Why do Labour not get it?

[Dacatspjs]

It's being reported today that Labour want to stop using hotels and move migrants into barracks. Fine. But when quizzed on it Luke Pollard has suggested this will be more expensive, but the public want the hotels to close at all costs so it will be worth it.

This to me just seems like another step forward for Reform. The public who care about this, care about how much the government is spending on migrant housing. A new policy that costs more isn't going to go anyway towards solving this problem.

I don't know what the solution is, but spending more money getting mothballed barracks up to spec seems ludicrous.

"Asked about whether it would cost more to house migrants at military bases than in hotels, Mr Pollard insisted that 'the public want to see those hotels close'.

But he added: 'We're looking at what's possible and, in some cases, those bases may be a different cost to hotels, but I think we need to reflect the public mood on this asylum hotels need to close.'"

I think labour actually "get it" with this. Moving migrants from cushy hotels to basic barracks will be a deterrent. Currently the temptation to cross the channel for free hotels and all that go with them won't be as attractive as old army barracks.
Bravo labour.

The hotels are not ‘cushy’ but currently the public appears to falling for the bullshit that asylum seekers are living it up in 4* hotels with all the trappings.

Where did you get the idea that those hotels are 'cushy'?

From what I have seen the barracks may well be better standards than the hotels.

The firm I work for has a maintenance contract for a few properties that are old halls of residence and now being used for asylum seekers. The accommodation is very basic, falling apart and not pleasant to live in at all.

The hotels that I know are being used are dreadful, cramped, dirty and poorly maintained.

I agree. We should be offering the bare minimum. There should be no incentive other than safety, for coming to the UK on a small boat. Getting rid of all the extra comforts is a sensible direction.

I thought the point of army barracks was so they could be securely contained. I assume they will be locked in there and not have minibuses laid on to deposit them at the nearest town to wander round at will all day.

Sadly that's the narrative being spread. They have miraculously improved in quality since Labour came to power.

Have you not seen some of these prestigious buildings? And free if charge with mesks provided.
Sound cushy to me.

I'm a member of the public, and I care that tax payers money is going to private companies to house migrants. Until we can find a solution to the problem of having to house migrants, I'd greatly prefer to think they were being housed in state owned premises rather being used to launder government subsidy of privately owned hotel chains.

Absolutely

But those sate owned sites will need to be refurbished by private companies. My objection is that people are concerned with the state of public finances and what that means for us as a country. Labour are telling us they need to raise taxes again to meet spending commitments, and they have come up with a solution to using hotels which is more expensive. That's more public money.

Some of the hotels really are cushy! The one being used in my town was a really nice hotel before it was used to house migrants. It’s a beautiful building and right in the middle of town. It used to be considered ‘up market’.

Agrees. As a tax payers that is contributing to all of these cushy hotels, i would prefer migrants housed in basic accommodation, and maybe, just maybe not have to pay furtger tax to fund this lifestyle

How can barracks be more expensive than hotels?

But the point is labour have found a solution to provide more basic accommodation, but it's going to cost even more!!!

Especially when these private companies are cashing in on the illegal migrant crisis by closing to the public and then charging the tax payer via the government inflated fees. I don’t think anyone should be making a profit off this and us.

The one in the next town to my daughters village was a popular wedding venue, until it housed migrants and was very expensive.

Id expect because they are long abandoned sites which will require renovation.

Then leave it to the charities encouraging them here to house them. Perhaps they could ask their donors to give up a bedroom.

The hotel down the road that’s been used by the Home Office for a few years used to be very nice. But it’s on a very big busy road with nothing near it so the men tend to walk to the villages because they’re bored rigid and it’s not been great for anyone, them or the villages.

But they’re stripped bare by the hotel before being let to migrants. Do people seriously think there are migrants having a spa each day and enjoying the swimming pool / gym. It’s not going to have luxury soft furnishings and plush bath robes either.

people moan at everything and are completely unaware of the practicalities of solutions

you don’t want any migrants , legal or not - we hear that loud and clear - but we need legal migrants and we don’t turn away those most in need and you can’t send them back - you mean build more and more big boats that just flap around between France and Britain as we each send them back to each other ? Or you mean hang on to them long enough to work out where “back” is - oh but then we need somewhere to put them.. back at square 1 .

Well it is too bad then. Those people complaining about it, and those wasting time standing outside hotels, braying, cannot have it both ways. They do not want the people there, so other solutions have to be considered. If those solutions cost more, then so be it.

I actually think this is the the first sound idea they have had. However they need to stop spending and taxing, it’s labour of old. Tax and spend, tax and spend; always the same. No one in Labour should be saying irrelevant of cost, when quite frankly it’s just about public perception in the main.

i just don’t get how it keeps happening, tories stay in power so long everyone gets fed up, labour get in, they fuck the countries economy, do one term, then the tories come back in, start trying to fix the shit show, Labour don’t get back in for another decade, and history repeats itself. Every single time.

i think it’s game over for Labour, and the budget will be the final nail in the coffin, there will be a public outcry, they are already trying to prepare the public for what’s to come with the soft leaks to see reaction, income tax increase, mansion tax etc, and there will be no way back for them, no matter what they do over the next 3 years.

Starmer will throw reeves under the bus, to save his skin, as they don’t have anyone to take over from him, so even though he’s clearly wholly incapable and out of his depth , no one wants the poison chalice other than some real hard core lefties that the public would not accept, and none of them are any more capable.

To be honest, I’m not sure even starmer wants to be pm any more, he’s just waiting to get the fuck out of there and get a lucrative consulting role.

its a shit show of epic proportions, the issue is they fucked the economy so hard and so fast and now don’t know how to fix it, so everything they do makes it worse as they are utterly clueless.

It’s not just about the money.

obviously it is partly about the money.

but people are also concerned that asylum seekers from violent countries are being housed in their communities and because of the way it works you are getting large numbers in some small communities who frankly can’t really cope with them.

if asylum seekers are housed in separate areas it’ll reduce the community tension as there will be fewer protests etc in the middle of towns and villages.

I personally would be happy for it to cost more.

i live near a few military bases and frankly I think it’s a good idea. You can provide facilities on the sites - healthcare and suchlike - and there won’t be such a clash of cultures.