The strange quality about BBC coverage of the Labour Party conference is the way in which 6th May 2010 has become Year Zero. The 13 years of Labour mismanagement of the economy are now being deliberately erased as if they never happened. This, of course, is the only way that Miliband and his cheer-leaders can try and reinvent themselves and even then it is highly dubious if most people will buy the lie. I listened to a remarkable Today interview with Yvette Cooper on the issue of Immigration this morning. Any neutral observer will accept that Labour deliberately pursued an Open Doors policy during their years in power. The traumatic consequences are transgenerational (Not least in some core Labour voting areas) and include such further disturbing facts as 40% of the growth in households between 2001 and 2008 being down to Immigration. But Cooper has no intention of taking any responsibility for this and Naughtie has no intention of interrogating her on it.  Instead, she was allowed to make general blandisments, waffle about points based rules, and then attack the Coalition. It is stunning to see Labour get away with all this revisionism, be it on Immigation, on the Economy, on Employment, on Health, on Education – but then again when we consider that the BBC was an enthusiastic propagandist for all of this societal nihilism, may be should NOT be that surprised?

Bookmark the permalink.


  1. As I See It says:

    One of the defining marks of the ridiculous NuLabour multiculturalists is a tedious obsession with…..race – yes race. You would think that it wouldn’t matter to egalitarians but oh no – its the be all and end all.

    The BBC are showing their true colours again – Mr Campbell is sitting cross-legged on the corner of his desk hosting the scruffy 4th form debate this morning on the subject ‘Does race matter to you?’

    Its a puff for the Beeb’s upcoming ‘Mixed Race Season’

    Just like one of those serial killer movies where the great reveal is the discovery of the secret basement wall plastered with polaroids of the victims, the BBC can’t help but make a show of its bizarre obsessional shrines.


    • Roland Deschain says:

      The other side of the coin is the lengths they will go to NOT to mention race when it raises uncomfortable issues.  The Today interview concentrated on the numbers who came from Poland whilst skirting round the real reason it became more permissible at that time to question immigration.  Namely that Poles are white Europeans and suddenly the race card can’t be used against those who oppose immigration.


  2. George R says:

    For BBC-NUJ-Labour: –  
    a reminder of Labour’s mass immigration policy. 

    “At last we know the truth: Labour despises anyone who loves Britain, its values and its history”  
    By Melanie Phillips (Feb 2010).  
    Read more:


  3. Andrew says:

    Balls, Harman and Cooper remain the drivers of the Labour project.  They are a gift for the harder left because they can do what they do without any sense of shame.  They know it to be lies but press ahead anyway. Nothing moves them from the task

    Harman did it last week during question time with her claim of labour lowering public spending as a percentage of GDP to under 40% whilst omitting that the trend started under Major.  Now we have Balls and Cooper at it.

    They press on regardless understanding the value of it.  When we see this as the byproduct of teachings such as Marcusse and Alinsky it sounds like the sort of stuff that belongs among the tin foil hat brigade but it is very real.  Defector Yuri Bezemenov talked about this “demoralisation” as a key part of Soviet espionage policy to help detach western nations from their heritage in an effort to collapse them from within.

    It doesn’t take everyone to be in on the act, just a few key players.  In reality there probably aren’t that many of them compared to us, but they use willing platforms like the BBC and the Guardian to mimic the Alinsky tactic of creating a sense of size to their army.


  4. DJ says:

    Even talking about ‘immigration’ is conceding too much to the left. There isn’t an ‘immigration’ debate in the sense that people want to stop Brazillian footballers or Indian neurosurgens coming here, what people object to is the de facto open borders policy under which even murderers and terrorists can’t be thrown out. When’s the BBC going to address that instead of pretending that the only two choices are Fortress Britain or open borders?


