The position put forth in the referenced article is not in any way anti-immigration (quite the contrary).

Did you actually read either the post these comments are attached to, or the article to which they refer?

You seem to be suggesting that Cato is some sort of an anti-immigration organisation.

This is not true.

The Independent can publish Johann Hari alongside Dominic Lawson. The Daily Mail can admit climate change even as their columnists deny it (indeed, until recently their Science Editor Mike Hanlon was a denialist, which is kind of like having a sports editor who says Chelsea got relegated).

The thing that surprises me is that they would employ such a fuckin dreadful journalist. Time and again he makes the, ahem, ‘facts’ of the story fit his ideology.

In this particular case he’s either done absolute no research whatsoever, or has ignored it all because it completely contradicts the point he wants to be true.

Whatever his politics, as an employer of serious journalists The Guardian embarrass themselves by having him on board.

“Strip away the trendy gloss, and environmentalism increasingly looks like an expression of middle-class outrage against the masses and our dirty habits.”

I find it odd that anyone pays attention to this kind of stuff and so little attention is paid to those who try to square sustainability with dealing with poverty.

Yeah, ‘cos supporting decent healthcare, family planning services, education, and economic conditions that don’t make a large family essential for survival, is totally misanthropic. What women really want is to be squeezing out dozens of kids until they die from infected fistulas.

I also guess that O’Neill also believes there was absolutely no immigration before the advent of cheap, mass air travel…

Are we sure they’re not a AEI/Cato front organisation?