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 truly believe we must be one of the most stupidly soft countries in the world.

People have absolutely had enough.

That’s not what Starmer pledged, it was to smash the gangs. Channel crossings are up.

Sounds like a plan.

The point is, they are allowed to seek asylum anywhere they want.

If 1% of the 20% of refugees who seek asylum anywhere other than their neighbouring country want to come to the U.K., it really isn’t the problem people seem to think it is.

If you think people are getting on boats to make a treacherous journey across the channel so they can get less than £10 quid a week and stay in a disused hotel and be fed mass produced slop, just for shits and giggles, you are fooling yourself.

No it’s accommodation, healthcare, schooling if needed. Work after processing. I can see why the U.K. is a more attractive option. Elsewhere it’s more likely to be a tent or a camp.

And, what has he put in place to start doing that?

I don’t really get your stance. I agree the residents near the barracks will oppose it, but that’s no different to the residents living next to the hotels. The vast majority of the population would say no thank you to hundreds of undocumented unknown males roaming about. The difference with the being put up in barracks is that it won’t cost as much so purely on that basis it’s better idea.

Nothing effective by the looks of it. Going by Channel numbers.

Third country processing.
It worked for Australia.
If people know if they arrive uninvited they cannot stay and (all) are swiftly sent to a third country they won't come in the first place.

I read the barracks are 900 beds? That's one day of arrivals on a calm day at sea. So that's one day's arrivals sorted just the other 364 days arrivals to consider now.

Yeah just a fraction, not sure where the rest are going.

Wasn’t that the idea behind Rwanda and Labour voted against it. They’re hardly going to now implement similar.

I don’t really get your stance either. 300 to 900 men in a town is problematic. Even the generally pro asylum system pp have said no thanks on this thread.

Point still stands though. They are not fleeing for their lives from France to here. Have you been? Its perfectly nice over there. You are being very melodramatic and it doesn't do your arguments any favours.

I guess we will wait for Reform to do it then as there is no way Labour will be re-elected while the number of people coming on the small boats continues to rise.

Oh give it a rest. It's four years til the next election.

I don't believe I am. At no point have I said that they are fleeing France in fear of their lives, they are however fleeing their homeland for that reason (at least many of them are). Most refugees settle in their neighbouring country, a very few come here. I apologise if I wasn't clear.

I reckon that they will eventually. The safe third country is a tried and tested method that works. Its why the Danes and the Dutch are making deals with Rwanda and Uganda.

Labour were also dead against using army camps etc. until about yesterday.

I think you are being unfair on the British people. I don't see anyone protesting about the Government reaching out to and accommodating people from Ukraine, Hong Kong or people that helped our military in Afganistan.

But there is infinite need in the world and the British people and Governments should choose our asylum priorities. It should not be survival of the fittest, first on the dinghy gets first dibs. These people (large fit young men) are not our asylum priority. They are a self selecting group of people travelling to Britain for a better life. But literally billions of people in the world would like to come to Britain for a better life.

I’m not saying it’s acceptable but in France the asylum seekers don’t get accommodation, there isn’t enough available, so they end up sleeping rough. Compare that to what we offer in the UK.

Channel crossings are up

2025 numbers of migrants crossing are on track to be similar to 2022.

Figures for the first 6 months of 2025, were very similar to first six months of 2024, 2023 and lower than 2022.

Number of crossings is largely similar as this point in 2024 and 2023. It’s about half what it was in 2021 and 2022. It’s also the same as it was in 2020, when there were fewer migrants moving anywhere.

You have to be very careful when cherry picking any individual day, week, month, to say “crossings are up” as the number fluctuates due to so many variables. There is also a change in the number coming on each boat. Not sure why, maybe the boats are bigger, maybe they are more crowded.

The number of boats arriving went from 42 boats in 2018 to 1111 in 2022. It went down to 600-700 for the following couple of years and has largely remained constant since. The last government did nothing to solve the issue in 6 years, but Labour are expected to fix it in 18 months or they are a total failure?

What are mesks?

I’m pretty sure smash the gangs means a reduction not this.

You’re backing Starmer and still believe it’ll change and go down. He hasn’t shifted the dial anywhere, except up.

And yes boats are bigger recently under Labour, maybe recent attempts to control that too meant crime networks went to a better source for dinghies.

We provided safe routes for those countries which is why families were able to come together. We haven’t done that for other nations, so refugees are forced to make a treacherous journey. Stands to reason they send the fittest members of their family first, those unable to make the full journey move to refugee camps in the next country, which is not a long term solution for any family.

They will need the hotels as well won't they? Record numbers are still arriving. A couple of barracks is going to add to the accommodation not replace it surely.

Well, under the Dublin Convention (which Brexit helpfully removed us from), they have to stay in the first EU country they reach.