    • Barry says:

      The BBC will never address it because it would have to accept that it is permissible to discriminate between immigrants on grounds of ability and, frankly, usefulness. Other countries do it; we don’t.  
      When a large proportion of the left can’t even bring themselves to ‘discriminate’ in schools by reintroducing rigour to examinations, there’s no way they would accept this.  
      The two are connected of course. Why aren’t we producing more home-grown neurosurgeons and what is the effect on the Indian health system?


  5. Umbongo says:

    All you write is true and the Naughtie “interview” with Mrs Balls this morning is proof – were it needed – that the BBC is the broadcasting section of the Labour agit-prop department.  However, although Labour are unapologetic about their responsibility for the state of the nation, at least they are an opposition.  They have not succumbed to the Cameroon policy while in nominal opposition of sitting on their hands and trying to become more Blairite than Blair (or in the present circumstances, more Cameroon than Cameron).  
    It’s not so long ago that the genius now in charge of the nation’s finances was promising to “share the proceeds of growth” generated by Labour economic policies.  Further, if there were any serious objections to unlimited third-world immigration very little of it came from official Conservative circles.  Doubtless Labour is crap and its policies are crap but, at least, there’s a (nominal) choice.  OK, when push comes to shove there is no real choice offered, just shades of discredited lefty rubbish, but Labour – mired in its wilful ignorance of how the real world works and spouting nonsense about “good” and “bad” entrepreneurs – is out there putting forward policies favourable to its client vote (benefiterati, public sector employees and non-European immigrants). 

    The Conservatives who, remember, dumped their client vote, barely scraped into office and are willing to indulge the madness of, for instance, Cable and Huhne despite the unlikely scenario of the LibDems forcing an election if the Conservatives actually put forward sensible business or energy policies.  It’ll be interesting to see what they come up with at their conference.  Whatever it is we can expect Today to give it a complete going over.


    • Reed says:

      To be fair, I think Michael Howard made quite an issue of immigration when he was leader of the opposition, but was ravaged from the left by the hounds of political correctness. That’s the way it goes, speak up and be torn to shreds. No wonder there has been such a silence since then. They’ve been very successful so far, but I think the tide is turning slowly. Those hounds are starting to look decidedly mangy. When their tactic switches from offence to defence, we know they’re on the run. Here’s to hoping that the hunter becomes the hunted, preferably to extinction. 


      • Umbongo says:

        True – Howard did make an issue of immigration in 2004 but concentrated, not on the third-world flood, but on abuses of the asylum arrangements.  Also, as you write, he was immediately ravaged by the usual suspects . However, even then it was too late: Labour had started the wholesale import of Labour supporters in 1997 with the abolition of the primary purpose rule to, I think, official Conservative indifference.  Then 7 years and how many immigrants later the Conservatives suggested tinkering at the edges of the problem, were attacked for (almost) blowing the whistle on the scandal and then immediately . . er . . shut up.


  6. john says:

    I missed Cooper being interrogated by Naughtie.
    Was the subject of her ex-dear-leader Brown telling the world and his dog what he classified a certain grandmother as being after his microphone had been left on ?
    Did he follow up by asking Cooper if was really necessary for Brown to have the Jag turned around so he could go back and apologise to the poor woman in her home ?


    • Martin says:

      Remember that Labour slogan so loved by their mates the BNP

      “British jobs for British workers”


      • Roland Deschain says:

        Not a problem if you take the BBC definition of “British”, which is anyone who once stopped over at Heathrow.


  7. Neil Turner says:

    This is very much like the fact that as far as the BBC is concerned, Israel’s history only began in 1967. Thus there was no Bible, no Jewish presence before ’67, “East” Jerusalem (forgetting that Jerusalem was divided by Jordan’s invasion in 1948)

    Same too for Man Made Global Warming. Let’s ignore, downplay, misrepresent anything the Beeb doesn’t like.

    My theory with Secular Humanist organisations like the Beeb (Labour Party, the EU, the Coalition) is that they seek to manage and control the debate, not based on an fair and impartial consideration of all the facts, but by deliberately ignoring truth that does not fit with their world view.

    They don’t report the news, but they do report how the World “should” be. In their opinion.


