Sorry sd, been away for a while. Thanks for the refresher on real and nominal wages. Your are correct to point out the difference (thanks) and to point out that many people have seen declines in both money and real wages over the past few years. This is essentially the reason why the Labour Party is choosing to fight the next election on the basis of the "cost-of-living" argument. Sounds as if you are the same side!! Given the actual data on income inequality (see ONS, they are quite credible) however, this is dangerous ground as the facts don't support the argument, but that's another can of worms altogether.
But going back to the point about immigration and the economy, The Portas point is that while immigration may have a negative impact for some (it does) it is positive for the economy as a whole. Take growth. Where does it come from - two main factors (1) the number of people in employment and (2) the productivity of labour. In the UK, we have negative trends for both, so not a pretty picture for growth. However, whether deliberately or not, the influx of immigrants had a positive impact on growth (via both factors) and was an important contributor to the UK economic performance. That may sound incredible to some, but it's true. An economist told me so!!
This is all a bit of a niggle for Niggle Farridge as it doesn't support his augment! hence the rather amusing repositioning of his argument that it's not all about money. It's has a sniff of Brian Rix about it so I hope Farridge doesn't start dropping his trousers.
If you do want to make a serious point about bias you could have a wee look at Portas' background and who he has worked for and what he promotes. In this case, the Beeb could have been more neutral by having a different economist on. I doubt they would have won any noble prizes but there are other points. Google David Goodhart since he and Portas are having a bit of a running battle on this whole issue. You will find Goodhart more of any ally!