The BBC’s Danny Shaw on Victoria Derbyshire’s show (1 hr 37 mins) did a piece on Theresa May’s immigration speech….his report was pretty balanced and even managed to put Labour in the frame for their immgration policy…although he did say he would be checking the figures given by May and their sources…usual BBC….Tory says something , must be suspect…..unlike Mark Easton who never checked Labour’s figures and defended them like his pension depended upon it.
What was surprising was Shaw’s reaction to May making the connection between housing problems and immigration……He said…
‘She also referred to something I hadn’t heard before…she said immigration had actually increased housing demand in Britain….1/3 of new housing being built for immigrants and housing might be 10% cheaper if it were not for this extra demand.’
He’s got to be kidding right? He’d never made a link between housing shortages and mass immigration? He must listen to the BBC for his news….it is rare to never when the BBC makes that connection…..how many ‘debates’ on housing shortages and the need to build more houses for the mysteriously growing population have avoided any mention at all of immigrants on the BBC? Many many many.
Still…maybe this report is the start of a new open and honest attempt to bring us the news as it is not as the BBC would like you to hear it.
Danny Shaw @DannyShawBBC Theresa May: house prices could be ten per cent lower over 20 year period without demand caused by mass #immigration
At 265 and expiring (h/t:JD), excuse me while I ignore the topic…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-inquiry/9740252/Key-David-Cameron-aide-Craig-Oliver-threatens-Telegraph-over-Leveson.html
Me, I’m looking at who you can take out of the BBC, but not take the BBC from their cold dead, state-meddling, free-speech crushing souls…
‘ The current Director of Communications for British Prime Minister David Cameron.[Previously, he was Controller of English news output for BBC Global News, responsible for commissioning the news content for the Corporation’s English language Global services, including the BBC World Service, BBC World News and BBC News Online.
Something some may have heard of before.
Indictment of the European political class for ignoring democracy, disregarding political realism and betraying the common people in pursuit of fantasies about a borderless civilisation based on human rights.
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2245/is_mass_immigration_a_denial_of_political_realism_/page/2
or if you want to start on page 1 (!)
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2245/is_mass_immigration_a_denial_of_political_realism
The BBC is as much to blame for the tsunami of immigration as Liebour. They have brainwashed through willful obfuscation and have closed down debate on any issue that undermines the multicultural swindle. They are, simply put, an utter disgrace to this nation.
The most blood-boiling aspect to the BBC is their constant use of left-wing buffoons and commentators for the radio/TV debate phone ins; they come on air and spout the usual lefty crap like ‘oh, but we are all immigrants, the British are too lazy to do the work and Muslims are more proud to be British than natives…’ etc etc. I AM SICK of utterly useless clowns like Vine/Campbell etc only allowing pro-multiculturalist tamborine tappers to get all the phone ins. We never hear any strong opposing views… Today we had some limp-wristed grinning buffoon almost having an orgasm on BBC 24 over the ‘joys and wonder’ of ethnic enrichment. My TV was very close to getting the ol’ Keith Moon treatment. Don’t these blubbering balloon heads know what they are doing? They’ll be the first to find out what the sharp side of a kebab knife will feel like when the excrement hits the fan. This country is finished and I hold the BBC and Liebour personally responsible.
The BBC started the “debate” on immigration with Blue Mink’s song
Take a pinch of white man
Wrap him up in black skin
Add a touch of blue blood
And a little bitty bit of Red Indian boy..
As you say, the bBBC never tells us the truth, but Planning Minister Nick Boles said, just two weeks ago, that 43 percent of new housing (100,000 houses a year) was needed just to cope with immigrants.
Paul Mason @paulmasonnews
On “Brixit” British exit from EU debate. There is no big, peer-reviewed, uncontested modelling of the economic impact of leaving.
This is, of course, the man who described a cautious approach to getting into bed with a flea-ridden dog, lauded by most in the country, as ‘the UK throwing its toys out the pram’.
That the BBC CECUTT has yet to explain what he meant by that after almost a year suggests that bricking it is more within their midden.