  8. Millie Tant says:

    From the Daily Telegraph:

    And as for immigration – it was all the fault of the Poles. “I think we underestimated the level of immigration from Poland which had a big effect on people,” said Ed Miliband.

     It is clear that this is the agreed Party line that we are getting from MillipEd and Cooper. That’s their story and they’re sticking to it.


    • DP111 says:

      Yup. They are sticking to it. Poles practice FGM, are violently averse to bacon, violently averse to what they see as the Crusades, practice terrorism, polygamy, and other such wonderful Polish cultural traits.

      No mention of the I or M word.


  9. NRG says:

    In the same way that the years before 1979 were an era of harmony, progress, milk and honey, berore THATCHER! came and destroyed Eden.


  10. David Preiser (USA) says:

    When the News Channel coverage of the conference featured Fraser Nelson for a moment, he was “balanced” out by someone from Left Foot Forward.  Nelson was given a couple minutes to call out Balls for his BS, but the LFF guy was standing right next to him and got to follow up with clear support for Labour.  No other talking head was presented in this manner.  All other talking heads (the boss of the CBI, for example) were there on their own, or with another Labour supporter.


    • Roland Deschain says:

      Was it not noted here last year that during the Labour conference, there were rarely, if ever, Tories invited on to the BBC to comment?

      Whereas during the Conservative conference there were frequent invites to their Labour pals.


  11. jarwill101 says:

      What is also stunning about the New Labour/BBC snow job on the immigration fiasco, is their presumption of the idiocy of the electorate; that we’re going to swallow this nonsense. Well, unluckily for them, millions of scales are falling from millions of eyes. As well as the implication that mass immigration just sort of happened, a bureaucratic blip, rather than a deliberate, full-on policy to impose multiculturalism, without the slightest thought for the cohesion of our society. Heaven knows enough problems in life come unbidden, out of a blue sky, but to pursue  a policy that deliberately imports chaos is criminally irresponsible, & unforgivable.
      (Again, I stress my admiration for those immigrants who do bring great things to this country. They would be welcome additions to any sane nation’s population. With a selective immigration policy they would be just the kind of people who would have gained admission here anyway.)


  12. Martin says:

    Some immigration is good for the Country, the problem with Liebore is they did it for political reasons, they thought that letting millions of people in it would win them more votes.

    What it actually did was price British workers out of jobs, in my own work I visit many places where there are no ‘British’ people employed at all, it’s mostly Polish or other east European workers, I have to say that generally they are very hard working and most want to make a life here.

    The real failure with immigration is our Muslim friends who come here, but hate everything this nation stands for, why come here then? I’d never go and live in a shit hole like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, in fact when I left the armed forces I was offered work in Saudi Arabia, Oman etc, but just wasn’t interested. Having been to the middle east I wouldn’t want that life style in a million years.

    I managed to talk a female friend out of going to Saudi Arabia as a midwife, the money might be good but would you really want ot work for a Government like that?


  13. Martin says:

    Can someone remember this post for next week. After Red Ed’s speech the BBC gave us leftie lacky after lacky praising Red Ed, even Eddie Izard, I’ve not seen a Tory point of view yet.

    I bet next week the BBC give us the Labour view of Cameron right after his speech.


    • Reed says:

      Eddie Izzard. >:o


    • Llew says:

      A couple of years ago I took screen shots of the BBC politics pages after the Labour leader’s speech and again after the Tory leader’s speech.

      After the Labour conference, it was solid pro-Labour stories with maybe just one pro-Tory story. A week later it was about 70% pro Tory stories and 30% pro Labour. Funny how one party didn’t get a look in during their opposite’s conference, but the other way round and there’s plenty of coverage from the other party.


    • NotaSheep says:

      I trust Craig is running the stats now and for next week.


  14. matthew rowe says:

    Martin has a good point it would be good to compare numbers of who the BBC ask to comment  and their political stand point in this weeks BBC/Labour staffers conference and NUJ jamboree with the one involving  evil, poor shooting Tory scum next week !


