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.'"

Let's unravel this, shall we?

Just because you might be paying some towards the upkeep of the people you don't want to shelter in your home, doesn't mean you are not happy to other to pay as well, even though they might not share your opinion.

As for the BIG question , I don't think there is any dehumanising going on. Or scapegoating.

I see young men who are happily using the accommodation and services provided for them. Even though I'm sure they would welcome a few home cooked meals and the comfort of a cat or seven.

I agree that hotels should not be used. Serco, Mears and Clearsprings might think differently, lucrative cntracts and big profits.

The shared hotel rooms are standard basic accommodation

The list is not rigorous at all for many people. Asylum is not refused if nothing comes up. It still doesn’t mean they haven’t committed a horrendous crime before arriving.

It isn’t rigorous process at all. It’s full of gaps.

Apparently it’s a case of at least he didn’t have to be detained whilst we found out more about this person.

Not having them detained appears more important than outcomes like this.

You can't no. But there isn't much reason to leave. The one i know is surrounded for miles by fields. There is no public transport. There are facilities (old RAF site) on site. It has a canteen, the old gym from RAF days. Healthcare could be provided there.

Many concerns come from the wandering around town. Men following teenage, pre-teen girls and women and behaving inappropriately towards them. Seemingly adult males trying to access the school system and using it to behave inappropriately towards young girls. There have been attempted and successful rapes and attacks on women by males housed in hotels. At least in military barracks, away from the public with only fields and no public transport, with guards checking them in and out, our girls and women would be protected.

I am no expert on this, and I agree that the system is not foolproof. My point was that I don't agree with locking people up when we can't prove they have committed a crime.
How would you make the system less gappy? Genuinely interested.

So you don't want to pay for their upkeep. Who do you think should pay?

The charities who persist in encouraging them to come over. The human rights lawyers who fight to keep them here after their asylum claims have failed and the caring British person who thinks that the rest of the world has a right to come to the UK and live off tax payer money.

It could be an optional extra tax. We could call it the ‘morally superior person tax’. I won’t be signing up for it, but you could.

You?

This is totally incorrect! I stay in a lot of UK hotels for work and these are generally 4 hotels with swimming pools and restaurants, at £100-200 a night. Business hotels, basically. Over the past 5-6 years, I’ve seen numerous hotels house refugees. Security guards, social workers, and translators are common. These are *cushy hotels by most people’s terms.

The things that make them 4 star are the pools, spas etc and they don’t have use of these. So it’s just a bed in a basic room.

Love that idea.
Also, I'm.out 😁

Charities, the ones encouraging them to come can pay. Most of the rest of us have had enough.

I beg to differ. Have you seen inside any of the b&b used to house entire families whilst they wait eternally on static housing lists? They are beyond basic. A far cry from the novotels and holiday inns used for asylum seekers.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/22/shared-rooms-rancid-food-no-clothes-new-report-lays-bare-shocking-conditions-of-those-seeking-refuge-in-uk

Is this what you call four star?

They absolutely do have use of the pools.

Good idea. There’d be some takers on here.

There won't be any. None of the people who say they would willing pay more tax, put their money where their mouth is when it is pointed out they can do so voluntarily now.

Yes, all those who have sadly no space in their homes.

I’d use the Aus system. Then you can vet anyone who enters. This looks chaotic and incredibly unsafe to me. Criminals bringing people over who you can’t really check.

Quite. The typical labour voter is very good at spending other peoples money. Maybe people who have a council house will an extra bedroom could use it to house an asylum seeker.

The Oz system is pretty inhumane, not sure I'd be a fan of importing it to the UK.

Why do you prefer trafficking including all the horrendous crimes that happen on the way, boats overloaded and some dying in the Channel due to that?

The crimes that could have been prevented when here too, but why choose this chaotic and unsafe system that makes some criminals vast profits?

What's humane about requiring people to risk their life on a massively overcrowded inflatable dingy, so that they can avoid claiming asylum in France?