‘Peer reviewed’. A term little understood and so abused by the BBC and its cohorts at global warming fantasy central, even Jimmy Savile could have been peer reviewed.
Everybody knows that the current housing shortage is a direct result of Fatcher’s ‘Right to Buy’ policy for council houses in the 1980’s.
Aren’t there a lot of large houses in Hampstead owned by compassionate left-wing media types who commute to Salford? The owners could surely let their spare rooms to third world global warming victims, limbless Palestinians, etc. A bit of cultural diversity would improve the area no end, and of course local house prices would drop overnight, enabling many more Taliban, Roma, child bride matchmakers, ganja distributors, etc to move in.
A fine and noble sentiment, Ian. I feel culturally enriched already.
Meanwhile, on another thread, Jim Dandy apologises, as a lefty, for foisting multiculturalsim on us all.
Cheers, Jim! Good to know democracy isn’t dead (just terminally ill).
Correction I apologised to you personally for mass immigration
I feel so honoured – cheers, mate, but that does imply you had some influence on the matter. How was that?
So who do you think should apologise to the wider population for sidestepping the democratic requirement for the multiculturalism/mass immigration policy adopted circa 1997?
And by the way, at the last election immigration was top of voters’ concerns – around the 70% mark.
Thanks Johnny. Hope you managed to scrape the enrichment off on the doorstep.
Absolutely staggering that BBC reporter Danny Shaw is so surprised to find there is a housing supply and demand issue because of many millions of extra people living in the UK within one decade.
Really, unbelievable that an educated, highly paid reporter working for our National broadcaster is unable to automatically work out, as a matter of course, that around a 7% officially declared population increase, (never mind the vast number of illegals on top), might mean an extra 7% housing will be required.
Even with my South Notts School Leaving certificate in metalwork I can work that one out!
Perhaps he thinks there is a magic accommodation tree like the last Government thought there is a magic money tree?
I do so despair that I have to pay an annual subscription to be fed such nonsense sometimes!
Heard Easton on the BBC rolling news around 4,30 yesterday almost pleading the case for the alarming figures of non British born poulation not being a cause for concern and absolutely no mention of Labour’s admitted “open door” policy. I sit there with my blood boiling looking at his smug socialist face while thinking that I’m actually paying his inflated wages. Just noticed also on the BBC news website today that the dramatic decrease in unemplyment figures is but a footnote at the bottom of the list of articles, Shameful, treacherous and almost treasonous.
Well, knock me darn wiv’ a fevva…
A Beeboid is banging on about cuts.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20681485?postId=114643572#comment_114643572
Look the BBC employ Marxist economists, so they have no concept of supply and demand.
Ignorance is strength.
Nonsense. I supply when Labour politicians demand. How else do you think I got my job?
“something I hadn’t heard before…”
Presume he doesnt watch BBCs flag ship news program Newsnight,but as he reports for Radio 5, guess Newsround is more his thing
They must really pull out all the stops now to keep the immigration show on the road. By “They ” I mean the usual suspects.
I would , for once, really like to hear somebody ask the obvious questions that these figures suggest need answering.
Let us take the decine in London’s white British population of close on 15 % in 10 years. Now this is a staggering figure.
Let us ask the questions.
What is the demographic of this group?
Where have they gone?
Why have they gone.?
Are these questions asked? Not on your life.
To quote a famous movie line
“The question is not indiscreet but the answer might be”
Absolutely anybody concerned with the future of this country might find this question to be really important Our liberal commentators, by nature unable to face reality, would rather scream abuse at a questioner than actually have to engage in honest debate.
This is just one of the questions that need answering.
Honest debate was buried a long time ago – at least 15 years. The empty grave next to it has been reserved for democracy, believed to be gravely ill.
The note of triumphalism from the Left on the census figures is understandable – their key aim is, after all, to break down the western culture and its economies by foul means or fair asap on the road to creating a non-elected eco-socialist world government.