  15. George R says:

    E.Miliband: the ‘insurgent’.

    BBC-NUJ-Labour must  be finding their Labour Conference dull, and perhaps have now headed for the beach at Southport.

    Hardly enlivening proceedings, the following BBC-NUJ-Labour ‘news’ webpage is dedicated to half-baked notions by Labour’s Lord Glasman, creator of ‘Blue Labour’ tag.

    We hear, for no particular reason, via Beeboid Labour acolyte, Mr WHEELER, that Glasman regards E. Miliband as a:

     “‘socialist and an intellectual’ with an ‘angry insurgent side'”.

    Now, I would call E. Miliband a lot of things, but ‘intellectual’ is not one of them.

    And when Miliband is described as an ‘insurgent’, is this in the INBBC Taliban-Hezbollah-Hamas sense?


    • George R says:

      Or ‘insurgent’ in the ‘Newsnight’ Comrade Paul Mason ‘UKUncut’ sense?


    • Ronald Todd says:

      Wasn’t his father a ‘Marxist intellectual’ so even if everything he believed in was wrong that will by BBC standards make any of his offspring also an intellectual especially if they cannot find any other complementary label to stick on him.


  16. VFC says:

    Jersey politician tells us that the BBC are an audio version of the Guardian


  17. George R says:

    Thanks for your Mass Immigration, Labour; and to BBC-NUJ-Labour for your endorsement. of it.

    Or course, Beeboids now censor out the consequences of their open-door immigration advocacy.

    “Terrorist we can’t kick out: Released after half his sentence but still ‘a risk to the public’… the suicide bomb fanatic who’s free to stay – thanks to his human rights ”

    Read more:


  18. Martin says:

    Right, BBC 6PM news had the piece on Red Ed. Two things to note.

    1.The BBC ‘noted’ that Red Ed wasn’t that popular in the polls, yet the vox pop they did in the cafe was with union public sector scum who attacked Red Ed from the left saying he wasn’t left wing enough, as we know this is typical of the BBC and of course not what the opinion polls say is wrong with him, it’s not that he’s not left wing enough it’s that he’s too left wing, he’s weird and people don’t trust him. The BBC just glossed over the polls.

    2. There was NO Tory voice or right wing piece to comment on Red Ed’s performance or claims, let’s see if next week the BBC do the same or we get some lefty sound bite.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      I wonder if the Beeboids themselves aren’t a bit pissed off that Red Ed isn’t making enough Red noise this week.  Viz James Landale’s snarky “Analysis” inset on this rehashing of the speech.

      Here, in a nutshell, is Ed Miliband’s message to the Labour conference.

      His top line: “Hello, my name is Ed Miliband, can I take a moment to introduce myself?

      “I am the leader of the Labour Party. In case you hadn’t noticed.

      “I may have been a minister in Gordon Brown’s government but I am not him, nor am I Tony Blair.

      “I am my own man.

      “The system of politics and economics they inherited from the last Conservative government isn’t working any more.

      “So something needs to be done. And I will do it.

      “I’ll give you a few pointers of what I might do. But not much more.”

      And three of the four vox pops they quote complain he wasn’t Left enough.  I realize Landale is at least in part demonstrating criticism of Miliband for his lack of policy details, but I’m getting the impression of unhappiness that not enough red/Red meat was thrown their way.  They want something to champion and he didn’t give them much to work with.

      To be fair, I can’t really blame Miliband for wanting to remind everyone that he is the Labour leader, seeing as how Ed Balls has been all over the airwaves recently, with Beeboids and other media hanging onto his every word.


      • My Site (click to edit) says:

        One wonders if it might even sink in with the remaining Graun readers who have actual brains and use them, that the BBC setting political direction in this way is perhaps not the greatest example of honest democratic freedom in action.

        At £4Bpa, the BBC is a very expensive, very potent propaganda tool in the hands of a small minority convinced they speak for the UK public.


