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.'"

Third country processing I expect.
Several European countries are looking at it.
Worked for Australia.

So why were the numbers of crossings double what they are now, in 2022?

Anyone looking for a quick fix to a decades long problem is deluded.

What is it you want Starmer to do? Take up a post on the south coast with a sniper rifle?

Why say the very first day you are elected that you are going to scrap Rwanda and solve the problem instead by “smashing the gangs” and then do nothing?

Oh c'mon , don't be daft. No ones coming here for a tenner a week and a hotel stay. It's what the UK offers once their asylum application has been accepted - social housing, benefits, free health system...

You can ask him if you like, he’s your guy.

As much as Labour protest it’s impossible and poor old Starmer is trying he’s made bad decisions.

The same as can go wrong when they are all scattered about but more visible.

Rwanda?

But there fleeing for their lives.... from France!! Have a heart.

Yes it’s a rational decision and not hard to see why.

Resign, preferably and hand the reigns to someone else until the public can get rid of them.

Many of these people will be used to living with their family in one room - they won't mind bunking up.

Did you also misunderstand the point I was making?

Well yes. But they aren’t going to say ‘I’m here to work cash in hand and send the money home’, are they? No, it’ll be ‘I’m gay and fear for my life in insert location here’

You've made so many points. No one is getting a small boat because they are fleeing for their lives. They're already someone where safe when they board the boat. They are then making a decision as to whether the UK system is worth risking their life further for, in terms of both working with the criminal boat suppliers or the crossing itself.

There are 8 billion people in the world.
Around 70 million people in the UK.

If we accept a conservative 2 billion people live in unsafe/oppressive conditions and would be eligible for asylum that is 28 eligible people for every man, woman and child in the UK.

We are going to need more than a barracks or two. We are going to need the Government to comandeer every spare patch of land for marquees and pay 90% tax to provide them with porridge.

Would you prefer them to continue being housed in hotels then? What would your solution be?

Yesterday I wrote a supporting letter for a man who has become homeless following an assault by his landlord. Not a British national but moved here 10yrs ago and who has worked in the UK since arriving. His mental health has been affected and he has some disabilities yet the loa council do not deem him to be a priority. He is likely to become street homeless. Where is the fairness in that?

😥 That's awful, poor man

Do you really think people who can pay people smugglers tens of thousands of pounds and are physically able to travel across continents (through lots of safe countries) should be prioritised?

No country can take an unlimited number of refugees, and in my view we should be focusing on those who are the most vulnerable.

Hotels aren’t great either. I’d go for the Aus option, Ik the public are not as keen on border control and it might take more time to get to same place but it works well and no one will vote it out.

Hotels and barracks neither of these are particularly good options.

It has to be offshore processing, Rwanda as was or get a few big disused cruise ships and park them up in the middle of the North Sea, no one steps foot here until investigated and checked.

Something radical has now got to happen as it is beyond a joke how soft we are...there is no deterrent at the moment.

It has to be offshore straight away; you don't get in to the UK to be processed.

We have a housing crisis and an economic crisis we can't look after our own why add to it with unvetted unknowns - it beggars belief. It is NOT our duty to house, clothe, feed, and provide care to the world. We are a laughing stock.

Whether they are granted it or not the vast majority don't go anywhere else.

It does beggar belief. How did we ever get here.

Another country/offshore seems to be the best idea but when this was suggested before people objected to it and it was shelved.

The only propaganda I'm seeing is you trying to persuade people how awful these hotels are when we all know that they are perfectly ordinary hotels. Oh the terrible Travelodge and PremierInns that you are trying to tell us are so basic suit us perfectly fine when we are lucky enough to get a night away.