Fury as bungling Cabinet Minister claims most small boat migrants are women and children – despite majority being men
A BUNGLING Cabinet Minister has sparked fury for claiming most small boat migrants are women and children.
Darren Jones was today accused of being 'completely out of touch with reality' given the overwhelming majority of Channel crossers are adult men.
3
Labour's Chief Secretary to the Treasury made the bizarre assertion on Question Time, leaving the audience groaning in disbelief.
The debate on illegal migration saw him claim 'the majority of the people in these boats are children, babies and women'.
Home Office figures show that 73 per cent of all Channel arrivals since 2018 have been adult males.
Incredibly, Downing Street yesterday repeatedly refused to correct Mr Jones' comments.
Asked if the government was 'gaslighting Britain', Sir Keir Starmer's spokesman said: 'Our focus is on tackling the gangs.'
Tory Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp blasted: 'Darren Jones is completely out of touch with reality.
'Since 2018, 73 per cent of small boat arrivals have been single adult men. Yet Labour MPs like Jones still push the fairytale that these boats are full of women and babies.
'It's a dangerous distortion of the truth. No wonder this is shaping up to be the worst year on record for small boat crossings.
'If this is what passes for reality inside the Labour Government, Britain is in serious trouble.'
Nigel Farage branded Mr Jones "another clueless Labour minister"
More than 15,000 small boat migrants have crossed the Channel already this year - a record number.
And more than 150,000 have come since 2018 when the crisis erupted.
It comes after Rachel Reeves yesterday admitted she has no clue where Channel migrants will go instead of hotels.
The Chancellor has vowed to scrap their 'costly' use within four years as part of her spending review — but could not say what would replace them.
Pressed on where arrivals would be housed, she passed the buck to Home Secretary Yvette Cooper.
Ms Reeves told Times Radio: 'Well, I'm not going to be providing accommodation.
"That's for the Home Office to do. 'But the wasteful spending on the most expensive form of accommodation is a terrible use of taxpayers' money.'
3
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
19 minutes ago
- Reuters
Former French president Sarkozy stripped of Legion of Honour medal
PARIS, June 15 (Reuters) - Former president Nicolas Sarkozy has been stripped of his Legion of Honour, France's highest distinction, after being convicted of corruption and influence peddling last year, according to a decree published in Sunday's Official Bulletin. The centre-right politician has been embroiled in legal battles since leaving office in 2012. Last year, France's highest court upheld his conviction for corruption and influence peddling, ordering him to wear an electronic tag for a year, a first for a former French head of state. Also last year, an appeals court confirmed a separate conviction for illegal campaign financing in his failed re-election bid in 2012. The rules of the Legion of Honour award meant that the revocation had been expected.
Sky News
41 minutes ago
- Sky News
UK military could 'potentially' be used to defend Israel, chancellor tells Sky News
The chancellor has told Sky News that UK military assets could "potentially" be used to help defend Israel, and the government is "not ruling anything out". Rachel Reeves said that while the UK is calling for de-escalation in the region, it is also sending military assets, including fighter jets, "to protect ourselves and also potentially to support our allies". The chancellor went further than the prime minister last night, who confirmed the movement of military assets, but refused to say if they could be used to help Israel. She also warned about rising oil prices and disruption to key trade routes in the Middle East, which could see inflation in Britain. Speaking to Sky's Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips, the chancellor said sending military assets to the Middle East "does not mean that we are at war", and emphasised that "we have not been involved in these strikes or this conflict". "But we do have important assets in the region," she continued. "And it is right that we send jets to protect them. And that's what we've done. It's a precautionary move, and at the same time, we are urging de-escalation." 0:30 Asked what the UK government would do if the Israelis requested the deployment of assets to support their operations, Ms Reeves reiterated that there has been no UK involvement so far and would not get in to "operational decisions for the future". She said: "This is a fast moving situation. Israel has every right to defend itself. We also are very concerned about Iran's nuclear deterrent." She continued: "We have, in the past, supported Israel when there had been missiles coming in. I'm not going to comment on what might happen in the future. But so far we haven't been involved. We're sending in assets to protect ourselves and also potentially to support our allies." Pushed on the question of what the UK would do if Israel asked for support with its operations, the chancellor replied: "I'm not going to rule anything out at this stage. It's a fast moving situation, a very volatile situation. But we don't want to see escalation." Asked if the UK would support a change of regime in Tehran, she replied: "I've got no time for the Iranian regime for the suppression and repression of their own people, and we have serious concerns, which we've expressed on a number of occasions, about the Iranian nuclear programme. "But we want to see de-escalation at the moment. We are not trying to ramp up the rhetoric." Ms Reeves also warned of the consequences of the conflict in the UK, saying that oil and gas prices "have gone up by just over 10%" since the conflict started, and warning there is a risk that key trade routes through the Middle East could be disrupted.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Fighting Russia is now Europe's problem: America is about to leave the stage