Look no further than EU policies, UN Agenda 21 and the mitigating actions for ‘climate change’ contained in the IPCC report to see the agenda is not particularly hidden any more – to quote Barroso in his acceptance speech for the surreal Nobel Peace Prize ‘(the EU) is only a stage on the way to the organised world of the future’.
If that doesn’t make your flesh creep, nothing will.
Anyone the least surprised by the appalling immigration figures must have been living in an igloo for the past fifteen years. Labour deliberately, knowingly and treacherously altered our once beautiful country for cheap political gain. Parts of our capital city no longer resemble England at all. If you don’t believe me and you’re feeling brave take a look at the east end, though I would strongly advise you don’t go after dark. Trust me it’s nothing like Eastenders!
Some comments
Firstly this is a willful disregard by the BBC. There is no way they will touch this issue as it runs contrary to the narrative. Anyway, the BBC doesn’t seem to be able to put its’ finger on when the population surge started. It looks to me like it all started in 1997, and ran and is still running, like an express train ever since.
The Census data is likely to vastly under represent certain population groups – such as ileagal immigrants (if that concept still exists)
The preferred measure is ‘net’ immigration at 260K PA, and is used by govt and BBC alike – the figures aren’t quite as scary if they are ‘net”. However there is seldom or never a mention of the critically important gross immigration rate which is closer to 560K PA -and there is no analysis of who the emigrants are and where they are going to. My fag packet tells me that there is currently a UK population ‘churn rate’ of approx 1% PA
No one at the BBC seems to be consider it worth discussing in a bit more depth the implications of the “UK” (whilst it still is!) population reaching 73.2 million in 2035. That means a population growth of 14.5 million New Britons since 1997. Growth of nearly 25% in one generation. That is quite a lot.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/npp/national-population-projections/2010-based-projections/sum-2010-based-national-population-projections.html
So BBC, surprising as it may seem, it’s not just housing; it is everything. Everything necessary for human life, from sanitary towels to coffins via cheese graters and chlorine for tap water treatment.
How many of that 25% will have car, go to schools, use electricity, commit crime and get imprisoned, flush toilets, go to the doctor because they have pre-existing TB, use a train, eat fresh vegetables, use the internet, go to the supermarket, brush their teeth…….etc. Perhaps the BBC could explore systematically how the state provided elements will be queued up and on line for this level of population. I want to know if there will be enough windmills and community cohesion co-ordinators to meet demand.
And of course it is not just an issue for the future, not that the causes of current issues are analysed by the BBC – I wonder if the BBC will ever notice the pachyderm in their Islington salon – have they ever speculated on the reason why you have to stand on trains now when you used to be able to get a seat, despite large increases in capacity over the last 20 years – could it be that there are 5 million more people in London than there were ten years ago?
The upshot of all of my no doubt reactionary ‘daily mail counsel of despair’ is that I am certain that we will have to pay much, much, more for much less of everything and live in a far more crowded uncomfortable balkanised (literally in some cases) country. We will also find that all those benefits and so called public ‘services’ that we are paying for from current taxation in the great welfare Ponzi swindle will very soon cease to exist. Already the pension age has been shunted up to 68. How long before it becomes means tested – so that if you have a personal pension you won’t get a state pension at all?
Anyway getting back to the BBC – I Can’t remember the BBC even asking anyone if theses issues have been considered. Has the BBC ever asked anyone when the British public gave an electoral mandate to the policy of mass immigration? I can’t.
Over to you friends on the left to find the article that examines water supply issues associated with huge unplanned population change that shows that I am raving and that the BBC really has identified the 25% growth of the UK population as a fundamental social, economic, political and demographic challenge and that they have covered it closely in every single one of its platforms in the same was as climate change.
(Jim, Prole, et al – just for clarity I enjoy your comments and I please keep them coming as they give this site a bit of light and space and stops it being an echo chamber)
Important points . Another of those unasked questions is the compostion of the emigrants. Who are they? Where are they going and why? I would really like to know.
