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.'"

IIRC you support the NHS. Presumably you have an A&E unit set up in your living room?

“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.”

Will it be worth it? All the whining is about the cost of housing asylum applicants pending assessment.

How will people be happier with more expensive options?

Looks like another stabbing,3 people stabbed, one dead. Afghanistan national tased and arrested on suspicion of murder.
Anyone willing to defend this?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5ypkd57n97o.amp

Because they think it sounds more brutal and therefore will deter more from coming. Or at least make them happier that migrants are being brutalised.

Reform's proposals for a network of detention centres are even more expensive. But apparently people like them.

I’m not saying trust them I’m saying we do know nothing about many people as the things you listed won’t capture crimes or some identities.

Why would anyone defend it? What do you mean?

So why did you say that then? It was very much a statement.

Deflection from my other question?

Well no, we know that they're not wanted in the UK, or by international agencies. The Home Office will also ask for corroborating evidence, interview then to see if their story is consistent and adds up etc.
So I would argue that we know at least as much about them, if not more, than others in society.

I'll have a go.

People from the UK also stab people to death so its fine. The more the merrier.

That would be the usual justification. Are you buying it?

Of course not. Do you trust the legal system in Afghanistan under the Taliban. You can stone women again under law.

No I don't. Neither does the government, which is why they will be relying on other sources of information to do the best they can to assess that individuals asylum claim.

I'm sure someone will genuinely say and mean that soon enough.

Do you want to answer the question about the scapegoating and dehumanising of asylum seekers?

Why do you think the UK shouldn't pay for asylum seekers? And who should instead? Or do you think they should live on the streets?

The checks you listed won’t include them, you can see that?

Won't include what? Sorry, I'm not understanding your question.

I can see why barracks would be a good idea. Most abandoned barracks are in the middle of nowhere so not really near any existing communities. I once visited one of the barracks which was been used as part of an exhibition on the military as part of work. Despite been somewhat "abandoned" as a MOD facility it still had armed guards at the gate and checks in and out of the site.

Many people in the country are not happy. Labour need to do something as Reform are doing well. If Labour don't do something soon, it won't just be reform that get a voice in the mainstream, more extreme right wing groups (EDL/ BNP) will start to also get a voice. Something we always overlook - Hitler didn't come to power out of no-where. There was public support for him and his policies. He had a huge propaganda machine with him.

Whilst ever legitimate concerns about immigration/ use of hotels are swept under the carpet as and described "right wing and extreme right wing" it softens the definition of " extreme right wing". People start to think "right wing" or having "extreme right wing views" means concerned for their communities and speaking out against unchecked and out of control migration. Rather than actual far right wing and extreme right wing that in some cases advocates for eugenics and forced sterilisation programs, dehumanisation of certain races ect. It is so important that the terminology "extreme right wing" doesn't not become softened.

Hmmm and what about those who threw their documents into the sea and those whose "personal details" are nothing but fiction.

Yes, it's exactly the same.

Because there are thousands of homeless consultants roaming the streets and the NHS are looking to rent people's garages to accommodate any MRI equipment that's going spare.

While being all virtuous and oh so kind.

Is that aimed at me?

The checks won’t include a criminal from Afghanistan. There will be many who commit horrendous crimes who do not end up on what you’ve listed. They also could have no ID at all.

Can you see that?

I'm happy that the bill for migrant housing falls to the tax payers. Just not hotels. Standard basic accommodation only should be provided.

You can’t stop people going in and out nor stop them accessing facilities.

We should do what other countries do,put them in tents ,they won’t come over then

I agree that a criminal from Afghanistan is unlikely to be identified as one by asking the Taliban, and that that information is unlikely to be trustworthy if it is recieved.
That is precisely why the home office use many other forms of evidence in order to corroborate a person's claim. If they do not feel they have sufficient evidence to suggest that a person is eligible for asylum, then their claim is refused.
Is it a perfect system? Far from it. But I don't think the fact that we cannot 100% guarantee that someone is not a criminal means that they should be locked up.