MORE DOG WHISTLES

*
Paddy O'Connell, and his election pundits on Broadcasting House - Peter Hennessy and Anthony Howard - looked back into the archive to examine a couple of examples of what Paddy called 'covert or overt racism' in previous elections. Cue Enoch Powell's Rivers of Blood speech (to a conservative political meeting, we were told) and Patrick Gordon Walker, the Labour MP defeated by the Conservatives after a racist campaign in Smethick in 1964. Prof Hennessy thinks 'dog whistle' politics has taken the place of 'overt racism'.
*
Another dog whistle may have been blown here.

MARK EASTON TO THE RESCUE!

*
Not a sheep notes the latest twist in the BBC's reporting of Gordon Brown's fiddling of statistics - or should that be their 'downplaying' of the story?
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/03/prime-minister-misleads-public-again.html
*
In my post on the early stages of this story (on Saturday) I sneaked in a sly dig at the BBC's home affairs editor Mark Easton, who always seems happier attacking the Tories over their use of statistics than he does Labour http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/03/brown-fiddles-figures-bbc-fiddles-story.html.
*
Well, he's actually blogged about the rap over the knuckles for Brown (over his use of migration statistics) by the wonderfully-named Sir Michael Scholar of the UK Statistics Authority. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/03/the_war_of_numbers_revisited.html *
His post though is little more than a damage limitation exercise on behalf of the Labour Party.
*
By as early as his second paragraph Easton has sneaked in a sly dig at Chris Grayling

Two days ago, Chris Grayling, shadow home secretary and the man Sir Michael ticked off earlier this month for his use of crime stats..

This, of course, 'reminds' his readers that the Tories are at least as dodgy as Labour with their use of statistics, ignoring Labour's serial abuse of statistics - on knife crime (on which Easton himself reported) and defence spending being only the most famous recent examples.
*
What has Easton to say of Brown's 'mistake'? After saying that the other stats Brown used in his podcast are 'fine', he calls it 'problematic'. Well, that's a kind way of putting it!
*
Brown's restatement of the figures yesterday is described as 'proper' before Easton adds "It might be convoluted, even a bit dull. But it is statistically sound and Sir Michael give the PM credit in his letter".
*
He then moves on to say that Brown was right all along anyhow:

I suspect Gordon Brown didn't mind spelling out the statistics in all their complexity. It was a sly dig at those who chose to alert the UKSA to his original slip by producing data that make a similar point.

So there, Chris Grayling and Sir Andrew Green!
*

DID YOU FORGET SOMETHING BEN?

*
On tonight's PM Ben Wright reported on immigration and the coming election. His piece on the BBC News website shadows it closely, but not exactly. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8537786.stm
*
There has been much criticism on the Biased BBC website of Evan Davis's BBC1 programme on immigration, with comments saying that it concentrated almost exclusively on Eastern European migration rather than the far trickier topic of non-EU immigration. Is this indeed the BBC's general strategy?
*
Well, here's an extract from the BBC website version of Ben's report:

Jo Twyman, from the polling organisation YouGov, said: "There are opportunities for minor parties such as the BNP and UKIP.

"It could be important in a marginal seat but it depends on the very specific make-up of that seat.

"If it's a seat that has suffered badly in the credit crunch then again that's something - that if it's linked in with immigration - that could be important."

Compare that to what Mr Twyman actually said on PM:

"There are opportunities for minor parties such as the BNP and UKIP.

"It could be important in a marginal seat but it depends on the very specific make-up of that seat.

"If there's a high ethnic minority population then that may be something to play on. Alternatively, if it's a seat that has suffered badly in the credit crunch then again that's something - that if it's linked in with immigration - that could be important."

Spot the difference!!

AN EVAN-HANDED PROGRAMME?

*
Evan Davis will be on BBC1 tonight with a programme about immigration. The programme was previewed on this morning's Today by the man himself, and two guests. One was free-thinking Labour MP Frank Field, the other was Labour-supporting economist and keen advocate of economic migration Philippe Legrain of the L.S.E. (of course).

