Okay, you’re trying to close the hotels — but there are only 3 ways for that to happen: 1) house asylum seekers somewhere that isn’t technically a “hotel” eg an ex barracks; 2) process all the backlog and process new claims so fast you don’t need mass housing; 3) allow people to work during claims
There’s also the option to re-start asylum processing in British embassies abroad to take business off the people smugglers in the first place and reduce the flow of people coming via dangerous boats.
20 years ago I worked for the YMCA housing asylum seekers in Stockwell at this building. King Edward memorial something or other. It could have held a lot more people but the Blair gov didn't want the view they were living it up in the capital so it wasnt full.
Didn't a combination of 1 and 2 be the case before the backlog got out of control? I'm sure they've stated 2 is happening and they're also looking at improving decision making to avoid the number of appeals.
The first of those options is the most likely option. Conceding that racists have the right to push asylum seekers out of their community creates problems for this scenario as well! (It’s a terrible scenario that would also attract huge progressive pushback, fwiw; although the hotels are also awful)
Racists complain when they’re housed in HMOs in the community, they’ll complain if they’re in barracks, he just won’t accept that there’s no winning
Oh can we house racists in HMOs and barracks?
The second and third options would be much more humane — and in many ways much more practical! — but Starmer agreeing that it is normal *not to want to live near asylum seekers* is hardly creating an environment that would enable either of those routes to closing asylum hotels.
I just want him to come out and say “we’ve seen some disgusting, racist behaviour outside hotels housing asylum seekers and it’s got to stop”. Is that really so hard to say?
Yes, exactly. bsky.app/profile/salf...
Well, yes, because he doesn't believe it. His nationalist paens are entirely unconvincing, but he is a serious xenophobe and a proper racist.
I’m not sure I believe that but he does seem to be completely in thrall to the idea that playing the xenophobic bully is the way to take on Reform and he couldn’t be more wrong.
Apparently, yes it is, because the Daily Fail wouldn't like it.
This isn't about the Daily Mail. It's the Labour right. Don't make excuses for racist hatred.
Wouldn’t go down well with constituents in Lincolnshire. You know, those constituencies where they have no chance of winning.
John Harris said in 2017 that Labour needed to have a message for the "UKIP-voting Fens". It turned out he was referring to five constituencies, only one of which had *ever* been Labour - and that was only 1997-2001. gapingsilence.wordpress.com/2017/04/09/c...
Labour won two of the five in 2024, by majorities of 1.4% and 0.1%.
Perhaps he plans to go back to being a human rights lawyer after politics and is just drumming up some business.
Mo'buses, mo'business
I don't understand it. The people he is trying to appease will never be happy and will hate him no matter what
Sadly apparently it is. ☹️
(A combination of processing claims faster, reducing the number of appeals — by accepting more asylum claims in the first place — and allowing asylum seekers to work/access services while their claim is being processed would be the most progressive but also most effective policy. Labour will never.)
Infuriating that they have recognised the strength of public feeling on this but have absolutely nothing to say beyond ‘please don’t hurt me’ & ‘make this issue go away’. It’s tricky but on Rwanda they managed to articulate *something*
it's funny how often the most progressive policy is also the most effective, and less funny how no government will ever consider either
The solution Labour is very clearly pumping for is 2) covering for it by emphasising deportations (and pretending it doesn't also mean record numbers of grants)
But the act of 'covering it' (which is unforgivably cynical in my view anyway) is directly contributing to a culture of abuse and dehumanisation towards migrants and refugees. There's no calculus that makes that anything other than grotesque.
purely practically, processing faster must be possible if you compare with how they have vastly improved the speed of the passport processing. that was dire before and now it's fantastic
And if your plan is 2 or 3, you should absolutely say that - either of those would be a big step forward.
It isnt