  19. My Site (click to edit) says:

    The original Cabinet Office report to which Andrew Neather referred (released to Andrew Green under FOI), drafted in 2000, stated that mass immigration would help towards the Labour Government’s “social objectives”. These two words were redacted from any further releases.

    When I asked my local MP, Jeremy C-C-C Hunt, in Feb 2010, why his Party had barely even mentioned this revelation, which is, in my opinion, one of the most disgusting political crimes committed in modern British history, he told me that the Conservatives would be exposing both this and “the insidious pack of lies that this Labour Government have consistently fed the country on immigration”
    Obviously they didn’t, being the spineless socialists that they are.
    If they’d have run a similar campaign as they did in ’05 then they’d have won by a landslide.  


  20. cjhartnett says:

    Kept well clear of all this today!
    To have to start the day listening to Cooper-Balls and then follow these twisters of the truth all day up to Harman on Channel4 would all have been too much.
    Both this Red Shambles and their cheerleaders at the BBC talk to themselves…the rest of the country doesn`t give a flying picket for whatever they choose to chunder on about.
    I would say this though…I expect the Conservatives to get as easy a free ride throughout the week…no Labour shits holding forth on what the Tories.
    I hope that the spirit of Craig dwells amongst us and someone counts the interruptions and red herrings strewn about the Tory speakers…as far as I can see, Labour don`t seem ever to get a Tory to pour cold water on all that they “propose”…this seems to be yet more malice, mithering and maladministration that describes their last thirteen years. They turned this country into a burning wreck, and we are supposed to accept that they were passive victims of Thatcher.
    Anyone seen Gordon Brown recently?…


  21. Martin says:

    Newsnight is also a Tory free zone so far this week, let’s see if the BBC slip in a Kinnock or  a Mandelson next week.


  22. George R says:

    “Labour’s ‘apology’ for cosying up with Gaddafi as Alexander admits seeking stability in the Middle East”

    Read more:

    INBBC may as well join in yet another ‘apology’ with its Labour chums; as for ‘wanting stability in the Middle East’ that sounds like political code for ‘doing everything possible to support Islamic jihad Hamas’.


  23. As I See It says:

    Rizla-Teeth (our favourite) on BBC London News last night introduced what the Beeboids must have hoped was a bit of a post-the-national-news helping hand for Miliband Minor.

    A vox pop report about what has been re-dubbed social housing.

    All that the non-Metropolitans among us need to know was that the BBC were busy trying to build on one flimsy straw of policy that Sylvester-in-a-suit had spat them – council houses for people who have done something in the community. (btw watch the human rights courts get their teeth into that one Ed!)

    Of course the only hint of disapproval to be aired on the Beeb came from the left.

    BBC interviewer to Stalin: ‘There are those who would say that you are not killing enough Kulaks, and how would you respond to the criticism that you are not building enough Gulags Mr Stalin?’

    Anyway, as the pleasant Mr Escobar explained (in pretty good English though with a South American accent) how much he and his family were in need of subsidised housing in London and as three or four colourfully attired African accented young ladies revealed that their views differed as to the fairness of the idea of the deserving getting priorty in council housing….

    Well, I’m afriad I must admit that I fell victim to a rather racist thought. Which was that the only question that the Beeb ever want to discuss is just how big a welcome mat should we put out?


  24. As I See It says:

    And one more thing….Blair/Brown/BBC sold me the idea that 5 million new immigrants was a fine thing because, they assured me, they would pay tax and fund my pension. Now Labour/BBC tells me I must pay more tax to house, to school and to fund a health service for these new arrivals. Did I miss something? Or was it just about getting 5 million extra Labour voters?

    I note Labour conference were nervous about some new voter registration changes that are now in the pipeline.

    Seems responsibilty for registration will be down to the individual rather than the head of the household. Odd, I hear you say, isn’t the head of the household concept a patriachal anachronism for lefties?

    No, a Labourite immediately explained this would hit the ethnic minorities. You see they want to be sure the head of the household and both his wives aren’t lost to Labour.