This is a preview of Migration Watch’s free weekly newsletter. Please consider signing up to the newsletter directly, you can do so here and will receive an email copy of the newsletter every Friday and will receive an email copy of the newsletter every Friday as soon as it is released.
A week into the election campaign and very little of consequence has been said about immigration by either Mr Sunak or Sir Kier Starmer, providing an ideal opportunity for Reform to steal a march on both (we doubt there will be much from the LibDems about immigration) by offering a glimpse of what might be in the party’s manifesto.
Having said he won’t be standing in this election – but there are those who don’t rule it out (e.g., one Prof. Matt Goodwin in this article), Mr Farage has dominated the headlines. We will know soon enough he decides to stand after all; it will certainly liven up what has so far, apart from the Farage interventions, been a fairly lifeless campaign.
His first foray into the campaign was a press conference on illegal immigration, with more than 10,000 illegal Channel-crossers already coming this year. It was perhaps unsurprising, then, that he chose Dover as his backdrop. At the press conference, quoting the Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, Mr. Farage said:
“The wave – and I’m using his words, not mine – of aggressive young males that are coming into Poland, having crossed the Mediterranean, and he has said that this is now a matter of national security.”
As Farage wrapped up his speech, the BBC cut to presenter Geeta Guru-Murthy, who remarked: “Nigel Farage with his customary inflammatory language there, at a Reform UK press conference.” She added, “He declined to stand for a seat but we will have more on what Farage is saying.”
Farage questioned on social media “what happened to impartiality.” The BBC agreed: Ms Guru-Murthy later apologised to Farage and viewers for her comment, admitting that her language “didn’t meet the BBC’s editorial standards on impartiality.”
The conduct of the BBC was commented upon on social media by the esteemed Andrew Neil, chairman of The Spectator magazine, who said:
“The apology/correction was necessary and it’s good it was made. But, as is nearly always the case in such incidents, the original infraction speaks volumes about where they’re really coming from.”
We entirely agree.
This is a preview of Migration Watch’s free weekly newsletter. Please consider signing up to the newsletter directly, you can do so here and will receive an email copy of the newsletter every Friday and will receive an email copy of the newsletter every Friday as soon as it is released.