As well as praising Labour's record on the issue during the last thirteen years (and having a dig at the Tories) - and bashing the bankers for good measure - Mr Legrain, author of Immigrants, Your Country Needs Them, praised Evan's documentary: "I thought the programme was excellent." He continued, "It was balanced", but in what he went on to say he seems to have been using the word 'balanced' to mean 'supportive of my position': "It presented material that contradicted many of the scare stories and prejudice about immigration and I thought your conclusion, which is that Britain wouldn't be able to cope easily without its foreign workers, was just right."

Mr Field immediately picked Evan up on his figures, saying that the presenter's statement that "hundreds of thousands of motivated foreign workers" had come to work in Britain was a severe underestimate: "I mean it's not, as you suggested, hundred of thousands, it's been millions coming in."

NEATHER THE TWAIN SHALL MEET? OH YES THEY WILL!

*
According to an article on the BBC News website by David Goodhart of the centre-left Prospect magazine (based on his Analysis broadcast, 8/2) the extraordinary levels of immigration in the earlier years of this Labour government came about mostly by accident:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8494275.stm
*
You will doubtless recall the comments of former Labour advisor Andrew Neather, who let the cat out of the bag last year when he said that mass immigration was engineered by Labour to rub the Conservatives' nose in diversity - i.e. that it was no accident. They were dismissed by Labour and downplayed by the BBC (after being ignored for days). Now, thanks to Migration Watch's efforts and a Freedom of Information Request, a draft cabinet paper has been released that confirms what Mr Neather said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249797/Labour-threw-open-doors-mass-migration-secret-plot-make-multicultural-UK.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1249823/SIR-ANDREW-GREEN-Paying-price-decade-deception-Migrationwatch.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/7198329/Labours-secret-plan-to-lure-migrants.html
*
There's nothing yet on the BBC News website about this scandal. Will there by later today?
*
Not a sheep has more detail on this exasperating story:
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/02/correct-that-government-has-both.html
*
************UPDATE: THERE'S NO UPDATE***
*
Needless to say, having come home from work and re-checked the BBC News website, this story is still missing-in-action. It will stay missing-in-action unless it grows too big for even the BBC to ignore. The BBC will be the last to report it.
*
Here are some more rewarding articles on this story:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-1250096/Using-immigration-turn-Britain-nation-Labour-voters-shameful-I-hardly-believe-it.html
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/normantebbit/100025676/immigration-and-labour-voters-the-most-cynical-act-of-vote-rigging-in-our-history/

JO'S NOT FOR 'SWAMPING'

*
George Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, made some remarks about immigration this week (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8442662.stm). They were discussed on today's The Daily Politics by presenter Jo Coburn, Fraser Nelson of The Spectator and Kevin Maguire of The Daily Mirror. Fraser Nelson thought Carey's remarks were brilliant, while Kevin Maguire was much less keen. Least keen of all was Jo Coburn, and she couldn't hide her disapproval.
*
"I suppose one of the other points was this idea Lord Carey said, immigrants should have an understanding of the country's Christian heritage", she began. I'm sure many viewers thought "And quite right too!" - indeed, surely everyone who lives in the United Kingdom should know about its history (regardless of their own religious beliefs, or lack of them), just as anyone who emigrates to Morocco or Pakistan should have an understanding of their Muslim heritage. An uncontroversial idea then? Well, not according to Jo Coburn: "I mean that was quite a controversial thing to say" - and the way she said 'quite' suggests she really thought it was a 'very' controversial thing to say, and not in a good way.
*
When Fraser said that, in order to beat back the BNP, "we need more people to be saying that in mainstream politics", Jo (whose expression strongly suggested disagreement) interrupted, and asked Kevin Maguire "Is it? I mean, is it helpful to say something like that?".
*
Maguire brought up all the politicians - from Mrs Thatcher to David Blunkett - who'd used the BBC's bogey-word 'swamped'. Fraser Nelson seized on this to further his argument: "That's the only reason the BNP have got almost a million votes in this country, because people won't say words like 'swamped' now in the way that Thatcher did in the 1970s" (when she successfully beat back the National Front.) Jo Coburn did not look pleased at all, swinging the conversation back to Maguire with "But that is inflammatory language, isn't it? It's not the sort of thing you expect to hear from politicians, and should it be?" Maguire agreed.
*