So it's official: Washington is pulling the plug on military aid to Ukraine. At Congressional hearings this week US secretary of defence Pete Hegseth confirmed the Trump administration has a 'very different view' of the war in Ukraine to that of Joe Biden's – and insisted that a 'negotiated peaceful settlement is in the best interest of both parties and our nation's interests.' Given that the topic of the hearings was the US's 2026 military budget, the message could hardly have been clearer. Fighting Russia is now Europe's problem. Washington has given Ukraine some $74 billion in military aid since Putin's invasion in February 2022. That includes game-changing equipment such as Patriot air defence systems that are Ukraine's only effective defence against Russian ballistic missiles, ATACMS and HIMARS missiles, long-range M777 artillery, tanks, armoured vehicles, and millions of artillery rounds. Some of the Biden-era packages are still coming down the procurement pipeline. But the bitter bottom line for Kyiv is that it has been abandoned by its most powerful and deep-pocketed ally. That leaves Ukraine three options. The first is to rely on Europe stepping in to supply the weapons and equipment it needs. The second – proposed earlier this month by Zelensky – was to buy US made weapons from Washington with European money. The third is to make the weapons it needs in Ukrainian factories, funded by money from European allies. Happily for Ukraine, Europe's leaders have repeatedly promised to step up to the plate and deliver what Ukraine needs to fight on. Less happily, in practice, Europe seems better at promising than actually stepping. Back on February 9, European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen announced a 'ReArm Europe' package in Brussels that 'could mobilise close to €800 billion of defence expenditures over five years … This is a moment for Europe, and we are ready to step up.' But it soon emerged that this staggering sum was not, in fact, ready money but represented an easing of borrowing constraints on EU members if they chose to increase their defence budgets. On March 19 EU high representative for external relations, Kaja Kallas, proposed a €40 billion arms aid package for Ukraine. But that plan was shot down by doubters such as Hungary, Slovakia, Croatia, Spain and Italy. Last month Europe finally put some cash (albeit someone else's cash) on the table by directing €1 billion from the EU's Peace Facility – made from frozen Russian assets – towards financing Ukraine's domestic arms industry. Kyiv will certainly put that aid to good use. Domestic production now meets up to 50 per cent of Ukraine's military needs, despite repeated Russian strikes on factories. And Ukraine already outproduces the EU in the production of many weapons. Output of Ukraine's Bohdana howitzer is now 20 per month, outpacing the production of French Caesars, and could double with more EU funding. Drone production is scaling up fast, with five million small First Person View (FPV) drones planned for 2025, plus 30,000 long-range drones, and 3,000 cruise missiles. Plus some of the new Ukrainian kit is actually better than foreign supplied equipment because it's tailored more precisely to the specific needs of the killing fields of Donbas. Ukraine's Limma Electronic warfare system outperforms Russian and Western tech in jamming Russian glide bombs. And of course there's Ukraine's extraordinarily bold and sophisticated mass drone attack on Russian strategic bombers deep inside Siberia and the Arctic earlier this month, which featured drone swarms hidden in the roofs of prefabricated housing units and trucked right to their targets by unwitting freelance drivers. So there's no doubt that Ukraine has the technical sophistication, the industrial capacity and the tactical imagination to create its own formidable defences. Indeed, by many metrics the Ukrainian army is not only the largest but also the best-equipped on the European continent, bar Russia's. But Ukraine also has deep vulnerabilities further down the defence-procurement totem pole when it comes to the nuts-and-bolts sinews of war, from artillery shells to bullets to spare parts. And the most urgent military and political problem of all is a looming chronic shortage of bodies to man the front lines. Videos of violent press-gang tactics used to round up military-age men – often featuring posses of citizens rallying to save the men targeted – are the subject of daily online anger on Ukraine's social media. Stories of Russia's imminent economic and military collapse make for feel-good reading – but aren't borne out by ongoing and relentless assaults in the air and on the ground. Russia is set to spend $160 billion on defence this year, and thanks to purchasing power disparities a dollar spent in Russia gets far more bang for the buck. A Russian T-90 costs approximately $4.5 million, a US M1 Abrams can cost as much as $9.61 million. Western defence experts have warned that US-made Patriot missile systems, in production since 1981, are increasingly ineffective against Russian hypersonic cruise missiles and massed swarms of Iranian Shaheed drones. Can Ukraine survive just on its own resources, and Europe's intermittent money? The deepest irony of all is that much of the Kremlin's lavish defence spending is directly financed by Europe itself, which is due to spend over €20 billion buying oil, gas, coal and uranium from Russia in 2025.
