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.'"

You must be joking, Whatifitallgoesright ... the screams of "inhumanity" would be deafening if they weren't free to wander at will, doing whatever they choose

Like everyone else you mean, who hasn’t actually committed any crime or anything?

It’s not illegal to seek asylum.

Why do so, so many people still not understand that simple fact?

The Tories fucked us royally!
What planet do you people live on?! Some of you are flipping truly bonkers.

I am curious as to suggested approaches for dealing with the issue with zero cost.

Even deciding we will automatically refuse all asylum applications / small boat arrivals has a processing and removal cost.

Because then their arguments fall flat.

Probably because Starmer talks about illegal entry. The PM ex human rights lawyer.

The Inverness barracks isn't remote. It's right in the middle of town near schools and walking distance to the shops

It’s not illegal to seek asylum but they are not doing it via an approved route.

Because there are none for non-Ukranians.

It's not a new thing on MN, it started long before Labour became government.

Starmer should do better with his rhetoric, on that we agree.

Maybe Labour should restart the Rwanda plan or investigate some other kind of offshore processing. Still a cost but that should make most voters happy / be neutral.

Not really, no, because with most people it's usually possible to check they are who they say they are, whether they have any criminal convictions and so on - all of which is much more difficult with those who arrive with practically nothing except a well rehearsed story

He should. I think he started aping Farage by using the term, which is not good. Trying to out-Reform Reform is something that Labour needs to ditch.

The Home Office uses the term irregular migrants.

I don’t think there’s zero cost, just a cost where voters feel happier with the outcome.

Arrogance imo.

I was a life long paid up Labour supporter, never again.

Will those who's asylum claim is approved be able to settle in the UK?

The Georgian wedding venue near me is probably not what you'd call cushy but certainly not a slum.

Not under the Tory Rwanda Plan.

No I know, under @JHound's suggested plan I meant.

I thought that was the plan (I did not pay close attention.)

Well two things there, Rwanda no, offshore processing yes. The latter is just as costly as here and numbers just as high. The former a deterrent.

Starmer can’t reintroduce something he scrapped on day one, that would be madness politically. Although making that decision to scrap it could cost him the next GE.

I am curious as to suggested approaches for dealing with the issue with zero cost

Very obviously nothing can be done at no cost at all, @JHound, but that's no reason to agree deals with insensate costs attached which are clearly out of all proportion to what's being provided

Unfortunately there's a reason why so many providers regard a government contract as "a licence to print money", and all too often it has to do with a complete inability to negotiate allied to zero accountability

Rwanda was illegal, Labour was right to scrap it and not reintroduce it.

Rwanda cost the Tories the election

Human Rights compliant off shore centres would be a good plan and Labour was reported to be looking into it.

Not sure about that. Many things cost them the GE. It was going ahead in any case and Starmer scrapped it.

His replacement was smash the gangs. Some believed it would work, if it doesn’t he’ll struggle.