By the way I remember a time when the so called progressives were all in favour of reducing the population to spare the Earth etc etc.
Whatever happened to that way of looking at the world?
Dave I think their still keen on reducing world population but by reducing one ethnic group only
At least thats the way it seems
Ahhh, just realised why foreign aid keeps going up. To breed more future immigrants.
Yes if the aid does nothing else it gives a lot more of them the cash to pay the people smugglers to get them here!
You don’t really believe any of the aid gets into the hands of putative immigrants do you?
The buck stops well before that type sees a sniff of it.
True, over 90% of the money we get from DFID and donations is needed for administrative costs – lawyers, kickbacks to ministers, etc. But we do ask third world dictators to spend a bit on their snivelling brats – how else could we get the PR shots?
Highly recomend
A Nation of Immigrants? A Brief Demographic History of Britain by David Conway
does what it says on the tin: number crunching
immigration for the last 2000years
Can be got for a few quid off well know tax-dodging internet book seller.
Labour and immigration: facts and figures (note the tripling of immigrants within a year of Blair being elected):
Click to access MWK001-Migration-UK-report_Print.pdf
Just wait for the Romanian surge next year when they can access all social security benefits. The government says 25,000 have arrived to date but they have issued them with 100,000 national insurance numbers so there is something wrong somewhere.
Oh yes, the 25,000 appear in the target figures, the 100k don’t.
Mark Easton get out of your padded and well pensioned armchair and investigate.
Jim Dandy, of course, will feel culturally enriched by this democratically-approved EU move, presumably because he can afford to be a socialist and not have to worry about his job or his place in the NHS queue being taken by one of the many millions who have swamped the infrastructure of this country in such a short space of time.
(Still waiting for an answer to the Leicester City/Bradford question, Jim.)
Soon he will have to enjoy the enrichment from the safety of a gated community.
Whoops, forgot to change my name back.
‘….something I hadn’t heard before….’
Meanwhile, Ali Bongo’s Ol’ Snackbar! Something I have heard before…BBC 1 and the 10 o’clock News with a lengthy lead report on the Syrian Civil War.
Frankly, nothing I didn’t know or could not have guessed. So why is this at the top of the popular news? Putting this on Newsnight I could understand. What is the BBC agenda here? Seems to me we are winding up for a ‘something must be done’.
I noticed that last night too, top bulletin, on the hour, every hour….Syria.
Hang on a sec, correct me if I am wrong, but this is the UK, and it crosses my mind that some dusty, desert sh*thole, is none of our business.
Guess the beeb are a little peeved that the Syria conflict aint quite as springy as “The Arab Spring” ™ BBC
Up next: ‘Immigration Could Be To Blame For UK’s Unemployment Problem’ shocker.
So bbc journalist gives balanced report and says he will check some Government figures.
Fine so far.
Then what he seems to be saying is that the data May gives is new to him rather than the link between immigration and housing demand.
That’s fine.
Certainly the bbc have reported this link before. See Here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14715173
So while it’s nice to have someone posting at last, I fear this one can’t go towards debilitating the indefensible.
Certainly the bbc have reported this link before seems to be the usual weasel-words straight out of the ‘we got it about right’ bBBC bubble. In the article cited, 1,300 words are devoted to whingeing about banks, house-builders, lack of council houses (with the obligatory bBBC mention of Mrs Thatcher, of course), buy-to-let capitalists, and just one sentence mentions immigration. (Meanwhile, the UK population grew by 2.1 million to 61.8 million between 2001 and 2009, driven up by a more births than deaths and more immigration.)
No more than that. Just the usual bBBC poor quality of analysis and reporting, to their usual left-wing agenda.
I’m guessing Danny Shaw was referring to the 10% claim.
Danny Shaw is excellent.
In one of his reports he once openly attacked the Guardian for irresponsible reporting over that Tottenham drug dealer.
So, he’s not long for the BBC then?
Lucky we have a Tory (sic) government otherwise he’d probably have a ‘heart attack whilst ‘walking in the countryside’, like so many others critical of the project.